Edmonton Construction 5

[murman]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

WRT stick versus concrete..... guys who do stick generally dont do highrise....not all, but most.

Tell that to the stick developers that all of a sudden think they're high rise office building developers...

[murman]

Originally Posted by CDE

Why don't we see more towers?

The easiest answer is that people coming to Edmonton don't want to live in the city or towers or anything that has to do with urbanism.

We are attracting working class immigrants from Saskatchewan and other small towns across Canada. These people are focused on the single family home, and until the cost of home ownership everywhere within the Edmonton area climbs to a really prohibitive level; we won’t see massive amounts of urban development.

It’s the slightly bigger cities syndrome, where creative people move to a city that is slightly bigger than the one they come from.

Think about how many of the highly educated, urbanite, creative, artistic, tech type workers you know who now live in T.O., Van city or (shudder) Calgary.

This is a VERY astute observation of how Edmonton differs from other sizable Canadian cities. Only W1nn1p3g comes close in this regard.

[CDE]

It's a building code issue. Essentially over 4 floors you can't do combustible construction. So if you are planning to go over 4 floors you usually want to go high enough to justify using concrete construction. And in that case you need zoning to go higher than 4 floors.

Exceptions being large floor plate 4 floor projects. With conc and sprinkler you don't need vertical fire separations.

[Auditor]

The more the city grows the more people will want to live closer to work and that for a lot of people happens to be DT.

I currently live in the south and it takes me an hour to get/leave downtown on most days, I got to the point I couldn't stand it and am moving downtown.

I know of a lower priced 4/5 storey condo (160 units I think) development coming on the northern edge of downtown- this should hopefully get more young people DT. The units apparently will be around 250/270 for a 2 bedroom and building will be steel and concrete.

[Kevin_foster]

Originally Posted by CDE

With conc and sprinkler you don't need vertical fire separations.

err... with Concrete Block you do, correct?
(i.e. the Venetian)

[Coldrsx]

regardless of who we are attracting, we are also pushing people out of the house martket and into condos more and more and that is going to spur condo development even more so, not to mention how more people who didnt consider condos 2-3 yrs ago actually want to live in a concrete condo downtown now.

[CDE]

Concrete block is considered non combustible. So you can go to whatever height is allowed by zoning.

A good example is when you see some of the massive wood condos going up. They have full height conc block walls slicing the building in half. That allows you to build buildings of a certain size with combustible construction.

[Kevin_foster]

See, when we compare Edmonton and Vancouver.. there really is no competition. Vancouver there is a LAND issue - so the average joe cannot afford a house, unless he moves way east up the Fraser valley.. Vancouver gets the nice towers simply because it's a city that no one can afford a house anymore - and the demand is outrageous. I'm sure Edmonton get's nicer 4 bedroom houses (point being...)

Edmonton would be the EXACT same (even more so given our booming housing demand) if we had a land issue.

Now, Edmonton has to create SOMETHING from NOTHING - it's not a problem a place like Vancouver has. Vancouver has the natural demand. Here, we have to do the Marketing to attract people. It's a tougher city to build UP in.

So could you say Vancouver is FORCED to be urbanized, correct?

Edmonton, people have the option to buy a house on the outskirts, or live downtown. That means really the only people that are going to move downtown are:
- Young
- Professionals working downtown.

EDIT: Do you think Vancouverites would choose to live in the burbs IF the land was there? I would say a definite YES to that. If a few thousand hectares suddenly became available for building subdivisions, I'm sure you would see a glut in downtown development.

EDIT2: Lucky bastards and your no-land! Hippies!!!!

EDIT3: *shakes fist*

[Coldrsx]

^very true...Edmonton is a whole diff game...I know many people who want to live downtown and end up in the burbs cause they can.

[CDE]

I really think Vancouver’s urbanism is a combination between land constraints and culture. Land constraints forced the city up and then people later moved there to be in a place that feels like a city.

Maybe Edmonton needs to apply “geographical” constraints such as reducing areas of high density and focusing on downtown exclusively; rather than up zoning every application that comes forward. I think we might have to rethink how many areas of high density Edmonton can handle without diluting our opportunities for a few select urban areas.

Can Edmonton handle the Strathern, Century Park, 142st, Jasper East village and North Edge without diluting things to a point where not one of those areas develops into a self contained urban environment? Are enough people coming to Edmonton who want an urban experience to support all this?

[murman]

Originally Posted by Kevin_foster

So could you say Vancouver is FORCED to be urbanized, correct?

Do you think Vancouverites would choose to live in the burbs IF the land was there? I would say a definite YES to that. If a few thousand hectares suddenly became available for building subdivisions, I'm sure you would see a glut in downtown development.

Keep in mind that there's a demographic that's predisposed to an urban lifestyle, and not even all the land in the world would suddenly cause these people to abandon urban living.

