Downtown Real Estate

[jason403]

More parking in the area would be fantastic! Excited for the demolition. Fantastic news

 

[Greenspace]

The reality is this building can probably be salvaged for the right owner. For MacEwan they want more accessory parking and don't want to be a landlord to the existing building nor pay its taxes.. Not only that but they'll allow non-accessory parking for Rogers and make revenue. And it will probably be like this for a very long time.

 

[David A]

It is a small, but interesting little building that has potential. It would be a shame to tear it down for a parking lot on such a prominent location, but hey that's an Edmonton thing.

Just like Gateway blvd, we don't give a hoot about prominent locations - ugly is fine, and then we wonder why some visitors are not impressed.

 

[Gronk!]

This land can be sold to OEG (or whatever they're called this year) so that it can be part of ICE District Phase 2 or maybe a Phase 3.

 

[Greenspace]

Lol that's also years and years away.

 

[IanO]

Opportunity.

 

[BrettB]

There's a report on downtown surface parking lots going to the Urban Planning Committee in 10 days.

 

[TAS]

There's a report on downtown surface parking lots going to the Urban Planning Committee in 10 days.

View attachment 505059

Wow, only 11% have an actual development permit. Will be interesting to see how council moves on this.

Great inquiry from Coun. Salvador.

 

[Barnaby]

Parking should obviously be limited to to existing parking structures first, and street parking second. Obviously any lots without a permit should no longer be parking lots.

Hopefully there is a crackdown so the honest lots remain open for the time being. Maybe there will be some good land deals for developers if the city plays this correctly.

 

[Munanyo]

Definitely a great inquiry and happy to see this being put forward to council. Let's see what might come from this....

 

[archited]

My point from earlier discussions -- Development Permits should be completely disassociated from Demolition Permits. Demo Permits should come with a sizable bond (equivalent to assessed property value by the City Admin.) that requires following through with a Building Permit or the bond is forfeited and added to the CRL levy (that's the stick); the carrot could be a tax abatement period for development completion post Building Permit. An additional stick could be the denial of any other form of Use Permit (parking for example). The City could also give a time fuse on the time-frame between Demolition Permit and the Application for a Building Permit (e.g. 180 days, renewable for additional fees for one additional term of 180 days). Some of these have been set out for some development proposals in one form or another but these should be codified in law (no wiggle room) with a 10-year sunset clause included after which the law could be amended (based on evidentiary data), reinstated, or abandoned.

 

[David A]

Exactly! A promise to build something can be ephemeral. Demolition is generally permanent.

 

[Abba]

Does anyone know what the deal is with the Mckenney building on 104th? Mostly vacant at the time it was sold in 2021. Plans to be renovated and leased up, but now it sits empty and for sale once again... must need a LOT of work...

 

[Avenuer]

The 'McKenney Development Corporation' purchased the building in August 2021 for $3.75 million so perhaps they have plans for the site.

 

[occidentalcapital]

Provincial strategy on reducing crime in downtown may help make this area attractive to singles again.