Horne and Pitfield Building Redevelopment | ?m | ?s | Limak Investments

That seems like an aggressive move in date considering their new buildings is currently just footings… and wasnt the new building supposed to be 4 or 5 floors?
 
Mattyeg said:
That seems like an aggressive move in date considering their new buildings is currently just footings… and wasnt the new building supposed to be 4 or 5 floors?
Click to expand...
Its a storage building with minimal interior, no tenant fit outs, probably concrete floors, and sheet metal doors, its not that complicated of a build...
 
ChazYEG said:
Depends on what they mean by Winter 2023... If they mean the one that starts this year, then they have 8 months, not 2 =P
Click to expand...
I suspect you are right. I am not sure the reason for the ambiguous wording, perhaps they want to try avoid a barrage of angry calls and emails from their customers when they realize self storage will become store it yourself elsewhere or 8 months or so. If so, I'm not sure that will work.
 
Oh god sorry, I didn’t even see the second sentence.. I thought the April date was closing and move in…oops. Decemberish makes more sense because there hasn’t been a whole lot of action lately.
 
ChazYEG said:
Depends on what they mean by Winter 2023... If they mean the one that starts this year, then they have 8 months, not 2 =P
Click to expand...
Mattyeg said:
Oh god sorry, I didn’t even see the second sentence.. I thought the April date was closing and move in…oops. Decemberish makes more sense because there hasn’t been a whole lot of action lately.
Click to expand...
Yeah I'd say December 2023 - February 2024 move-in for 'Winter 2023'.
 
The folks at Affordable Storage don't know who bought the building, only that it was bought by a group.
 
IanO said:
I'd love to see an ALT there with rental above.
Click to expand...

1679368850325.png


R.I.P 😭
 
David A said:
There's a great location for this already empty lot at 101 St and 102 Ave (the old BMO building), demo already mostly done, so no need to tear down another building.
Click to expand...
Time and time again, you seem to forget that, as much as we would all love to see things happen this way, that is not how it works. It is not SimCity, where someone has absolute control over every single plot of land in the city.

Regency owns this lot you mentioned and I highly doubt that the developer of this tower is willing to purchase that, and sit on the property they already own.

We all hate seeing buildings come down, or be substantially altered, but the reality of the facts is a bit distant from that, especially in a market that is not as hot, like Edmonton
 
ChazYEG said:
Time and time again, you seem to forget that, as much as we would all love to see things happen this way, that is not how it works. It is not SimCity, where someone has absolute control over every single plot of land in the city.

Regency owns this lot you mentioned and I highly doubt that the developer of this tower is willing to purchase that, and sit on the property they already own.

We all hate seeing buildings come down, or be substantially altered, but the reality of the facts is a bit distant from that, especially in a market that is not as hot, like Edmonton
Click to expand...
Oh, I don't forget. I realize how it works. Time and time again we tear things down with great hype leaving empty lots for a long period of time.

If what I say seems repetitive, it is partly because we haven't learned yet.
 
ChazYEG said:
Time and time again, you seem to forget that, as much as we would all love to see things happen this way, that is not how it works. It is not SimCity, where someone has absolute control over every single plot of land in the city.

Regency owns this lot you mentioned and I highly doubt that the developer of this tower is willing to purchase that, and sit on the property they already own.

We all hate seeing buildings come down, or be substantially altered, but the reality of the facts is a bit distant from that, especially in a market that is not as hot, like Edmonton
Click to expand...
to be fair, there is someone who effectively has control over every single plot of land in the city even if they don’t own it all and that’s the city of edmonton.

the current state of regency’s lot post demolition of the bank of montreal building is a result of the city approving its demolition. just as they approved the demolition of the tegler block to build it. just as their decisions will ultimately result in the demolition of the horne and pitfield building.
 
kcantor said:
to be fair, there is someone who effectively has control over every single plot of land in the city even if they don’t own it all and that’s the city of edmonton.

the current state of regency’s lot post demolition of the bank of montreal building is a result of the city approving its demolition. just as they approved the demolition of the tegler block to build it. just as their decisions will ultimately result in the demolition of the horne and pitfield building.
Click to expand...
I do think that demolition permits SHOULD HAVE to be tied to building permits. You can't demo unless you already have your BP approved and starts construction within, say, 60 days of demo. But we cannot force a developer to purchase someone else's land to build, like sometimes is implied in some comments like "oh, but plot A or B is already empty, they have to build there instead of here"
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top