Airboy
Senior Member
My first concert there was the first one, Stevie Wonder. And getting tickets for the first playoff years just by walking up to the ticket office.
Exhibition Lands Redevelopment | ?m | ?s | City of Edmonton
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
Glenco
Senior Member
I was at the very first game Wayne Gretzky played for the Oilers in the WHA along with Eddy Mio and Peter Driscoll
CaptainBL
Active Member
Beyond time to sell the coliseum and exhibition lands because:
'Digging a deeper hole': Councillor wants Coliseum demolished as cost balloons to roughly $35M
It was heaven for hockey fans in orange and blue for more than four decades, but for nearly five years the old Coliseum has resulted in nothing but red on Edmonton's budget.edmonton.ctvnews.ca
1. The cost of maintenance and demolishing are too high
2. The opportunity cost of tax revenue from developed lands
3. The city is not a developer
4. We've seen the city as a developer on Botchford and the city is not a developer - don't make the same mistake twice
4A. Let the market and development companies dictate the process
5. The city has a revenue (and cost) problem, monetize non-core assets
6. Let someone with an idea like Mandel or others utilize the coliseum and land for something useful
David A
Senior Member
If someone really has a good idea about what to use the Coliseum for, now is the time for them to put up the money for it - or shut up about it.
I suspect it will be just talk which is cheap and nothing more. If so, then it is probably time to demolish it.
I suspect it will be just talk which is cheap and nothing more. If so, then it is probably time to demolish it.
Avenuer
Senior Member
Looks like money is provided to demolish in 2025, with two years before that to allow for any serious proposals (ie below market purchase, repurposing with funding confirmed, etc.) to come forward.
archited
Senior Member
^^^^ Lots of proposals have already "come forward" -- past Councils relied on administration whiz-kids to negate them all -- from what I was able to glean City Planners are more interested in another "livable" brown field residential development -- and -- like the downtown Warehouse District Park jumped in with pre-conceived notions about what was best for the City (chuckle, chuckle, snort, snort). The sad but true part of all of this is that the so-called "ideal" will likely never get built and, in the interim, lifetimes will go by with an unused property sitting idle, killing the adjacent community.
Avenuer
Senior Member
Did those proposals have money to back them up? Talk is cheap if there isn’t any financial backing to do what people are actually proposing.
northlands
Senior Member
This articulates my thoughts toward all this pretty much dead on. Once the Coliseum is demo'd, it's going to sit as an ugly empty blight of a field while the gears of the Exhibition Lands turn slow as molasses. Thank god there's at least still some activity at the Expo Centre.
thommyjo
Senior Member
I honestly don’t understand why we are continuing to sprawl with multiple sites like this in our city that can absorb 5-10 years worth of new builds… I get that it’s not as easy as banning greenfield and forcing developers to build here. But can we not sort out the mechanisms for a killer TOD village at this location that houses 5-10k people?
IanO
Superstar
But do Edmontonian's want that? People speak with their wallets and thus far it is clearer than clear PEPSI.
Based on the conversation last night, I think the intent would be that they service the land after the demolition and then sell it off sooner than what was originally planned in the phasing plan. That work would be funded by Land Enterprise retained earnings - they did point out the danger of over prescribing to LERE for the demolition though (think that is why they split between LERE/Pay as you go), since it is contingent on projects in other parts of the City doing well from a sales perspective - industrial/remaining greenfield. Need enough sales to fund everything - if that slows, so does the entire process.
Motion/amendment is:
That all assumes they don't find an alternative strategy in the meantime ahead of demolition.
I hope that they learn from some of the feedback in Blatchford and offer larger parcels in Exhibition Lands. Blatchford is so prescriptive that it makes it tough on developers to do any phasing, which is typical for them in other places. Gotta meet developers half way.
Land servicing takes time. Even if you demo tomorrow, it would still take time to prepare the land for development - servicing a coliseum isn't the same as servicing 5-10k people. Assuming demolition happens in the approved time frame (starting in 2025), I don't think you see any meaningful development for 7 years or so (demo starts in 2025, finishes in 2027, add in two years for servicing the land). By the time sales happen, full build out is probably closer to 12-15 years.
Honestly, that is probably fairly aggressive as far as my napkin math goes on timelines. Realistically closer to 15 years for full build out. We need a remindme function like Reddit. Remind me in 15 years.
Last edited:
archited
Senior Member
#1 -- If you had to have A to Z financing in place for everything that is proposed for build-out, NOTHING and I mean absolutely NOTHING would ever get built. Developers are not bankrolled like the City is where they can simply increase users' fees to cover cost over-runs at whim. All of the proposals that I am aware of had funding in place for purchase of the Coliseum Land and Building... One can not even begin to imagine what the end result development pro forma would look like until that first step is granted. Internal "City-Hall Think" is the problem and as a result we will likely see the Coliseum demolished and then the raw land will sit there much, much longer than Blatchford Field.
#2 -- The proposals that I am aware of (a couple even having a former mayor among the shareholders) were all able to purchase land and building. The City is the LAST place one should go to, looking for development solutions.
CaptainBL
Active Member
I remember hearing the same in terms of potential development opportunities.
Effectively, the city admin in their ultimate wisdom took a potential revenue opportunity from development proposals by credible developers (not exhaustive: Mandel, and I believe Ken C had a proposal if I am not mistaken) and turned it into a cost to the city through demolition. Seriously. WTF.
IanO
Superstar
Buh bye
On Dec. 12, city council voted 8-5 in favour of demolishing the out-of-use Northlands Coliseum at a cost of $35 million. It currently costs up to $1.5 million annually to maintain the building, according to the city. “It’s been put off for far too long, and we need to take responsibility for this,” said Coun. Ashley Salvador of Ward Métis, where the building is located, adding that the demolition will allow the city to proceed with the Edmonton Exhibition Lands redevelopment project. Salvador also said administration will look into options to partner with industry to assist in the demolition. Mayor Amarjeet Sohi voted against the demolition, citing concerns over the cost.
-Taproot
On Dec. 12, city council voted 8-5 in favour of demolishing the out-of-use Northlands Coliseum at a cost of $35 million. It currently costs up to $1.5 million annually to maintain the building, according to the city. “It’s been put off for far too long, and we need to take responsibility for this,” said Coun. Ashley Salvador of Ward Métis, where the building is located, adding that the demolition will allow the city to proceed with the Edmonton Exhibition Lands redevelopment project. Salvador also said administration will look into options to partner with industry to assist in the demolition. Mayor Amarjeet Sohi voted against the demolition, citing concerns over the cost.
-Taproot