I wouldn't be surprised if this is Blatchford kicking Mutti out, that's what I am saying.
This is exactly what happened, Mutti was removed due to poor build quality, and lackluster warranty support. Another poster mentioned a lawsuit, it's a class action against Mutti from current buyers with significant issues.
 
Drove through today, looked like lots of activity, and I'm guessing quite a few builds are waiting until spring. One thing I couldn't help but notice was these seemingly abandoned builds. IDK for sure but i'm almost certain they've been up for over a year now and unfinished which is a tough look, every other set of town homes seems to be sold out or like 80-90% sold but these ones look dead in the water. Was curious if anyone had any insight on them?
thumbnail_IMG_7113.jpg
 
Drove through today, looked like lots of activity, and I'm guessing quite a few builds are waiting until spring. One thing I couldn't help but notice was these seemingly abandoned builds. IDK for sure but i'm almost certain they've been up for over a year now and unfinished which is a tough look, every other set of town homes seems to be sold out or like 80-90% sold but these ones look dead in the water. Was curious if anyone had any insight on them?
I don't think they are abandoned, as there has been slow but continual progress on these since they broke ground. They have been much slower than the ones being built by other builders nearby, but I'm guessing that is due to them being a really small developer.

 
I don't think they are abandoned, as there has been slow but continual progress on these since they broke ground. They have been much slower than the ones being built by other builders nearby, but I'm guessing that is due to them being a really small developer.

probably not abandoned, but a 2 year build out for a single row of townhomes isn't the best look for the Blatchford project
 
EDC Nov 21, 2023 comments on the Fire Station (below) - no mention of colour.

C.1 Blatchford Fire Station

Kristi Olson- City of Edmonton

Motion of Support: D. Brown
Seconded: C. Dorward

The Committee welcomes this proposed development, and in the interest of ensuring a high standard of urban design recommends the Applicant consider the following design refinements:
● Front entry enhancements (e.g., street/walkway connectivity/materiality; site furnishings; canopy; visible and recognizable signage; lighting, etc.).● Perimeter fencing detailing to be consistent with building facade (e.g. durable material, consideration of patterning similar to cladding profile, colourways, etc.).
● Relocating the rear sidewalk to be adjacent to the parking lot, and reconsidering its materiality (i.e concrete).
● LID soft landscape approaches (e.g., wetland species/edge species/upland species) that enhance site and stormwater retention area biodiversity and sustainability. This should include how LID is extended and applied into proposed formal landscape areas.
● Reassess the proposed tree species providing year-round buffering and screening along the north and northwest edges of the site.

For the Motion: C. Kanna, C. Dorward, D. Brown, E. Dunn, J. Monfries, K. Dieterman,M. Tindall N. LaMontagne, N. Pryce, T. Ziola, J. Mills
 
I feel I could write a short novel about my frustrations with Blatchford.

Here’s one of my biggest beefs: the incredible wasted potential.

They want to make Blatchford ‘a destination’, then why did they cheap out on the original vision and downgrade the recreational lake? Imagine families on a hot day taking the LRT with their beach supplies! People have wanted a public beach space for years!

Then there’s the alignment of the LRT. Ripping up one relatively new station, then building one in the middle of nowhere away from the first phase of development. Now imagine they linked the VIA rail station on the Western side and you have LRT access to a train link to Jasper. Yes it would need a new station, and yes it would need some priority work but at least it’s in the realm of possibility with some vision and effort. Even Calgary doesn’t have that option!

Then there’s the build quality of the homes. I don’t think it’s common knowledge but there are tons of problems with many homes and their roofs to the extent there’s talk of multiple class action lawsuits. Oh, and there’s the price of the first homes being totally unreasonable — a bunch of overpriced townhomes full of people who think they’re progressive and eco friendly when I’ve found a few to be quite snobby and rude.

Anyways, I could keep going on the district energy system, the delusional thinking about their retail area, and more but it just makes me so sad that we had such an incredible opportunity that feels squandered by value engineering, poor planning and worse execution. I want it to succeed but the grandiose rhetoric matched with the results so far leave me quite disillusioned with the whole project.
The station that was “ripped up” was designed to be TEMPORARY, thusly designed to be ripped up. Just so you know.

Also leaving it as is would of forever meant this line could only have 3 car trains.

Sigh, facts right?
 
The station that was “ripped up” was designed to be TEMPORARY, thusly designed to be ripped up. Just so you know.

Also leaving it as is would of forever meant this line could only have 3 car trains.

Sigh, facts right?
Tell that to the taxpayers.
 
Doesn’t mean it was the right decision. How many million was it to build? Glad we have so much money to build and demolition stations in 10 years. The new station is literally just around the corner.
 
No point crying over spilled milk. The permanent station location is obviously better for crossing speeds and train lengths.
We can cry over the decisions made by decade old city councils that underfunded transit all day, but it's over with now.

As someone who took the train to NAIT for 2 years, I'm glad this temporary station existed instead of ending the line at Kingsway.
 
It was always temporary. It was designed and approved to be temporary. The "tax payers" have had the ability to know this since before a shovel was in the ground.
I believe it was also designed to be somewhat reused. My memory is a bit hazy on that but I believe there was an Edmonton Journal article that touched on the subject years ago.
 
Tell that to the taxpayers.
I think “Temporary Nait Station” has been telling the tax payers for years.

You know the current city financial woes are cause by the Prov tearing up funding formulas after all our budgets had to be submitted based on the MSI that the prov assured us would be maintained.

Remember that when the Prov promises they wont raise taxes. They will just force the towns and cities to do it, or will do it via the education tax.
 
Hmm I'm looking at the exact location of the Blatchford gate station and it seems different between these 2 sites:

The first one is just north of 122 and the other is south of 119. Wondering which one is correct? I personally like it when it's around the same level as 119, appears more central in the development.

Does anyone remembers which builder owns lots W and V? Is it encore and Crimson cove respectively?
 
Hmm I'm looking at the exact location of the Blatchford gate station and it seems different between these 2 sites:

The first one is just north of 122 and the other is south of 119. Wondering which one is correct? I personally like it when it's around the same level as 119, appears more central in the development.

Does anyone remembers which builder owns lots W and V? Is it encore and Crimson cove respectively?
The official Blatchford website shows the correct station location
 

Back
Top