Page 27 of 27 FirstFirst ... 172324252627
Results 2,601 to 2,648 of 2648

Thread: Blatchford | Neighbourhood Master Plan | Discussion/Rumours

  1. #2601
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    You mean like the ice district still showing large gatherings in the plaza even though there aren't going to be sufficient public washrooms or electrical connections unless the city pays for them? Or a movie theatre?
    pretty much...

    although in about the same amount of time we actually have an ice district to criticize and elements to critique (which i have done my fair share of but hopefully fairly) while all we have for blatchford is a new website design.

    and somehow i doubt that, even with the similarities, you will attempt to hold blatchford as accountable as you would like to hold the ice district.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  2. #2602

    Default

    Kcantor, agree with your earlier sentiments. But very much looking forward to the area's street-orientated requirements overall. Whatever decade that might be.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  3. #2603

    Default

    I agree that they should be held accountable. Should they also get the benefit of a CRL on the surrounding areas to pay for it?

  4. #2604
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    I agree that they should be held accountable. Should they also get the benefit of a CRL on the surrounding areas to pay for it?
    as the landowner and the developer, the city is already paying for everything up front with city taxpayer money taken from taxpayer's overall, not money borrowed from the province and intended to be paid back by this particular area. as one of those taxpayers, we would be a lot better off in terms of current spending and future repayment if it was done with a crl.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  5. #2605

    Default

    What about the commercial properties? Should we not offer them the same deal as we gave Katz? Build a building to their specifications and let the profit fully for 35 years before they hand it back to the city?

    Surely it would be worth it because of all the development that would encourage.

  6. #2606
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    What about the commercial properties? Should we not offer them the same deal as we gave Katz? Build a building to their specifications and let the profit fully for 35 years before they hand it back to the city?

    Surely it would be worth it because of all the development that would encourage.
    sometimes i think you don’t acknowledge what you know simply to justify your opinion.

    and then other times i think you really don’t know.

    and then other times i think you just don’t really want to know...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  7. #2607
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,778

    Default

    What was far fetched about Blatchford was the initial concept.
    Last edited by envaneo; 11-07-2018 at 12:19 AM.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  8. #2608
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    111

    Default

    4289548 by BLACK STAR III, on Flickr


    Edmonton_Plaza-1x by BLACK STAR III, on Flickr


    Picture8-5 by BLACK STAR III, on Flickr








    Gratuitous final closing shot


    Closure by BLACK STAR III, on Flickr

  9. #2609
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,494

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    What about the commercial properties? Should we not offer them the same deal as we gave Katz? Build a building to their specifications and let the profit fully for 35 years before they hand it back to the city?

    Surely it would be worth it because of all the development that would encourage.
    sometimes i think you don’t acknowledge what you know simply to justify your opinion.

    and then other times i think you really don’t know.

    and then other times i think you just don’t really want to know...
    Sometimes I think he just likes the sound of his own voice. No wait....
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  10. #2610
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    What was far fetched about Blatchford was the initial concept.
    not if you spent any time with it...

    i was not associated with any of the teams but had the pleasure of spending time with several of them during the competition and with the winning team afterwards.. what you deem far fetched (in order to discredit it to rationalize not implementing it?) was well thought out and well integrated (ie the material from the lake was the material for the hill which in turn provided visual and sound buffering from yellowhead and the tracks as well as creating recreational opportunities at both locations).

    but you don’t have to take my word for it - the winner was jury selected and feasibility and deliverability were an integral part of the selection criteria. it was a sanctioned competition and attracted submissions from around the world, most of which had a strong local component (including the winner, none of whom are involved in the project any longer).
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  11. #2611
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,813

    Default

    If any of you have been out to Sherwood Park recently, the construction around the library (north side) is giving the area a new feel. I wonder if Blatchford will do the same.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  12. #2612

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    ...including the winner, none of whom are involved in the project any longer.
    The people who won the bid are no longer involved? Forgive my ignorance on the process but this makes me wonder, what incentive do they have to stick with the winning concept? If these are all new people involved aren't they going to want to put their own spin on it?

