Community Development - Blatchford

[CMD UW]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

There will be 2 large SWMPs which will have some standing water and act as natural areas last I was told. Both have been excavated.

That is correct. There will be two stormpond for stormwater retention, but there will be no lake for recreational purposes.

[Daveography]

Blatchford site clean-up under budget

The cost of environmental clean-up at the Blatchford site is far less than expected. The cost to remove the contaminated soil in the second phase of remediation was $1.3 million, well under the $2.5 million budgeted. To date, the City of Edmonton has spent less than half the allocated budget for environmental remediation work at the site.

Crews removed approximately 21,000 tonnes of soil from around five former buildings' sites during this phase of the clean-up.

Significant testing on the site shows that all locations with potential contamination are located on the site's perimeter and are related to historic building use. The soil removed contains petrochemical hydrocarbons (e.g. fuel, oil, grease, solvents), and is being transported to a facility certified to manage contaminants.

[...]

The City has contracted Golder Associates, a global company that has remediated thousands of sites around the world, to oversee the testing and remediation process. Any areas of contamination will be remediated to meet provincial environmental standards.

Significant site preparation has also taken place at the Blatchford site since the City of Edmonton officially started construction in August.

"In addition to the remediation work, the City has made significant progress in preparing the site for development," says Mark Hall, Executive Director, Blatchford Redevelopment. "In just over three months, 756,000 cubic metres of topsoil and clay have been moved at the site for grading work and the excavation of the first stormwater management lake."

"As part our ongoing environmental commitment, the excavated soil is being reused in the development, with a significant amount of it used to build a large hill in the park," said Hall. "The next step in the process is the construction of utilities and roads as well as the builder selection process, which we expect will begin in 2016."

Blatchford will be home to up to 30,000 Edmontonians living, working and learning in a sustainable community that is carbon neutral, uses 100% renewable energy and empowers residents to pursue a range of sustainable lifestyle choices.

For more information:

Visit: BlatchfordEdmonton.ca

Media contact:

Cheryl Mitchell
Communications Advisor
Corporate Communications
Office: 780-944-0511
Cell: 587-987-1295

[Daveography]

Didn't Envision Edmonton say this would wind up costing BILLIONS?

[Coldrsx]

Trillions!

[Hallsy's Toupee]

Blatchford update in the Journal:
http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...d-to-late-2017

When the Blatchford redevelopment is built, 20% will be dedicated to affordable housing. How much of that will be supportive social housing is still up for debate

the city is aiming to have a NAIT student residence. There is also the potential for seniors housing.

the timeline to have the first residents and businesses in by the fall and winter was ambitious, said the redevelopment project’s executive director Mark Hall.

“The earliest we could begin putting the infrastructure into Blatchford would be May 1, 2016,” Hall said.

“I think we’re probably looking at land sales to builders in 2017. Sales of built units to the first residence in Blatchford would probably be looking at mid-to-late 2017.”

Part of the delay is due to outstanding questions on the district energy system.

Council is expected to hear more details in a report on March 15.

The report will show options for the type of energy (solar or thermal), and how the project will be funded.

As the developer, the city must lay down the pipes and wires before it opens up land sales to builders.

Already, the city has taken out the old aviation buildings, runways and taxiways, which has come in under budget –just over $1.6 million of the budgeted $3.5 million as of December.

Blatchford by the numbers
20 – years planned to fully build out Blatchford.
20% — amount of affordable housing, which could include NAIT student residences, seniors housing and supportive social housing.
217 – the number of hectares of land, 536 acres, that will be developed.
30,000 – Number of people expected to live in Blatchford.
100% — amount of renewable energy that will be used when the district energy system comes on board.
March 15 – When council will hear a report on options for the district energy system and how it will be financed.

[Coldrsx]

Had not seen this concept for an athletes village and future Blatch.


http://www.dubarchitects.ca

[Black Star]

Whoa that's nice.

[Airboy]

I could work with a 1000m lake. Just have to raise the bridges.

