Page 26 of 26 FirstFirst ... 162223242526
Results 2,501 to 2,548 of 2548

Thread: Blatchford | Neighbourhood Master Plan | Discussion/Rumours

  1. #2501
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,898

    Default

    Ready to build? They finally have the geothermal kinks ironed out and ready to go?

    Pardon my sarcasm but wasn't that supposed to be the big sexy for Blatchford and Station Pointe? I know 2 separate issues. My point is these geothermal claims have yet to pan out anywhere in the Edmonton area.

    I'm all in favour of Blatchford and i hope they left enough room for a connecting bridge over the tracks and room for the lrt. Measure twice cut once, i know but at least city planners thought ahead back in the early 1970's with Metro at Churchill station.

    Yes i saw the news item last night. I hope they keep the traffic control tower there though. Enough geothermal claims already.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  2. #2502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    What I've wondered is how long it will take until Blatchford residents get up in arms about traffic noise from the Yellowhead and noise from CN's shunting yard just to the north and demand (expensive) fixes to abate that noise.
    They can always put up some windmills to make even more noise to drown out the other noise.

  3. #2503
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GizmoForMayor View Post
    I thought the argument was whether or not the development will succeed. It is my opinion that it will, because it provides something that home buyers cannot find anywhere else: brand new homes close to the core at a lower cost than infill housing.
    I don't think that is a conclusion anyone can be certain of at this point.

    As a matter of fact, I strongly feel that the cost of a townhouse in Blatchford will exceed the cost of a new infill townhouse in a neighborhood like Jasper Place (that is a similar distance from the core, and also is said to eventually have LRT service coming through the neighborhood)

  4. #2504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AUsenik View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GizmoForMayor View Post
    I thought the argument was whether or not the development will succeed. It is my opinion that it will, because it provides something that home buyers cannot find anywhere else: brand new homes close to the core at a lower cost than infill housing.
    I don't think that is a conclusion anyone can be certain of at this point.

    As a matter of fact, I strongly feel that the cost of a townhouse in Blatchford will exceed the cost of a new infill townhouse in a neighborhood like Jasper Place (that is a similar distance from the core, and also is said to eventually have LRT service coming through the neighborhood)
    Time will tell I guess
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits" - Einstein

  5. #2505
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AUsenik View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GizmoForMayor View Post
    I thought the argument was whether or not the development will succeed. It is my opinion that it will, because it provides something that home buyers cannot find anywhere else: brand new homes close to the core at a lower cost than infill housing.
    I don't think that is a conclusion anyone can be certain of at this point.

    As a matter of fact, I strongly feel that the cost of a townhouse in Blatchford will exceed the cost of a new infill townhouse in a neighborhood like Jasper Place (that is a similar distance from the core, and also is said to eventually have LRT service coming through the neighborhood)
    Assuming the price of houses will remain static in Jasper Place once the LRT comes through.
    ďCanada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,Ē-Marshall McLuhan

  6. #2506
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GizmoForMayor View Post
    ^^ So what you're saying is that if you want a brand new home (as many buyers do) and you want to stay close to the core, your options are very limited. You can buy an infill property, but those start at $650k, or you can look at Blatchford where, if your estimate is accurate, you can buy a 'decent 3 bedroom' starting at $500k. I think you just made a very good case for Blatchford.

    Sure you can buy a home in the burbs for perhaps $100k less, but once you add in the cost of a second car (which most people would have to have, living that far out) and the stress of the commute you're not really ahead. Again anecdotal, but most of my friends would never consider moving south of the Whitemud or north of the Yellowhead, but still like the idea of a brand new home.

    There's a market for Blatchford. I have no doubt about it.
    the only caveat to that would be whether it's the city and taxpayers in general subsidizing the cost of that house in blatchford from 650,000 to 500,000.

    because if that's the case it's not a very good one.
    Would anyone necessarily have to subsidize this potential drop in price? One of the biggest costs of infill is the fact that you have to buy an existing property and demolish it. Infill also doesn't have the same economies of scale that a project like this will have. At this point it's essentially a greenfield development with a few extra things added on to make it a little pricier, but I would still think the price would be closer to that of a greenfield development than to that of a typical infill home.

