What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    30
Greenspace said:
Purely market driven. If rents were higher or condo prices, or conversely costs were less, we'd see other kinds of projects.
Click to expand...
I still don’t quite get the difference between the math for us and Calgary. They’re about $200 more per month for a 1bdrm. But have a dozen highrises being built. Is that really the difference maker? Lots of other cities have higher rents than us, but don’t see the highrises because of their population and workforce.

I think some of it is cultural. Hype, ambition, booster-ism. And some key players like Truman. Calgary just goes for it more than we do.
 
thommyjo said:
I still don’t quite get the difference between the math for us and Calgary. They’re about $200 more per month for a 1bdrm. But have a dozen highrises being built. Is that really the difference maker? Lots of other cities have higher rents than us, but don’t see the highrises because of their population and workforce.

I think some of it is cultural. Hype, ambition, booster-ism. And some key players like Truman. Calgary just goes for it more than we do.
Click to expand...
You have way more high paid professionals working downtown in Calgary; the city has spent decades attracting more corporate offices, while Edmonton hasn't and our downtown in particular has added few jobs over that time.
 
David A said:
You have way more high paid professionals working downtown in Calgary; the city has spent decades attracting more corporate offices, while Edmonton hasn't and our downtown in particular has added few jobs over that time.
Click to expand...
That’s what I’m saying I guess. Is this REALLY about the math when Calgary is only bringing in 15% more rent? Or is this more about the jobs, culture, city ambition, sense of momentum because others are building too, etc.
 
thommyjo said:
That’s what I’m saying I guess. Is this REALLY about the math when Calgary is only bringing in 15% more rent? Or is this more about the jobs, culture, city ambition, sense of momentum because others are building too, etc.
Click to expand...
I would also wager that there's a difference regarding the risk perception for developers and property managers. If they have a reasonably high expectation that they'll be able to sell/lease these high rises quickly and start making money sooner rather than later, even at a reduced margin, they're more likely to build. The conditions for their downtown (and adjacent areas) give a much needed assurance that they won't have an expensive asset that you can't recoup your investment and is bleeding money in maintenance and advertising costs. And at the numbers we're talking, the 15-20% difference in rent also amounts to a substantial sum (a $200 difference per unit, on a 200 unit building, over a year is almost $500k. A larger building, or lease rate delta, could see that go up to $1M/year).
Their condo market is also much healthier, which has a lot to do with what has already been said: the city has invested for decades in attracting head offices and high paying jobs to their downtown, making it much more attractive to living (how much more attractive is debatable) than Edmonton's, which makes it easier for condo developments to pencil out. Same condo that sells for $400k in Edmonton is selling for $600-650k in Calgary. That makes a LOT of difference.
 
Last edited:
thommyjo said:
That’s what I’m saying I guess. Is this REALLY about the math when Calgary is only bringing in 15% more rent? Or is this more about the jobs, culture, city ambition, sense of momentum because others are building too, etc.
Click to expand...

Plus, haven't some our recently built towers sold, including those in Ice District? Not sure if developers are getting a return from these sales or not, though.
But the fact properties are being sold with possibly a return (maybe?) boosts confidence in building towers in Edmonton.
 
It is not that we can't also attract more jobs particularly to downtown if we want to make more of an effort, it is that Edmonton just really hasn't.

I suppose it has been easier just to focus on big projects in the industrial areas, some of which are not even in the city and so don't provide as much economic benefit to the core.

After the arena was built, attention to the downtown seemed to drop to the bottom of the list of priorities for a while, although COVID and its impact seemed to bring back attention, but mainly in a very reactive way.
 
Greenspace said:
My understanding is one level of underground parking, plus part of the main floor. Both this project and Westrich's on 106 Street incorporate red brick, so it should be reasonably attractive.

6 stories, 226 units is the kind of density you see in central London. You don't need towers everywhere.
Click to expand...
Yeah but London is unaffordable
 
ChazYEG said:
I would also wager that there's a difference regarding the risk perception for developers and property managers. If they have a reasonably high expectation that they'll be able to sell/lease these high rises quickly and start making money sooner rather than later, even at a reduced margin, they're more likely to build. The conditions for their downtown (and adjacent areas) give a much needed assurance that they won't have an expensive asset that you can't recoup your investment and is bleeding money in maintenance and advertising costs. And at the numbers we're talking, the 15-20% difference in rent also amounts to a substantial sum (a $200 difference per unit, on a 200 unit building, over a year is almost $500k. A larger building, or lease rate delta, could see that go up to $1M/year).
Their condo market is also much healthier, which has a lot to do with what has already been said: the city has invested for decades in attracting head offices and high paying jobs to their downtown, making it much more attractive to living (how much more attractive is debatable) than Edmonton's, which makes it easier for condo developments to pencil out. Same condo that sells for $400k in Edmonton is selling for $600-650k in Calgary. That makes a LOT of difference.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But the new projects in Calgary certainly aren’t “barely breaking even” in their quality and amenities. So if a very nice highrise is possible there, surely a slightly less nice, but still highrise project is possible here.

