What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    24
David A said:
I don't think that no one in charge cares, but I believe it is really not a priority for them.

I have heard more than once that the city (or another level of government) "can do anything about ...", but when sufficient public pressure occurs they somehow figure out how to do it.
Click to expand...
We buy it. That is the ultimate stick.
 
tkoe_ said:
A very good question. While I also find this situation frustrating, there are no easy answers. The city absolutely cannot decide at this point they are unhappy with an individual developer's decision and try to take action against them. That type of reactionary thinking will not create a business-friendly environment when no one knows what the rules are until Council decides it doesn't like something. I'm also not sure how that would be legal, unless there is a specific municipal bylaw the developer is contravening (maintenance?).

I also don't know how a general prohibition on demolitions would work across the city. You can't write laws to target one person (or at least you shouldn't). So would homeowners be prohibited from bringing down an old house without being ready to start new construction immediately? What about properties in unsafe/unsanitary condition? Would a rule only apply to condo projects and would that discourage this type of development? How do you deal with changes in the market after demolition has started?

Writing laws is hard and while I am sure there are options out there, it is fantasy to believe that no one in charge cares or that the problem can be easily snapped out of existence.
Click to expand...
There are ways of making this work, and you can have carrots and sticks, for example:

- You can limit the requirement to certain zonings and types of buildings (multi-family and commercial buildings), or specifically make some exempt (SFH, Townhomes, etc).
- We know that a lot of these sites are demo'ed because of property taxes being lower for vacant land, for example. The city can use this fact to create a sort of "subsidy" to prevent demolition: if a developer submits a Demolition Permit without the accompanying Building Permit, the city lowers the taxes for X amount of years, so as to keep the building standing, and maybe even in use. During this timeframe, the developer has to submit their Building Permit and start building, and the Demolition Permit would only be approved when the Building Permit is submitted.
If they don't start building it within the timeframe,, they have to pay the tax delta, retroactively. This has the added benefit of potentially keeping some businesses open and in place for a bit (or a lot) longer, and even activate, albeit temporarily, some buildings that are destined for the chopping board.

I know this sounds simplistic, and there are probably many shortcomings, as well, but an idea like this could be a starting point to getting something going, in this sense.
 
tkoe_ said:
A very good question. While I also find this situation frustrating, there are no easy answers. The city absolutely cannot decide at this point they are unhappy with an individual developer's decision and try to take action against them. That type of reactionary thinking will not create a business-friendly environment when no one knows what the rules are until Council decides it doesn't like something. I'm also not sure how that would be legal, unless there is a specific municipal bylaw the developer is contravening (maintenance?).

I also don't know how a general prohibition on demolitions would work across the city. You can't write laws to target one person (or at least you shouldn't). So would homeowners be prohibited from bringing down an old house without being ready to start new construction immediately? What about properties in unsafe/unsanitary condition? Would a rule only apply to condo projects and would that discourage this type of development? How do you deal with changes in the market after demolition has started?

Writing laws is hard and while I am sure there are options out there, it is fantasy to believe that no one in charge cares or that the problem can be easily snapped out of existence.
Click to expand...
The city is already doing quite a bit if you think about their new zoning approach and substantial completion standard. Without new neighborhoods opened up ASAP on the south side we are going to see the elastic quickly get tighter to the point of snapping. Demand has to go somewhere - if the grand plan is to redirect it to projects like this I just hope the City has thought about whether the advantages we are currently enjoying from more affordable single family homes are worth giving up. Presumably they have concluded that the answer is "yes".
 
ChazYEG said:
There are ways of making this work, and you can have carrots and sticks, for example:

- You can limit the requirement to certain zonings and types of buildings (multi-family and commercial buildings), or specifically make some exempt (SFH, Townhomes, etc).
- We know that a lot of these sites are demo'ed because of property taxes being lower for vacant land, for example. The city can use this fact to create a sort of "subsidy" to prevent demolition: if a developer submits a Demolition Permit without the accompanying Building Permit, the city lowers the taxes for X amount of years, so as to keep the building standing, and maybe even in use. During this timeframe, the developer has to submit their Building Permit and start building, and the Demolition Permit would only be approved when the Building Permit is submitted.
If they don't start building it within the timeframe,, they have to pay the tax delta, retroactively. This has the added benefit of potentially keeping some businesses open and in place for a bit (or a lot) longer, and even activate, albeit temporarily, some buildings that are destined for the chopping board.

I know this sounds simplistic, and there are probably many shortcomings, as well, but an idea like this could be a starting point to getting something going, in this sense.
Click to expand...
Taxation has also changed on vacant and nuisance property so its now 2-4 x higher than having an operating building on it.

www.gov.edmonton.ab.ca

Derelict Residential Tax Subclass | City of Edmonton

The City is establishing a new tax subclass that will allow the City to charge owners of derelict properties a higher tax rate in 2024.
www.gov.edmonton.ab.ca www.gov.edmonton.ab.ca
 
I am on a rollercoaster of emotions, i saw that this site was cleared 😯 and looked up the development application on the city's page, saw the towers that were proposed :) , then checked out this forum to learn more and was even more excited to see an entire redevelopment of the whole block of existing low rises :D. Then see now the developer is MIA and the project has gone nowhere as i scrolled to the end of the thread 😡. What a total waste of a great location and existing businesses that were sent packing.

What the heck are we waiting for anyway to build stuff in this city?
 
IMG_1798.png

Though not this project…..doesn’t give me warm fuzzies that they have a clue on how to develop residential…..
 
They have very significant capacity, but where are their priorities...
 
Address: 9518 - 87 STREET NW
9560 - 87 STREET NW
8720 - 95 AVENUE NW
8722 - 95 AVENUE NW
8724 - 95 AVENUE NW
Status: In Review
File Number: LDA20-0192

Noticed this new Rezoning Application on the map.

No further information yet.

Could there be some movement in the hopefully not too distant future?
 
Avenuer said:
Yup, Nearctic is a joke.
Click to expand...
Any developer that has been actively involved in the Edmonton market since 1979 can hardly be described as a joke. If they took the kind of advice freely given here (and worth what was paid for it), they would probably have gone bankrupt in 1982 (or 1992 or 2002 or 2012 or 2022).

Interestingly enough, Nearctic is a seller as well as a developer so anyone that thinks that the advice is executable is probably welcome to give it a go.
 
Address: 9518 - 87 STREET NW
8720 - 95 AVENUE NW
8722 - 95 AVENUE NW
8724 - 95 AVENUE NW
9508 - 87 STREET NW
Planner Description: The City has received a rezoning application from GEC Architecture. The current zone is a Direct Control Zone (DC2.1187) which allows for high-rise development in the form of towers. The purpose of the rezoning application is to amend the DC Zone to allow opportunities for smaller buildings in the form of mid-rise buildings as well. Specifically, the amendments will: - add wording to Appendix 1: Site Plan to reference both tower and mid rise opportunities; - minor adjustments to the configuration of buildings; and - the removal of Appendix 4: Elevations from the DC to allow for flexibility in building design. Changes are also proposed to the DC text, though these are administrative in nature; requiring uses, definition and references to align with the new Zoning Bylaw 20001.
Status: In Review
Council Public Hearing Date: Dec 09, 2024
File Number: LDA24-0381

Rezoning Application in the works.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top