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

[David A]

No, it is not a similar situation, at all. Not even close.

The aversion of out of town or institutional investors to downtown Edmonton is not similar to what is going on in Calgary because you found one developer selling a land parcel there. That land will go quickly for a number of reasons including but not limited to the attractiveness of what is going on in East Village, the Riverwalk, the attractiveness and general activity of downtown Calgary. As the article mentions there is already interest from Vancouver developers. Heck, a developer from Texas is building a new massive hotel in the Stampede area. https://storeys.com/calgary-cmlc-stampede-park-bmo-centre-hotel-matthews-southwest-hospitality/

As I mentioned before, you may be surprised at how long it takes for the 101 site as Edmonton developers have all passed on the site, institutional is very sour on downtown Edmonton, and (simply for example because of the article) developers from Vancouver and Toronto don't have a history of being attracted to downtown Edmonton.

I by no means am saying this site wont get sold, or wont be sold to an institutional investor, but there is a reason why you don't see out of town developers buy land or succeed building developments in downtown Edmonton. The word is out and has been for some time and continues to be.

This is just my opinion and prediction but you may get someone who buys it and holds it for a long long time before we seeing anything developed or you get someone who is unfamiliar with downtown Edmonton that sees this as a once in a lifetime opportunity to buy something in a downtown Canadian core. However, that last part is literally what the German pension fund thought with city center and they have been burned with how that turned out.

I would argue City Centre was very badly managed by the previous owner. COVID and the related oil price crash had something to do with how the City Centre purchase turned out so far. However still it is not all doom and gloom, I think the larger component the office building part is ok, however the mall not so good.

I think the key words in the Calgary article that does indicate some concerns is for sale again.

The key to a successful investment is actually fairly simple - timing and price. The current economic uncertainty and interest rates are not unique to us - that is part of the timing side. So I am guessing the vendor has not adjusted sufficiently this on the price side, hence no takers so far.

 

[IanO]

Same vendor and issue with the site out front of the Hotel Mac...

 

[TAS]

I would argue City Centre was very badly managed by the previous owner. COVID and the related oil price crash had something to do with how the City Centre purchase turned out so far. However still it is not all doom and gloom, I think the larger component the office building part is ok, however the mall not so good.

I think the key words in the Calgary article that does indicate some concerns is for sale again.

The key to a successful investment is actually fairly simple - timing and price. The current economic uncertainty and interest rates are not unique to us - that is part of the timing side. So I am guessing the vendor has not adjusted sufficiently this on the price side, hence no takers so far.

Exactly - for sale again.
It's also interesting how the Calgary media supports this opportunity by running a story like this saying - amazing opportunity in downtown Calgary for a development and hypes it up as opportunity versus a negative even though this site has been languishing for a while with no development.

Has anything like happened with the media here and this site in the heart of downtown?

 

[CaptainBL]

Exactly - for sale again.
It's also interesting how the Calgary media supports this opportunity by running a story like this saying - amazing opportunity in downtown Calgary for a development and hypes it up as opportunity versus a negative even though this site has been languishing for a while with no development.

Has anything like happened with the media here and this site in the heart of downtown?

Its for sale again because of because of developer challenges, not site challenges or market challenges. Perhaps those developer challenges mean Great Gulf realized it could make a much higher return and quicker return in Toronto or Denver. But to make the connection you are making because a site is being sold twice is ridiculous.

As for the Edmonton media pumping up this site, I dont know what you are expecting. Its not the media's job to market a property for sale as a good opportunity. Again, local players big and small(er) including ONE, AIMCo, Maclab, Regency (who is selling), Edgar, Melcor, Rohit, Langham, Westrich, Pangman have all turned it down for one reason or another. Maybe they are just being big meanie negative developers? These are local players with local intimate knowledge of the site, history, and area. And Edmonton is not even close to on the radar for the Brookfield, RioCan, DREAM, Kingsett, Concord, etc. group. and the Edmonton media is supposed to market this as a good opportunity in your eyes?

I am absolutely all for downtown boosterism, but come on.

 

[_urbanite]

Real-estate brokers and or property developers often pay to run advertisements disguised as news articles to try and create a buzz around a property. I wouldn't doubt that's what Great Gulf is trying to do in Calgary

 

[David A]

Its for sale again because of because of developer challenges, not site challenges or market challenges. Perhaps those developer challenges mean Great Gulf realized it could make a much higher return and quicker return in Toronto or Denver. But to make the connection you are making because a site is being sold twice is ridiculous.

