Community Development - Blatchford

[EdmTrekker]

So its primary purpose is storm water collection and not usable for humans to swim in or boat on because it's too small...but ok for mosquitos and ducks. Is that the current status of this dugout?

[Black Star]

Originally Posted by itom 987

The pond looks disgusting in that picture.

Typical suburban storm water pond.

I want my lake please.

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by itom 987

The pond looks disgusting in that picture.

Confused.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by itom 987

The pond looks disgusting in that picture.

this is what it looked like when they picked it (still on the city's website):

[edmontonoilers89]

I sure hope it's not one of those suburban style ponds that are nice to look at but you can't step foot in.

Fact is, we were touted a world-class community. Iveson stepped in at one point and tempered our expectations a bit, but point remains, the piece most people want to see in Blatchford is a usable, swimmable waterway (I'd think at minimum something similar to Hawrelak). Anything less and this just becomes another typical community with some urban rowhouses and elements thrown in to me. I'm definitely judging this at a higher standard than most regular developments, as it should be. We have a great opportunity here.

[Coldrsx]

Natural and SWMP, not usable per se.

[EdmTrekker]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Natural and SWMP, not usable per se.

Its a dugout ... plain and simple. I know some farmers that have trout in theirs...this one will have nothing. Pathetic.

[Coldrsx]

Construction starts for Edmonton downtown airport redevelopment


By Gordon Kent, Edmonton Journal

EDMONTON - Construction work is underway at the Blatchford redevelopment to create what the city calls one of the world’s largest sustainable communities.

About 40 trucks, graders and bulldozers began stripping topsoil and levelling the ground last weekend to allow construction of sewers, wiring and roads next year, project executive director Mark Hall said Wednesday.

The work includes removing storm sewers that were under the runways on the former City Centre Airport, he said after a ceremonial sod-turning.

Crews have already demolished six airport buildings, with another six set to be removed within nine months.

Over the next 20 to 30 years, the 217-hectare site is expected to become the carbon-neutral home of 30,000 people, using entirely renewable energy with reduced water and power consumption.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...986/story.html

[Daveography]

The goal of Blatchford is to be a leader in building an environmentally sustainable community.

This might surprise you but a storm water management pond like this rates very highly on sustainability.

What shouldn't be surprising is that maintaining an artificial lake that is safe for people to swim in requires treatments and chemicals that would be working against those sustainability goals.

We're not building a resort here.

[Coldrsx]

^bingo, even if a usable lake there would have been AWESOME.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Daveography

The goal of Blatchford is to be a leader in building an environmentally sustainable community.

This might surprise you but a storm water management pond like this rates very highly on sustainability.

What shouldn't be surprising is that maintaining an artificial lake that is safe for people to swim in requires treatments and chemicals that would be working against those sustainability goals.

We're not building a resort here.

not only am i not convinced that "eliminating the requirement for treatments and chemicals" is the real reason, i'm not convinced that treatments and chemicals are even necessary in a properly designed and developed lake. at that point it's no different than any other body of water, natural or man-made.

this was likely a pure dollars and cents decision because you need additional freeboard for storm water management as everything from the permanent water level down is not available for storm water retention (it already has water in it). that additional depth and the shallower slopes that are necessary if it's going to be an active water body and not a passive pond (particularly if it's a dry pond) were likely the real drivers.

as for creating an environmentally sustainable community, one that includes recreational facilities is more sustainable than one that does not. and on a regional basis, natural recreational facilities that are accessible by regular transit and lrt are more sustainable than providing them where that is not the case.

you are correct in saying "we're not building a resort here". but we should be building a community with amenities that don't require the development and visiting of resorts elsewhere to have a similar quality of life.

[Hallsy's Toupee]

Having Edmontonians take local transit to swim, boat and beach at a Lake Blatchford and spend their money here vs having to drive out of town to Wabamun or Pigeon Lake and spend their money there. Which one would be more environmentally sustainable?

[Daveography]

^ Now that's a silly argument. Should the city also build some rocky mountains closer? Maybe a waterfall?

This lake was never going to be big enough to make that big of a difference to those who travel out to lakes outside the city.

[Jasper and one o nin]

Originally Posted by Daveography

^ Now that's a silly argument. Should the city also build some rocky mountains closer? Maybe a waterfall?

This lake was never going to be big enough to make that big of a difference to those who travel out to lakes outside the city.

maybe a bullet train to Jasper from the via station... (first leg to vancouver?)

[EdmTrekker]

Originally Posted by kcantor

not only am i not convinced that "eliminating the requirement for treatments and chemicals" is the real reason, i'm not convinced that treatments and chemicals are even necessary in a properly designed and developed lake. at that point it's no different than any other body of water, natural or man-made.

this was likely a pure dollars and cents decision because you need additional freeboard for storm water management as everything from the permanent water level down is not available for storm water retention (it already has water in it). that additional depth and the shallower slopes that are necessary if it's going to be an active water body and not a passive pond (particularly if it's a dry pond) were likely the real drivers.

as for creating an environmentally sustainable community, one that includes recreational facilities is more sustainable than one that does not. and on a regional basis, natural recreational facilities that are accessible by regular transit and lrt are more sustainable than providing them where that is not the case.

you are correct in saying "we're not building a resort here". but we should be building a community with amenities that don't require the development and visiting of resorts elsewhere to have a similar quality of life.

Ken, you expressed all of my concerns. I sure as hell would not recommend anyone move in there with children or without a car. There will be nothing there for them and those with or without a car will spend all of their time taking their kids elsewhere for amenities driving 20-25 minutes or longer by bus. We shall soon see which developers will pony up $$$$ on a hope and prayer they will sell. It could be a short list.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Daveography

^ Now that's a silly argument. Should the city also build some rocky mountains closer? Maybe a waterfall?

This lake was never going to be big enough to make that big of a difference to those who travel out to lakes outside the city.

yeah, i know.

there's no way a 700 acre project would ever be able to set aside 3 or 4% of the overall land area being developed for a recreational lake inside the city. maybe even combine that with what would need to be set aside for storm water ponds anyway and some of what would need to be set aside for municipal reserve anyway.

what in the world was i thinking...

[Black Star]

^Bingo bango.

[Daveography]

^^ I never said it wasn't possible to do, just that the argument that having a recreational lake in the neighbourhood would sufficiently offset the number of people driving outside of the city to call it a sustainability feature is a bit of a stretch.

I just think the outrage over it being a stormwater pond versus a recreational lake is a bit overblown. That's just my opinion of course, but then again I don't currently have any plans to move to Blatchford either, any more than I have plans to move to Summerside.

[EdmTrekker]

Originally Posted by Daveography

^^ I never said it wasn't possible to do, just that the argument that having a recreational lake in the neighbourhood would sufficiently offset the number of people driving outside of the city to call it a sustainability feature is a bit of a stretch.

I just think the outrage over it being a stormwater pond versus a recreational lake is a bit overblown. That's just my opinion of course, but then again I don't currently have any plans to move to Blatchford either, any more than I have plans to move to Summerside.

That "neighbourhood " will have 30,000 people. There is ONE opportunity to do it right and its NOW otherwise it will never happen.

[Daveography]

^ It all depends on your definition of "right" and whether or not that definition fits the overall goals of this neighbourhood.