Edmonton Construction 9 (2008-08)

[Coldrsx]

^no friggen kidding... this thing should have been on there long before i was even a thought.

Knowing Worthlessington they will propose an 80 and 60 storey tower akin to their calgary 'plans'.

HA

btw if anyone wants to say hi to them...

http://www.worthington.ca/properties/index.html


oh and love how they list the old BOM building as a 'past success'

[Coldrsx]

atta boy 240

[240glt]

^ I swear to god, if it starts to look like this may end up even remotely resembling the Arlington fiasco I am prepared to do whatever it takes to keep that from happening again.

[Coldrsx]

^x 2.

[Coldrsx]

pretty cool construction pic of Commonwealth



http://www.edmonton.ca/attractions_recreation/documents/CityGov/29092_rdax_90.jpg

[Kevin_foster]

RE an insurance payout...

Lot's of people that own commercial property don't know about co-insurance. A hard lesson learned by those who try to save a buck on insurance costs and end up finding themselves in a bad, bad situation.

Co-Insurance is a clause that is written into just about every property policy; which stipulates that if the insured wants replacement cost coverage (instead of actual cash value) they have to insure to at least a % of the true replacement cost of a property. This is to encourage people to insure to replacement cost, and discourage from under insuring to save a dollar and expect replacement payout should a claim occur. It also discourages those who might buy insurance, and then torch their building to make a profit!

The current standard co-insurance clause is 90%; and I'll demonstrate how it comes into play in a property claim and how insurance companies settle property losses. I sometimes wonder if el-cheapo landlords pay attention to their property insurance and would encourage every landlord out there (even those who own historical buildings!) to make sure they are meeting this requirement - because this might shock some of you (yes, pg13 insurance talks here)

Co-Insurance Scenario:

Let's say you own a building. It is appraised, at today's prices, to replace would cost $10,000,000.

You get replacement insurance on it, so that if it burns down; the insurance company will replace the property for you!

But to save some premium, you decide to insure it for $6,000,000 - as you figure it is replacement insurance anyways, so whats the big deal. Truth is, it is a big deal!

Buried deep inside your stack of insurance papers, there is a clause called "co-insurance". The policy stipulates it is 90%, meaning you must insure to at least 90% of the replacement (in this case 90% of the $10,000,000) cost... and if not - the following formula is used to settle a property claim:

Actual Insurance Carried
-----------------------         x     amount of loss  = insurance payout.
Amount Should Have carried (to meet Co Insurance Requirement)

Let's assume that we incur a $7,500,000 loss - not a total loss; but close enough..

So we can use the formula above to figure out what the insurance company will pay.

$6,000,000
---------                               x $7,500,000 = $5,000,000
$9,000,000 (90% of 10,000,000)

So, because we cheaped out on the insurance, we would now be left on the hook with a $2,500,000 bill to replace the building. When in all reality, it probably would have only cost an additional ~$1,500 a year to insure to full replacement value.

Little lesson!

[CMD UW]

Hmmm, perhaps I should have you browse through my insurance coverage and 'advise' if I am properly insured. I love insurance companies...

[S_B_Russell]

Restaurant next to blaze suffers major damage

'I thought there would be a little bit of water,' co-owner says

BY LAURA DRAKE, WITH FILES FROM BEN GELINAS, THE EDMONTON JOURNALMARCH 26, 2009



Taking care not to sit on a soggy chair, Ghada Ghazal stood in her family's Co Co Di Restaurant on Wednesday and turned pages in her waterlogged reservations book.

"This Saturday, we're all booked," Ghazal said, turning wrinkled pages stained with blue and red ink streaks that were once bookings. "On Sunday I have a wedding; that's the worst part. I can't find their number now."

Though Co Co Di is not in the historic Ramsey building razed in Tuesday's $3.5-million fire, it is in the adjacent Kelly building, which sustained significant water and smoke damage.

Ghazal watched Tuesday as almost 70 firefighters and 16 fire trucks battled the flames that, at one point, shot out of the top floor of the Ramsey building and above the roof.

"I knew there would be damage, but I didn't think it would be like this at all. I thought there would be a little bit of water, a little bit of cleaning and we'd be open again," she said, surveying the damp and darkened restaurant that smelled of smoke.

