Edmonton Construction 13 (November 2015)

[s4.audios]

Ok I didn't read the whole Northlands article, but from what Hallsy posted it says the loan is due in whole by 2017. The Oilers are out of the building near the end o 2016, so that is just one year of no revenue from Oilers that does not go towards the loan. And they might not pay the loan on time because the Oilers moving out was not part of the original plan? I don't understand, they had 6 years of revenue from Oilers and are saying they can't pay the loan in the seventh year?

[240glt]

I think you're mis-reading it. The loan is not due in 2017, Northlands is saying they will have trouble paying it in 2017 because the lucrative concert business is moving to the downtown

Shoddy reporting and the Metro go hand in hand

[hilman]

So we pay $123 million out their $150 million building and they lose over $3 million a year on it, seems like money well spent

Elise Stolte ‏@estolte
Expo Centre loses about $3 million a year now, says Reid in answer to @ben_hen. Wants business case for each item here. #yegcc

https://twitter.com/estolte

Ryan Tumilty ‏@MetroRyan
Even without the debt servicing apparently the Expo centre loses about $3 million per year. #yegcc

https://twitter.com/MetroRyan

[240glt]

Sounds like this is going to committee for review, back in August after more consultation

I am glad that Northlands took the advise of surrounding communities and started talking about the ancillary benefits, prior they had only focused on the three elements that are directly in line with their business. The community is a lot happier that they are talking about:

One higher end hotel & convention centre & casino
One regular hotel
Concordia student residence
Up to seventeen 16 story high rise apartments
Mixed use development along the SW corner of the site
Retail and restaurant developments

Of course the city needs to be in the driver's seat on these aspects, as it is city land

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by canucklehead2

The Northlands situation is almost entirely a result of the Katz Ice District... No revenue from Rexall Place ($9M/year) means no $$ to pay for the loan on Expo Centre ($7M/year) = defaulting on the loan. And considering at least with the Coliseum part of the project, even IF it had construction cost overages it would still be significantly cheaper than building separate facilities across the city... Seems like a good $ for taxpayers to me.

no, the northlands situation long predates the ice district. northlands was struggling when the coliseum was first built there, a terrible decision that took decades to come to terms with just as keeping the municipal airport for decades after the international opened was a terrible decision. my concern with the entire vision 2020 discussion is that it's still being phrased in terms of "keeping northlands whole" or "northlands needs this to survive". while both may be correct, neither answers the underlying "why".

northlands was founded as an agricultural society in 1879 to foster the agriculture industry through varied initiatives, to be a catalyst for agriculture and to showcase the agricultural industry's contribution to alberta.

everything that was provided to northlands was to support those goals. without horseracing, without cfr and farmfair, without the race track, without the barns, what's left?

northlands was not incorporated to be "a destination for world-class entertainment, education, excitement and memories" or a meeting and convention centre or a year round host of minor hockey tournaments. and they were not incorporated to be a real estate developer of land and facilities they do not own.

does northlands provide an enterprise worth public funding and support in some form or fashion? i don't know. and the current proposals don't provide any answers to that. vision 2020 seems to be a vision for the redevelopment of underutilized lands within and owned by the city of edmonton, not a vision for northlands as an organization within the greater city fabric. without the latter, it's impossible to form an opinion on the appropriateness of the former.

[240glt]

ken, I'm quite disappointed that so many seem keen to weigh in without having even made the effort or spent the time to listen to what Tim Reid has said

As you obviously didn't listen, or bother to find out, Tim stated exactly what you've pontificated several times throughout the conversation

But the bottom line is that the city facilitated the demise of their primary revenue stream. So whether it's Northlands, the city, or someone else, something absolutely needs to happen to the site.

[canucklehead2]

Just to be clear for those of you following the Coliseum saga, I believe the $250M quote was for renovating the building into a modern 18,000 seat arena. How that was to happen was to expand the concourse outward by 9m then regrade the bowl.

That's entirely different from the current plan which is to turn it into 6-7 sheets of ice with a total of 3000 seats... That price tag is in the range of $85M which has been reported by the Journal and a few city councillors as cheaper than trying to build new complexes across the city with the same amount of space.

And when I said it would be cheaper to renovate, I meant the new plan for a recreation centre, however obviously even a total expansion/rebuild would still have been cheaper to do than to build downtown.

I also get why the downtown proposal was picked and how the city was backed into supporting it (Seattle being the new Houston after all) and I'm even pleasantly surprised to see the promised mixed-use development come to fruition despite the softening economy and my very deep sense of cynicism when it comes to grandiose downtown plans (Eaton Centre anyone?)...

