MacLac
Senior Member
‘Ol Danni there will cut her nose off to spite her face if it meant that she would go hat in hand to Justin……in other words - she would rather turn away “free” Justin housing bucks then be grateful
Yup. It's very unlikely that they don't start phase II next year. Time of the year might change, add they might decide to go for the shorter commercial building first and build the tower right after, if conditions are less than ideal, but everything that I've heard from people involved with this project has shovels in the ground in 2025.I think ChazYEG mentioned that Parks Phase II is going forward next year (most likely)
Projects we are seeing downtown are struggling to get viable. Edmonton is just not seeing the rental rate growth we need in downtown for some projects to be worth moving forward on. Its double edge, rental rate increases are negatives for renters, but to have some of these downtown projects go forward and provide rental options for renters you need more/higher rental rate growth. Current new build lease ups in Oliver leases are seeing between $2.80 per sq. ft. to $3 per sq. ft. That rental number needs to be higher to compensate for the high construction costs and financing costs that continue to stay high from interest rates.Really curious to see when and how phase 2 lands. Hearing from folks involved that there are very real concerns about pricing and the current viability of it all.
It's directly related to CMHC financing, which almost all new rental buildings use. The math doesn't add up for Downtown when you take this all into account.Yeah so far this is what I've been seeing from everyone here and other places, just to summarize. If I missed anything, feel free to point it out.
Possible Negatives?
- high construction costs
- high interest rates
- perception on safety downtown
Possible Positives?
- increased migration for the next few years (driving rent growth)
- Vacancy rates dropping (driving rent growth).
- Possibility of lower interest rates later on this year (lowered financing costs)
- GST cancellation on purpose built rentals (lowered final costs?)
- Property Tax (or the premium, can't remember off the top of my head) for rental apartments being lowered
- And the new $15 billion top up to the apartment construction loan program (possible lower costs?)
Is it worth it therefore for the city to simply give grants and funding towards projects in the core?It's directly related to CMHC financing, which almost all new rental buildings use. The math doesn't add up for Downtown when you take this all into account.
As long as there continues to be an incentive to build Downtown Calgary, and cheaper to build with same rental rates in the suburbs, the case for building concrete Downtown will be challenging. Not impossible but very very challenging.
There's also the prospect of the Substantial Completion Standard that could be implemented that could change things, but I'm not sure when that policy is being implementedIs it worth it therefore for the city to simply give grants and funding towards projects in the core?
Instead of needing our entire city to become unaffordable for construction to be possible, shouldn’t we just give a few mil to each project to get them going? The long term benefits and cost savings for property taxes, safety, crime, sprawl, etc must surely make that a better alternative, no?
We can spend 100mil servicing a new suburb, or we can spend 100mil to fund 20 new downtown projects that aren’t tax negative sprawl. Why not the latter?
I completely agree. Not only that but the benefits of more residents living Downtown are immense and contribute to its long term sustainability. But Council decided otherwise.Is it worth it therefore for the city to simply give grants and funding towards projects in the core?
Instead of needing our entire city to become unaffordable for construction to be possible, shouldn’t we just give a few mil to each project to get them going? The long term benefits and cost savings for property taxes, safety, crime, sprawl, etc must surely make that a better alternative, no?
We can spend 100mil servicing a new suburb, or we can spend 100mil to fund 20 new downtown projects that aren’t tax negative sprawl. Why not the latter?