Edmonton Construction 13 (November 2015)

[itom 987]

My reasons why Alldritt Tower should be approved.


Identity
The CN Tower looked out of scale when it was built.


Source:
http://charlesfrancisblog.com/february-6th-1973-the-day-they-started-building-the-cn-tower/

Look at now! I don't see anyone complaining.


Source: http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2016/03/photo-day-toronto-blue

Marketing
The enhanced marketing tools the CN Tower gave Toronto.


Source: http://www.toronto-tourist.com/toronto_travel_guide/1_toronto_attractions.php


Tourism
"The Empire State Building makes more money from tickets sales for its observation decks than it does from renting office space."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_State_Building


Broadcasting
Alldritt Tower can be used for broadcasting Over-The-Air TV making thousands of cord cutters rejoice while improving commercial revenue for stations due to increased number of viewers. The tower can also be used for cellphone communication and internet removing who knows how many cell phone towers throughout the city.

Security and Safety
The tower acts like a gigantic watch tower keeping an eye on the area.

[Black Star]

^ Perfect....

[ue]

Originally Posted by s4.audios

Honestly I agree with your view point, what you are getting at. I'd rather support more human scale in quarters. I just personally would say this one tower is an exception. A skyscraper district may not be that inviting, but just one tower is not going to have that effect. Especially when you look at what Aldritt is proposing at the ground level; a rather large, elaborate, and green public space.

There is proof the Quarters is having a really tough time getting interest from developers. I think this project will will spur that, at a much more human scale as well.

I appreciate that the Quarters is having a tough time getting off the ground. It's remarkable vis-a-vis East Village in Calgary. I do think the building is well designed and has good use of greenspace and preserves views (in a way). But if this is the sole building in the Quarters anywhere approaching even 200m, it's going to stick out massively. It took decades for Toronto's skyline to fill the height gap in-between the Financial District and the CN Tower.

Originally Posted by itom 987

Scale has never been the problem. Street level development and skyscrapers can work well together, there are many cities besides New York and Hong Kong that have vibrant street life in their skyscraper districts. Poor planning has always been the problem.

I tend to view Alldritt Tower as being a giagantic watch tower. Residents living there will be able to spot riffraff and crime happening throughout the Quarters and the river valley. This tower has a good chance of cleaning up the area around it, making it safe to walk in at night. The city can add a "no flipping" condition along with the approval to prevent Alldritt from ripping us off. Edmonton has nothing to loose by approving this development.

They can, and yes, there are other examples, but examples like Rene Levesque in Montreal, Bay Street in Toronto, Grand Ave in LA, or Canary Wharf in London are more common. I do agree that this building does have decent care for the streetscape, but it is very out of scale and thus still quite imposing.

[itom 987]

All those examples you mentioned could have been made more vibrant through proper mixed use planning.

[CMD UW]

Call me a skeptic but I don't think we'll see this one get off the drawing boards. I am not sold on the idea of this being 'legacy' tower and all that jazz. I think there is some positioning going on here. But as I've always said, prove me wrong.

[itom 987]

I hope the city words the agreement in such a way that it forces Alldritt to do exactly what they say they are going to do with, no way to escape. Call their bluff if they refuse to sign.

[feepa]

I'd like to see that written legally. I don't think there's any way the city can force Aldritt to not later flip its land, if it so chose.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by feepa

I'd like to see that written legally. I don't think there's any way the city can force Aldritt to not later flip its land, if it so chose.

there are some provisions that can be included but the real issue isn't actually whether the land can be resold or not. the real issue is what can/will be built on it and the city has complete control over that regardless of who owns it.

[CMD UW]

Originally Posted by feepa

I'd like to see that written legally. I don't think there's any way the city can force Aldritt to not later flip its land, if it so chose.

Correct, they have no ability to restrict the owner from selling the land. However, if there is a land swap, and the owners decide to sell the land the City can add a caveat on title granting them first right of refusal to buy back the land at a predetermined value.

[MalcolmTucker]

A shotgun option!

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by CMD UW

Correct, they have no ability to restrict the owner from selling the land. However, if there is a land swap, and the owners decide to sell the land the City can add a caveat on title granting them first right of refusal to buy back the land at a predetermined value.

it's not quite that simple...

yes, this would preclude the land from being sold but it would also preclude anything being developed on the land from being financeable. no lender would accept the potential risk of a buy back clause at a price that could be less than the mortgage funds that may have been advanced.

trying to mitigate the financing risk by having the buy back clause be at a predetermined value plus the cost of any work completed would simply lead to a local example of one of the failures of the oilsands financing formula - there would be no incentive to secure work at reasonable costs and not penalty for failing to have done so.

[Threlc]

Saw them unloading some long metal beam type of things at the Augustana site this morning.

[Mikemike]

CP just sold an unused line to the City of Vancouver, and was able to include clauses to the effect that if the city were to change plans (it's zoned transportation only) then CP rather than the city gets the bulk of the windfall.

It wouldn't be hard to do something similar here, only it's currently the city's land that may be sold.

[Airboy]

looks like a tower crane is being assembled beside Holes Enjoy Centre. Do not know what this project is though.

[BretttheRiderFan]

Originally Posted by craner

So are you concerned that if the tower goes ahead that the chances of horizontal development (midrises) getting built in the future are lessened ?

Exactly.

Nothing could possibly be better for development in the Quarters than this idea. So many are failing to see this.

[BretttheRiderFan]

The CN Tower comparisons came to mind as well. When something with vision like this comes around, forward-thinking people need to look at the bigger picture. This is a huge opportunity for Edmonton.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Mikemike

CP just sold an unused line to the City of Vancouver, and was able to include clauses to the effect that if the city were to change plans (it's zoned transportation only) then CP rather than the city gets the bulk of the windfall.

It wouldn't be hard to do something similar here, only it's currently the city's land that may be sold.

to quote from one of the attachments in the report to executive committee, the price is the total of:

"A base purchase price reflecting the market value of the lands..."

plus

"An additional payment based on increased development rights obtained through the rezoning and used in the development permit."

[Coldrsx]

Encore!

https://twitter.com/DavidEwasukCTV/status/832346118289645568

[Makenosmallplans]

Originally Posted by Threlc

Saw them unloading some long metal beam type of things at the Augustana site this morning.

Looks like shoring piles/soldier piles.

[jakethesnake]

Yay, encore is really beautiful tower.