  7. #2507

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GizmoForMayor View Post
    ^^ So what you're saying is that if you want a brand new home (as many buyers do) and you want to stay close to the core, your options are very limited. You can buy an infill property, but those start at $650k, or you can look at Blatchford where, if your estimate is accurate, you can buy a 'decent 3 bedroom' starting at $500k. I think you just made a very good case for Blatchford.

    Sure you can buy a home in the burbs for perhaps $100k less, but once you add in the cost of a second car (which most people would have to have, living that far out) and the stress of the commute you're not really ahead. Again anecdotal, but most of my friends would never consider moving south of the Whitemud or north of the Yellowhead, but still like the idea of a brand new home.

    There's a market for Blatchford. I have no doubt about it.
    the only caveat to that would be whether it's the city and taxpayers in general subsidizing the cost of that house in blatchford from 650,000 to 500,000.

    because if that's the case it's not a very good one.
    Would anyone necessarily have to subsidize this potential drop in price? One of the biggest costs of infill is the fact that you have to buy an existing property and demolish it. Infill also doesn't have the same economies of scale that a project like this will have. At this point it's essentially a greenfield development with a few extra things added on to make it a little pricier, but I would still think the price would be closer to that of a greenfield development than to that of a typical infill home.
    The strict environmental standards required does not make the pricer closer to greenfield though.

  8. #2508

    Default

    https://www.edmonton.ca/projects_pla...ssessment.aspx

    Millions spent on remediation kinda squashes the whole "greenfield" schtick.

    Blatchford is brownfield.
    Giving less of a damn than everÖ Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  9. #2509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GizmoForMayor View Post
    ^^ So what you're saying is that if you want a brand new home (as many buyers do) and you want to stay close to the core, your options are very limited. You can buy an infill property, but those start at $650k, or you can look at Blatchford where, if your estimate is accurate, you can buy a 'decent 3 bedroom' starting at $500k. I think you just made a very good case for Blatchford.

    Sure you can buy a home in the burbs for perhaps $100k less, but once you add in the cost of a second car (which most people would have to have, living that far out) and the stress of the commute you're not really ahead. Again anecdotal, but most of my friends would never consider moving south of the Whitemud or north of the Yellowhead, but still like the idea of a brand new home.

    There's a market for Blatchford. I have no doubt about it.
    the only caveat to that would be whether it's the city and taxpayers in general subsidizing the cost of that house in blatchford from 650,000 to 500,000.

    because if that's the case it's not a very good one.
    Would anyone necessarily have to subsidize this potential drop in price? One of the biggest costs of infill is the fact that you have to buy an existing property and demolish it. Infill also doesn't have the same economies of scale that a project like this will have. At this point it's essentially a greenfield development with a few extra things added on to make it a little pricier, but I would still think the price would be closer to that of a greenfield development than to that of a typical infill home.
    I think its the same logic that lead to Century Park failing, which is the reason why. There isn't that big of a market of people willing to plop down 400 or 500k on a townhome or apartment in an area surrounded by cheap single family homes and low priced multi family homes. At 350k though, like that Bowness project I posted (which was careful re the design / costs), this could roar. You aren't going to have fancy underground parking, and expensive net zero technology, in that, though. In fact, you aren't even going to get granite or quartz, but you can still have a really nice place that's affordable to a lot of people.

  10. #2510
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,913

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    I think Blatchford is going to be very slow progress, very. I think its going to be expensive and quite likely behind schedule.

    Short 180 million? * whaaat*
    from the article:

    "Officials also need to get the district energy sharing system up and running for those first families. They haven’t signed a drilling contract yet, but hope to have 570 shallow geothermal holes drilled under the storm water pond starting in January.


    "The holes will allow Blatchford residents to use geothermal heat for homes and businesses. It will be the largest geothermal-based neighbourhood of its kind.


    "The city looked at contracting a third party to build the geothermal system and take the risk. but decided to get it up and running first themselves, said branch manager Brian Latte.


    “From the city’s perspective, they want to put their foot in the ground here, recognize that it’s a proven thing,” Latte said. “From there, (maybe we’ll) get a broader cross-section of utility companies interested.”


