What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    31
TAS said:
Ok, so we're getting a good idea of some of the 2021 projects going ahead as part of city grant incentive.
J123
ICE district Tower BG - if exemption granted
Falcon
Hudson
Open Sky

There's also a proposal for the property immediately north of the planned Open Sky tower on 121 Street. Does anyone know anything about this project?
Click to expand...

What does "if exemption granted" mean? about Tower BG. What exemption are they asking for before building the Tower?
 
EdmTrekker said:
What does "if exemption granted" mean? about Tower BG. What exemption are they asking for before building the Tower?
Click to expand...
I think that's referring to the proposal before council which would allow developers to apply for a tax break to go towards the residential tower portion of podiums which have already been built. Currently, developers can only apply for a tax break for entirely new projects.
 
I know that they were reworking the project but wonder if they still want to proceed given the current environment for that product here?!!?
 
Purpose built rental of a certain $/sqft ie. competing with MacLaren, Augustana etc.
 
CaptainBL said:
Classic hurry up and wait, but demo and leave an empty lot Edmonton style.
Click to expand...

So typical. I am not sure if this happens so much here because the City is spineless in dealing with this.

Perhaps a significant deposit only refundable after construction is completed might make those that love to tear down things hastily and then leave empty lots (in various states of disrepair) might cause them to think a bit more carefully.
 
David A said:
So typical. I am not sure if this happens so much here because the City is spineless in dealing with this.

Perhaps a significant deposit only refundable after construction is completed might make those that love to tear down things hastily and then leave empty lots (in various states of disrepair) might cause them to think a bit more carefully.
Click to expand...
That is a good idea, or perhaps only issuing demo permits if issuing construction permits. There has to be some sort of practical solution out there because every time a demo permit is issued only to have an empty lot left is like fool me once shame on you, fool me over and over again shame on City of Edmonton. Reminds me of Charlie Brown getting fooled every time by Lucy and the football trick.

1630018301274.png
 
CaptainBL said:
That is a good idea, or perhaps only issuing demo permits if issuing construction permits. There has to be some sort of practical solution out there because every time a demo permit is issued only to have an empty lot left is like fool me once shame on you, fool me over and over again shame on City of Edmonton. Reminds me of Charlie Brown getting fooled every time by Lucy and the football trick.

View attachment 344281
Click to expand...
I think that is an excellent idea and the city should avoid rezoning property instead proving a conditional approval subject to a permit for demolition and construction and which would become final approval once construction commences. This would provide clarity as to developers intent - and not using city zoning processes and the cost of that to create value when all they intent to do is flip it or sit on it.
 
^
It especially irks me to see these lots empty because the commercial buildings that we lost were actually pretty decent looking and had lots of life left in them. If they were derelict and then torn down, fine, not a huge loss. But if there's nothing wrong with the buildings then it's just a waste
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top