Instead, when she and her husband arrived Wednesday morning at the Mediterranean eatery they've owned for eight years, they discovered the roof over the bar caved in, paint streaked down the walls and plaster from the roof covering tables, chairs and booths.

"It's bad, bad, bad," Ghazal said, pointing to a row of hookahs bought last week. "I think everything is damaged. Everything."

When the fire started around 3:40 p.m., the wait staff at Co Co Di had to usher patrons out the door.

On Wednesday, coffee cups that had been left on tables were filled to the brim with water from fire hoses.

The roof above the bar, the part of the restaurant closest to the fire, has completely caved in, leaving pot lights dangling.

The restaurant does have insurance, but Ghazal said they will lose at least a month of business, most of which comes from downtown regulars, before they can reopen. Despite yellow police tape on the building next door and sidewalks thick with ice from water that fell from fire hoses, customers streamed in to Co Co Di Wednesday just to make sure no lunch was on offer.

The Kelly building has several other restaurants on the ground floor, including Nikita's Restaurant and Bistro Praha. It's not clear how much damage was done to those two restaurants.

In an alley at the rear of the building is Brittany's Lounge, a shadow-dancing club that had been open six months. "I have not actually been able to get inside of my space yet," owner Brittany Halford said. The entrance to her club is protected by a security roll shutter that runs on electricity, and there was no power to the building as of Wednesday night.

"It's a nightmare for me, being such a new business," Halford said. "I had basically gutted the space and redone it, which was very expensive and took a lot of time. I did everything from electrical to plumbing to new ceiling and new floor."

Halford has insurance, but says it would still be difficult to resurrect her business if she can no longer operate out of the historic building.

Both the Kelly and the Ramsey buildings are owned by Worthington Properties, whose head office was destroyed in the fire. No one from Worthington was available Wednesday to comment on the future of the Kelly-Ramsey Block.

The Kelly building was constructed in 1915 and the Ramsey in 1927. Both were on the city's "A" list of the Register of Historic Resources in Edmonton, meaning they were recognized as valuable resources but were not officially protected as designated historic properties.

Louis Munan, an artist who had a studio in the Ramsey building, had happier news than other tenants Wednesday. A sculptor, he feared his unfinished works would have been melted by the water, but he discovered most of his work was undamaged.

Fire services spokesman John Muir said the cause of the fire will likely not be determined until later this week.

[email protected]

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Restaurant+next+blaze+suffers+major+damage/1429197/story.html

[Xelebes]

So foul play is suspected in the fire? Heard it on CBC Radio 1.

[240glt]

I like this. This is one of a series of empty lots on 95 st where a bunch of really sketchy rooming houses used to be. Cleaning up 95 street from 112th north is vital to the ongoing 118th ave revitalization. Nice to see this infilled

Job No 85287324-001: To Construct a General Retail Store/Apartment House (one dwelling) Building.
11337 - 95 STREET NW
Plan RN43 Blk 29 Lot 9
BENIAMEEN, OSAMA

ALBERTA AVENUE

[Kevin_foster]

Anyone read the McLeans Canadian University report? Guess who is #2?

[Coldrsx]

^U of C?

ha

[Coldrsx]

A new recreation centre for Norwood
by Lawrence Herzog
Inside Edmonton | Vol. 27 No. 12 | March 26, 2009
For years, residents of neighbourhoods on the northern fringe of downtown have been lobbying their city councillors and municipal leaders for better recreation facilities.
Proposals have come and gone for a swimming pool and leisure centre for the community, but competing demands and shifting priorities have spirited the money away.

Three years ago, the city and NAIT were moving forward as partners to develop a health and wellness centre. But in 2007 the provincial government announced there would be no approved capital funding forthcoming, and so NAIT was forced to pull out of the joint project.

That’s when the Edmonton Eskimo football club stepped forward, and now, at long last, the dream is on the verge of becoming a reality. The plan for the North Central Recreation Centre at Joe Clarke Athletic Grounds proposes an aquatic centre, field house, and a connection to the existing Commonwealth Sport and Fitness Centre.

The multi-purpose complex will be located just off Stadium Road, north of 107th Avenue. Earlier this month, citizens got to have their say on the concept plans at an open house.

The proposal calls for a new $147 million community recreation facility to be built by the city that will include a swimming pool complex and a family resource centre integrated with Commonwealth Stadium’s existing gymnasium and fitness centre. Together, the field house and the community recreation centre will introduce new leisure, sport and social opportunities for the residents of north-central Edmonton.

