ChazYEG
Senior Member
Considering that Edmonton had no such incentive, I am very happy with the results we're getting
|
|
|
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
Kosy123
Senior Member
I'd rather spend grant money first on new construction and buildings first and office conversions last tbh. I get that there's a property tax uplift for lower office vacancy rates, but the amount of money Calgary is throwing at conversions for the units they're getting seem underwhelming. I get it's a different problem and we have a glut of parking and empty lots that makes it easier for us to focus on new builds, but cost-benefit for tax dollars seems better for new builds?
So far for office conversions, we're getting:
- Phipps Mckinnon Conversion. (100 units)
- Financial Building Conversion (33 units)
- McKenney Building Conversion (33 units)
- CN Tower Conversion (344 units)
- The Standard on Jasper Conversion (???)
- WSP Place Conversion (???)
- Highfield Place Conversion
MacLac
Senior Member
Isn't that just how YYC divy's up their HAF bucks? Let them turn derelict towers from the 60's and 70's into apartment buildings that no one will live in. We get brand new buildings with our HAF bucks while they give their ego's a boost and "dumby down their office vacancy rates" to make their DT numbers look better. Now with Cenovus buying MEG - watch out MEG workers in their MEG building - gone. Conoco will be down to a few warm bodies. CNRL is abandoning their "flagship" buildings in Banker's Hall #2 and Dome and Home towers and moving into an old Shell building built in the 70's - all the while giving up half of their pre-existing office space. I'm telling you, if YYC did NOT convert these buildings - ouch!
IanO
Superstar
I don't think we should take any pleasure in Calgary's challenges for the delta between the two cities is now a grand canyon and they are not looking back.
roe_
Active Member
I certainly don't take pleasure, but I also don't hand-wring about being left behind. Edmonton should be Edmonton and worry less about being compared to Calgary.David A
Senior Member
Edmonton was encouraging and doing residential conversions downtown decades ago, before it was even thought of in Calgary, and actually we still are. Although not with the emergency level of public money that they are having to put in now in response to an office vacancy rate that is still considerably higher than ours. I have to laugh if they think they discovered this great idea, when in fact it has been happening elsewhere for a long time.
However, it is better not to focus only on conversions. I also feel new building will more more attractive, successful and at a lower cost. It will also help fill in some of those empty lots we still seem to have downtown
MacLac
Senior Member
Agreed, It's just me providing some levity to all things great and mighty in YYC when their DT is struggling as bad as us, if not worse than us...
ChazYEG
Senior Member
Yeah, I feel like we're all happy with how Edmonton is doing conversions without shelling out millions of public dollars, and leaving these incentives for new builds. I feel like it won't be long before this movement starts paying off big time. As good as some conversions might be, purpose built residential tends to be substantially better quality, and I feel like that might end up being a net positive, even if it means we don't get as many shiny towers. I would honestly much rather Edmonton go the Europe way and have low and mid-rise high density that has good human scale and gives us more complete streets, and save the towers for the odd hotel and new office building, or a few residentials in the CBD and along main roads (Jasper Ave).
Gronk!
Senior Member
A brief history of Commerce Place
edmonton.taproot.news
A moment in history: Dec. 19, 1986
On this day in 1986, a land sale was the first step to building one of Edmonton's tallest downtown towers.
edmonton.taproot.news
IanO
Superstar
IanO
Superstar
Maybe now is the time to consider the second tower, but as a mixed-use hotel and residential. It's an ideal location and well connected.
Gronk!
Senior Member
I'm OK with this as long as the existing businesses (e.g. Icon, LUX, GoodLife Fitness) are not impacted. Retaining the historic CIBC building goes without saying. I am wondering if a hotel lobby and drop-off area will be a good fit along 101 St.
Beltline_B
Senior Member
Hopefully this doesn't sidetrack the thread, but as a Calgarian, I wanted to weigh in on the conversation regarding the funding for office conversions. There's seems to be a fair bit of critisim around it, but there are a few things worth pointing out.
1) For Edmonton, I agree that it wouldn't make sense to fund conversions. Edmonton putting funding towards new builds on empty lots makes sense, and IMO is a good use of funds. For Calgary, IMO funding conversions makes sense. In the past 10 years, 15,000 units have been built in Calgary's downtown, with 2,200 currently u/c and another 1,100 breaking ground in the next coupe of months. New units aren't an issue. There's always a constant stream of them coming on line.
2) It's not a case of having to choose one method over the other. Both cities are doing what makes sense, but also both methods can be done concurrently. Edmonton has done conversions without public funding, Calgary has done new builds without public funding.
3) Of Calgary's 2,600 conversion units (completed or currently being converted), about 1/3 are not using public funding. In light of this, should the city do more funding to conversions? That's difficult to say, but I believe the initial funding got the ball rolling and now many of the more recent conversions aren't using the funding.
IMHO, the conversion program has been a success. I'm not just saying that as more Calgary booster-ism, but more than there isn't really a downside. 2,800 added units, with another 1,200 planned (The total breakout of the 4,000 units) some of the conversions have been non-residential, such as the UofC architecture school moving into the former Nexen building, also two buildings have been converted into a hotel, and another one is being converted into a hostel. Perhaps the biggest benefit of all, is that almost of all of the conversions are in the CBD, and it's changing the ratio of office to residential, in an area that was heavily office.