[Coldrsx]

City outlines plans for renewable energy at Blatchford

Media are invited to join Gary Klassen, General Manager, Sustainable Development, for an
overview of the Blatchford District Energy Sharing System report that will be going to Council on March 15/16, 2016.

Date: March 10, 2016
Time:
Noon
Location: City Hall, Media Room
1 Sir Winston Churchill Square

Blatchford’s goal is to be a world-leading, sustainable community. A District Energy Sharing System is an on-site solution that would put Blatchford on the path to achieving the goal of becoming a carbon neutral, 100 per cent renewable energy community. Administration has prepared a comprehensive business case for the implementation of the District Energy Sharing System including the financial implications, cost/benefit analysis, risk identification and mitigation strategy, utility implications, and governance options.

Media contact:

Cheryl Mitchell
Communications Advisor
780-944-0511

[Shodan]

City council cools off on green heating plan for Blatchford

'If it doesn't go well, then it’s on the backs of the taxpayers,' Coun. Michael Oshry says

By Andrea Ross, CBC News Posted: Mar 16, 2016 5:43 PM MT Last Updated: Mar 16, 2016 5:43 PM MT

Citing millions of dollars in potential risk to Edmonton taxpayers, some councillors want city administration to go back to the drawing board when it comes to renewable energy plans in Blatchford.

City administration presented their business case for developing a district energy-sharing system for the neighbourhood on Wednesday.

On the table for consideration were sewer heat exchange, solar energy and a geothermal exchange system to fulfil the project's goal of an affordable, carbon-neutral neighbourhood...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...ford-1.3494826

[Hallsy's Toupee]

https://twitter.com/AmandaCTV/status/710502273747542016
Amanda Anderson ‏@AmandaCTV
Blatchford project delayed a year - council votes in favour - want more info & look into potential Prov. & Fed funding

[MalcolmTucker]

District heating will have most of the benefits. I don't think spending way more for a few more percentage points is really worth it.

[Hallsy's Toupee]

http://doniveson.ca/2016/03/17/the-n...on-blatchford/

THE NEXT STEPS ON BLATCHFORD

When we closed the downtown airport in 2009, we made a deal with Edmontonians to do something special with these lands located in the heart of our city. That promise was Blatchford.

Today, City Council made a decision to further advance an important part of this development: how best to provide heat and hot water for Blatchford residents in a carbon neutral, 100% renewable way. The proven technology of a district energy system is a leading candidate to provide this source of heat, and the motion unanimously passed by Council allows us time to explore this option and strengthen this vision even further.

Council also directed administration to engage the city’s utility provider – EPCOR – to work through the utility model and explore the renewable energy solution that makes the most sense for Edmonton. Rather than trying to learn and build a utility model on the fly, we will work with the experts to arrive at the best solution.

Much of Council’s conversations on this topic revolved around the significant capital this system will require in order to be operational. Council agreed to advocate directly to the federal and provincial governments to support Blatchford – a development that embodies everything their climate goals are attempting to achieve. We likely cannot achieve the ambitious goals of this development without other orders of government partnering with us to achieve our vision.

All of this likely means a year’s delay for the Blatchford redevelopment project. While there are a few high profile delays that continue to frustrate Council, this is a delay that I am more than comfortable with. It allows us time for a more thorough review of the utility model and ensure we provide the builders who will ultimately work in Blatchford with absolute certainty. This work will only serve to strengthen the vision for Blatchford, and the case for climate leadership support from other orders of government.

Blatchford remains an ambitious vision, but it also demonstrates incredible leadership. And as leaders, this is what you expect of us.

[EdmTrekker]

A nice balanced article in the Globe "Green development of old Edmonton airport site struggling to take off"


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-...ticle29618132/

[s211]

Originally Posted by EdmTrekker

A nice balanced article in the Globe "Green development of old Edmonton airport site struggling to take off"


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-...ticle29618132/

I think that most people would agree that the idea of pneumatic garbage removal should reside in the same category as the jet packs we were promised. I hear that may have already been deep-sixed?

[GreenSPACE]

Being net-zero is a great ambition, but at what cost? If it isn't walkable, there aren't a lot of amenities, what is the point of this development? I thought we wanted to develop an alternative to the suburbs, give people an urban choice. Poor land use planning will do more damage environmentally and socially than the existing plan being net-zero.

