Offworld
New Member
I honestly didn't know termites were an issue in Edmonton. I just learned something!
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
archited
Senior Member
Probably not termites so much (although climate change may alter that calculation), but mold attenuation is always a concern and now we are seeing drywall companies adjusting their products to fight that as well. There is discussion that these items will be codified soon.
buildings
Active Member
huh. I thought it was fireproofing.
IanO
Superstar
Mold, moisture and insect. You would not typically 'fireproof' wood (unlike steel), but rather achieve that rating by way of wall assembly and board.
Coprolite
Active Member
Ah yes. This is the one being built over the old house that I rented a suite in before I moved to Boyle Street. It was a lovely old place, but had definitely seen better days and it would've been a very spectacular project to actually fix the place up. Moved out after Westrich bought it, because it was one thing to rent that place from a nice little old lady and a completely different animal to rent it from Westrich. We ended up in an impasse because the place was heated by a very inefficient gravity furnace that looked like something out of a mad scientist's zeppelin. On a cold day, to keep the house from self destructing by frozen pipes, I had to go down there and manually crank it up and the heat bill basically went ballistic. I, meanwhile, was only renting the top floor, had my own electrical meter but gas was all on one meter. So my old landlord would just cut me a check to cover the cost of me keeping the house from destroying itself. I asked the new owners about continuing that sort of arrangement or shifting the heating responsibilities over to the landlord and increasing my rent a little. I got told that I was renting the whole house for less than the cost of keeping it standing, pulled out my actual lease and pointed out that I was not in fact renting the whole house.
The guy running the project suggested I manage the building and get renters in on the main floor and in the basement (and actually showed up with his alarmingly young girlfriend and wanted to show her around the main floor and the basement. There was a lot of him saying, "This isn't so bad," and the poor young lady nodding and looking really uncomfortable. After I thought about it, I answered that would probably be illegal, especially given the condition the basement was in, and wouldn't balance with my work since I didn't have the time or expertise to really see the lower levels brought up to habitability. I got told they'd just get someone else to rent it then (because they weren't planning to actually break ground until well down the road. I gave my notice, ended up renting a nicer place (this time a whole house) for less than I was paying there, and a month later they knocked the house down and turned it into a parking lot until it was time to break ground.
There's been a bunch of drama between Westrich and the neighbours. Westrich originally wanted to buy the house just to the north, but they didn't like the offer. Westrich came back with what seemed like a threat to destroy the value of the house (in email, which of course the homeowners saved and printed out), and they've been having their battles ever since. Most recent one is due to Westrich violating an agreement about how far over the crane can cross the property to the north, apparently involving Westrich producing a document that seems to be different from the agreement the homeowners actually signed. And while Westrich had agreed to cover the costs of the lawyer who drew up the agreement, it turned out that payment never emerged and the lawyer was trying to collect.
I'm glad the neighbourhood is seeing more density, and most of the houses replaced were REALLY long in the tooth (one was in such a state where I was surprised it wasn't condemned and really needed to be pulled), and I hope this turns out well and they don't have the issues with fitting out the place that they did for their building on 103 Street. But, boy oh boy was this ever a weird chapter.
The guy running the project suggested I manage the building and get renters in on the main floor and in the basement (and actually showed up with his alarmingly young girlfriend and wanted to show her around the main floor and the basement. There was a lot of him saying, "This isn't so bad," and the poor young lady nodding and looking really uncomfortable. After I thought about it, I answered that would probably be illegal, especially given the condition the basement was in, and wouldn't balance with my work since I didn't have the time or expertise to really see the lower levels brought up to habitability. I got told they'd just get someone else to rent it then (because they weren't planning to actually break ground until well down the road. I gave my notice, ended up renting a nicer place (this time a whole house) for less than I was paying there, and a month later they knocked the house down and turned it into a parking lot until it was time to break ground.