It's not a one or the other situation.
To your point about the office oil company mergers etc.., yes, the mergers are decreasing the number of office users, but this isn't a concern at all, it's exactly what Calgary urbanists want. Shuffles and mergers keep happening and companies migrate to the newer buildings leaving the older ones to be converted, or have the space taken up by non-oil and gas companies (IT and Fintech companies have been taking some of that space).
As it stands AA space is at around 17% vacancy, and AAA space is at 10%, which has left high vacancy in the Class B and C market, and those are the buildings finding the alternate uses.
1) For Edmonton, I agree that it wouldn't make sense to fund conversions. Edmonton putting funding towards new builds on empty lots makes sense, and IMO is a good use of funds. For Calgary, IMO funding conversions makes sense. In the past 10 years, 15,000 units have been built in Calgary's downtown, with 2,200 currently u/c and another 1,100 breaking ground in the next coupe of months. New units aren't an issue. There's always a constant stream of them coming on line.
2) It's not a case of having to choose one method over the other. Both cities are doing what makes sense, but also both methods can be done concurrently. Edmonton has done conversions without public funding, Calgary has done new builds without public funding.
3) Of Calgary's 2,600 conversion units (completed or currently being converted), about 1/3 are not using public funding. In light of this, should the city do more funding to conversions? That's difficult to say, but I believe the initial funding got the ball rolling and now many of the more recent conversions aren't using the funding.
IMHO, the conversion program has been a success. I'm not just saying that as more Calgary booster-ism, but more than there isn't really a downside. 2,800 added units, with another 1,200 planned (The total breakout of the 4,000 units) some of the conversions have been non-residential, such as the UofC architecture school moving into the former Nexen building, also two buildings have been converted into a hotel, and another one is being converted into a hostel. Perhaps the biggest benefit of all, is that almost of all of the conversions are in the CBD, and it's changing the ratio of office to residential, in an area that was heavily office.
We're also getting plenty of new residential buildings
It's not a one or the other situation.To your point about the office oil company mergers etc.., yes, the mergers are decreasing the number of office users, but this isn't a concern at all, it's exactly what Calgary urbanists want. Shuffles and mergers keep happening and companies migrate to the newer buildings leaving the older ones to be converted, or have the space taken up by non-oil and gas companies (IT and Fintech companies have been taking some of that space).
As it stands AA space is at around 17% vacancy, and AAA space is at 10%, which has left high vacancy in the Class B and C market, and those are the buildings finding the alternate uses.
Last edited:
David A
Senior Member
I completely agree, the approach Calgary is taking for office conversions makes total sense for its situation and Edmonton's likewise. IMO hotel is probably a better conversion of office space than other residential.Hopefully this doesn't sidetrack the thread, but as a Calgarian, I wanted to weigh in on the conversation regarding the funding for office conversions. There's seems to be a fair bit of critisim around it, but there are a few things worth pointing out.
1) For Edmonton, I agree that it wouldn't make sense to fund conversions. Edmonton putting funding towards new builds on empty lots makes sense, and IMO is a good use of funds. For Calgary, IMO funding conversions makes sense. In the past 10 years, 15,000 units have been built in Calgary's downtown, with 2,200 currently u/c and another 1,100 breaking ground in the next coupe of months. New units aren't an issue. There's always a constant stream of them coming on line.
2) It's not a case of having to choose one method over the other. Both cities are doing what makes sense, but also both methods can be done concurrently. Edmonton has done conversions without public funding, Calgary has done new builds without public funding.
3) Of Calgary's 2,600 conversion units (completed or currently being converted), about 1/3 are not using public funding. In light of this, should the city do more funding to conversions? That's difficult to say, but I believe the initial funding got the ball rolling and now many of the more recent conversions aren't using the funding.
IMHO, the conversion program has been a success. I'm not just saying that as more Calgary booster-ism, but more than there isn't really a downside. 2,800 added units, with another 1,200 planned (The total breakout of the 4,000 units) some of the conversions have been non-residential, such as the UofC architecture school moving into the former Nexen building, also two buildings have been converted into a hotel, and another one is being converted into a hostel. Perhaps the biggest benefit of all, is that almost of all of the conversions are in the CBD, and it's changing the ratio of office to residential, in an area that was heavily office.
We're also getting plenty of new residential buildings
To your point about the office oil company mergers etc.., yes, the mergers are decreasing the number of office users, but this isn't a concern at all, it's exactly what Calgary urbanists want. Shuffles and mergers keep happening and companies migrate to the newer buildings leaving the older ones to be converted, or have the space taken up by non-oil and gas companies (IT and Fintech companies have been taking some of that space).
As it stands AA space is at around 17% vacancy, and AAA space is at 10%, which has left high vacancy in the Class B and C market, and those are the buildings finding the alternate uses.
I am actually a bit surprised that also hasn't happened yet in Edmonton, given there have been so few new hotels downtown here over the last several decades.
Educational institutions can also be a good conversion. We have a bit of that here too, but the U of A Enterprise space while showing some recent signs of life, in seems in particular still seems under utilized.
Beltline_B
Senior Member
Agreed. Hotels are always a good add. a conversion, plus another one or two new ones thrown into the mix.