^
how to turn a $25M cost into a $40M cost and counting...
all while creating another piece of vacant dirt not worth a tenth of that - as if we don't have enough vacant land already - instead of making good use of 400,000 sf of space.
 
Last edited:
kcantor said:
^
how to turn a $25M cost into a $40M cost and counting...
all while creating another piece of vacant dirt with a tenth of that - as if we don't have enough vacant land already - instead of making good use of 400,000 sf of space.
Click to expand...
Did you see any costs put forward of renovating the structure for housing or something simliar? I believe it can't be reused for something that would compete with Rogers Place, so any rink-based activities would be out of the question.
 
City doesn’t give a shit about history, we all know that. This is a building near and dear to the hearts of every Edmontonian that deserved a second life. So many of the proposals such as the multi rink facility would have served as the centrepiece to the new community as well. But nope, bust up that asbestos laden concrete at inflated prices and get that thing out of here. We need to trust our leaders as the CoE has shown time and again responsible asset management practices, right?

Also, how in the HELL does that building cost 1.5 million dollars per year to maintain?! It’s an abandoned building that literally only requires heating, water, and security in its current state.
 
Stevey_G said:
City doesn’t give a shit about history, we all know that. This is a building near and dear to the hearts of every Edmontonian that deserved a second life. So many of the proposals such as the multi rink facility would have served as the centrepiece to the new community as well. But nope, bust up that asbestos laden concrete at inflated prices and get that thing out of here. We need to trust our leaders as the CoE has shown time and again responsible asset management practices, right?

Also, how in the HELL does that building cost 1.5 million dollars per year to maintain?! It’s an abandoned building that literally only requires heating, water, and security in its current state.
Click to expand...
The Coliseum wouldn't be able to be used as a multi-rink facility due to the non-competing clauses in the Rogers Place agreement with Katz, as it's a competing use, even though a bunch of extra ice pads would be great for the community.
 
Not to beat this dead horse but the City really should have had some sort of semi-solid plan for the Coliseum before ever inking the deal with Katz. What a fiasco.
 
'The city said it initially wanted to start selling parcels of land in the summer but decided to delay sales to explore “what it would take” to build a net-zero community, which it plans to do now.'

Lessons learned from Blatchford or more of the same?
 
IanO said:
'The city said it initially wanted to start selling parcels of land in the summer but decided to delay sales to explore “what it would take” to build a net-zero community, which it plans to do now.'

Lessons learned from Blatchford or more of the same?
Click to expand...
That's insane. We barely have the market to support Blatchford. Focus money and urbanist demand to Blatchford and let private developers fill up the exhibition lands quickly.
 
soupcrate said:
That's insane. We barely have the market to support Blatchford. Focus money and urbanist demand to Blatchford and let private developers fill up the exhibition lands quickly.
Click to expand...
I don't think we should "fill up" space just for the sake of the land being developed. Having the entire area being developed into say 2000 Single Family homes isn't better than half or quarter of the area being developed into 2000 units.

However, it would kind of be an interesting experiment to set aside land for parks and amenities etc, and then rezone the rest to a medium-to-high density mixed use zoning, and see what gets built. No minimum density, just maximum. I know it would never happen but it would be an interesting experiment. Would it would still turn into SFHs? Would the new zoning increase land prices and prevent most development from happening, or would the high number of available parcels keep prices relatively low and allow for a large variety of typologies? It would be interesting to see what happens when you remove many of the barriers that exist when it comes to multifamily development. I think the most major downside to this is that there would be no incentive to build commercial/mixed use buildings, so it would still likely be highly unwalkable even if it became dense.
 
Airboy said:
I don't think a District Energy Centre is Pie in the Sky. Its being used successfully in quite a few places. Centralized Heating and cooling. Reduces what a developer would need to supply.https://www.electricity.ca/programs/centre-of-excellence/enmaxs-district-energy-centre/

Surrey, UBC etc
Click to expand...
It's not that it can't be done. It's just that the City of Edmonton keeps hiring incompetent people who lack the skills to implement the project. You can see this in the cost overruns at Blatchford. They can make it near net-zero by mandating thermal bridging optimized 2x8 construction, insulated slab, air leakage sealing, and 3kw or bigger solar panels. Essentially, taking Jayman's features up a notch and making it mandatory. The current minimum code of 2x6 with lots thermal bridging shouldn't be acceptable.
 
^^

Our District Energy System | Facilities & Operations

www.ualberta.ca www.ualberta.ca

^I would not say or agree that COE staff are 'incompetent', but perhaps lack the real-world/practical experience or fully understand the private housing market, its forces, pressures, costing and layering of everything on a final $/sqft that's saleable. They get direction from Council to go explore things that are aspirational, currently popular or seen in the most recent Spacing or Dwell and then work to include these into the concept plans, reports and push them in the ASPs.

The disconnect that I usually come across (like I am now), is where personal ideologies and classic bureaucracy impedes:

1. the foundational ability of the private sector to deliver housing
2. the velocity at which it can get approvals and get housing to market
3. the reasonability of the private sector to work within ASPs/zoning requirements to provide a product that is viable for both the developer and purchaser
4. the reasonability of the offsite levies that must be spread across the development
5. the opportunity cost of working on a most complicated/costly/risky urban project versus a less complicated (although not without some of the above) greenfield
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top