    "Latte estimated the utility will need grants of $80 million and $100 million to build out for future phases. Those grant applications are still before the provincial and federal governments."

    emphasis added...

    the reported $180 million that is not secured yet also assumes the city can complete the construction of that geothermal system for the costs they're budgeted for it (a price level that the private sector declined to participate in given the risks involved).

    i wish them every success because it's my tax dollars being spent too so i'm still hopeful but i'm far from optimistic about the outcome.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  11. #2511

    Default

    Can someone tell me why the City is so hellbent on doing this over the private sector?

  12. #2512
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AUsenik View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GizmoForMayor View Post
    I thought the argument was whether or not the development will succeed. It is my opinion that it will, because it provides something that home buyers cannot find anywhere else: brand new homes close to the core at a lower cost than infill housing.
    I don't think that is a conclusion anyone can be certain of at this point.

    As a matter of fact, I strongly feel that the cost of a townhouse in Blatchford will exceed the cost of a new infill townhouse in a neighborhood like Jasper Place (that is a similar distance from the core, and also is said to eventually have LRT service coming through the neighborhood)
    Assuming the price of houses will remain static in Jasper Place once the LRT comes through.
    I don't think they will remain static, but the increase of sale price along the Valley Line currently under construction hasn't been drastic...so I think it is reasonable to assume the bump when it goes west will be similar

  13. #2513
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,913

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oilers99 View Post
    Can someone tell me why the City is so hellbent on doing this over the private sector?
    i think partly because at the current costs for utilities being purchased from the grid, there is a shortfall on what is required to pay for utilities produced from the central system at blatchford:

    http://edmontonjournal.com/business/...rd-development

    and partly because there is still some disagreement on whether the chosen delivery system for the on-site distribution system at blatchford is the most appropriate one. there are valid engineering opinions supporting both but if the private sector doesn't believe in the one selected by the city, they are less likely to participate going forward:

    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...ver-blatchford
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  14. #2514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Oilers99 View Post
    Can someone tell me why the City is so hellbent on doing this over the private sector?
    i think partly because at the current costs for utilities being purchased from the grid, there is a shortfall on what is required to pay for utilities produced from the central system at blatchford:

    http://edmontonjournal.com/business/...rd-development

    and partly because there is still some disagreement on whether the chosen delivery system for the on-site distribution system at blatchford is the most appropriate one. there are valid engineering opinions supporting both but if the private sector doesn't believe in the one selected by the city, they are less likely to participate going forward:

    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...ver-blatchford
    Qualico, Melcor, Brookfield, MLC, etc. would have figured this out and made it a success. I have zero trust in the City being able to execute.

  15. #2515
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattyw View Post
    If I recall, prices for these row houses are going to be really low, as the intent is affordable housing. As in the $200ks I read a few years ago. And the neighbourhood is being designed to be car free, since the LRT will be there. So no driveways are allowed I believe. These are not hipsters buying $500k houses, it'll be lower income people who don't have cars in general.
    I'll believe it when I see it. Nothing about the built form and intended goals of this development promotes affordability, from where I stand. We're going to see price-points starting at $400/ft at a minimum, I would think. It is very difficult to profitably build the kind of buildings that the city wants to see for less than that.

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor
    if most of the infrastructure is done, why is the central utility plant still short at least 180 million dollars?


    Excellent question!

  16. #2516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oilers99 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Oilers99 View Post
    Can someone tell me why the City is so hellbent on doing this over the private sector?
    i think partly because at the current costs for utilities being purchased from the grid, there is a shortfall on what is required to pay for utilities produced from the central system at blatchford:

    http://edmontonjournal.com/business/...rd-development

    and partly because there is still some disagreement on whether the chosen delivery system for the on-site distribution system at blatchford is the most appropriate one. there are valid engineering opinions supporting both but if the private sector doesn't believe in the one selected by the city, they are less likely to participate going forward:

    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...ver-blatchford
    Qualico, Melcor, Brookfield, MLC, etc. would have figured this out and made it a success. I have zero trust in the City being able to execute.
    Yet itís all based on the expertise of the private sector engineering firms that each dispute the most basic design assumptions.
    Last edited by KC; 05-12-2017 at 07:20 PM.