  13. #2613
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    What was far fetched about Blatchford was the initial concept.
    not if you spent any time with it...

    i was not associated with any of the teams but had the pleasure of spending time with several of them during the competition and with the winning team afterwards.. what you deem far fetched (in order to discredit it to rationalize not implementing it?) was well thought out and well integrated (ie the material from the lake was the material for the hill which in turn provided visual and sound buffering from yellowhead and the tracks as well as creating recreational opportunities at both locations).

    but you don’t have to take my word for it - the winner was jury selected and feasibility and deliverability were an integral part of the selection criteria. it was a sanctioned competition and attracted submissions from around the world, most of which had a strong local component (including the winner, none of whom are involved in the project any longer).
    I'm not down on Blatchford. Its going to be a great addition for this city. As I understand it the initial concept of Blatchford was like Station Pointe, geo thermal. That idea seemed to have fallen through and after millions of bucks were spent looking into this thing:

    https://edmontonjournal.com/news/loc...ver-blatchford
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  14. #2614
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,747

    Default

    Just pipe dreams of some wanna be so perfect fools. In a province where you poke a hole in the ground and cheap clean burning natural gas flows freely it’s idiocy. They will spend tens of millions on the whole thing and in the end it will be deemed unfeasable and shut down. Just another way to blow taxpayer money. More pie in the sky. Just my opinion.
    Last edited by Drumbones; 11-07-2018 at 11:33 AM.

  15. #2615
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,778

    Default

    ^ Actually, the idea has some merit and a lot of money was put into the geothermal concept as put fourth by Blatchford and other communities:

    I wasn't trying to scoff at Blatchford, just the concept of the geothermal aspect as far fetched as related to the above link. Here's another more down to earth link on Geothermal. Quite interesting:

    https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/albe...stem-1.3607964

    There are "geothermal kits" on the market for about $6,000

    https://www.123zeroenergy.com/?gclid...RoC7AMQAvD_BwE

    I'm just skimming the surface here obviously, its a complicated topic. I'm not sure I know what I'm talking about here. Time & patience and life in general will determine more study.
    Last edited by envaneo; 11-07-2018 at 11:54 AM.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  16. #2616
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    ...including the winner, none of whom are involved in the project any longer.
    The people who won the bid are no longer involved? Forgive my ignorance on the process but this makes me wonder, what incentive do they have to stick with the winning concept? If these are all new people involved aren't they going to want to put their own spin on it?
    perkins + wills was selected as the winning team in 2011 and according to the announcements at that time residents were anticipated to start moving in by the end of 2016.

    in 2014 global provided the following update https://globalnews.ca/news/1386452/e...redevelopment/ which included:

    "City administration has cut portions of the design to save money, and insists it won’t compromise the project. But the Vancouver firm behind the original design doesn’t agree.“We’re here to today to appeal to council to take the time for some sober second thought and to really learn more about the original plan and the current plan you’re contemplating,” said Joyce Drohan, Perkins and Will’s director of urban design.“Council’s decision is going to be the difference between a slightly better-than-average neighbourhood, or the original vision for a global model for sustainability.”


    there are no project consultants listed on the new city of edmonton website for blatchford and the timeline for moving in shows a 1 - 7 sequence with no dates.

    the following information is from stantec's website:


    "In 2010 Edmonton’s Council committed to an ambitious dream—to turn its City Centre Airport lands into a marquee neighborhood. The Council approved a vision and principles for the redevelopment. Once the master plan was complete, the City needed a partner that knows Edmonton and how to build a community that will set a benchmark for urban infill development. They turned to us."

    the above is now an 8 year recap and i'm sure there was lots of back and forth over that 8 years that (a) i was not a party to and (b) i have no direct or indirect knowledge of.

    but i do know - and now so do you - that the people who won the bid have not been associated with the project for a long time now and it was not the winning design team that was not prepared to "stick with the original concept".
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  17. #2617

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Just pipe dreams of some wanna be so perfect fools. In a province where you poke a hole in the ground and cheap clean burning natural gas flows freely it’s idiocy. They will spend tens of millions on the whole thing and in the end it will be deemed unfeasable and shut down. Just another way to blow taxpayer money. More pie in the sky. Just my opinion.
    Yeah, who cares about all those greenhouse gasses! Gimmie cheap gas and let my grandkids worry about the aftereffects! Buncha egghead scientists! Whadda they know anyway?

    Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas

    The drilling and extraction of natural gas from wells and its transportation in pipelines results in the leakage of methane, primary component of natural gas that is 34 times stronger than CO2 at trapping heat over a 100-year period and 86 times stronger over 20 years [3]. Preliminary studies and field measurements show that these so-called “fugitive” methane emissions range from 1 to 9 percent of total life cycle emission

    https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/...s#.W0ZWodhKgW8

  18. #2618
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,778

    Default

    ^ LOL.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  19. #2619
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,566

    Default

    Natural gas is pretty clean burning.

    Lots of things globally we can do to reduce GHG's ... going after natural gas would be about the least effective of them.
    ... gobsmacked

  20. #2620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    ...including the winner, none of whom are involved in the project any longer.
    The people who won the bid are no longer involved? Forgive my ignorance on the process but this makes me wonder, what incentive do they have to stick with the winning concept? If these are all new people involved aren't they going to want to put their own spin on it?
    perkins + wills was selected as the winning team in 2011 and according to the announcements at that time residents were anticipated to start moving in by the end of 2016.

    in 2014 global provided the following update https://globalnews.ca/news/1386452/e...redevelopment/ which included:

    "City administration has cut portions of the design to save money, and insists it won’t compromise the project. But the Vancouver firm behind the original design doesn’t agree.“We’re here to today to appeal to council to take the time for some sober second thought and to really learn more about the original plan and the current plan you’re contemplating,” said Joyce Drohan, Perkins and Will’s director of urban design.“Council’s decision is going to be the difference between a slightly better-than-average neighbourhood, or the original vision for a global model for sustainability.”


    there are no project consultants listed on the new city of edmonton website for blatchford and the timeline for moving in shows a 1 - 7 sequence with no dates.

    the following information is from stantec's website:


    "In 2010 Edmonton’s Council committed to an ambitious dream—to turn its City Centre Airport lands into a marquee neighborhood. The Council approved a vision and principles for the redevelopment. Once the master plan was complete, the City needed a partner that knows Edmonton and how to build a community that will set a benchmark for urban infill development. They turned to us."

    the above is now an 8 year recap and i'm sure there was lots of back and forth over that 8 years that (a) i was not a party to and (b) i have no direct or indirect knowledge of.

    but i do know - and now so do you - that the people who won the bid have not been associated with the project for a long time now and it was not the winning design team that was not prepared to "stick with the original concept".
    Thanks for the recap. Obviously I haven't been keeping up. Really disappointing (but not surprising) that the original design competition almost seems like it was a complete waste of time now. If you're going to pick a winner and then change everything to save costs, then what's the point of picking a winner?

  21. #2621
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    ...including the winner, none of whom are involved in the project any longer.
    The people who won the bid are no longer involved? Forgive my ignorance on the process but this makes me wonder, what incentive do they have to stick with the winning concept? If these are all new people involved aren't they going to want to put their own spin on it?
    perkins + wills was selected as the winning team in 2011 and according to the announcements at that time residents were anticipated to start moving in by the end of 2016.

    in 2014 global provided the following update https://globalnews.ca/news/1386452/e...redevelopment/ which included:

    "City administration has cut portions of the design to save money, and insists it won’t compromise the project. But the Vancouver firm behind the original design doesn’t agree.“We’re here to today to appeal to council to take the time for some sober second thought and to really learn more about the original plan and the current plan you’re contemplating,” said Joyce Drohan, Perkins and Will’s director of urban design.“Council’s decision is going to be the difference between a slightly better-than-average neighbourhood, or the original vision for a global model for sustainability.”


