Edmonton Construction 13 (November 2015)

[Channing]

Originally Posted by kcantor

from a curiosity perspective, did you object fo the existing hyatt place and proposed artshab projects for not respecting the work of the planner, the administration and city council "who already approved a certain plan"?

is looking at this proposed change to that certain plan on its merits any different than looking at that certain plan's changes to the previously approved jasper east village plans which was also done on merits incorporating updated information and objectives?

The Hyatt Place is indeed double the density of what's allowed. They respected the ground floor commercial requirements (as far as I know) and I think raised the bar on the built form for what might be expected in the area.

I no longer remember if it had to, or did, meet any extra requirements because of the change in zoning. I would sure hope so. Otherwise I'd have the same issue.

The Arts Hab is an even bigger ask than the Hyatt in the same Quarters distric (the Armature) but in this case is commuting to sustainability and would maybe meet the requirements of the nearby Five Corners Quarter.

So I think that my general thought process is, is what is being asked for above and beyond what's allowed? If so, how are they responding to this ask for what's above and beyond? If you can demonstrate that you're providing something in return (again, not straight up cash) and that this something in return is relative to what you're asking, then go ahead. The Quarters ARP has mechanisms in it for just this process. Even meeting that might satisfy, even if you're beyond the height recommend there.

[Mikemike]

I have to agree with Channing.

An agreement to allow them to build their parking under a city lot in exchange for building and maintaining a park in top is entirely reasonable. So is allowing them exceed hight regulations in exchange for maintaining open space that the city wants on part of their lot. Maybe even a small density bonus for that, in addition to being allowed to shifting the allowed density from the no-build part of the site to the tower.

Beyond that is more of the ad-hoc reactionary "planning" that we do too often.

One thing that the city should remember, though, is that the other option was that the city would buy the lot and build the park. So yeah, the city was prepared to spend some money and should continue to be, no matter what they allow aldritt to build. There's no reason that the city shouldn't build the bridge over greirson hill to the park, which Aldritt has already cut from their offer.

[hilman]

View from the Ultima, pretty sweet!!


http://yegishome.ca/home/E4049815

[Black Star]

Wow great letter Mr Cantor......

That about sums it up perfectly.


Riverdale folk are obviously good people

[Black Star]

Originally Posted by hilman

View from the Ultima, pretty sweet!!


http://yegishome.ca/home/E4049815

Thanks for the screen saver. Thats just a wicked shot.

[Boris2k7]

I cannot believe that there is actually an economic case for this tower. 280m in this market? And from a developer who hasn't built anything larger than a semi-detached?

This has to be some cynical ploy to upzone and sell the land. Seen it a number of times in Calgary.

[Coldrsx]

That shot is incredible.

[noodlenoodle]

Shame the same can't be said about the trainwreck of a unit it's taken from. Ye gods. $650+ a square foot but no direct natural light, no bathtub, a barely-code bedroom (nice transom window) & a terrible layout with negligible storage.

Yeeeeeeeeeesh.

[edm_guy]

^ I went to an open house for the same unit layout on the 8th floor. And you're right noodle, the realtor/photographer did a great job on the pictures.

In person, it is TINY. And not having any natural light, or outdoor windows in the bedroom was not an option for me.

I think it could make a good investment property for short term leases or Airbnb

[noodlenoodle]

As someone who's constantly on the lookout for new investment properties I've yet to find anything modern (5-10 years old) Downtown that's got worthwhile margins.

I'm not a short-term/AirBnB type guy though & I know that changes the economics a lot (at the cost of lots of effort). I haven't had a tenant move out sooner than 3 years in a decade.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

I cannot believe that there is actually an economic case for this tower. 280m in this market? And from a developer who hasn't built anything larger than a semi-detached?

Why the city doesn't ask simple questions like this and save everyone a lot of time is beyond me.

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by s211

Why the city doesn't ask simple questions like this and save everyone a lot of time is beyond me.

Who knows. It might even be the reason I don't work at the city anymore.

/notreally

[kcantor]

^ ^^

this thread is sounding strangely reminiscent with opinions much like those expressed about qualico and epcor tower...

[Hallsy's Toupee]

Originally Posted by Hallsy's Toupee

Saw this on Brad Ferguson's twitter. New ad campaign targetting the USA?

https://twitter.com/EEDC_BRAD/status/825476942522630146

Trump-eting Edmonton's virtues in a time of uncertainty
http://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/colum...montons-virtues-in-a-time-of-uncertainty

Ferguson created the ad himself. No marketing department. No ad agency. No focus groups.

“It was a very quick decision. I just felt it was something we needed to do,” he says. “I didn’t look at it as opportunism. We just wanted to be present, to be part of the conversation.”

[Hallsy's Toupee]

More from the above article:

that one tweet, says Ferguson, led to 15 inquiries to EEDC, including one from a San Francisco-based tech company. Three of their programmers, says Ferguson, were Iranian citizens, working in California on H-1B American visas, the so-called “genius visas” issued to highly skilled specialized workers. They’d had been in Tokyo on business, and were now barred from re-entering the US.

Ferguson says the EEDC is now following up on eight solid leads. And yes. He’s serious about that 48-hour promise, at least in some cases.

[jakethesnake]

^That's actually impressive.

[s211]

Originally Posted by kcantor

^ ^^

this thread is sounding strangely reminiscent with opinions much like those expressed about qualico and epcor tower...

Or those very valid opinions about the Edmontonian, that beer can office building... I can go on.

[Black Star]

^ the capital and business acumen between the alldritt boys and the Edmontonian fiasco is quite a bit different.

[BretttheRiderFan]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

The cumulative impact and change from this is going to be absolutely massive. I am still not convinced people quite comprehend the magnitude of all of this.

I've been saying this to people for a while and it couldn't be more true. We won't recognize the skyline in two years.

[BretttheRiderFan]

Originally Posted by Black Star

All eggs are not in one basket when this gets built. Why do people keep on saying this? The developer has a vision. And this is an 80-story tower.

Just because its tall…woooooooo...life sucker. The city should not be asking a lot in return. The return is the massive property tax the COE will collect. The Quarters has been a ghost town all my life.

In the last 5 years, we have seen incremental improvements which is very refreshing. Planning and building happens piece meal...this just happens to be a BIG piece.

Cantor has a vision which is a smaller piece...but equally as important in this area. Im not worried about what a 50 year old zoning law says. The COE is progressing and we have to be all in.

IMO…build it…think big.

Hell yes