  17. #2517
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    1,973

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EdmontonsKindaGuy View Post
    Saw a little blurb on the news this morning that the city said construction of residence will start in Blatchford in 2018 and residents should be moving in for 2019.
    Well, that makes it 5 years after it closed. WOW what progress. God help us if the city demos Northlands and we end up with the same farce that is Blatchford twice.
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  18. #2518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oilers99 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Oilers99 View Post
    Can someone tell me why the City is so hellbent on doing this over the private sector?
    i think partly because at the current costs for utilities being purchased from the grid, there is a shortfall on what is required to pay for utilities produced from the central system at blatchford:

    http://edmontonjournal.com/business/...rd-development

    and partly because there is still some disagreement on whether the chosen delivery system for the on-site distribution system at blatchford is the most appropriate one. there are valid engineering opinions supporting both but if the private sector doesn't believe in the one selected by the city, they are less likely to participate going forward:

    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...ver-blatchford
    Qualico, Melcor, Brookfield, MLC, etc. would have figured this out and made it a success. I have zero trust in the City being able to execute.
    From what I've heard there really isn't much of a chance of getting good geothermal potential in that location, and the private sector really doesn't want anything to do with it. Why the City is still putting $180 million into this is beyond me. It's a nice idea, but it likely won't produce any meaningful energy in the enday, which they've already been told by the private sector and many experts.

  19. #2519
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,047

    Default

    Why doesn't the city just K.I.S.S. I know Iveson has pie in the sky ideas, but for once, couldn't he tone it down...

  20. #2520

    Default

    Unfortunately following the KISS principle hasn’t done much for Edmonton over the decades.

  21. #2521
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,047

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Unfortunately following the KISS principle hasn’t done much for Edmonton over the decades.
    Just for the start, he or anyone can add on later., so it doesn't get behind, just a thought.

  22. #2522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cnr67 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by EdmontonsKindaGuy View Post
    Saw a little blurb on the news this morning that the city said construction of residence will start in Blatchford in 2018 and residents should be moving in for 2019.
    Well, that makes it 5 years after it closed. WOW what progress. God help us if the city demos Northlands and we end up with the same farce that is Blatchford twice.
    Blatchford was always intended to be a long-term project, in order to minimize the impact of dumping huge numbers of product into the market and tanking prices...

  23. #2523

    Default

    ^That adds risk for purchasers though - they personally take on the possibility of a Century Park type scenario if they buy into it, all sorts of wonderful things are promised, but might never get built or converted into a parking lot.

  24. #2524
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,913

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cnr67 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by EdmontonsKindaGuy View Post
    Saw a little blurb on the news this morning that the city said construction of residence will start in Blatchford in 2018 and residents should be moving in for 2019.
    Well, that makes it 5 years after it closed. WOW what progress. God help us if the city demos Northlands and we end up with the same farce that is Blatchford twice.
    Blatchford was always intended to be a long-term project, in order to minimize the impact of dumping huge numbers of product into the market and tanking prices...
    ???

    whatever else i think about the progress and choices surrounding blatchford, i donít think that the delivery of more affordable housing is being purposefully delayed in order to maintain and achieve higher prices...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  25. #2525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AUsenik View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GizmoForMayor View Post
    I thought the argument was whether or not the development will succeed. It is my opinion that it will, because it provides something that home buyers cannot find anywhere else: brand new homes close to the core at a lower cost than infill housing.
    I don't think that is a conclusion anyone can be certain of at this point.

    As a matter of fact, I strongly feel that the cost of a townhouse in Blatchford will exceed the cost of a new infill townhouse in a neighborhood like Jasper Place (that is a similar distance from the core, and also is said to eventually have LRT service coming through the neighborhood)
    Assuming the price of houses will remain static in Jasper Place once the LRT comes through.
    Have you spent anytime in Jasper Place? Its going to take a lot more than an LRT line to change that place which has festered for decades.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  26. #2526
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    I think Blatchford is going to be very slow progress, very. I think its going to be expensive and quite likely behind schedule.

    Short 180 million? * whaaat*
    from the article:

    "Officials also need to get the district energy sharing system up and running for those first families. They haven’t signed a drilling contract yet, but hope to have 570 shallow geothermal holes drilled under the storm water pond starting in January.


    "The holes will allow Blatchford residents to use geothermal heat for homes and businesses. It will be the largest geothermal-based neighbourhood of its kind.


    "The city looked at contracting a third party to build the geothermal system and take the risk. but decided to get it up and running first themselves, said branch manager Brian Latte.