As for the Edmonton media pumping up this site, I dont know what you are expecting. Its not the media's job to market a property for sale as a good opportunity. Again, local players big and small(er) including ONE, AIMCo, Maclab, Regency (who is selling), Edgar, Melcor, Rohit, Langham, Westrich, Pangman have all turned it down for one reason or another. Maybe they are just being big meanie negative developers? These are local players with local intimate knowledge of the site, history, and area. And Edmonton is not even close to on the radar for the Brookfield, RioCan, DREAM, Kingsett, Concord, etc. group. and the Edmonton media is supposed to market this as a good opportunity in your eyes?

I am absolutely all for downtown boosterism, but come on.

I think a lot of people would say developer challenges with the site in Edmonton too are a big part of the problem. Particularly as they also own a former duck pond, far enough away to arguably say not right downtown. Interestingly something is being built next to the former duck pond by someone else who is more capable and confident.

Also, if I understand from my quick review of the article, the Calgary site goes back to 2015, so I think its challenges might actually have been longer than here. Although kudos to them at least they did not tear down the building and leave a big mess.

But hey, its Calgary, so the grass must always be greener than here there right?

 

[BASE]

We have 3 big residential projects underway around stationlands, The Parks, & Falcon along with an upcoming office tower for CWB in Ice District. I agree there is a bit too much gloom and doom. If we had absolutely nothing going on I could see it and yes downtown has its troubles but for every former BMO site there are things to be excited about (MacEwan school of business) so lets not live and die on every lot that isn't being developed this instant. A lot of talk about institutional confidence in the market, I would say boosters like ourselves need to show a little confidence first or at least save our negativity for that streetcar/LRT Frankentrain that should be opening in the next yearish.

 

[CaptainBL]

We have 3 big residential projects underway around stationlands, The Parks, & Falcon along with an upcoming office tower for CWB in Ice District. I agree there is a bit too much gloom and doom. If we had absolutely nothing going on I could see it and yes downtown has its troubles but for every former BMO site there are things to be excited about (MacEwan school of business) so lets not live and die on every lot that isn't being developed this instant. A lot of talk about institutional confidence in the market, I would say boosters like ourselves need to show a little confidence first or at least save our negativity for that streetcar/LRT Frankentrain that should be opening in the next yearish.

This is the issue I take with voluntarily sharing inside info and insights on this forum. We do not always need to say something positive because what you read you don't like so it is labeled negative and doom and gloom.

We very much can, and do live in an Edmonton where good things happen like MacEwan, and conversely our downtown still needs a lot of work. That doesnt make what I said negative or doom and gloom or is intended to poo poo and be a meanie head to Edmonton. What I shared is a reality that comes from conversations and involvements with developers, investors, executives, etc. Out of the projects being built in downtown, every single one is being built by an Edmonton developer (ONE, Edgar, Westrich) so maybe outside developers are on to something?

The reality is that this specific site has not been attractive to certain local developers for a number of reasons. Downtown as a whole has not been attractive to outsiders for a number of reasons. As much as you and I are boosters and should show confidence in our downtown, that will not change CPPIB (just for example) from investing YOUR pension dollars in a site that doesnt meet their return criteria for your pension. Thats not negative, thats not doom and gloom, that is a reality of downtown Edmonton and its attractiveness to investors.

At the same time other projects are moving forward which is great. But we dont need to kumbaya because something said you dont like so its negative and doom and gloom.

 

[TAS]

Its for sale again because of because of developer challenges, not site challenges or market challenges. Perhaps those developer challenges mean Great Gulf realized it could make a much higher return and quicker return in Toronto or Denver. But to make the connection you are making because a site is being sold twice is ridiculous. This site has interesting history to it.

As for the Edmonton media pumping up this site, I dont know what you are expecting. Its not the media's job to market a property for sale as a good opportunity. Again, local players big and small(er) including ONE, AIMCo, Maclab, Regency (who is selling), Edgar, Melcor, Rohit, Langham, Westrich, Pangman have all turned it down for one reason or another. Maybe they are just being big meanie negative developers? These are local players with local intimate knowledge of the site, history, and area. And Edmonton is not even close to on the radar for the Brookfield, RioCan, DREAM, Kingsett, Concord, etc. group. and the Edmonton media is supposed to market this as a good opportunity in your eyes?

I am absolutely all for downtown boosterism, but come on.

Not media's job here to hype this up- more a comment about how their media does that and sometimes we have a new company setting up here and media coverage is minimal if anything at all.

I think that this site is for sale is newsworthy in the business section of the Journal, as they did in The Herald, to highlight that a prominent downtown property is for sale - even get a quote from real estate expert or DBA about it or seek out a comment from Regency about why they couldn't make it work. There's a lot of interesting history with this site.

