Edmonton Construction 11 (November 2011)

[s211]

Has there been any chatter about what the owner of the current ATB building will be doing to compete against suggested new office construction, aside from competing on space? Tarted up a little, that building has government tenancies written all over it.

[240glt]

^ It'd be a decent candidate for the CoE office consolidation. And likely a lot closer in line with appropriate leasing costs than a new build.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by 240glt

^ It'd be a decent candidate for the CoE office consolidation. And likely a lot closer in line with appropriate leasing costs than a new build.

The price is right, and a decent reskin of ATB and Sun Life would be rather appealing IMO...interesting.


EDIT: On second thought, the floor plates would likely be inadequate, but who knows

[CMD UW]

^ I don't think I would either. I don't know who's admisinstrating the program as far as deciding who gets to move in, but if they're not doing a good job it could be unpleasant for surrounding residents. Granted absentee owers are likely just as bad. Our condo building in McKay was pretty good 6-7 years ago, when most of the residents were owners... but as they've moved on and the place has filled up with renters it has really gone downhill. If anything, a rental building like Edgewater that is properly managed likely has a lot less problems than a condo style apartment building where suites are rented out by the owners

^I don't think it makes a difference as it depends how responsive the on-site management or condo board is with dealing with issues.

[SHOFEAR]

I was thinking more along the lines of doing S.A.'s for ammenities or increasing fee's to maintain a standard of quality that residents want. Having a large voting block that probably represents what could be a very different view on these things is what scares me.

Absent owners are one thing, but they usually don't get in the way of running the building.

[240glt]

Originally Posted by CMD UW

^I don't think it makes a difference as it depends how responsive the on-site management or condo board is with dealing with issues.

In purely rental buildings though, the landlord has a lot more control over the activities of the residents. Most condo buildings' managment and boards are fairly toothless when it comes to issues pertaining to specific suites, and there are a LOT of bad absentee landlords out there

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

I was thinking more along the lines of doing S.A.'s for ammenities or increasing fee's to maintain a standard of quality that residents want. Having a large voting block that probably represents what could be a very different view on these things is what scares me.

Absent owners are one thing, but they usually don't get in the way of running the building.

I can't see myself buying back into a condo building again any time soon, but if I did I would make sure that it was a smaller building.. for those exact reasons you stated. 30-40 suites is about perfect. My building is Calgary was ideal IMO.... 38 suites on 10 floors, with only 4 suites per floor (+ 2 on the main) A lot easier to manage and you don't have to put up with a lot of the riff-raff you do in a large building.

[Airboy]

Looking for something to do over the Family Day Weekend.
Government House is starting their Public Tour. A great chance to see this grand Building and the incredible art work it houses.

http://history.alberta.ca/governmenthouse/default.aspx

Government House Foundation
history.alberta.ca
Government House, a Provincial & National Historic Site, opened in 1913 as the official residence of Alberta’s Lieutenant Governors. It played this role until1938; during that time it was a centre of social and political life in Alberta..

[rapid_business]

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Edmo...calls+bike+lane+plans/7959595/story.html

Sounds like 'silly season' has started. Maybe Mandel is going to run again?

[240glt]

I'm all for bike lanes but some of the ones they are proposing are just dumb. This city has been so backward with regards to cycling infrastructure for so long, I don't know how it can be salvaged

[Hallsy's Toupee]

The comments in that Journal article are...interesting, to say the least.

[240glt]

I always get a kick out of folks that go off on cyclists having to have registration & insurance. Yes.. because you know, bikes cause hundreds of deaths and millions in property damage every year.

[TimB09]

Originally Posted by 240glt

I always get a kick out of folks that go off on cyclists having to have registration & insurance. Yes.. because you know, bikes cause hundreds of deaths and millions in property damage every year.

Man, you ever seen a bike hitting one of those metal garbage cans in the park at full speed?
Then we can talk property damage

[CMD UW]

Originally Posted by 240glt

In purely rental buildings though, the landlord has a lot more control over the activities of the residents. Most condo buildings' managment and boards are fairly toothless when it comes to issues pertaining to specific suites, and there are a LOT of bad absentee landlords out there



I can't see myself buying back into a condo building again any time soon, but if I did I would make sure that it was a smaller building.. for those exact reasons you stated. 30-40 suites is about perfect. My building is Calgary was ideal IMO.... 38 suites on 10 floors, with only 4 suites per floor (+ 2 on the main) A lot easier to manage and you don't have to put up with a lot of the riff-raff you do in a large building.

Management companies in condos don't do much, but the condo board itself has the power (very strong powers by legislation) to act on issues. They need to be proactive and use these powers to deal with those types of situations.

[CMD UW]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

I was thinking more along the lines of doing S.A.'s for ammenities or increasing fee's to maintain a standard of quality that residents want. Having a large voting block that probably represents what could be a very different view on these things is what scares me.

Absent owners are one thing, but they usually don't get in the way of running the building.

Reality is that there isn't a large amount of suites or shares to have an influence on this. We're talking about a handful of suites 10% the most.

[ScottieA]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

The price is right, and a decent reskin of ATB and Sun Life would be rather appealing IMO...interesting.


EDIT: On second thought, the floor plates would likely be inadequate, but who knows

The floorplates are small, and there are three elevators for the entire building which are constantly breaking down. The building almost needs a complete gut.

[240glt]

Originally Posted by CMD UW

Management companies in condos don't do much, but the condo board itself has the power (very strong powers by legislation) to act on issues. They need to be proactive and use these powers to deal with those types of situations.

Pretty much the only recourse that condo boards have against owners is to levy fines against the owner, then put a lien on the property. Yes his can be done but it is time consuming and somewhat expensive, so I'd bet that it doesn't happen all that often. In our building, someone brought in bed bugs *shudder* luckily most suites only had to be sprayed once, but the few suites surrounding the suspect suites had to be done several times. The suite was a rental, it cost the condo association tens of thousands of dollars to remedy, that was three years ago and they are still fighting with the owner over reimbursement. There's leins on the suite but the owner isn't selling so there's no real recourse there.

Yuck! Just thinking about it makes me cringe. One more reason I love my little house.

[Coldrsx]

We put caveats on titles for money owing over 90 days and have had good success. Mind you, we have a low rental rate and a very good ownership group of 59 units. Love my building.

[Coldrsx]

RE: ATB

It is a solid upper B low A building that needs to be 'reimagined', but still can work for many tenants. The other neat option would be to convert it into residential or even hotel.

[240glt]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

We put caveats on titles for money owing over 90 days and have had good success. Mind you, we have a low rental rate and a very good ownership group of 59 units. Love my building.

That might work but I guarantee you, if they wanted, an owner could tie you up for years in legal purgatory and cost you a fortune. I'll know more over the next few months... I am just about to take a legal course related to property law... but grew up in a family of lawyers

We never had any problems like that in our smaller, mostly owner occupied unit in the Calgary building either. But there were as lot of long time owners in there.. and no renters as far as I can remember. The McKay building is only 8 years old, and was bought into by lots of younger folks that have since moved on and kept the units as rental. As it is right now, we barely spend any time there, preferring the house in Parkdale. I'd like to rent it too, but I feel for the building a bit, and I don't want to see it get any worse.

[Coldrsx]

News Release


February 13, 2013
Albertans' input sought to improve condominium living

Edmonton... Albertans’ views are requested on legislation regarding the development, purchase and operation of condominiums.

“We want to build more effective legislation that provides appropriate consumer protection and supports the vibrant condominium industry in Alberta,” said Service Alberta Minister, Manmeet S. Bhullar. “The direction we get from Albertans will help us improve standards and provide
long-term solutions to the challenges facing Alberta’s condominium industry.”
The consultation will help ensure the Condominium Property Act, last amended in 2000, reflects the current needs of Albertans and addresses new trends in the condominium market. The questionnaire covers a wide range of topics, including: consumer protection for buyers; insurance requirements; access to corporation records; dispute resolution; board governance; and regulatory standards for condominium managers.

“We are pleased to see the Alberta government moving ahead with public consultation in this process,” said Stephen Cassady, president of the Canadian Condominium Institute - South Alberta chapter. “Updating the Act to reflect industry changes and the rising expectations of owners is a positive step forward.”

With Service Alberta’s Condominium Property Act consultation and Municipal Affairs’ New Home Buyer Protection Act, the government is strengthening protection and addressing concerns of Alberta home buyers.

“Improving the condominium laws will be beneficial for buyers and for builders of condominiums,” said Greg Christensen, former president of the Canadian Home Builders Association - Alberta. “We fully support any measures that will help owners protect the value of their investment in their homes and address the needs of all stakeholders.”

The online questionnaire is available until April 2 at letstalkcondos.servicealberta.ca. Paper copies of the questionnaire can be requested by calling 1-877-427-4088 toll-free in Alberta.