Edmonton Construction 11 (November 2011)

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by cdnklc

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...

Was his name-o.

Not saying the economics worked or not, but in the highest rent area of our city for retail, i expected more. It also probably could have gotten away with a relaxation on some parking and while it might need UG, longer term I have to think it would be warranted. Given that I have been on much smaller sites with 1 level UG, it can work just fine.

I didn't run the business case, perhaps this IS the best, but I have to think that is is not given precedent and my understanding of some of this. But hey, if you want to call it a lack of respect you are entitled to your opinion as always. I would call it lack of foresight. Obviously a short-term play... hence unfortunate.

[SHOFEAR]

I'm not sure if anybody has noticed, but it looks like some little three story commercial infill popped up overnight on the south side of whyte ave. I'm not there often so I was rather surprised....looked pretty good too.

[Mycroft]

Until there are projects lined up for the many undeveloped sites along this portion of Whyte, I call BS. Single storey buildings are not out of character for this portion of the avenue, and it is due to numbers rather than purportedly myopic developer visions.

Last I checked, banks don't go for 'if you build it they will come' when evaluating financing proposals. If anything I wish there were more people out there who would wake up and realize that they don't need to build massive structures to justify infill developments...this mentality is paralyzing so much of the city with un/der developed sites as landowners holding out for far more than what can be economically justified in the short-mid term

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

I'm not sure if anybody has noticed, but it looks like some little three story commercial infill popped up overnight on the south side of whyte ave. I'm not there often so I was rather surprised....looked pretty good too.

you mean this great addition to the ave.


(http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b216/rrr1111/Capture1.jpg?t=1306188678)

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Was his name-o.

Not saying the economics worked or not, but in the highest rent area of our city for retail, i expected more. It also probably could have gotten away with a relaxation on some parking and while it might need UG, longer term I have to think it would be warranted. Given that I have been on much smaller sites with 1 level UG, it can work just fine.

I didn't run the business case, perhaps this IS the best, but I have to think that is is not given precedent and my understanding of some of this. But hey, if you want to call it a lack of respect you are entitled to your opinion as always. I would call it lack of foresight. Obviously a short-term play... hence unfortunate.

so in "the highest rent area of our city for retail" (another arguable point but one for a different discussion), you not only didn't run the business case but "bingo'd" and accepted an assertion that "more" was economically possible for the site and for the developer when ""more" would require substantially reducing the retail space in the project in exchange for more expensive to build and much cheaper to rent for office or residential space and undergound parking?

you "bingo'd" a "hopefully very little reward for this developer" for removing a car wash and replacing it with some reasonably well articulated and detailed retail space in its stead.

you subsequently posted "but, BUT, they sure wasted an opportunity here" before admitting that you didn't run a business case to determine that and before noting that this might well be the best business case for the site.

then you say that you don't want that to be described as a lack of respect before going on to ascribe a "lack of foresight" to the developer and still describe the project as "a short-term play" and "unfortunate"???

so yes, my opinion is that you were displaying - and continue to display - a lack of respect for a decent little infill and for the developer putting his money up to build it.

[SHOFEAR]

yup. 15 more pls

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by cdnklc

so in "the highest rent area of our city for retail" (another arguable point but one for a different discussion), you not only didn't run the business case but "bingo'd" and accepted an assertion that "more" was economically possible for the site and for the developer when ""more" would require substantially reducing the retail space in the project in exchange for more expensive to build and much cheaper to rent for office or residential space and undergound parking?

you "bingo'd" a "hopefully very little reward for this developer" for removing a car wash and replacing it with some reasonably well articulated and detailed retail space in its stead.

you subsequently posted "but, BUT, they sure wasted an opportunity here" before admitting that you didn't run a business case to determine that and before noting that this might well be the best business case for the site.

then you say that you don't want that to be described as a lack of respect before going on to ascribe a "lack of foresight" to the developer and still describe the project as "a short-term play" and "unfortunate"???

so yes, my opinion is that you were displaying - and continue to display - a lack of respect for a decent little infill and for the developer putting his money up to build it.

I should have clarified... street level (non mall).

Decent infill would satisfy me in most areas, but on a prime frontage on Whyte... no.

