Edmonton Construction 13 (November 2015) - Page 139

Boris2k7 · #**2761** Posted **May 31, 2016, 6:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

If Edmonton followed Calgary's lead and made new single family housing completely unaffordable and limited approval of new suburban neighborhoods to a fraction of what the city could absorb....yeah...East Jasper could be like the East Village........But thankfully, despite all their other faults, city admin is far more reasonable and practical than our neighbors to the south when it comes to social engineering.

Uh, no. There's no connection at all between those two things.

East Village is successful because of (1) the sophisticated land management process that CMLC has put in place, (2) public investment into infrastructure to induce development, and (3) a cohort of buyers who are interested in urban lifestyles and/or see an investment opportunity.

SHOFEAR · #**2762** Posted **May 31, 2016, 7:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makenosmallplans

I guess it all depends on which social engineering policies you prefer.

Policies that give people a choice.

Until the city places a levy on mature neighborhoods to collect the same funds that are currently required for levies for developing new neighborhoods its so incredibly hypocritical for people to complain about the cost of suburban development. Your mature neighborhood got all sorts of freebies that the tax payer paid for, but screw the next generation of homeowners.

Coldrsx · #**2763** Posted **May 31, 2016, 7:08 PM**

Not screw, rather provide them with a more balanced cost structure. Choice is important, but cheap/easy/quick/far certainly needs to reined in.

Coldrsx · #**2764** Posted **May 31, 2016, 7:15 PM**

Odd letter. Not sure she re-read this before submitting.

http://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/colum...ew-lot-splitting-rules-not-the-right-fix

240glt · #**2765** Posted **May 31, 2016, 7:26 PM**

I posted that yesterday. And she is right about lot splitting and affordability

I think this was a fairly balanced opinion piece, and highlights the fallacy that some infill builders perpetuate as truth re: affordability

Coldrsx · #**2766** Posted **May 31, 2016, 7:30 PM**

Front Yards In Bloom kicks off with colourful flourish

RYAN GARNER

Featuring cascading rows of multi-coloured flowers, beautifully balanced landscaping or stoically simple rock gardens, Front Yards In Bloom has been enriching Edmonton neighbourhoods since 1999, rewarding local green thumbs for their dedication to beautification.

The program kicked off with a bang this year, as Edmonton city councillors Mohinder Banga, Tony Caterina, Scott McKeen and Mike Nickel got wrist-deep in potting soil and created their own planters. Each of the four planters currently adorn Churchill Square, and people can visit the Edmonton Journal website to vote for their favourite between now and June 20.

http://edmontonjournal.com/life/homes/front-yards-in-bloom-kicks-off-with-colourful-flourish

MalcolmTucker · #**2767** Posted **May 31, 2016, 7:35 PM**

The individual property may not be more affordable, but for the market segment - entirely renovated or new high end homes with proximity to the core it helps keep a lid on prices. You need higher density that just splitting to keep prices flat for property with similar utility.

If a community wanted to remain mostly single family, the best option would be to allow for walk up density in the community (along bus routes, proximate to commercial) while not allowing subdividing. The community would change for sure, but it would displace fewer people.

Think north of Whyte and east of 99th?

Coldrsx · #**2768** Posted **May 31, 2016, 7:36 PM**

Eight condos sold in May!
The countdown is on! With 8 condos sold in the month of May, there is now just 11 suites remaining in Ultima Condominiums.

Picture yourself moving into the heart of downtown this summer! There is no waiting to live in this brand new building as possessions are starting this month.

Imagine living just steps away from Ice District. Feel downtown pulse as you watch Rogers Place fill up for its first Oilers game from the comfort of your own living room.

Suites are going quickly, so hurry and make Ultima your new now home today!

One bedrooms- Starting from $360,000
Two bedrooms- Starting from $367,000
Penthouses- Starting from $1,044,000

Ultima Tower email

240glt · #**2769** Posted **May 31, 2016, 7:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The individual property may not be more affordable, but for the market segment - entirely renovated or new high end homes with proximity to the core it helps keep a lid on prices. You need higher density that just splitting to keep prices flat for property with similar utility.

If a community wanted to remain mostly single family, the best option would be to allow for walk up density in the community (along bus routes, proximate to commercial) while not allowing subdividing. The community would change for sure, but it would displace fewer people.

Think north of Whyte and east of 99th?

They need more higher density development along major corridors, as the author noted. That drives density, along with other measures. Knocking down an older 400k home to build two 800k homes adds a few people, but drives down affordability greatly. The single family house will always be the preferred style for most people, so taking away those central options just pushes people further away

240glt · #**2770** Posted **May 31, 2016, 8:33 PM**

As an aside, I am on the lookout for a 4th or 3rd class Power Engineer for a supervisory role in our downtown complex. If you know anyone who's looking send me a PM!

Makenosmallplans · #**2771** Posted **May 31, 2016, 8:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

Policies that give people a choice.

Until the city places a levy on mature neighborhoods to collect the same funds that are currently required for levies for developing new neighborhoods its so incredibly hypocritical for people to complain about the cost of suburban development. Your mature neighborhood got all sorts of freebies that the tax payer paid for, but screw the next generation of homeowners.