There's been a bunch of drama between Westrich and the neighbours. Westrich originally wanted to buy the house just to the north, but they didn't like the offer. Westrich came back with what seemed like a threat to destroy the value of the house (in email, which of course the homeowners saved and printed out), and they've been having their battles ever since. Most recent one is due to Westrich violating an agreement about how far over the crane can cross the property to the north, apparently involving Westrich producing a document that seems to be different from the agreement the homeowners actually signed. And while Westrich had agreed to cover the costs of the lawyer who drew up the agreement, it turned out that payment never emerged and the lawyer was trying to collect.
I'm glad the neighbourhood is seeing more density, and most of the houses replaced were REALLY long in the tooth (one was in such a state where I was surprised it wasn't condemned and really needed to be pulled), and I hope this turns out well and they don't have the issues with fitting out the place that they did for their building on 103 Street. But, boy oh boy was this ever a weird chapter.
thommyjo
Senior Member
From all the rumours around westrich…where there’s smoke…there’s fire.
Glad they’re building stuff. But I wouldn’t ever get into businesses with them.
Glad they’re building stuff. But I wouldn’t ever get into businesses with them.
Coprolite
Active Member
IanO
Superstar
The vast majority are upstanding and committed to quality/client experience, let alone the VERY significant amount of philanthropy by those in this industry.
Sure there are some bad apples, conflicts and disagreements on deficiencies etc., but the industry as a whole are very much community builders and well respected.
As someone who leads an organization of that industry here in the Bow Valley, I can personally attest to the deep commitment most have towards their projects.
Sure there are some bad apples, conflicts and disagreements on deficiencies etc., but the industry as a whole are very much community builders and well respected.
As someone who leads an organization of that industry here in the Bow Valley, I can personally attest to the deep commitment most have towards their projects.
Coprolite
Active Member
Everything I ever dealt with Westrich over gave me the feeling that I was dealing with an extremely fly-by-night outfit. Everything was alarm bells. The guy in charge especially just gave off this "trying very hard to play a successful businessman" vibe.
IanO
Superstar
This 'fly-by-night' developer is probably doing the most # of multi-fam units in central Edmonton right now... just sayin'
CaptainBL
Active Member
They have delivered on several high-rise and mid-rise projects in Edmonton, have ~1,500 units under development in Edmonton alone, and have projects under development in Ottawa, Kelowna, Calgary and the Vancouver area.
There are many fly-by-night developers everywhere, I would not classify Westrich as one of them based on their performance and experience.
Coprolite
Active Member
Perhaps, but it's never going to surprise me when they mysteriously dial a project wayyyy back in scope, or end up doing something like using a crane which covers too much of the neighbours property and then try pretend the neighbour agreed to it, or they run up against project delays because their design turns out to be a nightmare to run wiring or plumbing in, or ends up with flooding right out of the gate, or when they back out of a condo sale right before possession because they decide they're going with rentals, or some other Potemkin Village weirdness pops up with them.
But that said, some of their projects have really improved the streetscape, and I do hope that the current iteration of this project goes smoothly from here on out, because the concept seems ideal for the neighbourhood. I like that they've moved the bar and done things where no one else is lining up; and going to suck if they end up continuing their whole litany of issues (or imploding outright), and that sours the impression of bringing this kind of redevelopment to the core in general.
Last edited:
SarcasticMarmot
Active Member
I imagine as a developer you get so many unreasonable NIMBY style complaints mixed in with the legitimate concerns it gets overwhelming to differentiate between the two and they get numb to it. Not saying its a good thing but that is understandable.
It's bad that I can immediately picture that "guy", there are waaay too many of them.
Coprolite
Active Member
Hell, the city is full of people who are mad that where my new house is isn't still an airport and they can't take a PWA 737-200 to Calgary and smoke on the plane. I run across demands online that they actually tear it down and re-open the airport. On the other hand, there's a CERTAIN builder in that development who literally just glued mantlepieces to the wall (and is thankfully no longer a builder there).
I am confident that your mental image is largely correct.
thommyjo
Senior Member
And the 30 under 30 pipeline to prison is also really strong even though all those people looked successful for a season.
30 under 30-year sentences: why so many of Forbes’ young heroes face jail | Business | The Guardian
Ex-CEO Charlie Javice, 31, is just the latest from the magazine’s list to see criminal charges
amp.theguardian.com