Tower 101 | 175m | 50s | Regency Developments | DER + Associates

[Clearshades]

I was just venting Ken. We have come so far then another blight right at the core.

 

[kcantor]

I was just venting Ken. We have come so far then another blight right at the core.

not to worry, so was i. and not so much with regency as with the city of edmonton. i can understand regency’s motivation but not the city’s. it’s the city that continues to be the great enabler in creating sites like this.

 

[Clearshades]

Yes!

 

[Daveography]

@kcantor Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the city's ability to change the taxation rate for vacant lots currently dependent on the province's MGA, and that this was supposed to be fixed in the new Big City Charters that the current government tore up?

 

[IanO]

That's theoretically* correct.

 

[kcantor]

@kcantor Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the city's ability to change the taxation rate for vacant lots currently dependent on the province's MGA, and that this was supposed to be fixed in the new Big City Charters that the current government tore up?

you are correct... which is why the city loses on two fronts when they consent to/permit demolition for the sale of demolition the other thing to remember is that in some respects it is also the city’s choice how to assess taxes. as it stands they are, to all intents and purposes, relying on property taxes to provide revenue. that’s where the incentive comes from for somebody like regency to demolish a perfectly good building. in addition to property taxes however, the city has an ability to charge fees and they do so in countless ways already. if they want to discourage demolition, why not make the fee for the demolition permit equal to four years assessments on the structure being demolished? why not charge a fee per ton per km for all material transported off site and being hauled over city streets? why not impose a fee for additional policing and cleaning adjacent to vacant/derelict sites. if they city actually wants to encourage redevelopment sooner rather than later, maybe they could credit some of those fees against permit fees and other charges on a sliding scale (ie 100% for permits taken out at the same time as the demolition permit, 75% after a year, 50% after two etc).

 

[archited]

...or more directly require a development permit and a building permit in hand for a proposed new development before granting a demo permit of existing structures. And then have a 1-year fuse on the development permit which, when expired, has to be completely applied for all over again at full fees.

 

[kcantor]

^
without minimum densities, even full fee costs to secure permits would not be a deterrent. regency could have secured permits for a small single story project on one corner of the site pretty quickly and pretty cheaply compared to their ongoing tax savings post demolition.

 

[archited]

^except that acquiring a building permit requires a complete set of construction documents and all of the expense and time entailed therein. It works exceedingly well in Los Angeles.

 

[kcantor]

^
without minimum densities, that expense and time might not be the deterrent you’re anticipating. https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTUBuCy_bLM6C5gObOHSA1DHDs-95NltbxUPw&usqp=CAU

 

[archited]

^ if a developer is going to be that coy and potentially "fraudulent" in their intent, they will develop a "character" that will be known to City and Community alike and will in all negotiations forward force contingencies in agreements that will be even more detrimental to their given aspect. Certainly, it is not a ball-clamp in terms of control but it is far better than what currently exists. I can't appreciate the contra argument!

 

[kcantor]

^
it’s not those developers with “good character“ that i’m concerned about. it’s not even those developers who have good character but who’s circumstances change. zoning and our built environment deal with the land, not with the owner, and they run with the land, not with prior ownership. as a result, whatever happens with/on the land has consequences for the city/public that are independent of ownership and have consequences that arguably last forever independent of ownership. it is those long term public costs that i was proposing be “prevent valued” to an up front costs that someone demolishing a part of our urban fabric becomes responsible for.

 

[Edmcowboy11]

Why doesn't the city at least force them to clean up the property?

 

[Clearshades]

The problem here goes beyond just setting up regulations or what not. We have city councis that dont necessarily understand economics, and, in turn, make decisions that are beyond their comprehension.
I get that circumstance may change, but , in this case, I think Regenct was over zealous with their drive without thoughts of economics or the downturn We know our city's fortune was based on the oilsands, and 2015 came crashing down on us; so what made them think that they were somehow insulated from their competitions that took a more prudent route? That is what really has me perturbed. We now have two nasty looking parcels deconstructed at the same time by one developer; both of which came well after 2015... it wasnt like the economy was red hot as they were in their processes when the crash came to Alberta.

 

[archited]

^^^^ In a nut, Leadership! Lacking... and yet Edmontonians will most likely put the same short-term thinkers and misguided provocateurs in power next time around.