    there are no project consultants listed on the new city of edmonton website for blatchford and the timeline for moving in shows a 1 - 7 sequence with no dates.

    the following information is from stantec's website:


    "In 2010 Edmonton’s Council committed to an ambitious dream—to turn its City Centre Airport lands into a marquee neighborhood. The Council approved a vision and principles for the redevelopment. Once the master plan was complete, the City needed a partner that knows Edmonton and how to build a community that will set a benchmark for urban infill development. They turned to us."

    the above is now an 8 year recap and i'm sure there was lots of back and forth over that 8 years that (a) i was not a party to and (b) i have no direct or indirect knowledge of.

    but i do know - and now so do you - that the people who won the bid have not been associated with the project for a long time now and it was not the winning design team that was not prepared to "stick with the original concept".
    Thanks for the recap. Obviously I haven't been keeping up. Really disappointing (but not surprising) that the original design competition almost seems like it was a complete waste of time now. If you're going to pick a winner and then change everything to save costs, then what's the point of picking a winner?
    (a) what's the point of picking a winner and (b) what's the point of holding a sanctioned design competition.

    it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to comply with the conditions of a design competition over and above any nominal stipend that is provided. firms consider that an investment in new business development. but when it doesn't turn in to new business or if the client doesn't proceed with the design that was chosen, then you have to question whether you want to make that investment in the future with that client. and that decision isn't just the jilted winner's. every firm thinking about participating in a future design competition will have to ask that question before deciding to participate...

    there are hundreds of design competitions for work - some of it spectacular - every year and any given firm can only enter/compete in a limited number of those. even putting blatchford aside, edmonton is a lot lower on that list today than we were in 2011, not only with perkins + wills but with foster & partners and kcap and sweco and bmimecca and f&c and bnim and all of the others who were hoping to see their work executed in edmonton. i wouldn't want to say we ****** off a who's who in architectural planning and design but if you were going to write a who's who of architectural planning and design firms many of these firms would be on it. that this site got the attention of firms of that caliber who can choose to do work anywhere in the world tells you what a unique opportunity blatchford presented. i'm not holding my breath that any of them will be back.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  22. #2622
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,747

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Natural gas is pretty clean burning.

    Lots of things globally we can do to reduce GHG's ... going after natural gas would be about the least effective of them.
    Exactly what I was thinking. Especially as it is plentiful here and also our economy depends strongly on the sale of it. It’s shooting yourself in the foot.

  23. #2623
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,747

    Default

    Kkozoriz said; Yeah, who cares about all those greenhouse gasses! Gimmie cheap gas and let my grandkids worry about the aftereffects! Buncha egghead scientists! Whadda they know anyway? Drumbones said; Kkozoriz you’re still a dork. 😉

  24. #2624

    Default

    I agree. The district energy/biomass heating was probably the least beneficial of all the bleeding edge technologies that they had proposed. It's unfortunate that all the others had to get cut.
    There can only be one.

  25. #2625
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    I agree. The district energy/biomass heating was probably the least beneficial of all the bleeding edge technologies that they had proposed. It's unfortunate that all the others had to get cut.
    it's not the technologies that's the issue (even the bleeding edge ones), it's how they're dealt with.

    if they're going to implemented efficiently, that efficiency needs to be monetized for the purchaser's benefit, not for the developer/city's benefit which means a higher cost to the purchaser (otherwise the purchaser might as well purchase an equivalent product elsewhere that doesn't have that built in higher cost).

    as it stands, as far as i can determine, all of the technology being implemented is being treated as a project cost. what that means is that the costs either need to be passed on the purchaser in the form of higher pricing or the city needs to absorb the cost. in the case of higher pricing, the purchaser will actually pay twice - not only is his initial cost higher, his property taxes on an ongoing basis will be higher because that initial cost was higher. if the city absorbs the cost, then the rest of the city's taxpayers pick up the tab and effectively subsidize the purchaser initially and then again in the long run because the purchaser is theoretically getting the savings while the taxpayers at large got the bill.

