Edmonton Construction 12 (December 2013)

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

You can build all the row houses and detached houses you like around transit stations. Just don't be surprised if market forces turn them into boarding houses anyway. Best to build condos from the beginning than build something new and quickly only for it to be torn down 10 years later.

You can't drive down a street in any mature community without seeing duplexes and townhomes being built. That's the product that sells best in new communities and it's pretty clear driving around in any mature community it's desirable and more is needed. Despite the idealist driven concept, we all can't live in a five story building urban villages with convenient access to $5 a cup coffee, bike lanes (if we don't work at home for some tech startup), buy groceries at the local organic store that costs 3x what it costs everywhere else, and share community outdoor space.

People also tend to view the existing under developed areas as something that has a limited supply. As heavy and medium industrial leave the inner areas of the city for more easily accessible and larger facilities we are going to keep seeing more and more inventory added. We can't have a long term plan everywhere and refuse to adapt to market realities.

[Black Star]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Courtesy of Whyteknight/M.Z. commissioned by myself

Simply incredible.

102st tower making an appearance

Thanks for posting cold.

Thanks for making Whyteknight.

[s4.audios]

There was once a time everyone was rooting for 102st to become our new tallest...

[Mbertan]

CWB building on 123 St & Jasper: looking a lot less drab now

[Black Star]

Nope....still lots of Drab there

[Mikemike]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

You can't drive down a street in any mature community without seeing duplexes and townhomes being built. That's the product that sells best in new communities and it's pretty clear driving around in any mature community it's desirable and more is needed. Despite the idealist driven concept, we all can't live in a five story building urban villages with convenient access to $5 a cup coffee, bike lanes (if we don't work at home for some tech startup), buy groceries at the local organic store that costs 3x what it costs everywhere else, and share community outdoor space.

People also tend to view the existing under developed areas as something that has a limited supply. As heavy and medium industrial leave the inner areas of the city for more easily accessible and larger facilities we are going to keep seeing more and more inventory added. We can't have a long term plan everywhere and refuse to adapt to market realities.

I dunno. It seems to me like we don't exactly have a lot of new condos/apartments that aren't crammed into corner lots facing a main street. I get the people like the inside of their hoods remain as it always was, but the result is that in redevelopment and infill, and to a degree in new neighbourhoods, reserve the quietest streets to be enjoyed by the smallest number of people and put the apartments on the main streets.

So far, we've done a really poor job of building those communal outdoor spaces, bike routes, mized use, all that.

We can't extrapolate from demand for inferior product to what the market might be for a really well designed product in a really well designed neighbourhood. Unfortunately we really don't have any good data to tell us what the market will be like for something that doesn't really exist yet.

[Boris2k7]

Some KR for you.


KR Construction 2015/10/06 by RemotelyBoris, on Flickr

[Harrison]

I am pleasantly surprised with how that podium is turning out. The glazing on the tower is soooo nice, just hope it stays that clean and shiny

[Rocket252]

All it needs is a nice restaurant

[Shodan]

Incentives would clear looming glut of Edmonton downtown office space: developer
Bill Mah, Edmonton Journal

Published on: October 6, 2015 | Last Updated: October 6, 2015 2:30 PM MDT


George Schluessel, CEO of Procura Real Estate Services, says the city should come up with an incentive program to encourage owners to repurpose older office buildings to residential. He says new office towers on the way will leave a glut of empty buildings downtown. Schluessel poses for a photo in front of Park Square Apartments, a former office building on Bellamy Hill Road, in Edmonton on Oct. 6, 2015. Ryan Jackson / Edmonton Journal

Edmonton should offer incentives to building owners to ease a looming oversupply of downtown office vacancy, says a major developer.

Three office towers now under construction will start a “race to the bottom” when they open as older buildings compete for tenants, said George Schluessel, CEO of Calgary-based Procura Real Estate Services.

“There is going to be a surplus, a glut, of two to 2-1/2 million square feet, depending on who you talk to, of office space downtown,” Schluessel said.

“The fallout is going to be the disparity between some of these brand new buildings like the City of Edmonton, Stantec and Enbridge (towers) with high-paying rents and everything else is going to be at the bottom of the barrel.”...

http://edmontonjournal.com/business/comm...edmonton-downtown-office-space-developer

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Courtesy of Whyteknight/M.Z. commissioned by myself

Awesome rendering, many thanks guys for all your efforts!

