IanO
Superstar
I don't foresee it going anywhere for awhile given the cost to construct and the rates they need to derive to make it work, even with the rebates and incentives right now.
|
|
|
Downtown Real Estate
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
Greenspace
Senior Member
7000 units with, say 250 units per building is 28 buildings over 21 years. Could be achievable if you include office conversions but we gotta have 5-6 projects happening all at once at any one time cause each project takes 3-5 years from design to occupancy.
thommyjo
Senior Member
We really lack the mega projects other cities see which I feel like always slows us down. I get why it’s that way in our market. Just tough to see the gap. Oakridge or Brentwood in Van, or north false creek concord a few years back, or Olympic village. Or projects like The Well in Toronto, sugar wharf seeing 5+ towers in the 70+ stories go all at once. M city condos in Missasauga, etc. just wild what those projects can do in 5-7 years where it takes us 10-20 for a fraction of the build out.
Ice district was probably the closest thing we ever got to that. But I feel like warehouse park, 103ave DT, the quarters, and jasper in central Oliver could all see massive projects happen. Doubt anyone can make the financials work though, which sucks.
Gronk!
Senior Member
Edmonton may use Downtown renewal funds for office to residential conversions
Developers told council Tuesday it's too expensive to justify converting office buildings into homes right now without incentives.
edmontonjournal.com
northlands
Senior Member
If it would make a sizable impact on getting multiple office conversions to commence, I'd be fine with them delaying the Beaver Hills/Michael Phair upgrades.Edmonton may use Downtown renewal funds for office to residential conversions
Developers told council Tuesday it's too expensive to justify converting office buildings into homes right now without incentives.
occidentalcapital
Senior Member
Using CRL money also makes sense because additional residents will increase vibrancy, which can only help tax uplift for the CRL.
thommyjo
Senior Member
Idk if these are worth it. I’d rather have an empty office building plus a new residential tower (that we can offer incentives for) than a converted office to res and a vacant lot.
Downtown Calgary doesn’t feel run down cause of empty buildings. But areas with surface parking and dirt lots do feel run down imo.
Downtown Calgary doesn’t feel run down cause of empty buildings. But areas with surface parking and dirt lots do feel run down imo.
Kosy123
Active Member
Crazy idea, but could some of that Housing Accelerator Fund money end up being used for this? We haven't gotten an official announcement from the Feds, but from all indications (along with the letter that was sent to Sohi's office), we might be getting a chunk of cash here.
Friendmonton
Active Member
This would be robbing Peter to pay Paul. Warehouse Park, Jasper Ave upgrades, etc are needed.
Using public dollars to support private companies instead of our public spaces is concerning.
Using public dollars to support private companies instead of our public spaces is concerning.
The headline is a bit misleading. Admin will look at options for a general residential incentive as well (ie not just conversion).
David A
Senior Member
I agree, it is somewhat concerning. I understand having more people living downtown will help with vibrancy, but it seems like this is robbing the CRL fund to bail out people stuck with older, fairly vacant office buildings.
I do want to see more people living downtown, but I would rather see new buildings more suited to be residential being built, which might be a more affordable option for taxpayers. If there is to be a subsidy, I would rather it be per unit and available to new units as well as conversions.
Gronk!
Senior Member
They can use some of the remaining CRL for office conversions but not all of it. They must not, under any circumstances, delay the Warehouse Park construction, Jasper Ave upgrades and the 100 St pedestrian bridge for this or I'll lead a pitchfork mob at City Hall.
thommyjo
Senior Member
Gotcha. Yeah, outside of maybe the 124th street proposal, which is a significant corner, and the Peak tower, I can’t think of many other offices that feel critical to redevelop. A next door parking lot would move the needle more for downtown image and vibrancy.
Friendmonton
Active Member
Listening to the meeting, it sounds like they were talking about the possibility of delaying/cancelling the street improvements like Jasper Ave and 103rd, or the pedestrian bridge, but they didn't have the full list with them. Warehouse Park is funded.
Greenspace
Senior Member
Warehouse Park is already funded, it's really looking at whether to delay other projects, which are contemplated to be funded by the CRL but aren't yet approved.
I would hate to see streetscape improvements delayed, those have a large impact especially needed is Japser Avenue. But if you can move the numbers around when Jasper Avenue isn't contemplated to be done for 3-4 years yet or other projects, you maybe can make this incentive work. I'd be okay with Beaverhills/Michael Phair delayed for a few years if Warehouse Park was done right and the incentive got 5-6 projects moving immediately.
We desperately need to incentivize and shift the development of units towards Downtown.
I would hate to see streetscape improvements delayed, those have a large impact especially needed is Japser Avenue. But if you can move the numbers around when Jasper Avenue isn't contemplated to be done for 3-4 years yet or other projects, you maybe can make this incentive work. I'd be okay with Beaverhills/Michael Phair delayed for a few years if Warehouse Park was done right and the incentive got 5-6 projects moving immediately.
We desperately need to incentivize and shift the development of units towards Downtown.