East Village Rejuvenation Plan

[hulkrogan]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

You said that only the stuff that is already UC will go ahead. Verve, RioCan Retail, NCL will all go ahead regardless. It would be great if the East Village Tower, Alt Hotel, and XYC got going though, since most tenants that are needed are already signed.

I wasn't aware that the city suddenly had a surplus of hotel rooms? Also, you do realize that the residential sector has already taken a massive hit, all while our rental market has gotten stronger. Even if/when the rental market softens, it will be the last of the housing market to feel it, not the first.

Hotel demand downtown is largely business driven. I sure hope the proposed hotels go through, but I do fear some skittishness there too.

And yes, I said "Under Construction" but I should have picked a different wording. Projects that already have substantial sales and permits have already sunk a massive investment into things by then, and will likely go ahead, excluding office where they have a major tenant drop out.

I'm guessing you are a bit younger and think all crashes are like 2008 and everything is humming along shortly after. That is a very optimistic view of things. But I sure hope it's right.

Originally Posted by CorporateWhore

I've also heard the opposite about rental in times like this. There are less people with stable jobs, so there are also less people out there with the means/desire to take on a big financial responsibility like a mortgage. Renting is seen as lower risk, so more people do it.

If you've been saving for a place, and have the income stability to do so, then yeah, now (or soon, I'd still wait a bit) will definitely be the time to buy. But a lot of people tend to be frozen in times like this, and don't want to do anything big. So they turn to, or remain, in the rental market.

Fair enough, temporarily it puts more stress on the rental market, but as soon as you see an uptick in house prices or a sign of recovery, everyone built up on the sidelines jumps ship. Or in the case of a population decline, people that rent are more mobile.

[dazzlingdave88]

Originally Posted by CalgaryAlex

I feel like the problem with the DI is that the surrounding area is designed poorly for the "feeling" of safety. Once you get over the Langevin bridge to the south side of the river, I generally feel trapped. In front of me is a fenced-off empty lot and the DI itself. To my right is the end of the flyover onto 4th Ave, and to my left is the 5th Ave flyover and c-train bridge. It immediately creates a feeling of panic for me... I just feel like there isn't a clear way to escape.

There are no eyes on the area except for the homeless and drug dealers themselves, and perhaps a couple people on the Riverwalk (although they wouldn't even be facing my direction).

I don't even know how the city could change the feel of the area, as there are no empty lots of a decent size even available to develop and put more eyes on the area. The EV developments won't provide much, nor would developing the empty block between 5th and 6th Aves. Redeveloping the Bookers site would provide the same minimal impact.

It's a pretty hopeless area for the feeling of safety. So either the DI gets split up and moved to areas with better public observation, or they leave it there and hope that increased foot traffic from EV will encourage safety.

No amount of "ideal urban design" will end this problem. It needs to be solved by working with the individuals and social agencies. Besides, kicking the homeless out of this area, will only relocate them somewhere else.

Maybe East Village residents should have a levy that goes towards these social agencies. I know it's not the residents fault, but they are choosing to live in an area that requires gentrification. I would also argue that you could have that levy citywide. Having it in the suburbs would just ensure this problem doesn't spread.

Just my two cents.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by CorporateWhore

I've also heard the opposite about rental in times like this. There are less people with stable jobs, so there are also less people out there with the means/desire to take on a big financial responsibility like a mortgage. Renting is seen as lower risk, so more people do it.

If you've been saving for a place, and have the income stability to do so, then yeah, now (or soon, I'd still wait a bit) will definitely be the time to buy. But a lot of people tend to be frozen in times like this, and don't want to do anything big. So they turn to, or remain, in the rental market.

The calgary market may differ. Rental vacancy tends to skyrocket when the economy and inmigration slow. People with poor employment prospects leave.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Suing average consumers is waste of time in these situations, they will just file for bankruptcy.

The threat of lawsuit is more than enough unless things really take a dive. Most people are not willing to go through bankruptcy.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

The threat of lawsuit is more than enough unless things really take a dive. Most people are not willing to go through bankruptcy.

