Edmonton Construction 13 (November 2015) - Page 142

edmontonoilers89 · #**2821** Posted **Jun 1, 2016, 2:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Healy on hold due to Alberta 'uncertainty', argh.

Damn this is so disappointing to hear! I think more than any other project, I was really excited to see this one go up and swallow up that whole parcel of land.

s211 · #**2822** Posted **Jun 1, 2016, 2:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Healy on hold due to Alberta 'uncertainty', argh.

That's particularly sad. Is the property currently occupied, or now vacant? I'm hoping it's not vacant, because of the related negative impacts that arise as a result.

feepa · #**2823** Posted **Jun 1, 2016, 3:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Awe

Multitask my friend.

Says the 30+ year old bachelor

edmontonoilers89 · #**2824** Posted **Jun 1, 2016, 3:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by s211

That's particularly sad. Is the property currently occupied, or now vacant? I'm hoping it's not vacant, because of the related negative impacts that arise as a result.

It's not vacant. My friend's car dealership is currently in there.

kcantor · #**2825** Posted **Jun 1, 2016, 4:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallsy's Toupee

^^ Then why hasn't more of them opened up in the area if there's a lack of them? Just curious.

because in many cases the city restricts them more than you realize. and they have lost the right to use the planning act in the manner they previously used to. and instead of accepting that and allowing the market to work the same way it does for pharmacies or convenience stores or restaurants, they took another run at implementing the same thing. and it will likely lose in the courts as well once it gets tested - as it should. and as a city we will all continue to pay a price we shouldn't have to until that happens.

GreenSPACE · #**2826** Posted **Jun 1, 2016, 6:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

The infrastructure is not there.

http://www.metronews.ca/news/edmonton/20...-upgrades-come-with-2-4-billion-tab.html

We're spending 2.4B to upgrade drainage in old neighborhoods to a standard that is normal in new development. Should that cost be born by all taxpayers?

Did that existing single family lot in some prime desirable mature area pay for recreation levies at the time of the development agreement in the 1920's? nope.

Was the city expansion that required a 2nd police station, 2nd fire hall, 2nd school etc paid for by the homeowners in the area that required it at the time that area was developed, no. neither did the third, fourth, fifth, etc, so what makes 2016 so special that we now decide to change the way these things are funded.

The new Calgary plan to address the expansion of the sanitary system is a perfect example. Historically, my understanding is the expansion of sanitary systems in new developments have been paid for by the city. this has been paid for by either taxes or utility fees.....I don't know. But now, the developer (with costs passed on to the homeowner) has to pay this costs. That's fine, but the homeowner in the new neighborhood is paying for not only the new expansion which is completely reasonable, but they are also contributing (through taxes or utility fees) at the same rate as the guy who developed in 2015. They're paying twice! Sure, the sanitary example is a minor costs in the grand scheme, but add on the same logic for water, storm, transportation, recreation, now maybe schools, police, fire etc.....its a very un equal way of paying for these

Look, it's as simple as this. Does it really matter if the expansion of infrastructure is paid upfront at the time of servicing or over the years through taxes and fees? It's getting paid for one way or the other. What I (and I guess the development industry) are saying is that by getting more and more of those costs up front you are being highly punitive to new development and it is extremely inequitable.

If we were starting a city from scratch it would be easy. You pay for the costs of the expansions required to service your property. Boom, everybody is happy. High costs up front, lower taxes later. But were not doing that. Were arbitrarily and inequitably distributing those upfront costs while essentially all living under a tax scheme that does not recognize that different areas of the city paid for the expansion of services under a different model.

Many people might have various reason to not like suburban development, despite my enthusiasm for it I wouldn't live in a new neighborhood. But to dislike it because you think it is costly is not a fair reason.

At some point in the future new greenfield will be old. It's just a matter of how we pay for it. Right now we're not calculating the total life cycle into the costs. It's way too complicated to discuss here. But the fact remains that the current system of property taxes and fees is unsustainable. Calgary has been much more ruthless on levies. It's coming, the changes in the MGA are on their way.

Affordability has little to do with greenfield vs. infill, its the total units you're creating. The government may also have a role to play, that is unclear to me because it has reneged on any responsibilities for a long time. But in other parts of the world the market and affordable housing works side-by-side.

My bias is and always has been to encourage people with decision-making capabilities to look at creating choice and look at emerging trends, best practices, financial and social sustainability. That unfortunately isn't greenfield as we do it now. Greenfield isn't going away, it's just how we do it and where our priorities lie. Public infrastructure dollars are extremely limited. We have to have intelligent debates on how they're spend.