I guess we can continue to agree to disagree on what we think is acceptable there.

[CMD UW]

If the City wants to achieve a certain density or height on Whyte then they should establish height minimums. As it stands this developer made a decision to develop a project that works within its existing zoning.

[Hallsy's Toupee]

From reading Master Maq's report from the EEDC Economic Impact Luncheon, Brad Ferguson scored a win.

[mcc16]

Cdnklc your responses are always so bitchy, lol, but generally I agree with you...and given the nature of a one story building...this could easily be flattened once market has demanded/zoned for more... This, along with 105st corner lot redevelopment will fill some gaps and make whyte more cohesive...

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by mcc16

Cdnklc your responses are always so bitchy, lol, but generally I agree with you...and given the nature of a one story building...this could easily be flattened once market has demanded/zoned for more... This, along with 105st corner lot redevelopment will fill some gaps and make whyte more cohesive...

emphasis added...

not intentionally but i will admit to sometimes allowing the posts i am responding to to colour my response. and i probably allow that to happen more for some of the other posters whose passion i respect, those posters who sometimes allow that passion to get the better of them. those that know better - or should know better - are not doing their credibility any favours when they do that nor are they doing any favours for those reading their posts who deserve to be informed as much or more than they need to be inflamed.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by CMD UW

If the City wants to achieve a certain density or height on Whyte then they should establish height minimums. As it stands this developer made a decision to develop a project that works within its existing zoning.

A minimum height requirement would quash a project like this and leave that bubbles bubbling for another 20 years. Market interventions to that extreme are a disservice to the industry, needlessly messing with the value of land. A requirement for a second floor does not enable development, it limits potential while excluding what could be important components of a growing urban fabric.

Development momentum rarely comes out of nowhere. We need projects like this (and that glassy three storey) to drive further interest and confidence in the viability of smaller scale commercial infill.

[Coldrsx]

^^ The proposed development will enhance the avenue, don't get me wrong, but given what you can do with a CB2 zoning, it seems odd they did not want to do more and that it could not be justified with a reasonable return.

FAR 3.5
Height up to 14m nor 4 storeys

http://webdocs.edmonton.ca/zoningbylaw/Z...cial/340_(CB2)_General_Business_Zone.htm

[Mycroft]

^ Yes, and Automotive and Equipment Repair is a Permitted use and Pawn Stores is Discretionary according to the regs. That it doesn't mean those are the best uses for the site now or in the next 20 years.

Forget the FAR, look at the surrounding sites. Is it reasonable to expect a 4-storey building at that site and in current conditions with minimal construction/leasing precedent?

[Coldrsx]

^but I need my pawns.

There is a very low amount of quality office space in that area, very little new retail space and an opportunity to capitalize on both long term. Again, the new development will do much more for the area than the car wash, but I am surprised a larger development was not what we ended up with and leave it at that.

[SHOFEAR]

To me it just seems lazy to do just one story. It looks like the developer wants to do something incredibly easy that has no chance of being delayed with any sort of zoning issues. Get approvals as quickly as possible, build as quickly as possible and lease as quickly as possible. While this might be acceptable for 95% of the commercial lots in the city I expect more in areas like Whyte Ave. If everybody who owned something on whyte had this mentality it would not be the special district it is today. Can't wait to see all the retail bays made up of donair shops and a subway.

[Coldrsx]

Lazy is not the right word here...

They, as mentioned by some guy, are well within their rights to do this, but I am simply surprised they don't see more opportunity to do something special with what is in my opinion quite the rare site in terms of location, frontage and rents.

[etown]

http://www.dtzbarnicke.com/Client/JJB/JJBNA%20Web%20Listing%20db.nsf/816035084e4fadaf852571800062a4aa/bf417e6f22e18b2185257a7f005a9a7b/$FILE/Whyte%20ave%2010336.pdf

This is another new project for Whyte. Three floors.

[Coldrsx]

Ah yes. Better. Love the 185sqft CRU and the 2nd floor patio.

[Hallsy's Toupee]

Word on C2E is that the Backpackers Hostel is moving into the old CKUA space. I thought the old CKUA had infrastructure issues hence the move to the Alberta Hotel?