Oliver Crossing | 21m | 7s

Assuming they're only a couple months away from full interior buildout, pretty neat project to follow along with. They did only break ground in Sept 2021.
 
I was just looking at this, i love the exposed concrete. they did a good job coordinating all their mechanical too to make those bulkheads clean, based on what the photos show. these interiors are pretty nice!
Yeah, they did an alright job with the interiors. Exposed concrete ceilings is quite typical and a feature more people like.
 
"121 West but make it better"

What the AI gives me:
 
“The grant leveraged approximately $24 of private investment for every $1 allocated, a total of $22.9 million in funding. As a result of the program, 10 projects worth $551 million in construction began, creating 4,050 jobs, 2,341 residential units and 78,000 square feet of commercial space in and around downtown.”

Should we just keep doing incentives like this? Or what might be a reason not to? Seems like a home run. How much do we spend on this to save millions more long term if safety and vibrancy increase?
 
Stock of housing would still be built without financial donations from local government to private developers.

However, this may accelerate projects, especially in zones where government may want to encourage immediate development though. Obviously some of the funds get recouped through increased property taxes collected during the difference in time projects would be built with/without incentive.

My personal opinion is government should not be in the business of handing out tax dollars for private for profit developments, unless there is a more targeted reason.
 
Does anyone else find it strange that Oliver was included in the incentive area? It's likely the sole neighborhood (maybe Garneau?) that doesn't require further density - it's been achieved.

If anything, what Oliver needs is incentive for larger family friendly units at this point. That said, I'm all for tax incentivizing downtown and other key areas (Alberta Ave, Quarters etc)
 
What is going to be interesting to see is if many of those 1200-1600 sqft 2bdrms in Oliver get renovated to be 3bdrm and geared towards families as they are relatively affordable purchase price due to the condo fees.
 
My personal opinion is government should not be in the business of handing out tax dollars for private for profit developments, unless there is a more targeted reason.
Agreed. Ideally a development friendly government that has streamlined processes to cut permit timelines and lenient zoning bylaws is preferable to any sort of developer subsidy tbh--just stay out of the way of progress (within reason).
 
I don't have much of a problem with these types of incentives - especially when they actually achieve the intended results. Development grants are one of few financial mechanisms the City has at their disposal to encourage & steer development in the direction of the city plan. I'd rather they provide incentives or grants to the industry than try to do it themselves.

Sometimes these grants or incentives don't work, but this one seems like it worked exactly as intended.
 
Stock of housing would still be built without financial donations from local government to private developers.

However, this may accelerate projects, especially in zones where government may want to encourage immediate development though. Obviously some of the funds get recouped through increased property taxes collected during the difference in time projects would be built with/without incentive.

My personal opinion is government should not be in the business of handing out tax dollars for private for profit developments, unless there is a more targeted reason.


I think it makes sense to have incentives if it encourages things that the market isn't providing, such as a certain percent of family size units, historic preservation, or public plazas/amenities.

If you're giving out money for things that they would have developed anyways and it's just to speed up timeliness a bit, not so much.
 
You could just change the tax structure to stop subsidizing suburban developments. Just tax these new homes accordingly, and missing middle housing will obviously become a larger priority for developers. Obviously this would push some people to buy more rural homes, but they're already buying outside of the Henday.

I'd obviously prefer a land value tax, but the largest voting group would struggle to understand (or care) why that is important.
 
It would be nice, but it's basically politically unviable. 60-70% of Edmontonians live in homes that would have a significant increase in taxes if they actually paid for the cost of their infrastructure. At this point, making people pay for what they use is a sure way to lose the next election.
 

Top