"More concerning, says Samuel Oboh of the RAIC, the original fine-grained street network promoting walkability is gone. “Not only is this contrary to the city’s ambition for a highly walkable community,” he says, “but it also promotes a suburban development pattern of enormous blocks, benefiting developers but greatly compromising connectivity – a key tenet of the plan.” "

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by s211

I think that most people would agree that the idea of pneumatic garbage removal should reside in the same category as the jet packs we were promised. I hear that may have already been deep-sixed?

i'm not sure this one ever got past the "we might as well use jet packs" simile/preconception which is too bad.

i don't know about the initial construction costs - i have heard them estimated from 16 million to 92 million which means there are no real numbers to analyze and make an informed decision.

in making that analysis, from an operational cost perspective a garbage truck is only 100% efficient on it's use of equipment and manpower for the short trip at the end of its route when it's on its way to the dump. at the beginning of it's route, that same garbage truck is 0% efficient - it start's its route running around completely empty.

the system that was proposed would have collected the garbage at a central location from which the truck leaves at 100% efficient and with less labour (it only needs a driver, not a driver plus one or two labourers per truck to pick up and empty cans all day long). that's the "system" that was proposed - some initial capital costs and some long-term operational savings forever as a result. in addition, i'm not sure what "price" was placed on not having to construct garbage areas and roads capable of servicing them or the value placed on not having to have garbage trucks running through a neighborhood and where the "back units" are potentially as attractive as the "front units".

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by GreenSPACE

Being net-zero is a great ambition, but at what cost? If it isn't walkable, there aren't a lot of amenities, what is the point of this development? I thought we wanted to develop an alternative to the suburbs, give people an urban choice. Poor land use planning will do more damage environmentally and socially than the existing plan being net-zero.

"More concerning, says Samuel Oboh of the RAIC, the original fine-grained street network promoting walkability is gone. “Not only is this contrary to the city’s ambition for a highly walkable community,” he says, “but it also promotes a suburban development pattern of enormous blocks, benefiting developers but greatly compromising connectivity – a key tenet of the plan.” "

one of the problems with net-zero is that it isn't a life cycle costing analysis. it only measures the ongoing operating draws and/or contributions to the grids it still needs to be connected to and it only does than on an annual basis following completion.

net-zero doesn't factor in the additional up-front capital costs nor does it factor in the energy or the environmental costs required to manufacture those capital components. net-zero also doesn't factor in the energy or the environmental costs of replacing those capital components at the end of their life span.

it also doesn't factor in the cost of building and maintaining grid capacities that may be needed less on a cumulative annual basis but still need to be built and maintained to satisfy maximum peak demands during the year, not average annual demands.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by GreenSPACE

Being net-zero is a great ambition, but at what cost? If it isn't walkable, there aren't a lot of amenities, what is the point of this development? I thought we wanted to develop an alternative to the suburbs, give people an urban choice. Poor land use planning will do more damage environmentally and socially than the existing plan being net-zero.

"More concerning, says Samuel Oboh of the RAIC, the original fine-grained street network promoting walkability is gone. “Not only is this contrary to the city’s ambition for a highly walkable community,” he says, “but it also promotes a suburban development pattern of enormous blocks, benefiting developers but greatly compromising connectivity – a key tenet of the plan.” "

The carbon footprint comparisons are most likely based on Alberta's 2008-2010 coal electricity grid. I'd much rather eliminate the green energy provisions that make less sense, and retain the very progressive urbanism.

I'm not sure that includes the waste system - it might make sense to use smaller garbage/recycling trucks with more frequent pickups than a pneumatic system. (would want the system to be P3 - if it doesn't work, or isn't compatible with the cold the city isn't stuck with it)

[noodlenoodle]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The carbon footprint comparisons are most likely based on Alberta's 2008-2010 coal electricity grid. I'd much rather eliminate the green energy provisions that make less sense, and retain the very progressive urbanism.

Still a lot of coal in the grid.