I see some similarities with the Calgary site. You don't. That's fine. I don't find you saying so "ridiculous" - which is what you referred to my comment as. If that's your style so be it.

 

[quit]

This is the issue I take with voluntarily sharing inside info and insights on this forum. We do not always need to say something positive because what you read you don't like so it is labeled negative and doom and gloom.

We very much can, and do live in an Edmonton where good things happen like MacEwan, and conversely our downtown still needs a lot of work. That doesnt make what I said negative or doom and gloom or is intended to poo poo and be a meanie head to Edmonton. What I shared is a reality that comes from conversations and involvements with developers, investors, executives, etc. Out of the projects being built in downtown, every single one is being built by an Edmonton developer (ONE, Edgar, Westrich) so maybe outside developers are on to something?

The reality is that this specific site has not been attractive to certain local developers for a number of reasons. Downtown as a whole has not been attractive to outsiders for a number of reasons. As much as you and I are boosters and should show confidence in our downtown, that will not change CPPIB (just for example) from investing YOUR pension dollars in a site that doesnt meet their return criteria for your pension. Thats not negative, thats not doom and gloom, that is a reality of downtown Edmonton and its attractiveness to investors.

At the same time other projects are moving forward which is great. But we dont need to kumbaya because something said you dont like so its negative and doom and gloom.

While I agree that facts that aren't positive don't equal doom and gloom, the way you phrase things to other members of the forum should still be done respectfully. Using words like ridiculous, etc towards those that don't have inside knowledge isn't helpful to carrying a productive conversation. You can disagree with someone without belittling their opinion.

For those that don't have inside information: when individuals from industry share realistic things about institutional investment and acknowledge that local development is still occurring, that isn't doom and gloom. Both of those things can be true. It doesn't need to be an either or argument; please don't jump to one end of the spectrum and apply labels to people when they are being realistic about the market in Edmonton. If we ever go back to the 90s where there was literally zero development, we can have a conversation about doom and gloom.

To all, please stop with comments about other posters opinions and tone down the rhetoric.

 

[Romanov]

Example of a media piece for a large site in Edmonton's core. This site is in a more desirable location currently, and has had local and out of province interest - according to the web article. Wonder what ever happened in the end for this site.

This entire block in downtown Edmonton is for sale

Want to own an entire block in Alberta's capital? The province is taking offers. The 1.48 hectare (3.66 acre) site includes an old hospital, power house and a beautiful brick office building, all constructed almost 100 years ago.

www.google.com

 

[husky]

Anyone know what demo of the site would look like in its existing state? Are there significant piles or foundation works that would need to be removed in order to develop here?

 

[northlands]

Anyone know what demo of the site would look like in its existing state? Are there significant piles or foundation works that would need to be removed in order to develop here?

A new parkade will likely be fully excavated, they could in theory reuse some of the piles if they’re in good structural condition and they work with whatever structure is to be built on top—but I’m not an engineer

 

[BrettB]

Real-estate brokers and or property developers often pay to run advertisements disguised as news articles to try and create a buzz around a property. I wouldn't doubt that's what Great Gulf is trying to do in Calgary

They may at some point, but this was a real article. Papers label advertorials as such, and there's a reporter byline on the story

 

[BASE]

This is the issue I take with voluntarily sharing inside info and insights on this forum. We do not always need to say something positive because what you read you don't like so it is labeled negative and doom and gloom.

We very much can, and do live in an Edmonton where good things happen like MacEwan, and conversely our downtown still needs a lot of work. That doesnt make what I said negative or doom and gloom or is intended to poo poo and be a meanie head to Edmonton. What I shared is a reality that comes from conversations and involvements with developers, investors, executives, etc. Out of the projects being built in downtown, every single one is being built by an Edmonton developer (ONE, Edgar, Westrich) so maybe outside developers are on to something?

The reality is that this specific site has not been attractive to certain local developers for a number of reasons. Downtown as a whole has not been attractive to outsiders for a number of reasons. As much as you and I are boosters and should show confidence in our downtown, that will not change CPPIB (just for example) from investing YOUR pension dollars in a site that doesnt meet their return criteria for your pension. Thats not negative, thats not doom and gloom, that is a reality of downtown Edmonton and its attractiveness to investors.

At the same time other projects are moving forward which is great. But we dont need to kumbaya because something said you dont like so its negative and doom and gloom.

My doom and gloom sentiment wasn’t intended to be directed at yourself or anyone individually, apologies if it came off as such. Always appreciate behind the scenes insights and have no dispute with the validity.

My commentary relates to a bit of a desire for Edmonton to show a little confidence and work on ways to inspire confidence in the market amongst others. It’s a complicated issue no doubt.