Rating of the development

  • 1 Really Good

    Votes: 13 25.5%

  • 2 Not Bad

    Votes: 11 21.6%

  • 3 So So

    Votes: 15 29.4%

  • 4 Not Good

    Votes: 9 17.6%

  • 5 Terrible

    Votes: 3 5.9%
  • Total voters
    51
The Familia said:
Eau Clare is going to be a bleak hellhole for a few years for sure. The plaza is still not complete, and by the spring the mall will be demolished. Who knows when construction will ever start on the Green Line and nothing will be built by Harvard for a while.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately I think you are right. It's incredibly frustrating that at the same time as we are having the biggest population boom in our history, we're seeing almost no private sector investment in the city centre. Eau Claire should be the gem of Calgary's waterfront yet it is basically a sea of parking lots, and losing the mall will only make it look even worse. Part of it might be due to almost all the main land holdings being in the hands of notoriously risk adverse pension funds?
 
Albertasaurus said:
Unfortunately I think you are right. It's incredibly frustrating that at the same time as we are having the biggest population boom in our history, we're seeing almost no private sector investment in the city centre. Eau Claire should be the gem of Calgary's waterfront yet it is basically a sea of parking lots, and losing the mall will only make it look even worse. Part of it might be due to almost all the main land holdings being in the hands of notoriously risk adverse pension funds?
Click to expand...
The city also divested itself (even if it felt little responsibility due to how it was owned) of a rec centre right there. They are hardly blameless.
 
Albertasaurus said:
Unfortunately I think you are right. It's incredibly frustrating that at the same time as we are having the biggest population boom in our history, we're seeing almost no private sector investment in the city centre. Eau Claire should be the gem of Calgary's waterfront yet it is basically a sea of parking lots, and losing the mall will only make it look even worse. Part of it might be due to almost all the main land holdings being in the hands of notoriously risk adverse pension funds?
Click to expand...

amazing, who had eau claire gets worse in 2024 on their bingo card?
 
It would be great if someone who has deep pockets and is bullish on Calgary decided to proceed with something in Eau Claire. Unfortunately if we wait for the likes of Harvard, Oxford or Bentall to do anything it'll be another 35 years before anything happens there.
 
Is it just me or does development move painfully slow in Calgary, seemingly slower than even in Toronto, where it’s a snail’s pace! There should be some sort of law where prime developments lots such as this one in Eau Claire, where a plan is in place, cannot languish vacant/undeveloped for years and years, unless there are extenuating circumstances.
 
Some development moves slow, some moves fast, depends on the developer and how much they can do at any given time. Giving the city more power over developments and timelines is a bad idea IMO, the city has enough power already, and too many of the people wielding it have no idea what they are doing.
 
YYCguy said:
Is it just me or does development move painfully slow in Calgary, seemingly slower than even in Toronto, where it’s a snail’s pace! There should be some sort of law where prime developments lots such as this one in Eau Claire, where a plan is in place, cannot languish vacant/undeveloped for years and years, unless there are extenuating circumstances.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. There's a noticeable discrepancy in the pace of large developments between Calgary and other major cities. For instance, my recent visit to Metro Van left me surprised by the abundance of high-rises, especially in Surrey, compared to Calgary. Despite the strong market conditions for condos and apartments in Calgary, there's still a significant gap in development. Like Calgary, Surrey also has room for outward expansion, so the argument about geographical constraints limiting construction doesn't really sell to me. It's frustrating to see developers sitting on land or parking revenue without any intention to build, and proposals lingering for years before disappearing. Implementing a vacancy lot tax, especially in downtown/beltline areas, should seriously be considered.
 
gsunnyg said:
I agree with you. There's a noticeable discrepancy in the pace of large developments between Calgary and other major cities. For instance, my recent visit to Metro Van left me surprised by the abundance of high-rises, especially in Surrey, compared to Calgary. Despite the strong market conditions for condos and apartments in Calgary, there's still a significant gap in development. Like Calgary, Surrey also has room for outward expansion, so the argument about geographical constraints limiting construction doesn't really sell to me. It's frustrating to see developers sitting on land or parking revenue without any intention to build, and proposals lingering for years before disappearing. Implementing a vacancy lot tax, especially in downtown/beltline areas, should seriously be considered.
Click to expand...
In Vancouver it is now only about dollars per square foot but being allowed at all. Anywhere where density is permitted density will go. Developers pay $300 a square foot in government taxes for development permission.

It is not a useful example.
 
darwink said:
In Vancouver it is now only about dollars per square foot but being allowed at all. Anywhere where density is permitted density will go. Developers pay $300 a square foot in government taxes for development permission.

It is not a useful example.
Click to expand...
Well if it's not a useful example, then how come even with a tax, they're popping up highrises and midrises at an insane pace? If anything that makes me question what exactly are we doing wrong in Calgary. For the longest time, I heard the argument that market demand was the key reason for the lack of highrise and midrise start-ups, but that's not the case no longer, so what is it?
 
gsunnyg said:
Well if it's not a useful example, then how come even with a tax, they're popping up highrises and midrises at an insane pace? If anything that makes me question what exactly are we doing wrong in Calgary. For the longest time, I heard the argument that market demand was the key reason for the lack of highrise and midrise start-ups, but that's not the case no longer, so what is it?
Click to expand...
When you can sell for what, sub $500 a square foot in Nolan Hill. $1000 in Surrey for an old building.

Yeah it is all market. But the super high prices in BC means the local government can dictate build form AND developers if they think they can get the government to authorize the density they’ll go for it. The government supports the prices by both taxing development and limiting the quantity. So it runs in a circle.

What I’m saying is that to replicate those conditions Calgary would have to make very counterproductive choices, choices BC is actively trying to undo.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top