    “From the city’s perspective, they want to put their foot in the ground here, recognize that it’s a proven thing,” Latte said. “From there, (maybe we’ll) get a broader cross-section of utility companies interested.”


    "Latte estimated the utility will need grants of $80 million and $100 million to build out for future phases. Those grant applications are still before the provincial and federal governments."

    emphasis added...

    the reported $180 million that is not secured yet also assumes the city can complete the construction of that geothermal system for the costs they're budgeted for it (a price level that the private sector declined to participate in given the risks involved).

    i wish them every success because it's my tax dollars being spent too so i'm still hopeful but i'm far from optimistic about the outcome.
    Setting up a separate utility to do the geothermal seems very risky especially if Epcor (which operates at arms length but is City-owned) did not want to be involved. Counting on $180 million in provincial and federal grants suggests the underlying economics are just not there especially with the low cost of natural gas for the forseeable future.

    Why doesn't the City abandon what seems more and more like a geothermal pipe dream, hook Blatchford up to the City grid, and build with proven technologies like high building insulation standards, high efficiency furnaces, even rooftop solar. The selected builders should still be able to offer competitively priced townhomes considering the zero cost of the land, compared to private developers elsewhere who have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars per hectare for developable land?

    Plus building at Blatchford could start more quickly rather than having to wait for the wells to be drilled and all the related infrastructure to be installed.
    Last edited by East McCauley; 06-12-2017 at 11:07 AM.

  27. #2527

    Default

    ^I'm guessing they have already sunk so much cost in, they feel they are committed, but the sunk costs shouldn't influence the decision.

  28. #2528

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cnr67 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by EdmontonsKindaGuy View Post
    Saw a little blurb on the news this morning that the city said construction of residence will start in Blatchford in 2018 and residents should be moving in for 2019.
    Well, that makes it 5 years after it closed. WOW what progress. God help us if the city demos Northlands and we end up with the same farce that is Blatchford twice.
    Blatchford was always intended to be a long-term project, in order to minimize the impact of dumping huge numbers of product into the market and tanking prices...
    ???

    whatever else i think about the progress and choices surrounding blatchford, i don’t think that the delivery of more affordable housing is being purposefully delayed in order to maintain and achieve higher prices...
    One of the arguments from the Envision Edmonton camp was that it would tank property values in the City. A response (I believe it was from Mandel, a councillor or senior administrator) was that the project would be spread out over many years in order to reduce the risk of flooding the market. I will try to find a link to back up my admittedly less than reliable memory.

  29. #2529

    Default

    Here's this one for starters...

    2.2 Timeframe
    It is anticipated that City Centre ARP lands will be redeveloped within a 25 Ė 30 year period through public and private sector initiatives. The first stages of the development are anticipated to begin in 2013 or 2014.
    https://www.edmonton.ca/documents/pl...solidation.pdf

  30. #2530

    Default district energy

    They should have just got ENMAX, or EPCOR, to do a proven technology district energy system - perhaps not as theoretically perfect as geothermal could be, but pretty darn good:

    https://www.enmax.com/generation-wir...-energy-centre

    Our Downtown District Energy Centre is a shining example of how ENMAX Corporation and its subsidiaries applies fresh thinking that results in local solutions. Situated on the southwest corner of 4 Street and 9 Avenue – the gateway to one of Calgary’s most exciting upcoming developments, the East Village – the Downtown District Energy Centre is capable of supplying heat for up to ten​ million square feet of new and existing residential and commercial properties.

    District energy, or district heating, traces its roots as far back as the popular hot water-heated baths and greenhouses of ancient Rome. It’s more efficient, has fewer emissions and is more cost-effective than conventional heating systems. Underground hot water pipes connect to a heat exchange interface between the piping system and the customer’s heating system, creating a closed-loop system that takes up much less space in the building and is more energy efficient than traditional commercial boilers.​


    It always seemed like a missed opportunity to me that something like that couldn't have been done with Rosedale power plant (it was considered). These sort of systems are popular in Scandinavia where they use waste incinerators to power the heating (I saw in operation in the 1990's), but natural gas makes sense in Alberta.
    Last edited by moahunter; 06-12-2017 at 01:05 PM.