Love, love, love to chat more about this over beers

240glt · #**2827** Posted **Jun 1, 2016, 7:45 PM**

This is positive news not for just the inner city but for problem properties in the 'burbs, downtown... everywhere

Edmonton community groups want tougher crackdown on problem properties

Edmonton’s residential compliance team needs to use a sledgehammer, not a screwdriver, to deal with nuisance properties, city council’s executive committee was told Tuesday.
...
Irene Blain, civic director for the West Jasper Place and Sherwood Community League, said seemingly lax attitudes in enforcing bylaws on troubled properties are allowing slum lords and drug dealers to “ghettoize” communities.
...
While the report highlighted how improved collaboration between agencies is helping the compliance team better deal with complex issues surrounding group homes, lodges, apartments, fraternity houses and secondary suites, city officials said a lack of staffing has left them struggling to investigate in a timely manner and limited their ability to followup.

For example, semi-detached secondary suite investigations take, on average, 193 days from when a complaint is raised for the team to achieve compliance.

“These are parasites on our communities and we have to do well for our citizens,” Coun. Scott McKeen said about problem properties, adding he is frustrated on behalf of residents.
...
Mayor Don Iveson said the “signal to executive committee today was do it and do it aggressively.”

http://edmontonjournal.com/business/real...-tougher-crackdown-on-problem-properties

rapid_business · #**2828** Posted **Jun 1, 2016, 8:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMD UW

The major deterrent being landownership is fragmented and that the City has already given 'density rights' to these properties which makes assembling land difficult and costly. The City should have assembled these lands PRIOR to bringing forth the new redevelopment plan and upzoning. They could have sold off assembled and serviced parcels to developers. This is how the CMLC did East Village.

Kinda like downtown Fort Mac. They upzoned everything for 35 plus storeys, and then went about assembling the land themselves after prices skyrocketed based on the new theoretical value.

rapid_business · #**2829** Posted **Jun 1, 2016, 8:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMD UW

I agree, it's easy to get 'caught up' with your own life and find there seems to be less time to worry about some of the other things. That being said, as someone who is busy with my own personal and professional life, I still try to make this city a better place. Having a child of my own has motivated me to want to improve the city for him. I am fortunate that I am able to do this through my profession and by volunteering on committees that are associated with impacting the city. I also find myself visiting more of the city's great venues such as the zoo, farmers markets, ice castles, Telus World Science, parks, etc, etc.

I'm with you 100% on this.

Hallsy's Toupee · #**2830** Posted **Jun 2, 2016, 3:04 AM**

City of Edmonton pushes to save historic Iron Works building

Metro:
http://www.metronews.ca/news/edmonton/20...o-save-historic-iron-works-building.html

CTV:
http://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/city-looks-to-reinvent-historic-building-in-boyle-1.2927464

Makenosmallplans · #**2831** Posted **Jun 2, 2016, 4:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallsy's Toupee

City of Edmonton pushes to save historic Iron Works building

Metro:
http://www.metronews.ca/news/edmonton/20...o-save-historic-iron-works-building.html

CTV:
http://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/city-looks-to-reinvent-historic-building-in-boyle-1.2927464

expropriate. pay owner current fair market value and move on.

Black Star · #**2832** Posted **Jun 2, 2016, 2:52 PM**

^Bingo.....

Owner says he wants to level it!

240glt · #**2833** Posted **Jun 2, 2016, 2:57 PM**

Unfortunately the city has dithered and waffled on this one for so long that it's pretty unlikely it will be saved. SDAB approved the demo because the applicant had been trying to get any sort of response or direction from the city for months and he was basically ignored

The city could have saved the old York and the neat old barns where they put that ugly Canada Post building and it could have been a pretty neat street. Too little too late

Coldrsx · #**2834** Posted **Jun 2, 2016, 3:09 PM**

Reynolds Development Site- SOLD

Address

10645- 102 Street, Edmonton

Details

For Sale

Land Area: 30,000.00 SF

SOLD

June 1, 2016

Sold Price: $1,400,000

Description

PRICE REDUCED! The Reynolds Site is located just north of the Downtown core in an infill neighborhood. It is within walking distance of the new Rogers Arena, the City Centre Shopping Mall and the new LRT expansion. The Rogers Arena and entertainment district will inevitably bring new life to this sector of downtown with an increased demand for housing. Completion of Rogers Arena is scheduled for Summer 2016. The City of Edmonton has expanded the LRT through the neighborhood, which significantly increases the reach of our public transportation system. The CB2 portion of the site is expected to be rezoned to RA8 (Medium Rise Apartment) with a total of 30,000 SF of developable land. An RA8 zoning on the Reynolds site will allow for approximately 62 units and up to 6-storeys in height. The adjacent RA8 development is comprised of 63 condos with underground parking. The city is an advocate of infill development and intelligent densification in this location. Preliminary discussions with City Planning indicate a favorable response to RA8 zoning.

Property Features

Site Area: 30,000 SF - ($63/SF)
Zoning: CB2 (22,500SF) and RA8 (7,500SF)
Mature neighborhood Overlay, Medium Scale Residential Infill
Central McDougall Neighborhood
Existing warehouse/ manufacturing building built in the 1950's

www.colliers.com