[David A]

As more people continue to move here from elsewhere, excess supply will diminish and people coming from elsewhere will probably not be as adverse to living in more central areas than people living here seem to be.

Probably to them, especially if they are coming from more expensive places, some of the prices will seem like the bargain of the century.

 

[TAS]

While vibrancy/perception is getting better imo, it's no where near where we need to be. And the park/LRT construction won't be done for several years, so you'd kinda be building in the middle of nowhere. There is a risk to that as well.

The park will be done well before The Shift would ever begin any occupancy. But if they prefer to wait until after its done and all the safety/cleanliness issues are taken care of, it would help reduce their risk.

And if 104 street is still the better bet with reduced risk, there is still opportunity there.

 

[BASE]

Pretty disappointing given what is coming for the area but hopefully the Parks project will be a good demonstration of success in the area can look like. Also This group has a groove going in a popular west Oliver area with a couple projects to keep them busy so no need to take the "risk" immediately.

 

[Gronk!]

Pretty disappointing indeed - The Shift cannot come soon enough.

 

[Greenspace]

We have 3 large developers all with property around the proposed park. The park will be completed end of 2025. I haven't talked to Edgar for a while but I assume he'd like to get going if the numbers made sense. Also I know they're concerned about construction logistics with 106 St AND 102 avenue both under construction. Don't forget Warehouse Park construction includes 106 Street streetscaping from Jasper to 102 Avenue. 102 Avenue closed partially to 107 Street for VLRT.

 

[Glenco]

I don’t understand the anxiety over this project. If I were them I wouldn’t build yet either. Parks will supply more than sufficient product especially if they build the second tower. Lots of time for Autograph to pick the ideal time to launch.

 

[IanO]

Fair, but how about creating enough demand for multiple towers to go up at once versus 1 or 2? Edmonton needs momentum in its core and 1 or 2 towers in each phase of development going in parallel.

Planning/permitting
Excavation
Tower erection
Fit up and turnover

If not, it will be 30+ years before it has real transformation.

~35 years of transformation at a Vancouver pace.

Gaillo on SSP (53444945865_364c08d90d_h.jpg)

 

[roe_]

Yup, unfortunately council listens more to SJW's than people with money and a vision.

I don't disagree with the points Edgar makes about the current state of downtown, but I'd be careful before committing finite financial resources. If grants are provided then it is likely that other projects may need to be cancelled or delayed, such as street and avenue renewal which is badly needed downtown.

If you've followed the news over the past few months, several developers have publicly stated they need financial incentives to build downtown. Clearly there is a public relations campaign to pressure council into providing some type of per door grant, and if I was in the position of a developer I would be doing exactly the same thing. But as a taxpayer, I want public money to be used as effectively as possible, which may or may not include providing grants to developers to build downtown. Before rushing in, it would be interesting to know what we would have to re-prioritize to provide these grants.

 

[Gus Haynes]

^Exactly. Municipal tax dollars are stretched thin as it is. We need to be realistic about the political consequences of agreeing to these handouts. I would be highly surprised if public subsidies to private homebuilders simply to serve the purpose of "creating momentum downtown" would be a politically palatable move for most councilors, unless the lion's share of those funds were directed towards significant low-income/affordable components. (And even then...)

 

[fromyeg]

In a similar theme to the federal government removing GST from new rental bindings, could the City create an initiative where new rental buildings pay a reduced property tax for a certain number of years after completion?

Would that serve as a way to incentivize development while not taking dollars out of the budget?

(Feel free to explain why this would be an awful idea if it is. )

 

[Kosy123]

In a similar theme to the federal government removing GST from new rental bindings, could the City create an initiative where new rental buildings pay a reduced property tax for a certain number of years after completion?

Would that serve as a way to incentivize development while not taking dollars out of the budget?

(Feel free to explain why this would be an awful idea if it is. )

I mean there's already this

Edmonton kills 50-year-old higher apartment tax, other homeowners will pay more

Owners of rental apartments in Edmonton will get 11.7 per cent tax cut over 5 years. City council voted 7-6 to remove a 50-year old policy

edmontonjournal.com

Either way, there's little political appetite for a significant grant from municipal funds, which is why the Housing Accelerator Fund would be the best funding source for DT grants and I'm somewhat confident that people there know.

 

[SMayo]

Fair, but how about creating enough demand for multiple towers to go up at once versus 1 or 2? Edmonton needs momentum in its core and 1 or 2 towers in each phase of development going in parallel.

Planning/permitting
Excavation
Tower erection
Fit up and turnover

If not, it will be 30+ years before it has real transformation.

~35 years of transformation at a Vancouver pace.

Gaillo on SSP (53444945865_364c08d90d_h.jpg)

Don't forget that Vancouvers development has the advantage of twice the population of Edmonton.
Also it depends on what we want out of our development. A large portion of DT Vancouver's towers are nothing more than assets for investment portfolios and majority of Vancouver residents will only ever see them from the outside

 

[David A]

Don't forget that Vancouvers development has the advantage of twice the population of Edmonton.
Also it depends on what we want out of our development. A large portion of DT Vancouver's towers are nothing more than assets for investment portfolios and majority of Vancouver residents will only ever see them from the outside

A lot of it looks very nice, but at the cost of being severely unaffordable to most people.

An important part of being a livable place is being able to afford to live there, which I think is often forgotten by people who are either very well off or oblivious to reality.

 

[husky]

In a similar theme to the federal government removing GST from new rental bindings, could the City create an initiative where new rental buildings pay a reduced property tax for a certain number of years after completion?

Would that serve as a way to incentivize development while not taking dollars out of the budget?

(Feel free to explain why this would be an awful idea if it is. )

I might be wrong but I think that's what the subsidy programs end up being (at least I think that's what the last round was). Tax doesn't have to get paid or gets deferred for X amount of years.

 

[crisp]

I don't disagree with the points Edgar makes about the current state of downtown, but I'd be careful before committing finite financial resources. If grants are provided then it is likely that other projects may need to be cancelled or delayed, such as street and avenue renewal which is badly needed downtown.

If you've followed the news over the past few months, several developers have publicly stated they need financial incentives to build downtown. Clearly there is a public relations campaign to pressure council into providing some type of per door grant, and if I was in the position of a developer I would be doing exactly the same thing. But as a taxpayer, I want public money to be used as effectively as possible, which may or may not include providing grants to developers to build downtown. Before rushing in, it would be interesting to know what we would have to re-prioritize to provide these grants.

But based on the comments from Edgar that we are talking about, I don't see them asking for any grants or financial incentives. They are simply saying they need the City to do more about the state of downtown. We can redevelop all the streets and avenues, and people will still not move downtown, and developers will still not build downtown, if the only people enjoying those streets are the loitering homeless population.

And I'll be honest, I don't know the answer. I only know the problem.