  31. #2531

    Default

    We don't need Enmax, neither does Edmonton need to subsidize Calgary.
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  32. #2532

    Default

    The CoE has been an Enmax customer for years & I think there's 2 years left on the contract.

    https://www.enmax.com/business/on-for-edmonton
    Giving less of a damn than everÖ Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  33. #2533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThomasH View Post
    We don't need Enmax, neither does Edmonton need to subsidize Calgary.
    My point was that ENMAX or EPCOR could do a project like that for Blatchford, whereas it "seems" there was no interest in being involved in geothermal. ENMAX and EPCOR seem to work quite closely together on a lot of projects, so it could have even been a joint thing, leveraging off the experience already gained.

  34. #2534
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,986

    Default

    Development of Phase 1 overlay

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly-tToHcpAI
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  35. #2535

    Default

    I wish they would connect 118 avenue east-west. I wouldn't have to drive through that #%^$^& Metro line **** twice a day.

  36. #2536
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,172

    Default

    118 Ave isnít built for that kind of traffic. Itís part of a relatively dense residential neighbourhood and college campus.

  37. #2537

    Default

    It wouldn't have to carry much traffic. IT could be one lane each way with a 40km/hr limit and it would still be worthwhile, especially when Blatchford is actually filled in. It's supposed to be TOD but there's no rational route for a crosstown bus to get through and deliver passengers from this first stage to the LRT.
    There can only be one.

  38. #2538
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    It wouldn't have to carry much traffic. IT could be one lane each way with a 40km/hr limit and it would still be worthwhile, especially when Blatchford is actually filled in. It's supposed to be TOD but there's no rational route for a crosstown bus to get through and deliver passengers from this first stage to the LRT.
    Thatís what 122 Avenue is supposed to do i think, and meet up at the north end of the new NAIT LRT station.

  39. #2539

    Default

    The air traffic control tower looks terrible in context. Can't they at least re-skin it so it doesn't look like an industrial piece of garbage in the middle of it?
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  40. #2540
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,294

    Default

    Just tear it down. If you can tear down Northlands Coliseum and all the other beautiful historic buildings they've torn down why keep this?

  41. #2541
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,452
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Symbolism...nothing more.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  42. #2542
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,898

    Default

    I'm ok with the tower if coe can repurpose it for retail etc.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  43. #2543
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,694

    Default

    I don't think the tower would look so out of place. The render on the video shows everything one dimensional and the tower as 3D.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  44. #2544
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,452
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    I'm ok with the tower if coe can repurpose it for retail etc.

    You can't. It is purpose built.

    I invite you to take a tour one day. The reality is that the building was in desperate need of repair before the closure, and was cited as one of the major cost factors in keeping the airport open.

    I wasn't being trite about the symbolism/tribute comment. That is the main reason. Sure, it could be a sales centre for the development, and maybe a small, unique restaurant/bar, but that's it. It is small inside, wouldn't meet code for commercial, and is not that efficient of a building.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  45. #2545
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,898

    Default

    ^ Actually i think I was in the tower for all of abt 5 minutes back in 1978 when I was doing some security guard work for Whackenhut doing parking control before the parkade was built days. For the reasons you cited above, then I'm mixed on keeping the tower. It might add character to the new neighborhood when its built though. Thanks for the reply.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  46. #2546
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    993

    Default

    It's a good building to keep around as a symbol of the history of the area.

  47. #2547
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    1,973

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    The air traffic control tower looks terrible in context. Can't they at least re-skin it so it doesn't look like an industrial piece of garbage in the middle of it?
    And so your rational for removal is that it was industrial and cannot fit into anything future planned? It's that kind of thinking that has destroyed a vast list of structures that should have been incorporated. Vision...this city lacks it. A simple building by comparison to many. Here is an example of what could be done with the the right individuals in charge. https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/d...ant/index.html
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  48. #2548
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,452
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I've been in Stapleton's tower, both during operations and after. It is significantly more voluminous than YXD's, but Stapleton was also significantly larger than YXD.

    Yes, this could be surrounded by something a la Stapleton. I for one am glad it was kept, but if people think the tower itself can be something large, I hesitate to encourage dreaming v visioning. Incorporate it into something else, let it be a viewpoint of some kind...but anything exciting would be an addition to the existing structure.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

Page 26 of 26 FirstFirst ... 162223242526

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
  •