I’m not expecting more JWs and Encores all the time. But we can’t get more falcons?
 
thommyjo said:
Agreed. But the new projects in Calgary certainly aren’t “barely breaking even” in their quality and amenities. So if a very nice highrise is possible there, surely a slightly less nice, but still highrise project is possible here.

I’m not expecting more JWs and Encores all the time. But we can’t get more falcons?
Click to expand...
Last I checked, construction costs were pretty similar between here and Calgary, but they get higher per unit than we do. That makes it tough. Wood will forever be at a significant discount to concrete, not to mention the added costs of parking, etc for a high rise. However, land costs are also lower here than in Calgary, so that plays a factor as well; higher land costs generally lead to more upward development. The combination of factors is stacked against us to a certain extent.

There are still high rise developments planned here: Switch P2, Falcon 2, Parks 2, and HAT Old Strathcona x2 (higher land costs). I think there is a bit of bias towards high-rises being tough here from the likes of Westrich, Autograph, and Regency, but part of that is spin and pressuring the city to provide incentives. We also don't know how all these individual companies market their developments to investors - time until ROI, for example. Like anything, it really depends on who you listen to, but remember that each company spokesperson is going to say something based on how their company is approaching the market - that doesn't necessarily mean they are speaking for the whole market.
 
inclusion said:
Last I checked, construction costs were pretty similar between here and Calgary, but they get higher per unit than we do. That makes it tough. Wood will forever be at a significant discount to concrete, not to mention the added costs of parking, etc for a high rise. However, land costs are also lower here than in Calgary, so that plays a factor as well; higher land costs generally lead to more upward development. The combination of factors is stacked against us to a certain extent.

There are still high rise developments planned here: Switch P2, Falcon 2, Parks 2, and HAT Old Strathcona x2 (higher land costs). I think there is a bit of bias towards high-rises being tough here from the likes of Westrich, Autograph, and Regency, but part of that is spin and pressuring the city to provide incentives. We also don't know how all these individual companies market their developments to investors - time until ROI, for example. Like anything, it really depends on who you listen to, but remember that each company spokesperson is going to say something based on how their company is approaching the market - that doesn't necessarily mean they are speaking for the whole market.
Click to expand...
I don't really know what the market is like in Calgary, but things generally seems to be slowing in most cities in Canada. So if they are still building a lot in Calgary, they could end up with a lot of unsold units.

There are still some larger projects planned here, but not as many. Maybe builders are being a bit more cautious in Edmonton now for some reason, but perhaps that could turn out to be a good thing.
 
Mesopotamia said:
Yeah but London is unaffordable
Click to expand...
I think North Americans don't realize how anomalously expensive London is. Think Los Angeles rent with Tennessee incomes. They really could use more towers, plus more mid-rises in the the rather NIMBY-ish outer boroughs.

(This is not a comment on the attitude Edmonton should have. Towers are great! So are six-story mid-rises, as long as they're well-built and attractive. If this is a concrete build with a nice exterior, I'll be happy.)
 
constance_chlore said:
I think North Americans don't realize how anomalously expensive London is. Think Los Angeles rent with Tennessee incomes. They really could use more towers, plus more mid-rises in the the rather NIMBY-ish outer boroughs.

(This is not a comment on the attitude Edmonton should have. Towers are great! So are six-story mid-rises, as long as they're well-built and attractive. If this is a concrete build with a nice exterior, I'll be happy.)
Click to expand...
I remember seeing someone on TikTok mention moving from London to Vancouver, and her mentioning how Vancouver was much more affordable despite living on a server/hospitality salary. Absolutely nuts to think about.
 
Kosy123 said:
I remember seeing someone on TikTok mention moving from London to Vancouver, and her mentioning how Vancouver was much more affordable despite living on a server/hospitality salary. Absolutely nuts to think about.
Click to expand...
It is nuts! And yet lots of people feel compelled to live there because it's where a disproportionate number of the good jobs in the UK are.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top