The $40 million field house will be a multipurpose recreation facility, and will be built on the existing practice field, right next to Commonwealth Stadium. It is to be a versatile facility with sport clinics, and fitness and wellness programs. Half the cost is to be paid by the Edmonton Eskimos.

Unlike Edmonton’s other field houses, the North Central Field House will have a permanent artificial turf field, and a three lane walking and jogging track. The size and configuration of the field house has been designed and tweaked with input from a myriad of community groups and users.

Plans call for a 6,000 square metre building (57,600 square feet) holding a field roughly one-half of a football field, or a youth soccer field. It will measure 68 metres by 68 metres, with a four-metre run-off zone on all sides.

The field house will accommodate large and diverse group activities, with netting and a central dividing curtain, that will enable it to be utilized for such activities as field hockey, ultimate, futsol, and lacrosse. The Edmonton Eskimo Football Club administration, athlete locker and equipment rooms and coaches offices will also be a part of the new complex.

When it’s done, the North Central Recreation Centre will provide a welcoming place for recreation, leisure and social interaction, and be an exceptional source of community pride. It will mark the latest chapter in a remarkable rejuvenation and transformation for the site, which in the early 20th century served as a penitentiary, incinerator and garbage dump.

Back then, Rat Creek used to run eastward from 97th Street just south of Norwood Boulevard and into what is now Kinnaird Ravine. Like the incinerator, the dump and the slaughter house, the creek has been covered over by time and development.

The old penitentiary was abandoned in 1918, and deemed unsuitable for any other development, as the entire area was undercut by coal mines, some of them burrowed in from the river valley. The coal mining itself continued until 1929, when “Fighting Joe” Clarke traveled with a delegation to Ottawa to convince the federal government to hand over the land to the city. Clarke earned his nickname when he was an alderman in 1914, and got into a fistfight at City Hall with then-Mayor William McNamara. He went on to become city mayor in 1919 and again in 1934.

Clarke figured the city’s youth needed good sports fields for rugby, cricket, baseball, and track. He knew Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King from his student days at the University of Toronto, and convinced the PM that the land should be handed over to the city in the form of a 99-year lease at a dollar per year.

As the Great Depression deepened, work went slowly, and it wasn’t until 1938 at the first bleachers holding 2,500 people were built, and “rugby football” came to Edmonton.

City Council recognized Clarke’s contribution by naming the stadium in his honor and Clarke performed the opening kickoff at the first Eskimo game.

Now, more than 70 years later, part of the site is set to serve the city in a new way in the 21st century. It’s a grand tribute to the spirit of sportsmanship and the pride of community.

©Copyright 2000-2007, All Rights Reserved. All articles, text and photographic material presented here is copyright. Unauthorized copying or re-distribution is strictly prohibited.

http://www.rewedmonton.ca/content_view_rew?CONTENT_ID=2491

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Kevin_foster

RE an insurance payout...

Lot's of people that own commercial property don't know about co-insurance. A hard lesson learned by those who try to save a buck on insurance costs and end up finding themselves in a bad, bad situation.

Co-Insurance is a clause that is written into just about every property policy; which stipulates that if the insured wants replacement cost coverage (instead of actual cash value) they have to insure to at least a % of the true replacement cost of a property. This is to encourage people to insure to replacement cost, and discourage from under insuring to save a dollar and expect replacement payout should a claim occur. It also discourages those who might buy insurance, and then torch their building to make a profit!

The current standard co-insurance clause is 90%; and I'll demonstrate how it comes into play in a property claim and how insurance companies settle property losses. I sometimes wonder if el-cheapo landlords pay attention to their property insurance and would encourage every landlord out there (even those who own historical buildings!) to make sure they are meeting this requirement - because this might shock some of you (yes, pg13 insurance talks here)

Co-Insurance Scenario:

Let's say you own a building. It is appraised, at today's prices, to replace would cost $10,000,000.

You get replacement insurance on it, so that if it burns down; the insurance company will replace the property for you!

But to save some premium, you decide to insure it for $6,000,000 - as you figure it is replacement insurance anyways, so whats the big deal. Truth is, it is a big deal!