Having said that, I do think what Northlands is brilliant and whole-heartedly support it for several reasons. The least of which is that I'm a Montrose resident and the area does need a good catalyst to continue its slow gentrification and this might just be it. Sure, the area still has problems but I'd much rather see it become a cleaner, safer place than sit in the shadow of crumbling ruins or at least a monster-sized mothball or worse yet another 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 strip mall/parking lot combo...

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by 240glt

ken, I'm quite disappointed that so many seem keen to weigh in without having even made the effort or spent the time to listen to what Tim Reid has said

As you obviously didn't listen, or bother to find out, Tim stated exactly what you've pontificated several times throughout the conversation

But the bottom line is that the city facilitated the demise of their primary revenue stream. So whether it's Northlands, the city, or someone else, something absolutely needs to happen to the site.

i'm not sure how my stating exactly what tim has stated can be construed as not listening or not bothering to find out what he has said. my comments are based on the fact that what he said doesn't seem to be part of the discussion or debate. the discussion and the debate and the reporting seems to be on northlands' implementing vision 2020, not northlands vision other than needing/wanting to implement vision 2020. it's cart before the horse before we've even determined if the horse is alive.

how is that not recognizing that they have a lost a primary part of their revenue stream?

and how is that not recognizing that something absolutely needs to happen to the site? with or without northlands, something absolutely needs to happen to the site. but even that discussion is cart before the horse, dead or alive. what's best for the site and the communities surrounding it may well be much different than vision 2020.

as a city we have two separate paths with two separate branches. does northlands have a future and should the redevelopment of those lands be dedicated to that? and/or should the redevelopment of those lands be supportive of the neighboring communities and should/could that include northlands. those things may not be mutually exclusive but the process and the priorities need to be determined first in either case.

[240glt]

Originally Posted by kcantor

i'm not sure how my stating exactly what tim has stated can be construed as not listening or not bothering to find out what he has said. my comments are based on the fact that what he said doesn't seem to be part of the discussion or debate. the discussion and the debate and the reporting seems to be on northlands' implementing vision 2020, not northlands vision other than needing/wanting to implement vision 2020. it's cart before the horse before we've even determined if the horse is alive.

how is that not recognizing that they have a lost a primary part of their revenue stream?

and how is that not recognizing that something absolutely needs to happen to the site? with or without northlands, something absolutely needs to happen to the site. but even that discussion is cart before the horse, dead or alive. what's best for the site and the communities surrounding it may well be much different than vision 2020.

as a city we have two separate paths with two separate branches. does northlands have a future and should the redevelopment of those lands be dedicated to that? and/or should the redevelopment of those lands be supportive of the neighboring communities and should/could that include northlands. those things may not be mutually exclusive but the process and the priorities need to be determined first in either case.

Well our local media has done a piss poor job (as usual) of providing all the context. But you've obviously glossed over the conversation and made an assumption that such conversations were not taking place

In any case, we agree something has to be done with the city owned land, and this is not anything new.. Surrounding communities have been hounding Northlands and their landlord, the city, to do something better with the land for years, to no avail. So we're now at a crossroads and this is the time to decide what to do, without the typical Edmonton dithering, delaying, then doing nothing, which is what the concern is. If Northlands has to disband, so be it. Edmonton has proven it doesn't care about it's institutions or history, so no real loss I guess. The Expo Centre is still an economic driver and an asset to the city, so perhaps the EEDC could run it (although they do a poor job of running the Shaw, but no one seems to care about that) and then the city can parcel out the rest of the property for development.

My worry is that the city is trying to position itself to look like the victim here and will simply throw their hands up and say "we tried" when they never had any intention to do anything all along.

The main reason I'll be sad to see Northlands go is all the grants, funding and support for communities and groups. They were exceptionally good at that, and once gone, a lot of communities and groups will lose that support. The OEG will not even come close to supporting Edmonton communities as Northlands does, so that's yet another big loss to the city

[Coldrsx]

'BreannaKarstensSmith ‏@BreannaCTV
Linda Cochrane officially chosen as City Manager after international search'
from SDM on C2E

Interesting that going out with that search we come back to Linda, but that's perfectly fine as Linda is an exceptional choice. Having had the pleasure of working with her on a few initiatives, she is compassionate, dedicated, no BS and gets things done.

[Coldrsx]

Linda Cochrane named new Edmonton city manager

ELISE STOLTE
More from Elise Stolte

Cheers and tears broke out at council Wednesday morning as Mayor Don Iveson announced that acting city manager Linda Cochrane has been chosen to lead administration at city hall.