    it would have made more sense to monetize those savings for the purchasers by having a home owners' or rate payers' association own the utility or the utility substitute that's delivering those technologies. while the initial cost would still be passed on to the purchasers as above, as the de-facto owners of the provider they would receive a proportionate share of the income from the utilities sold in addition to seeing their ongoing costs reduced. now the purchaser not only gets the benefit and savings of the technology, the purchaser receives the equivalent income that technology generates in reducing those costs. as that revenue is in addition to his salary and other income, his mortgage company should be prepared to provide a higher mortgage to offset that portion of the original higher price being used to purchase the utility or utility substitute. the purchaser is then able to purchase in blatchford with the same down payment and the same net mortgage payments as a lower cost lower technology alternative in the market and the city is able to recover the added technology implementation costs without charging it to others.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  26. #2626

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Kkozoriz said; Yeah, who cares about all those greenhouse gasses! Gimmie cheap gas and let my grandkids worry about the aftereffects! Buncha egghead scientists! Whadda they know anyway? Drumbones said; Kkozoriz you’re still a dork. 
    "Clean coal"

  27. #2627
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,317
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  28. #2628
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,387

    Default

    ^


    you'd think if there was a 22 in the legend there would be a 22 on the plan somewhere.


    you'd also think if you're going to have a key plan it should either be oriented in the same direction as the main plan or it should at least have its own north arrow so someone who doesn't know where airport road is or in which direction the main city grid is in the surrounding area could still use it...


    but what do i know, i'm just a dumb developer.

    ps i stand corrected, there is a 22, just not where one would expect front porches and setbacks thanks Vincent. some days dumber than others.
    Last edited by kcantor; 16-07-2018 at 07:53 PM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  29. #2629

  30. #2630

    Default

    Lol. The plan is a little confusing.

    22 is down and a little left of 3.

    I'm wondering what 29 is, though, and what happened to 25-28?

  31. #2631

    Default

    29 is a tree.

  32. #2632
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    440

    Default

    ^ Not just a tree. A sustainable organic one. #blatchforded

  33. #2633
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    314

    Default

    north arrow located top right corner...have your coffee Ken.

  34. #2634
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buildings View Post
    north arrow located top right corner...have your coffee Ken.
    i know - i was talking about the lack of a north arrow on the key plan when it’s not oriented the same way as the main plan. but coffee sounds good. not as good as a scotch but still good.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  35. #2635

    Default

    Without a doubt this development with look like what UBC does with its neighbourhood developments. Nothing radical... just 21st Century... which for Edmonton is "radical". Or for those less familiar on UBC's neighbourhood's urban form, a more common urban design set of guidelines to this are found in the Southeast False Creek in Vancouver as well. Condos, rental, below-market and social housing. Mid-block pathways, ground-orientated units and commercial, accessible alleys and complete street designs. Parks, plazas, gardens and naturalized areas (reclaimed nature).


    Radical to a degree, I guess.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  36. #2636

    Default

    Here's a "radical" neighbourhood that exists and it's neighbourhood plan:

    https://planning.ubc.ca/sites/planni...NP-Apr2016.pdf
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  37. #2637
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    Here's a "radical" neighbourhood that exists and it's neighbourhood plan:

    https://planning.ubc.ca/sites/planni...NP-Apr2016.pdf
    to be fair that market supports some pretty radical pricing to go along with its planning implementation...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  38. #2638

    Default

    Low end market equals SF homes in ("suburbia") while street-orientated design equals high end market?

    Design a good set of urban land use plans and guidelines on street-orientation and setbacks and establish zoning and street grids that support the neighbourhood function you want. Edmonton gets what it gets and Westbrook (UBC) gets what it gets. I knew someone would bring up the market right away.

