These listings are so incomplete and poorly described it's obnoxious, and there's more sites nested within the listings.
The listing for 9319 is a photo of 9331 and says in the listing "Also includes 9317 and 9325 111 Avenue included in the price."
It seems like they're listing everything except 9323? Which is clearly one of his sites but isn't itself included in the listings, unless it's assumed part of 9319. 9323 has no street facing address, but also isn't actually attached to 9319 so they must be excluding it on purpose?
This street has been rough, but my fingers are crossed somone would swoop in and pick up this group of properties. I would assume they're too far gone to be worth fixing now, but the whole grouping from 9317 to 9331 if 9323 is included would be a perfect set for a big shiny new apartment block.
Please o angel of gentrification, dump some money onto 111 ave!
Lets hope!! That stretch absolutely is in dire need of improvement.
I actually never clued in that Shah owned all of those properties, just figured only the one that CRA+EPS raided a few years back. Random anecdote, my friend’s dad around 12-15~ years ago owned 9303. No idea when he sold it or what happened there but he was a super weird guy.
I hope 9325 is purchased and renovated - not demolished. It's a simliar vintage to the Graphic Arts building in that represents the Streamline Moderne style, which there are not many commercial buildings of in Edmonton.