“I’m just over the moon. It’s a realization of a lifetime dream. I couldn’t be happier,” said Cochrane, emotional after Iveson made the announcement.

“I’m very humbled and grateful for this opportunity,” she said, thanking council, the rest of the corporate leadership team, her family, and her daughter, who was watching the announcement live through an app on a councillor’s phone.

Cochrane replaces former city manager Simon Farbrother, who was let go in September after troubles with the Metro LRT line and council frustration over a lack of communication.

Council launched an international search to replace him. “With applications from candidates far and wide,” said Iveson, complimenting Cochrane for rising to the top.

Cochrane, 64, started her career as a swim instructor at Scona Pool and has spent most of her career in Edmonton. After a stint in Spruce Grove, she returned to the City of Edmonton in 1982 and started as general manager for the community services department in 2006.

http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/linda-cochrane-named-new-edmonton-city-manager

[middeljohn]

"Introduction to WELL" seminar at Buildex today at 12:30 for anyone who can make it.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Linda Cochrane named new Edmonton city manager


Cochrane, 64,

What's the city's mandatory retirement age?

[240glt]

Originally Posted by middeljohn

"Introduction to WELL" seminar at Buildex today at 12:30 for anyone who can make it.

Was hoping to get to the Buildex this year but just too much going on with projects and such. Did attend a really interesting conference with the Alberta Energy Efficiency Institute the other week.. That was quite informative

[middeljohn]

Originally Posted by 240glt

Was hoping to get to the Buildex this year but just too much going on with projects and such. Did attend a really interesting conference with the Alberta Energy Efficiency Institute the other week.. That was quite informative

Big changes coming May 1st for both commercial and residential. 5 years late, but a good thing nonetheless.

[Coldrsx]

[s13]

It would be nice for Northlands to be redeveloped, but are we at the point of saturation for hotels, large-scale brownfield residential projects, and city debt? The city's latest budget now uses 33% of tax revenue for debt financing... Might be near time to put these nice to haves on the shelf until the tax base once again expands in the future with growth (which could very well contract over the next couple of years).

As for Northlands organization itself, I doubt the city will forgive the loan considering they've the precedent they set a month ago with The Grey Paper. But who knows.

[240glt]

Originally Posted by middeljohn

Big changes coming May 1st for both commercial and residential. 5 years late, but a good thing nonetheless.

Yeah I've heard of some of the code changes coming. A good thing no-doubt, and I think we've learned from our mistakes of the past (envelope and condensation problems resulting from the last go-around) I think this will be a good step forward

I was hoping to get to the retro-commissioning seminar.. That's my expertise as a former Controls guy, and I've had great success with the programs we've already implemented

[McBoo]

Originally Posted by kcantor

... (gigantic snip) does northlands provide an enterprise worth public funding and support in some form or fashion? i don't know. and the current proposals don't provide any answers to that. vision 2020 seems to be a vision for the redevelopment of underutilized lands within and owned by the city of edmonton, not a vision for northlands as an organization within the greater city fabric. without the latter, it's impossible to form an opinion on the appropriateness of the former.

Thanks Ken, exactly. Wanted to take a few days though to be sure I wasn't feeling this way as a delayed reaction to the great arena debate. Okay, not so great debate for Northlands.

Not totally sure, but there could possibly be a business case made for the Coliseum re-make (given our love of hockey at all levels, plus maybe one or two sheets for indoor soccer). But sans pools, walking tracks and gymnasiums, let's not compare this project to recreation centres.

There might be a business case too for Hall D. A 5k venue might be perfect for some smaller concerts, who knows? Be perfect for the U of A Bears b/ball and hockey, but I don't see either leaving campus.

Festival space, not so sure. Yes, great to find a use for the existing grandstand, but space for 140k? Outside the Heritage Fest and bringing John Lennon back from the dead for a Beatles reunion, can't see the demand.

Apartments, condos, hotels? Hrrm, leave that to a real estate expert to weigh in on - but wonder how many people want a home beside a 140k festival spot?

So it comes down to the $48 million owed on Expo Centre which we're never getting back. Either we forgive and let Northlands soldier on or let them default and take the property over to .... do what?

I'm really on the fence. I actually suspect the whole festival ground notion is just a pitch to keep open space for a cheesy midway and dubious mid July carnival that never has, and suspect never will do for Edmonton what Stampede does for Calgary. Definitely want to see this idea fleshed out a whole lot better before deciding who I think would best develop that valuable property.

[s211]

Originally Posted by s13

The city's latest budget now uses 33% of tax revenue for debt financing...

Do you mean to say that 1/3 of taxes go toward debt servicing?