News   Apr 03, 2020
 7.7K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 8.6K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 2.8K     0 

Downtown Real Estate

The numbers don't make sense because it is not attractive enough to live there and the reasons it is not attractive enough go back to the fundamental issues I brought up.

Unfortunately, throwing money at it may seem to be an easy solution, but it really does not fix things.
Any yet developers want to build there for a better Downtown. Which having more people living Downtown in the long term will improve all those issues.
 
Honestly, the whole issue of people wanting to live downtown is slowly becoming a moot point, especially since CMHC numbers along with Puneeta McBryan's statements during the committee session earlier have stated that vacancy rates downtown have dropped massively. At this rate, it's not a question if people are going to live downtown, they're going to by lack of rental vacancies in the suburbs and other areas. I don't think it's 2021 anymore where this conversation was a genuine topic of debate. Student populations along with net migration are going to keep increasing at this rate.

For all intents and purposes, I'm supportive of a grant (granted, I 100% oppose the money to come out of the CRL funding though, which is why I'm fully supportive of the money coming out of the Housing Accelerator Fund). I'm hoping Sohi's question during the committee clarifying what's the most, black and white, effective way to spur development (with everyone stating a grant) means that we're moving towards that direction.
I agree, it is a moot point and feel the problem may solve itself in time as vacancies decline in the area and elsewhere. So better not to throw a bunch of government money in to try force something that is not ready to happen just yet, but may be in a year or two.

If governments really want to throw money around, I would rather it be on affordable housing projects instead, which by the way can be built downtown too.
 
Any yet developers want to build there for a better Downtown. Which having more people living Downtown in the long term will improve all those issues.
If they want to build, great just do it, figure it out, make it work and quit whining for a hand out. Some of these are large profitable companies. If they can't make it work, then it is just not the right time now.
 
^That's not how business and ROI's work. Some international lender or CMHC isn't' going to give anyone financing for a project that has rental rates or pricing lower than their costs of construction. That's simple math.

The time is EXACTLY now. With 50,000 people a year moving to our city we can't afford to not have projects built Downtown for the health of our city. Again it can be paid for by Downtown taxpayers as I've already explained.
 
This is exactly what I've been advocating for on this forum for a long time now. Yes, we absolutely need more residents in the core to not only make make things more lively, but to reach that critical mass to support local businesses. And I support incentives and grants to help spur development in the core too.

But it drives me nuts that this city does so little to try and attract unique corporations and companies to set up shop downtown. I understand that long gone are the days of people coming in person to work at their 9-5 downtown office, but getting companies to have their address downtown does help with people (especially young professionals) to want to be closer to work and thereby requiring amenities close to them and spurring development in and around downtown.

It's disheartening when you see your neighbours to the south always campaign to try and attract companies to move on down there and the results have been a lot better then what we see here.
Yes, the mentality here is so suburban and provincial, even amongst many of our business community leaders. One example - Shaw when it was based here never had a downtown location for decades, when it relocated to Calgary what did it do, almost the first thing? Built a nice fancy office building building right downtown!
 
Some useful and important things the City recently didn't fund or didn't want to fund because it claimed it didn't have the money:

1. ETS service to airport
2. Replace aging buses, old LRT cars
3. End Poverty Now
4. Wage increases for its staff
5. Bissel centre day shelter spaces

But so someone can get a better deal on a nice new condo downtown that no one wants to build right now, hey property developers we have cash and btw don't forget to donate come election time.
 
Some useful and important things the City recently didn't fund or didn't want to fund because it claimed it didn't have the money:

1. ETS service to airport
2. Replace aging buses, old LRT cars
3. End Poverty Now
4. Wage increases for its staff
5. Bissel centre day shelter spaces

But so someone can get a better deal on a nice new condo downtown that no one wants to build right now, hey property developers we have cash and btw don't forget to donate come election time.
Some people like shiny new toys. I for one, am one of those people. "End poverty" - meh. "Wage increases for staff" - when was the last time you had a pay raise? Bus to airport - get a "Lyft." See where I'm going with this?
 
Didn't the City just give its employees a wage increase? Aren't they some of the most comparable in the country?

Annoyed by the whole day shelter issue. City steps in emergency to provide extra money for day shelter space during Covid, Province tells us they give enough money for shelters to be open 24/7, social service agencies say something different. No idea who to believe. It is a provincial responsibility but also our monies for some of those services are dolled out by Homeward Trust who has a very large budget. It's very confusing.
 
Didn't the City just give its employees a wage increase? Aren't they some of the most comparable in the country?

Annoyed by the whole day shelter issue. City steps in emergency to provide extra money for day shelter space during Covid, Province tells us they give enough money for shelters to be open 24/7, social service agencies say something different. No idea who to believe. It is a provincial responsibility but also our monies for some of those services are dolled out by Homeward Trust who has a very large budget. It's very confusing.
There are so many mixed messages in all of this. Every other day - it's either the city, province or Feds making a speech or giving away some Ralph bucks...lol. But you never know if it's money promised on already money promised......etc.
 
The numbers don't make sense because it is not attractive enough to live there and the reasons it is not attractive enough go back to the fundamental issues I brought up.

Unfortunately, throwing money at it may seem to be an easy solution, but it really does not fix things.

Doesn't more residents (brought in large part by throwing money at it) address many of the things that make it not attractive?
 
Some useful and important things the City recently didn't fund or didn't want to fund because it claimed it didn't have the money:

1. ETS service to airport
2. Replace aging buses, old LRT cars
3. End Poverty Now
4. Wage increases for its staff
5. Bissel centre day shelter spaces

But so someone can get a better deal on a nice new condo downtown that no one wants to build right now, hey property developers we have cash and btw don't forget to donate come election time.
Unhelpful simplification that borders on untrue, if not completely, intentionally misleading.
 
^
I'd be interesting in knowing your thoughts on spending $680,000 updating websites, maps, signage and bylaws changing the name of Oliver to Wihkwentowin noting that those monies will come from the City's "supplemental budget" (as if they're less real dollars than the regular budget). It's also worth noting that doesn't include the costs that will incurred by the private sector if they don't want to be "orphaned" in the process...
 
I suspect that many, many businesses and condos/apartments will not shell out money to reregister their licenses/plans, change their business letterheads, business cards, web sites, redo signage, on and on. I'm not a fan of the change. Along the same vein, maybe a rename of Emily Murphy Park is in order; after all, she was a proponent of eugenics and called for the expulsion of Chinese immigrants. Sure she did good things too; so did Frank Oliver. For the record, I am not an apologist for Mr. Oliver.
 
Last edited:
I suspect that many, many businesses and condos/apartments will not shell out money to reregister their licenses/plans, change their business letterheads, business cards, web sites, redo signage, on and on. I'm not a fan of the change. Along the same vein, maybe a rename of Emily Murphy Park is in order; after all, she was a proponent of eugenics and called for the expulsion of Chinese immigrants. Sure she did good things too; so did Frank Oliver. For the record, I am not an apologist for Mr. Oliver.
Yeah this is a tricky issue. I’d rather just see some sort of plaque or something in the community that speaks honestly to both the good things the person did and also the bad things. Can’t change history but I think it would be more helpful to just lay the facts out both good and bad
 

Back
Top