[archited]

^^^^ If you mean the area designated 'Technology and Research' in the fourth image, not all of that will be NAIT. The designation presumes that private industry related to NAIT research will pick up on the balance of the area so assigned. NAIT continues to grow as per both panels. The conversion to a UI zone in the outlined area just confirms that the "added" area will conform to the UI zone of the existing main campus.

 

[rmp]

^^^^ If you mean the area designated 'Technology and Research' in the fourth image, not all of that will be NAIT. The designation presumes that private industry related to NAIT research will pick up on the balance of the area so assigned. NAIT continues to grow as per both panels. The conversion to a UI zone in the outlined area just confirms that the "added" area will conform to the UI zone of the existing main campus.

Earlier this year NAIT released a campus development plan to guide them with expansion over the next 30 years. The "Proposed Amendment" came from that guide. It can be found in the link below. They do talk about possibly redeveloping parts of the existing main campus to help meet their future needs. But, it should be also noted that the rendering is conceptual, and no firm plans have been published, as far as I know. It's an interesting problem they have - what was, traditionally, the 'back' of NAIT, will be the future 'front' facing Blatchford. They say they want to "fully integrate into the Blatchford community," so I think they have a lot of work to do to meet that goal.

Campus Development Plan

Campus Development Plan

www.nait.ca

 

[David A]

Oh boy, it would be too forward thinking and progressive for the city to think of a vision for a proper VIA terminal in a location that makes sense linked to transit options (buses, LRT, future high speed rail, rental cars) with amenities near by that make it more of a tourist stop destination welcoming people to Edmonton. I wish there were a big plan for that poor terminal and the poor tourists that get off there.

Our city leaders talk and talk about walkabilty and accessibility and then seem to do say or do nothing about this. I realize this involves dealing with people in Ottawa, who may not care so much about this or even be fully aware of the problem, so it will take local initiative at the municipal level to deal with this.

 

[Edmonchuk]

 

[OverheardatYEG]

That last picture I read it as saying Fake News hahah oops.

 

[archited]

I love the tulips and tomatoes playground -- "Get off of there Johnny and let Daddy have a turn!"

 

[TAS]

In another forum today, three of the top four candidates for mayor (not including Nickel since he doesn't attend) believe the city should not be playing developer role in Blatchford - with Oshry and Krushell calling progress to date a failure that is tying up a lot of city cash. Sohi is for status quo.

Redirect Notice

From the story - "Krushell, Oshry and Watson spoke in favour of a private sector approach in neighbourhoods like Blatchford where the city is currently involved in development projects.

“Those right now are vacant holes in neighbourhoods, in communities and it is time for us as a city to get out of the land ownership and land development business. It is time for us to sell … and allow people who know how to manage businesses like that can do their own business,” said Watson.

Oshry said there has been $200 million spent, there are 20 townhouses and 600 hectares generating zero per cent property tax right now at Blatchford and it adds up when you take other land the city owns into account."

 

[EtoV]

I still don't know what people expect, of course it isn't generating revenue yet. I still maintain that 5 years to close and remove an airfield and start development isn't that unreasonable.

I also wouldn't consider this method to be the city being a "developer" since they're selling all the lots. The only development they're doing is infrastructure which will get paid back through development anyways.Instead of getting roads and infrastructure built by the developer through the approval process they're just building it preemptively which doesn't really change anything except allow the city more control over the urban design, parcel layout, location of parks etc. Instead of negotiating it with the developer (who will push for the cheapest and easiest way possible) it just gets done.

I agree it's slow moving initially, but it's because the city is trying to maintain the integrity of the master plan in terms of density, form, transportation, and urban design. We could let developers come in and start doing things faster, but it would likely be a far worse product judging by the shit that gets built in suburban Edmonton.

 

[TAS]

I'm thinking the city only has so many resources in terms of workers, administrators, project managers and then cash to work with. And then I see construction projects like Imagine Jasper Avenue that have been spread out over so many years because the city doesn't have the resources to do it in a shorter time frame. Or 105 Avenue project gets spread out again over multiple years and a major inconvenience to the residents and businesses in the area.
Meanwhile, Blatchford has a stormwater lake with paths around it, sidewalks and street lights with no homes around them, a playground, sidewalk furniture with benches everywhere - I've never seen so much infrastructure and landscaping built out for 20 homes. Yes, eventually more homes will be built, but why so much in advance when other built out areas where tax revenue is generated now are having their neighbourhood projects drawn out because only so much money and resources to go around.
I still haven't seen bike racks on Jasper Avenue and Blatchford is full of them - for 20 homes! I mean really? Who is biking to Blatchford and locking up their bikes? To see and do what?
Unfortunately Blatchford isn't very affordable for many either when factoring cost per sq. ft - which of course is a major reason more people aren't buying there.
There's also a feeling out there that the city needs to focus a little more on its core services and that it's involved in too many projects outside of that mandate.

 

[CplKlinger]

I'm thinking the city only has so many resources in terms of workers, administrators, project managers and then cash to work with. And then I see construction projects like Imagine Jasper Avenue that have been spread out over so many years because the city doesn't have the resources to do it in a shorter time frame. Or 105 Avenue project gets spread out again over multiple years and a major inconvenience to the residents and businesses in the area.
Meanwhile, Blatchford has a stormwater lake with paths around it, sidewalks and street lights with no homes around them, a playground, sidewalk furniture with benches everywhere - I've never seen so much infrastructure and landscaping built out for 20 homes. Yes, eventually more homes will be built, but why so much in advance when other built out areas where tax revenue is generated now are having their neighbourhood projects drawn out because only so much money and resources to go around.
I still haven't seen bike racks on Jasper Avenue and Blatchford is full of them - for 20 homes! I mean really?
Unfortunately Blatchford isn't very affordable for many either when factoring cost per sq. ft - which of course is a major reason more people aren't buying there.

