Does Edmonton proper actually have any developable industrial land left? It seems like all the big profile industrial investments have been in neighboring municipalities (which makes sense given their lower tax rates).
|
|
|
Edmonton Real Estate Market
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
IanO
Superstar
^timely
Edmonton’s Economic Growth Depends on New Industrial Development
The tide has turned for the Edmonton economy, with energy prices climbing and a wave of distribution companies looking to set up shop there.
www.cbre.ca
Gronk!
Senior Member
Lack of land transfer tax makes homes more affordable in two provinces
Alberta and Saskatchewan don't charge land transfer taxes as part of selling or buying a home, saving homebuyers thousands of dollars.
edmontonjournal.com
Stevey_G
Active Member
The land transfer tax can be an absolute killer in the Lower Mainland, but it can be warranted as values seemingly continue to increase and that initial capital expenditure is largely overwritten within a couple years of valuation gains. So it can be justified.Lack of land transfer tax makes homes more affordable in two provinces
Alberta and Saskatchewan don't charge land transfer taxes as part of selling or buying a home, saving homebuyers thousands of dollars.
If Alberta ever tried to do something like this, I feel it would simply depreciated properties.
kcantor
Senior Member
^
how do you figure it gets “largely underwritten”?
it’s part of the capital cost of the home that any seller will try and recuperate along with the costs of carrying that cost through out the time it is owned. on top of that, it will ask be taxed again and again and again - cumulatively - every time it’s sold as every time it’s sold the tax is added once again and every owner will be trying to recover all of the cumulative costs from their purchase.
how do you figure it gets “largely underwritten”?
it’s part of the capital cost of the home that any seller will try and recuperate along with the costs of carrying that cost through out the time it is owned. on top of that, it will ask be taxed again and again and again - cumulatively - every time it’s sold as every time it’s sold the tax is added once again and every owner will be trying to recover all of the cumulative costs from their purchase.
Stevey_G
Active Member
I said overwritten. My argument is that it can be absorbed as an initial capital expenditure by home owners and investors. That appears to be less the case in Alberta where real estate is a less lucrative venture.
Gronk!
Senior Member
Edmonton considers both punishments and incentives for derelict properties
Between January 2021 and the end of last February, the city listed another 251 vacant and derelict locations as problem properties
edmontonjournal.com
Kaizen
Senior Member
Group of property owners selling 10-lot block near Edmonton's river valley
Oilers99
Active Member
Idiotic price.
BASE
Active Member
I have no idea what those properties would be worth individually (500K?) but undoubtedly a smart move by those property owners to sell together.
IanO
Superstar
I've always liked that little stretch of homes and while many didn't look well looked after, others most certainly did.
That could be a very interesting site for some mid/highrise and the views would not be too shabby either.
That could be a very interesting site for some mid/highrise and the views would not be too shabby either.
Kaizen
Senior Member
Some of them are keepers for sure (incredibly so in my mind) but is it realistic or even possible, I don't know? But I'd chain myself to a couple of 'em' before the wrecking ball, haha.
Two of the homes are on the inventory of Historic Resources but are not legally designated/protected
The Weltha Brown residence, 1912.
Google
and the James Cochrane residence was built in 1913.
None of the other homes are on the historic inventory, but the two that always come to mind for me as keepers are the corner lots. They always struck me as quite grand. A lot of the other homes are not as visible with all the trees.
Google
and the other corner.
Top-of-bank on the south end (92aveSask Dr.) of the land could make for a decent density mixed use highrise, and then terrace down to 93rd and call it a day. Killer location.
They are asking way too much though, 50%?
Two of the homes are on the inventory of Historic Resources but are not legally designated/protected
The Weltha Brown residence, 1912.
and the James Cochrane residence was built in 1913.
None of the other homes are on the historic inventory, but the two that always come to mind for me as keepers are the corner lots. They always struck me as quite grand. A lot of the other homes are not as visible with all the trees.
and the other corner.
Top-of-bank on the south end (92aveSask Dr.) of the land could make for a decent density mixed use highrise, and then terrace down to 93rd and call it a day. Killer location.
They are asking way too much though, 50%?
Omega Prime
New Member
I recently purchased a home in Toronto. It's a double whammy cost if you live directly in the GTA, as you have to pay it TWICE - once to the province, once to the city (or at least I think that was the breakdown). We definitely had to figure it into the initial capital expenditure. The ironic thing is with prices and bidding so bloody hot that it just seems like a minor setback at the cost of doing business. Just add it to the inflated price.
The lack of land transfer tax in Edmonton is a thing of beauty. But that could also be a missed source of revenue for the City if the market does get hot. It really should be seen as a housing supply regulation mechanism.
Oilers99
Active Member
I don't know if this is a killer location, it would be difficult for access points into a high rise off 99th street and the traffic would be bad during rush our trying to get into your building. There would also be significant opposition from the neighborhood to something that different compared to the SF homes in the area. These are also not oversized 50' lots, all are pretty much 33'. The selling price of this is essentially a $1M/unit which is more than double what Strathcona lots are selling for (~450k) with the exception of Skunk Hollow. Skunk Hollow lots would be somewhere between $800k-$1.2M but there is very little left to knockdown and build in there anymore.
cliffapotamus
Active Member
^ are you thinking about this in terms of just new houses going up?
I'd be very surprised if anything under 10 stories gets proposed for this site. a long frontage onto Scona road is good for CRU visibility, long alley frontage means vehicle access would be relatively easy to design in (as opposed to a more cramped DT site) and the site faces DT directly, just over the trees. 4th story up would have amazing DT, sunset views. a developer with means could do something spectacular with this site, and make that $12.5m purchase price back handily.
not trying to argue, just talk about how the site (and its sale) is transitioning from SFH residential to a commercial situation, which has very different economics, and higher prices. I think the undertone of all this (but I doubt anyone selling wants to say this explicitly) is that these houses are going to turn into towers at some point, soon. they want to get it over with in a clean, controlled way, as opposed to subjecting the neighbourhood to years of land assembly and demolition through neglect as companies try to get stuff together, while a couple mcmansions get thrown up in the middle, breaking up the site.
I think this idea is kinda cool actually, I wanna see inside one of those tower houses though lol!