Choice is the point. Far flung suburban living is encouraged in the economic sense because of low price and subsidization on a number of levels, not just the affected ratepayers. I live in a 1960's vintage neighborhood with only SFHs. I'm still waiting for the freebies to be dropped off ...maybe this is my lucky day given my 30 odd years of paying property taxes.... but I think sidewalks in my area are on the repair list for ... 2024? But you know, ring roads and new schools and roads and overpasses. My house has been contributing to the city's tax base since 1960, so you'd think hey, maybe a little something for the effort? And I'm sure back in 1960 the developer had to deal with the 'levies' of the day. Things move forward.

My point is that outward development is not just "the way of things". It is a choice we made in the past and continue to make through policies or lack thereof. If its a desired preference by consumers then the price should rise in a properly functioning market. Until land, gasoline and road maintenance costs make far flung living a scarce resource, i don't see it as endangered as a choice in any way. We all have creating accounting methods that we use to justify our preferences.

s211 · #**2772** Posted **May 31, 2016, 9:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

Uh, no. There's no connection at all between those two things.

East Village is successful because of (1) the sophisticated land management process that CMLC has put in place, (2) public investment into infrastructure to induce development, and (3) a cohort of buyers who are interested in urban lifestyles and/or see an investment opportunity.

East Village also attracted name brand developers, and East Village was no way near the DTES-equivalent wasteland that the Quarters area is.

240glt · #**2773** Posted **May 31, 2016, 9:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by s211

East Village also attracted name brand developers, and East Village was no way near the DTES-equivalent wasteland that the Quarters area is.

It was pretty rough over there 15 years ago. Used to ride my bike through there all the time from the bike path that went around the Stampede grounds. It was pretty sketchy.

What it didn't have was the acres of surface lots and dilapidated buildings.. Or at least not nearly as many as the Quarters downtown. I agree the Quarters faces some serious challenges to get off the ground

240glt · #**2774** Posted **May 31, 2016, 9:20 PM**

Someone's throwing some money into one of those older walk-ups adjacent to the Muttart site. Good to see

Job No 222565651-001
Description: To construct exterior alterations to an Apartment Housing Use Building.
Location: 10931 - 83 STREET NW
Condo Common Area (Plan 7621170)

Applicant: PLANWORKS ARCHITECTURE INC, MARK TKACHUK
Status: New
Create Date: 5/26/2016 3:14:24 PM
Neighbourhood: CROMDALE

240glt · #**2775** Posted **May 31, 2016, 9:21 PM**

This one issued. Great to see that vacant lot gone. Now for that mixed use mid rise on 112th and 82, which I see they are remediating right now....

Reference ID: Job No 186525558-001
Description: To construct a General Retail Stores and Minor Alcohol Sales building (CRU 101 - Minor Alcohol Sales, CRUs 102/103/104/105 - General Retail Stores).
Location: 11250 - 82 STREET NW
Plan 8922019 Blk 9 Lot 5

Applicant: D & R CONSTRUCTION LTD
Status: Issued
Create Date: 1/29/2016 11:33:37 AM
Neighbourhood: CROMDALE

Coldrsx · #**2776** Posted **May 31, 2016, 9:35 PM**

Just what that area needs...

240glt · #**2777** Posted **May 31, 2016, 9:38 PM**

I hope it gets some good retailers

Coldrsx · #**2778** Posted **May 31, 2016, 9:46 PM**

Expect surprises in the new Alberta Government Municipal Government Act

ELISE STOLTE

....

Taxing urban blight
Edmonton wants a new tax class to deal with those muddy parking lots downtown or the empty store fronts on otherwise hopping main streets.

Currently, it’s allowed one tax rate for everything not residential. And the bill is based on what the land is worth. An empty lot pays less than a building, much less than a nice building, giving a bonus to those who let their property decay.

“It’s essentially creating blight,” said Iveson, who wants the ability to charge derelict or vacant land a higher rate.

Edmonton’s formal submissions also suggest the city could tax higher-density residential areas less to encourage infill.

http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-ne...erta-government-municipal-government-act

GreenSPACE · #**2779** Posted **May 31, 2016, 9:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

Policies that give people a choice.

Until the city places a levy on mature neighborhoods to collect the same funds that are currently required for levies for developing new neighborhoods its so incredibly hypocritical for people to complain about the cost of suburban development. Your mature neighborhood got all sorts of freebies that the tax payer paid for, but screw the next generation of homeowners.

That is factually inaccurate. While developers bear the cost of new greenfields initially, their long term costs outweigh the tax revenue generated. Low density mature neighbourhoods also don't pull their weight, but at least the infrastructure is already there, and don't require further expansion of freeways, overpasses, policing, rec centres etc. Those are all costs to taxpayers.

noodlenoodle · #**2780** Posted **May 31, 2016, 9:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt

I hope it gets some good retailers

Me too. It's quite a nice part of town that's still got a bit of a stigma attached to it. It's not on my short list of neighborhoods I'd live in, but it's certainly somewhere I'd consider investing.

One small liquor store does not the second coming of The Cromdale make.