I couldn't possibly conceive of living in a single-family dwelling anymore, but that's just me. I'm sure there's a few breeders living in the core that will high-tail it out of the core once they've had more than their fill of junkies passed out in front of their buildings.

[nunuangel99]

Now, Edmonton has to create SOMETHING from NOTHING - it's not a problem a place like Vancouver has. Vancouver has the natural demand. Here, we have to do the Marketing to attract people. It's a tougher city to build UP in.

So could you say Vancouver is FORCED to be urbanized, correct?



ALSO, keep in mind that if it were not for the huge input of Hong Kong Dollars in the late 80's early 90's, Vancouver would not have half the downtown development it currently has!!

[240glt]

Many in Edmonton buy in the 'burbs because of access to work. There are condos going up south of Ellerslie Road, catering to the folks that work in the industrial areas around Nisku. Low rise stick built condos seem to be proliferating out in suburbia. But that's happening in every city, and all these condos look basically the same no matter where they are IMHO.

I work all over the city, but most of the retrofit work we do is downtown. I bought my circa 1920's bungalow by the Commonwealth two years ago for $120,000. Even in my arguably sketchy area, the value of my home has almost doubled since I bought it. This summer, two of the oldest and most run down houses on my block were levelled and in-filled. Over the last year I have seen a proliferation of people moving into the 'hood... and most of them work downtown or at the U. (easy acess to the LRT from my place) People are starting to realize the convenience of being close to the city, and in my neighborhood in particular, it's causing good things to happen. the 118th ave initiative can only help.

[Coldrsx]

i have very much noticed people who work downtown are choosing downtown more and more.......

but not enough....

a good friend of mine complains about his 35-1hr daily commute from riverbend, works in CWB tower, and just bought a new house in south riverbend....

[Jasper and one o nin]

Really good discussion today. good to see.
On another note. If anyone picked up the condo guide, it is equipped with a 2007 calendar. May will be an extremely depressing month. (collage of TNP's portfolio)

[on the grid]

Originally Posted by CDE

I think we might have to rethink how many areas of high density Edmonton can handle without diluting our opportunities for a few select urban areas.

Can Edmonton handle the Strathern, Century Park, 142st, Jasper East village and North Edge without diluting things to a point where not one of those areas develops into a self contained urban environment? Are enough people coming to Edmonton who want an urban experience to support all this?

Interesting comment, but I'm not so sure that century park (et al) is dilluting density that would otherwise be going downtown. I'd guess that the buyers are compelled by CPs particularly suburban version of density. Does anybody have any info as to what demographic is buying into CP? They are pretty expensive, and I remain skeptical that there's going to continue to be that large a market for high-end in Edmonton. But the hype (genuine or Rennie-enhanced?) indicates otherwise.

[Elwood]

Does anybody have any info as to what demographic is buying into CP?

My real estate agent claims that the vast majority of buyers (he said 75%) are investors/flippers. I'd suspect the second phase is the same.

[on the grid]

What's that? Legislating better construction? Those crazy taxxachusians!

BOSTON, Dec. 19 — Boston plans to amend its building code to require that all large-scale private construction be “green.”

Under the new regulations, all private construction of at least 50,000 square feet must meet the minimum criteria of the United States Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards for new projects.

While other governments have adopted the association’s standards for private construction, Boston is believed to be the first city to revise its building code to adhere to them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/20/us/20boston.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[CMD UW]

Originally Posted by Jasper and one o nin

vivacity went through 2-3 diff developers before TNP stepped in....it was a mess in all regards.

Perhaps the issue was related to poor management, construction costs, misread the market? One can only make assumptions.

Based on the tone of this forum of the last few months, there seems to be a concensus of frustration regarding why this city does not appear to be showing more high rise construction in light of this recent economic boom. Im only providing you with my $0.02 why I think that is the case. We are seeing record number housing starts, both single fam and multi. But relatively little high rise apt and no commercial. I deal with all kinds of architects and developers every day. and what I am hearing is the demand for single family and stick built apts is huge.

But Edmonton is experiencing more highrises and the numbers are increasing with each year. Sure it's not as much as we WANT to see, but the proof is in the pudding.

Im also hearing the HUGE challenges associated with developing in this city at this time. This includes big time construction inflation and the inability to find skilled workers.

see Calgary and Alberta for that fact. Same problems exist everywhere in this province.

[CMD UW]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

i have very much noticed people who work downtown are choosing downtown more and more.......

but not enough....

a good friend of mine complains about his 35-1hr daily commute from riverbend, works in CWB tower, and just bought a new house in south riverbend....

True, but this can be said for the majority of cities since the majority of workers do live in the suburbs. The only ones who rarely complain about the commute are those who have a stellar transit system or live in or a stones throw from downtown.