    If you're zoning and design / neighbourhood guidelines allow parking lots in front of commercial strip malls or large setbacks for multifamily with no street interaction you get that. High end or low end. Edmonton market or Surrey/Vancouver/Burnaby/etc. market.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  39. #2639

    Default

    Terwillegar and Greisbach are so close in achieving this it hurts.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  40. #2640
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,089

    Default

    Agreed. Good urban design doesn't have to be expensive.

  41. #2641
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    Low end market equals SF homes in ("suburbia") while street-orientated design equals high end market?

    Design a good set of urban land use plans and guidelines on street-orientation and setbacks and establish zoning and street grids that support the neighbourhood function you want. Edmonton gets what it gets and Westbrook (UBC) gets what it gets. I knew someone would bring up the market right away.

    If you're zoning and design / neighbourhood guidelines allow parking lots in front of commercial strip malls or large setbacks for multifamily with no street interaction you get that. High end or low end. Edmonton market or Surrey/Vancouver/Burnaby/etc. market.
    westbrook has some reasonably large multi family setbacks with no street interaction on berton and binning with no street interaction although they are well detailed and well executed streets for pedestrians and cars. for what it’s worth, westbrook is one of my favourite new high density subdivisions anywhere. i think it’s one of those things you get in a city/community with a school of architecture that is harder to implement in a city/community without one where there is neither the appreciation nor the patience to incorporate really good design as a matter of course.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  42. #2642
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Agreed. Good urban design doesn't have to be expensive.
    true... it’s just like shoe repairs - they can be good, they can be quick or they can be inexpensive and you get to pick 2 out of 3 every time.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  43. #2643

    Default

    Does that mean that Blatchford is going to be good and inexpensive?

  44. #2644

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Does that mean that Blatchford is going to be good and inexpensive?
    The area will definitely keep prices lower
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  45. #2645
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    440

    Default

    ^ I think it is way too early to make that assumption.

    The City have put several building requirements on the builders that are not cheap. If they price their lots to offset that additional cost, the end price should be reasonable and the market will be left with an attractive option that may be better value than most suburb communities. If they try to price the lots to the top of the market, the cost to produce a unit is going to be such that offering the units are a "lower" price point just won't be an option.

  46. #2646
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AUsenik View Post
    ^ I think it is way too early to make that assumption.

    The City have put several building requirements on the builders that are not cheap. If they price their lots to offset that additional cost, the end price should be reasonable and the market will be left with an attractive option that may be better value than most suburb communities. If they try to price the lots to the top of the market, the cost to produce a unit is going to be such that offering the units are a "lower" price point just won't be an option.
    this clearly identifies the underlying dilemma...

    if everything is treated as a project cost then the prices will escalate accordingly. not necessarily wrong but it will negatively impact affordability.

    if those additional costs are absorbed by the city to enhance affordability, taxpayers at large will be subsidizing the housing and lifestyle costs of a select group of homeowners. that means taxpayers elsewhere will be paying for things that they are not able to enjoy in their own home or have available in their own neighbourhood - something the city wouldn’t do for a private developer’s purchasers.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  47. #2647
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,089

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Agreed. Good urban design doesn't have to be expensive.
    true... it’s just like shoe repairs - they can be good, they can be quick or they can be inexpensive and you get to pick 2 out of 3 every time.
    If we're building a street network and built form that's going to be around for the foreseeable future, should we not take the extra time to make sure it's done right?

  48. #2648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AUsenik View Post
    ^ I think it is way too early to make that assumption.

    The City have put several building requirements on the builders that are not cheap. If they price their lots to offset that additional cost, the end price should be reasonable and the market will be left with an attractive option that may be better value than most suburb communities. If they try to price the lots to the top of the market, the cost to produce a unit is going to be such that offering the units are a "lower" price point just won't be an option.
    I don’t. I was just shopping for houses. Even the best, most developed areas of Alberta Ave close to lrt don’t fetch nearly the same price as a similar product in areas like Bonnie Doone.

    This development will be great, partly because it will also be more affordable then other inner city areas. You will never get top dollar when you are next to a freeway and a rail yard.

Page 27 of 27 FirstFirst ... 172324252627

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •