Edmonton Construction 11 (November 2011) - Page 284

Jasper and one o nin · #**5661** Posted **Jan 14, 2013, 9:15 PM**

^ I would give $100

hilman · #**5662** Posted **Jan 14, 2013, 9:20 PM**

^ Likewise, I love the idea of changing colors, a copper and blue scheme on Oiler game days would be a nice touch. Do it now please

etown · #**5663** Posted **Jan 14, 2013, 9:23 PM**

Bubbles on Whyte Closing

Not sure if this redevelopment been posted here yet:
http://royalparkrealty.com/sites/default/files/brochures/Bubbles%20Whyte%20Ave.pdf

Coldrsx · #**5664** Posted **Jan 14, 2013, 9:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasper and one o nin

^ I would give $100

Agreed. Such a great idea.

SHOFEAR · #**5665** Posted **Jan 14, 2013, 9:34 PM**

yes yes yes.

tallisgood · #**5666** Posted **Jan 14, 2013, 9:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by etown

Bubbles on Whyte Closing

Not sure if this redevelopment been posted here yet:
http://royalparkrealty.com/sites/default/files/brochures/Bubbles%20Whyte%20Ave.pdf

You'd think that location would call for something more, like a few floors of office or residential on top of the retail.

Daveography · #**5667** Posted **Jan 14, 2013, 11:33 PM**

^ Very underwhelming for that part of Whyte.

Keats82 · #**5668** Posted **Jan 15, 2013, 2:11 AM**

Urgh. Agreed.

CMD UW · #**5669** Posted **Jan 15, 2013, 2:53 AM**

^At the end of the day its the developer who determines how much risk they are going to take with a project. In this case its obvious they believe they can (and will) lease this amount of space in a relatively short period of time and start generating some cash flow. If they add more density their costs will go up, along with increased cash flow, but they take on more risk. Nuff said.

Hardhatdan · #**5670** Posted **Jan 15, 2013, 3:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMD UW

^At the end of the day its the developer who determines how much risk they are going to take with a project. In this case its obvious they believe they can (and will) lease this amount of space in a relatively short period of time and start generating some cash flow. If they add more density their costs will go up, along with increased cash flow, but they take on more risk. Nuff said.

Apologist, call a spade a spade, and it's mediocre.

No risk, and hopefully very little reward for this developer.

Coldrsx · #**5671** Posted **Jan 15, 2013, 5:19 AM**

Bingo. Very underwhelming.

Black Star · #**5672** Posted **Jan 15, 2013, 9:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasper and one o nin

^ I would give $100

I admire the collective corporate push on this. But when ATB Financial CEO Dave Mowat said "We as Edmontonians have an inferior complex" It made my skin Crawl!!!!! He said it like he had low self esteem lol. How long is this shit going to go on! I dont have this complex and neither do any of my business associates!!! So a Dam LED lit up bridge at 1.5mill is gonna instill pride!!! Sure it will look great but Wow. We live In a really good city that should not be second guessing it self.

Save your money or give it to a shelter. With Respect.

ciudad_del_norte · #**5673** Posted **Jan 15, 2013, 3:38 PM**

^ I dunno, although it certainly isn't be true for everybody in Edmonton but I don't think it is that much of a stretch to say the generally mentality of Edmonton has some self-esteem issues. It has gotten much much better over the last ten years and I hear a lot more people talking positively about their city these days, but there is certainly still room for improvement. Making the bridge look pretty isn't going to suddenly make all the negative prople here proud and amazed, but I don't think that is the point either. It is part of a larger process of helping people take ownership and a more active role in where they live and giving people the opportunity to donate to the project is also a big part in that. There is also something to be said for showing people that the city is worth doing things like this to make it more attractive. I don't really think he means that we are all wallowing in self pity. I think it just a matter of linking this project to a general movement of Edmontonians gaining esteem and civic identity.

CMD UW · #**5674** Posted **Jan 15, 2013, 3:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardhatdan

Apologist, call a spade a spade, and it's mediocre.

No risk, and hopefully very little reward for this developer.

I'm not defending the under utilization of the site, I am defending the fact that the developer decided to proceed with a concept that obviously works with their business plan. As a private land owner they have EVERY right to do what works for them within the context of what they are allowed to do under the existing zoning and statutory land use plans.

kcantor · #**5675** Posted **Jan 15, 2013, 5:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardhatdan

Apologist, call a spade a spade, and it's mediocre.

No risk, and hopefully very little reward for this developer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Bingo. Very underwhelming.

bingo????

have either of you actually looked at the site and the economics?

based on the brochure they are expecting $40 psf for main floor retail rents. you want them to give up some of that $40 space for main floor lobbies and elevators and exit stairwells that they will get no rent for. on top of losing that rentable area, you will then need to build and pay for those elevators and exit stairs plus an underground parking structure (on a site which is probably too small for it to be efficient by the time you include ramps and those elevators and stairwells plus makeup air and exhaust systems etc.). you can count on paying for a totally different mechanical and electrical system and introducing an entirely different set of operating costs. in exchange for all of that lost revenue and incurring those additional costs, you might get $15/$20 psf second and third floor rents for that office space or $12/$15 psf residential rents (assuming the environmental status will even allow residential).

there is likely no economic way to maximize the zoning potential of a site this small the way you expect...

this is probably much more than risk aversion to additional development density by the developer. it is likely closer to developing something like this or keeping what you have there now. by ignoring the fact that a developer - just like any other business - needs to be able to get a return on his investments (and that includes incremental costs as well as "fixed" costs) you disply not only a lack of respect but a lack of understanding...

SHOFEAR · #**5676** Posted **Jan 15, 2013, 5:30 PM**

Everything built on whyte over the last 5 years or so has all been multi story. John Day's alberts site being the most similar based on size.

Hallsy's Toupee · #**5677** Posted **Jan 15, 2013, 5:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLACK STAR

I admire the collective corporate push on this. But when ATB Financial CEO Dave Mowat said "We as Edmontonians have an inferior complex" It made my skin Crawl!!!!! He said it like he had low self esteem lol. How long is this shit going to go on! I dont have this complex and neither do any of my business associates!!! So a Dam LED lit up bridge at 1.5mill is gonna instill pride!!! Sure it will look great but Wow. We live In a really good city that should not be second guessing it self.

Save your money or give it to a shelter. With Respect.

I don't see the problem with the comments. Mowat's just saying that people need to take more pride in their city, and one way to do that is to contribute to the High Level Bridge lights. I'd be willing to donate at least $100 or more for that.

kcantor · #**5678** Posted **Jan 15, 2013, 5:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

Everything built on whyte over the last 5 years or so has all been multi story. John Day's alberts site being the most similar based on size.

and that site was done with insurance monies (and possibly heritage grant monies as well, i can't remember all of the details), not from scratch. and it was also a corner site, not mid block, which makes a big difference in terms of windows and access and exposure...

Mycroft · #**5679** Posted **Jan 15, 2013, 6:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdnklc

it was also a corner site, not mid block, which makes a big difference in terms of windows and access and exposure...

^ That deserves a "bingo"

I can think of four buildings built or u/c along Whyte in the past 5 years, and only one of those has been between 109 St and Gateway...I would wager that making a proforma work in the area is tougher than one might think. Good on this developer for creating a decent retail infill project that is going to positively contribute to the pedestrian street wall and hopefully make a return that's decent enough to encourage further commercial development.

Coldrsx · #**5680** Posted **Jan 15, 2013, 8:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMD UW

I'm not defending the under utilization of the site, I am defending the fact that the developer decided to proceed with a concept that obviously works with their business plan. As a private land owner they have EVERY right to do what works for them within the context of what they are allowed to do under the existing zoning and statutory land use plans.

Bravo clap clap clap.

Sure they have EVERY right.... but, BUT, they sure wasted an opportunity here.