If your bank pulls the mortgage approval because the property value has fallen through the floor, who does the developer sue then?

I don't think it would be that hard to convince a bank to write a letter rescinding the mortgage if material conditions had changed.

[Policy Wonk]

It isn't a question of "willing". Not very many people have the means to pay a judgement like that, faced with garnishments of your pay cheque or bank account or asset execution, bankruptcy is pretty much the only option.

Suing somebody who will just file for bankruptcy if there is a judgement against them is a waste of time.

[red_179]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

It isn't a question of "willing". Not very many people have the means to pay a judgement like that, faced with garnishments of your pay cheque or bank account or asset execution, bankruptcy is pretty much the only option.

Suing somebody who will just file for bankruptcy if there is a judgement against them is a waste of time.

This whole thing is a game played between people in lawsuits all the time. The reality is 95% of all lawsuits settle before ever going to trial. Commencing a lawsuit is just a means to show they mean business and assert their leverage. Most people would rather settle than go through bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is no picnic and is basically a complete last resort. However, a person will use the threat of declaring bankruptcy as their own leverage in negotiating a lower settlement. This happens all the time in litigation, it doesn't mean that creditors don't pursue their debts. Smart creditors know that settling for a lower amount is the best option where a debtor legitimately doesn't have other assets and is threatening bankruptcy.

[Policy Wonk]

If they can't pay a judgement, they can't pay a meaningful settlement either. Winning a worthless judgement or symbolic settlement is just a costly pyrrhic victory. Why are there more lawyers who litigate auto accidents than defamation on Facebook?

One of my friends is being sued over a failed business launch, the guy suing him is on his third lawyer because as soon as the lawyer completes their asset search they tell the guy suing him to get lost.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

If your bank pulls the mortgage approval because the property value has fallen through the floor, who does the developer sue then?

I don't think it would be that hard to convince a bank to write a letter rescinding the mortgage if material conditions had changed.

Thought my post made it clear. I don't expect a massive collapse. In such a case, the developer would likely renegotiate.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

It isn't a question of "willing". Not very many people have the means to pay a judgement like that, faced with garnishments of your pay cheque or bank account or asset execution, bankruptcy is pretty much the only option.

Suing somebody who will just file for bankruptcy if there is a judgement against them is a waste of time.

You're completely missing the point as usual. Few disputes advance to such a stage. Purchasers gets antsy at even a modest drop and are quickly brought back into line. Why developers would rather sell to the same investors and strongly encourage purchasers to finance through their lender. Unless, you're suggesting a massive correction in Calgary, there won't be any following through on bankruptcy. People tend to think short term and are always looking for an easy way out of a loss. Doesn't mean they can't afford the loss.

[Policy Wonk]

I think a nation-wide housing market smoking crater is probably inevitable, but that is beside the point.

This is the post I was replying to:

Originally Posted by red_179

People that walk away from their deposits play a very risky game. The deposit is not the full extent of damages that the builder/developer can have against a purchaser that defaults on their purchase contract. If the builder/developer can't sell the unit at the same price, then they can sue the original purchaser for the difference in the purchase price, along with all carrying costs of the property until they can find a new buyer.

My point is unless somebody's liability is backstopped by an insurance policy (i.e. a car accident), suing ordinary people over large claims is a waste of time. They can't settle in any meaningful way and faced with a judgement they're bankrupt.

[Chadillaccc]

Not sure if we've seen this before. This is the concept for the Block 39 retail building just north of Riocan. The Request for Proposals deadline has closed and is apparently awaiting release. Looks like it could be a pretty awesome development. This would be an amazing spot for a cinema.