[MacLac]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Incentives would clear looming glut of Edmonton downtown office space: developer
Bill Mah, Edmonton Journal

Published on: October 6, 2015 | Last Updated: October 6, 2015 2:30 PM MDT


George Schluessel, CEO of Procura Real Estate Services, says the city should come up with an incentive program to encourage owners to repurpose older office buildings to residential. He says new office towers on the way will leave a glut of empty buildings downtown. Schluessel poses for a photo in front of Park Square Apartments, a former office building on Bellamy Hill Road, in Edmonton on Oct. 6, 2015. Ryan Jackson / Edmonton Journal

Edmonton should offer incentives to building owners to ease a looming oversupply of downtown office vacancy, says a major developer.

Three office towers now under construction will start a “race to the bottom” when they open as older buildings compete for tenants, said George Schluessel, CEO of Calgary-based Procura Real Estate Services.

“There is going to be a surplus, a glut, of two to 2-1/2 million square feet, depending on who you talk to, of office space downtown,” Schluessel said.

“The fallout is going to be the disparity between some of these brand new buildings like the City of Edmonton, Stantec and Enbridge (towers) with high-paying rents and everything else is going to be at the bottom of the barrel.”...

http://edmontonjournal.com/business/comm...edmonton-downtown-office-space-developer

What a POS this guy is!!!! Using a "glut" of office space line as a fear tactic towards this city's gullible Sun readers and our civic admin to get a handout/subsidy so he can profit. Sounds like there will be no more new product from this pathetic, poorly executed co.

[Daveography]

^ I don't care for the man either, but he's actually not wrong. Downtown benefited hugely from office-to-condo conversions (with a per-unit subsidy) back in the early 00s, injecting a large number of new residents into the core.

[Hallsy's Toupee]

How about they try attracting more businesses from outside downtown and from outside the city first?

[ciudad_del_norte]

Originally Posted by Daveography

^ I don't care for the man either, but he's actually not wrong. Downtown benefited hugely from office-to-condo conversions (with a per-unit subsidy) back in the early 00s, injecting a large number of new residents into the core.

But is the subsidy needed in 2015? I don't know the logistics/price of conversion so I don't know what is feasible.... But I think the rationale/climate behind the previous subsidy program is pretty different from what he is basing his argument on.

[MalcolmTucker]

Couldn't the city just accelerate zoning changes, basically a non-cash subsidy?

[rapid_business]

Originally Posted by Daveography

^ I don't care for the man either, but he's actually not wrong. Downtown benefited hugely from office-to-condo conversions (with a per-unit subsidy) back in the early 00s, injecting a large number of new residents into the core.

He is wrong when he is using a pre-emptive fear tactic. They lose tenants to other office buildings who are investing in their older buildings when they don't (Associated Engineering to 9Triple8), and then go ask for a public subsidy because they are too cheap?

It may have been a good idea to accelerate demand for housing downtown when there was none and no end in sight for the glut of office space, but not now in this climate and not in light of their lack of investment in their product while other landlords reinvest in their buildings to compete on the open market.

[Daveography]

Originally Posted by rapid_business

He is wrong when he is using a pre-emptive fear tactic. They lose tenants to other office buildings who are investing in their older buildings when they don't (Associated Engineering to 9Triple8), and then go ask for a public subsidy because they are too cheap?

It may have been a good idea to accelerate demand for housing downtown when there was none and no end in sight for the glut of office space, but not now in this climate and not in light of their lack of investment in their product while other landlords reinvest in their buildings to compete on the open market.

Poor tactics doesn't make him wrong, but I digress.

[EdmTrekker]

Taxpayers aka "City" does not need to "do" anything. The market will take care of itself. Developers and investors are moving forward with construction of condos and rentals - without Taxpayer subsidy. Councillor McKeen better watch is mouth before suggesting he is open to possibilities - its not his money - its belongs to Taxpayers.

[ciudad_del_norte]

Originally Posted by Daveography

Poor tactics doesn't make him wrong, but I digress.

I'd suggest that his implied suggestion that downtown will suffer if the City doesn't offer incentives is a fear tactic, and relying on that as a basis does make him wrong, or at the very least his conclusion is not convincingly "right".

Saying there will be a bunch of extra office space around isn't wrong.

Jumping from there to a need for City money while making comparisons to 2001 ignores current context and seems, at the very least, a poorly constructed argument. I suppose it could true, but he sure isn't convincing me that he is right, there are some jumps and gaps in reaching his conclusions - which work out to his benefit. So I'm not giving him too much benefit of the doubt until he comes up with something more convincing.