The pond had to be built because underneath it are the boreholes for the geothermal district energy centre. I think it's a good thing they paved so much road at once, because now as soon as developers are ready to build, they can buy the land and get the permits they need without waiting on the city to pave, put underground infrastructure in, etc. If you look at the property sales map, you'll see that there aren't a lot of plots in phase one that aren't either sold, or pending. The city is spreading out other projects too much as you said, I don't agree that they should spread this one out too.



And regarding cost, the condos will be more affordable, and many houses come with garage suites that can be rented out. But at the end of the day, this is the largest bit of land under development in mature Edmonton (the size of downtown), it's right next to downtown, and it's (nearly) carbon neutral. So homes there are bound to be a fair bit more expensive than your average suburban home.

 

[TAS]

The city is spreading out other projects too much as you said, I don't agree that they should spread this one out too.

But if you think the city is spreading out other projects too long - you have to ask, 'why is that happening?'

Is the city city overextending itself with too many projects? Does it have the money and resources to do all these projects in a shorter amount of time? If not, then the city needs to stop adding to its plate by taking on massive projects - in this particular case as you say this one is the size of our entire downtown.

What is the reason you think projects are being spread out too long?

 

[crisp]

The fact that Alberta has been in a major economic downturn that is now approaching an entire decade is definitely a factor.

 

[EtoV]

I'm thinking the city only has so many resources in terms of workers, administrators, project managers and then cash to work with. And then I see construction projects like Imagine Jasper Avenue that have been spread out over so many years because the city doesn't have the resources to do it in a shorter time frame. Or 105 Avenue project gets spread out again over multiple years and a major inconvenience to the residents and businesses in the area.
Meanwhile, Blatchford has a stormwater lake with paths around it, sidewalks and street lights with no homes around them, a playground, sidewalk furniture with benches everywhere - I've never seen so much infrastructure and landscaping built out for 20 homes. Yes, eventually more homes will be built, but why so much in advance when other built out areas where tax revenue is generated now are having their neighbourhood projects drawn out because only so much money and resources to go around.
I still haven't seen bike racks on Jasper Avenue and Blatchford is full of them - for 20 homes! I mean really? Who is biking to Blatchford and locking up their bikes? To see and do what?
Unfortunately Blatchford isn't very affordable for many either when factoring cost per sq. ft - which of course is a major reason more people aren't buying there.
There's also a feeling out there that the city needs to focus a little more on its core services and that it's involved in too many projects outside of that mandate.

But doesn't that point to the issue being developers and not the city? The City is prepared and ready for this to become a dense neighbourhood and has a ton of infrastructure prepared for that to happen, but developers are slow to buy in because it doesn't fit their typical models.

 

[Edmonchuk]

It's not like the city is building those houses. It's building the infrastructure.
In regards to Jasper ave, that stretch from 116 to 124 street is so ugly and disgusting, it makes me so made that the funding hasn't even been allocated to fix that third-world looking street.

 

[CplKlinger]

But if you think the city is spreading out other projects too long - you have to ask, 'why is that happening?'

Is the city city overextending itself with too many projects? Does it have the money and resources to do all these projects in a shorter amount of time? If not, then the city needs to stop adding to its plate by taking on massive projects - in this particular case as you say this one is the size of our entire downtown.

What is the reason you think projects are being spread out too long?

I definitely agree that some, like Jasper Ave, are too spread out due to fiscal concerns. However, I don't think that it's reasonable to cut out one of the projects that the city has been doing (mostly) right. As others have said, the infrastructure is there for lots of development to occur. The city has already invested a lot of money into it, and they further claim that it will all be funded through development fees. As others pointed out, what's holding Blatchford back isn't the city, but the pace at-which developers are taking it up.

It's important to remember how controversial Blatchford was when the city first broke ground on it. The 'green' aspects had been rolled back or cut out completely, and yet developers still voiced concerns about the costs associated with it (especially the geothermal heating/cooling). The first developers who bought into it dealt with a ton of uncertainty; uncertainty about not only the costs, but also whether there would even be sufficient demand for an environmentally-orientated community. The first homes had to be sold before ground had even broken on them.

I think that the hardest part is behind us now. Developers have built homes. These homes have great reviews so far. Potential homebuyers can now go into show homes and walk around the community, instead of merely looking at renderings. And it's starting to pick up too, with the latest multi-unit homes and the condo building set to double the number of avalible residential units. That's not even counting the mixed-use building that Mutti is currently designing.

So, with climate change becoming ever more present in the public consciousness, and developers and homebuyers able to make decisions based on what has already been built rather than what is being promised, why drop it now? This is a community with a 30-year development outlook after all; we've only begun to scratch the surface, and this has such strong potential. It speaks volumes to me that the majority of homes sold to-date were purchased based on demand alone; months or years before even a showhome was built. This urge tk be more environmentally friendly will increase, not decrease, as time goes on. There are plenty of development initiatives that the city has bungled; let's not drop the one that is starting to bear fruit.