Detailed information at: http://www.calgarymlc.ca/sites/default/files/page-attach/EastVillage_Retail_CONCEPT%200425_0.pdf

[outoftheice]

Does anyone know anything about this parkade proposal for the East Village? I can't figure out where exactly this lot would be unless this will be built as part of the ALT hotel but run as a completely separate entity.

http://m.calgarysun.com/2015/03/24/city-...rkade-despite-what-logic-and-experts-say

City hall suffering from one-track thinking on proposed East Village parkade, despite what logic and experts say
By: Michael Platt
Calgary Sun

...The Calgary Parking Authority is in favour of the proposed parkade, located at 620 626 6 Ave. S.E., near the northeast corner of the East Village.
“The CPA has no objections for the installation of the private standalone parking facility at 620 626 6 Ave. S.E.,” reads the parking authority’s letter of support.
And The Calgary Municipal Land Corporation, created by city council to oversee the revitalization of the East Village and to ensure the neighbourhood’s success, supports the new parkade.
“Providing a parkade in this area will be beneficial to accommodate the needs of residents, visitors and Calgarians,” reads the summary of the CMLC’s letter of support, asking the city to approve the 103-stall facility.
And finally, the consultant hired to provide expert analysis of East Village parking needs both now and decades into the future says a new parkade is a must, if the neighbourhood is to avoid a looming stall shortage, once current building plans become a reality.
“As a result of this anticipated shortage it is recommended that CMLC, in consultation with Calgary Parking Authority, look for opportunities to increase the parking supply and investigate opportunities for a parking structure,” reads the D.A. Watt Consulting report, dated Jan. 2013.
To all of this, city administration says no...

...It’s especially silly, because one of the two parties involved — hotel developer Groupe Germaine — has asked to build its new East Village hotel without the usual parkade, because in their experience, guests seldom arrive in private cars.
Instead, Germaine has proposed sharing stalls as needed with East Village Properties Inc., an affiliate of Homes by Avi, which is seeking to build the neighbouring parkade.
Hence, the hotel gets parking, and the public avoids a predicted parking shortage. A win-win, until the city declares both sides losers...

[Chadillaccc]

That's exactly the plan, to run the parkade and hotel as two separate entities.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by outoftheice

Does anyone know anything about this parkade proposal for the East Village? I can't figure out where exactly this lot would be unless this will be built as part of the ALT hotel but run as a completely separate entity.

http://m.calgarysun.com/2015/03/24/city-...rkade-despite-what-logic-and-experts-say

Not the best written article (to be expected when you consider the source I guess). Here is a link to the CPC report on this application:
http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documents/calgary_planning_commission/agenda/2015/loc2014-0155.pdf

Seems like there is extremely strong policy reasons to not approve this, as is the case with all private parkades in the Centre City. Also, if you look at Appendix IV of the report, starting on page 29, you can find the parking supply study that was completed by DA Watt in 2013. It actually states that parking supply will meet demand in that part of East Village (see graphic on page 36), so an additional private parkade that violates many other policies is not necessary.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Not sure if we've seen this before. This is the concept for the Block 39 retail building just north of Riocan. The Request for Proposals deadline has closed and is apparently awaiting release. Looks like it could be a pretty awesome development. This would be an amazing spot for a cinema.







Detailed information at: http://www.calgarymlc.ca/sites/default/files/page-attach/EastVillage_Retail_CONCEPT%200425_0.pdf

This concept and rendering were posted here a few years ago I think. Nothing's come of it yet though.

[The Fisher Account]

Wasn't there supposed to be a CPA parkade in the East Village next to the District Energy building on 9th Ave?

[nick.flood]

delete

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

Wasn't there supposed to be a CPA parkade in the East Village next to the District Energy building on 9th Ave?

Yes, I think that is still the plan. I heard CPA put out a request for proposals a few months ago, but not sure what the exact timeline of the project is.

[Chadillaccc]

The parkade is still in the works, and will apparently be all retail on the main floor.

Originally Posted by O-tacular

This concept and rendering were posted here a few years ago I think. Nothing's come of it yet though.

On the CMLC website it says that the request for proposals has closed, so I bet they're probably just waiting to officially propose it until enough people live there for retail tenants to actually want to sign leases.