Buried deep inside your stack of insurance papers, there is a clause called "co-insurance". The policy stipulates it is 90%, meaning you must insure to at least 90% of the replacement (in this case 90% of the $10,000,000) cost... and if not - the following formula is used to settle a property claim:

Actual Insurance Carried
-----------------------         x     amount of loss  = insurance payout.
Amount Should Have carried (to meet Co Insurance Requirement)

Let's assume that we incur a $7,500,000 loss - not a total loss; but close enough..

So we can use the formula above to figure out what the insurance company will pay.

$6,000,000
---------                               x $7,500,000 = $5,000,000
$9,000,000 (90% of 10,000,000)

So, because we cheaped out on the insurance, we would now be left on the hook with a $2,500,000 bill to replace the building. When in all reality, it probably would have only cost an additional ~$1,500 a year to insure to full replacement value.

Little lesson!

it's not quite as simple as that... these clauses are more straightforward when market value and replacement value are at least similar. when replacement value is 10,000,000 (per your example), and the building was recently bought for 4,000,000 it becomes a little less straightforward. it becomes similar to your insurer writing off your car and paying you 4,000 to replace it instead of paying out 10,000 to repair it. they won't apply an "emotional" (or in this case historical) premium to what you need to "stay whole". you can buy a replacement car or a replacement building from their perspective. purchasing "replacement cost" as a solution and receiving "replacement cost" is a bit more difficult to ensure than just paying an additional ~1,500 premium, particularly when there is a 2.5 times or greater differential between the replacement cost and the cost you paid and you haven't owned it for very long. if you think the arlington has "dragged", an insurer holding back a claim has substantially greater incentive - and resources - than the owner to not pay out the proceeds needed to proceed in a timely fashion...

[Kevin_foster]

^ As far as replacement cost on property is concerned, insurers don't care how much you paid for it or what it would sell for on an open market. A little different than car insurance - as you technically cannot get replacement cost coverage on vehicles (due to their quickly depreciating nature). If you crash your car, you get whatever the "black book" value is.

With property insurance, If you bought a warehouse for $1 from your Mom and Dad, that would cost $500,000 to replace with (and here is the catch) "like materials of similar kind and quality"; and insure it to $500,000; if it burns down you are going to get the property replaced with a warehouse of like kind and quality - subject to a max of $500,000 - but if you have had a proper appraisal done; there should be no shortfall. You would not insure the building for $1 (obviously). Doing appraisals as the real estate market ebbs and flows is a very, very good thing to do as costs of materials and labor fluctuate and can affect the replacement value of your property.

If you spent $4,000,000 on a building that, to replace, would cost $10,000,000 - you insure it for $10,000,000; unless you only want to get back what if cost you.

On a historical building, hiring proper appraisal by someone who specializes in historical properties would definitely be the prudent choice.... as if you intend to replace the property with materials with like kind and quality - then I could imagine things get tricks.. thing such as Property shipping costs, Product availability (aka Hand Painted Italian Marble Tiling for example), services available (old hand shaped mouldings, who does those anymore?) etc. all increase the replacement value of a property.

That said, I could imagine that alot of historical building owners are insuring on a Market Value (or Actual Cash Value) basis. Meaning that if it burns down, they will get whatever the market would have given them at the time.

The key to replacement cost is that the insured is no better off, or worse off than they were before the loss occurred.

[Coldrsx]

" as you technically cannot get replacement cost coverage on vehicles (due to their quickly depreciating nature)."

yes you can...

[Kevin_foster]

You`re all getting invoices for $2,000

[Kevin_foster]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

" as you technically cannot get replacement cost coverage on vehicles (due to their quickly depreciating nature)."

yes you can...

You can waive depreciation on new vehicles, yes.. but technically it`s not replacement cost... (in the commercial realm at least - I don`t know a stick about personal vehicles etc. )

[Coldrsx]

^i had replacement insurance for the 1st 2 years on my car... it was stolen 11months in and they paid me full replacement cost.

[Kevin_foster]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

^i had replacement insurance for the 1st 2 years on my car... it was stolen 11months in and they paid me full replacement cost.

^ New vehicles (2 years or newer) usually qualify for waiver of depreciation.

For you it seemed like replacement cost, but if it was, lets say, 36 months in and your car is now 3 years old - because the new year/model/whatever could be more expensive.... you would get what you paid for it, and they would ignore any depreciation.