[inclusion]

Oh there was definitely a falling out @IanO; the lawyer who was in charge of the project at the time from the PR/concept-effectuation side is no longer there. He was so anxious to get the promotion trailer in place (they even had a full-on landscape/hardscape plan to go with the trailer, planned for the site in front of the Russian Orthodox Church). At the time he was going on and on about how the project was a legacy project to honor Stan Alldritt's role in the Riverdale Brick yard and his building that company and Alldritt Homes into one of the premier Alberta-owned companies in Edmonton for that era. I am guessing that someone on the money side internally decided that it was too big of a risk. The odd part that is hard to figure out is why the early stages of the project managed to get so far along -- from Kennedy's plan to Dub's plan and all of the Stantec engineering into footings and foundation design, multiple soils tests, mapping of the underground mine shafts, etc. -- all to no end. From a feasibility perspective projects, particularly of this scale, do not go so deep into resolution before getting cancelled altogether.
I still think the project is viable -- it has probably the best unobstructed (and destined to remain that way) river valley view in all of Edmonton overlooking, as it does, Louise McKinney Park and all of its features, the Muttart Conservatory, and Edmonton's new pedestrian/LRT bridge; it is right next door to the Convention Centre (hotel perspective); it is within walking distance of Edmonton's main cultural event sites -- AGA, Winspear, etc.; and, from a "futures perspective" it could lead the redevelopment of the Quarters.
Maybe the scale of the concept is too large for Alldritt Land -- personally I don't believe so, especially if the intention is to build a so-called "Legacy Project" for the company's historic founder.
If Edmonton only had some A-list investigative journalists, the story could be told. I would think that Alldritt Land partners would want to get ahead of that eventuality.

You kind of answer it yourself, no? Sounds like when they did the detailed structural design they found out that it was likely too complex and therefore, too expensive. No one here really knows how much capital Aldritt has nor how much they could have accessed. My guess is it was just too expensive and legal counsel is always risk averse, so I imagine some lawyer somewhere said it was too much risk to take on. One need look no further than "The One" in Toronto to know how risky large projects can be and what happens when you take on too much risk.

 

[archited]

One Bloor West in Toronto is a completely different story (storey) -- mismanagement of construction at the core of the problem. Regardless it is being completed now -- B1M has the whole story on that project...

.
Back to the Quarters Project -- all questions go unanswered... still.

 

[Out of Towner]

Have to agree with those who believe that it's an ambitious project on a building site that has an inherent financial risk attached to it. The LRT tunnel delay and the associated escalating construction cost at the adjacent site serving as an example. In addition to the construction risk, there's also the risk that the project wouldn't generate a sufficient return on capital. It's still in a rough part of town and it's not a given that suites could be sold at their list or profitable price. Potential purchasers could balk at living in the area. Part of that problem stems from the mixed signals City Hall sends out about the Quarters. On one hand City Hall has talked about a bustling Bohemian Village in the Quarters (which is dreaming to begin with) but then on the other, it talks about low cost housing in the area. It's only reasonable though that a suite purchaser would want to know City Hall's future plan for the Quarters. There's a difference between buying an upscale suite in an upscale area and buying an upscale suite in low cost area. If I was an investor in the new Doubletree Hotel in the Quarters, I'd be peeved off over City Hall's commitment in seeing development though to the end. City Hall started things in the Quarters and then dropped the ball. So Alldritt has to be looking at the lack of leadership and direction from City Hall and be wondering what comes next. Asking Alldritt to be the catalyst for development in the Quarters but at the same time having no clear grasp of what City Hall's vision for the Quarters is, is probably a financial risk that Alldritt is unprepared to take. Alldritt may believe the project is a profitable venture but at the same time they don't want to bankrupt their company finding out for sure.

 

[constance_chlore]

On one hand City Hall has talked about a bustling Bohemian Village in the Quarters (which is dreaming to begin with) but then on the other, it talks about low cost housing in the area.

If you want to bring activity to an area that isn't seeing much, making it attractive for artists is not a bad idea, since they tend to have little money and a high tolerance for disorder. (Think downtown Manhattan in the 70s/80s, for example.) The problem is that that requires a large stock of existing, cheap housing and things like studio space, which the Quarters doesn't really have in that kind of abundance. Unless it's subsidized, new housing will almost by definition not be cheap.

 

[David A]

You kind of answer it yourself, no? Sounds like when they did the detailed structural design they found out that it was likely too complex and therefore, too expensive. No one here really knows how much capital Aldritt has nor how much they could have accessed. My guess is it was just too expensive and legal counsel is always risk averse, so I imagine some lawyer somewhere said it was too much risk to take on. One need look no further than "The One" in Toronto to know how risky large projects can be and what happens when you take on too much risk.

Great view yes, but otherwise not such a great area. Perhaps it could have been viable for Alldritt under certain or ideal economic and other conditions, but we haven't had those over the last several years except fleetingly.

Another problem with the Quarters is even though it is an older area, there is not much older housing stock left that can be rented cheaply and fixed up. Instead, of downtown Manhattan, we had the Edmonton solution, many of the older buildings that were here have been torn down, leaving empty surface lots. So almost any housing will have to be built new and will not have the bohemian character or style of older buildings. If it is subsidized, it could be affordable, but often subsidized housing can look too basic. Will this attract artists much? Maybe, but I have doubts.

 

[archited]

If you want to bring activity to an area that isn't seeing much, making it attractive for artists is not a bad idea, since they tend to have little money and a high tolerance for disorder. (Think downtown Manhattan in the 70s/80s, for example.) The problem is that that requires a large stock of existing, cheap housing and things like studio space, which the Quarters doesn't really have in that kind of abundance. Unless it's subsidized, new housing will almost by definition not be cheap.

Gene Dub has been doing his part here... although he has confessed to me that it is a struggle that needs outside support if this wants to be community wide.