[Clearshades]

It is the REALITY of every North American cities. We are the lucky ones in all honesty.

The main problem from my perspective is consistent and insistent of " single only" for downtown which takes most of the market away. Vancouver has families downtown, so why can't we? Developers chase a market that is all but dried up for Edmonton. The way we have chosen to developed leaves minimal optical progress and that is a hinder as well. The only concrete visual success is Rogers and associated ancillaries. People need to see that drastic change to buy into the game. When you see a new tower, but the surroundings is a healed war ground, it doesn't do much to enticed anyone- like Omega. This is where I wish developers would get together and approach a different method. Tackle one area together so people can see that synergy and progressively; and ensure a community that it is inclusive for everyone not just the "yuppy-something" that complains about a couple with a baby in the condo.

 

[IanO]

Is Edmonton? I don't think so.

Edmonton's market conditions paired the 'condition' of its Downtown is one of the least attractive investment areas in N.A. at the moment.

It does not matter which market segment you are pursuing, the dollars and sense do not support development for the vast majority of developers, the value proposition for living Downtown has eroded considerably and the perception is atrocious (although and thankfully improving).

This ain't no discussion about families or yuppies vs. 'more inclusive housing', as it simply won't get built given everything.

If you want honesty, Maclab and Qualico and to a lesser extent Langham are going to be VERY challenged to not lose their shirts on their current projects.

Happy New Year.

 

[TAS]

If you want honesty, Maclab and Qualico and to a lesser extent Langham are going to be VERY challenged to not lose their shirts on their current projects.

Happy New Year.

And good morning to you.
The 5 year property tax break all three projects received from the city should help some in the early stages - every bit counts.

The new park will be a major asset and maybe MacEwan students will help populate some of those units.

Hard to predict the next couple of years - so many factors at play.

 

[IanO]

I would agree about the many factors involved and at play, but the market is the market.

You will continue to see 4-6 storey wood framed construction in the Oliver's, Old Straths, Ritchies, Westmounts etc. given their typically lower land costs, lower costs of construction and quicker builds and near or at concrete rents.

But Downtown will need a bunch of things to change to see any significant new activity.

 

[Oliver_William]

Well on a positive note for our downtown CBRE reports 158160 ft2 absorbed downtown in 2023 Q4.

 

[crisp]

Yes I understand that it is an issue in every North American city. The difference is that other cities (or at least the ones I am always comparing Edmonton to in where I want it to be) already had a strong and vibrant downtown community. So if it's a go-to place where people admire their downtown, people are still going there even with all the new problems.

Edmontonians for the most part hate their downtown. It's really hard to change this when there is now less to like.

 

[IanO]

Not sure if they 'hate' it, but have less of need to use it, visit it or enjoy it.

 

[Stevey_G]

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.

I was back all week doing renovations to my condo. There is very clearly a homeless issue downtown akin to what you see in all major downtown cores across this country. The social issues are clear, the solutions not so much. That said, after having not bummed around downtown much these past couple years, I will say that the nightlife, restaurant scene, and new businesses in the area give it more life than what I personally felt was around in 2014-2019. It's getting better, and there are still a number of projects under construction between DT and Oliver.

Edgar's thoughts are relatively misguided in my own humble opinion. People are not constrained by geography in Edmonton and people simply prefer to buy in the 'Burbs. The economics of the city also dictate that most families are not forced into condo living like they are in other cities, so why would they when they can own a big-ass home that they manage themselves?

There are people who prefer downtown, it's just a smaller demographic compared to other cities where downtowns are one of only a few options for places to own.

 

[roe_]

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.

Maybe I am reading this differently, but Edgar is specifically asking for incentives from the city. In essence, they're saying that building costs and the state of downtown make new towers uneconomic. Maybe they are right, but I don't think it is unreasonable to carefully consider what will do the most to improve downtown before we start cutting cheques.

 

[David A]

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.

There is an old saying - if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem and I wonder if that applies to Edgar here. Hoping someone else will improve things is really not a good long term business strategy.

They are not the only developers here and others have and will move ahead, despite some problems. Heck companies that bought properties in the 1970's when New York was near broke and a big mess, later made a killing.

There will seldom be time when conditions are perfect, and if they are price will already be very high and reflect that too. Proceeding with projects is seldom for the fainthearted.

 

[David A]

I was back all week doing renovations to my condo. There is very clearly a homeless issue downtown akin to what you see in all major downtown cores across this country. The social issues are clear, the solutions not so much. That said, after having not bummed around downtown much these past couple years, I will say that the nightlife, restaurant scene, and new businesses in the area give it more life than what I personally felt was around in 2014-2019. It's getting better, and there are still a number of projects under construction between DT and Oliver.

Edgar's thoughts are relatively misguided in my own humble opinion. People are not constrained by geography in Edmonton and people simply prefer to buy in the 'Burbs. The economics of the city also dictate that most families are not forced into condo living like they are in other cities, so why would they when they can own a big-ass home that they manage themselves?

There are people who prefer downtown, it's just a smaller demographic compared to other cities where downtowns are one of only a few options for places to own.

Exactly, people here buy mostly houses in the suburbs here because they can actually afford them. Most are not forced to live in smaller condos due to high SFH prices, so the market for condos here is much smaller than cities with high SFH prices.

A condo price is really a portion of the price of a SFH in the same market. So, say in a city where typical house prices are $1.5 million that puts the average condo prices at $600,000 - $800,000. The same sort of math probably generally works elsewhere.

 

[Tropical]

Maybe I am reading this differently, but Edgar is specifically asking for incentives from the city. In essence, theyère saying that building costs and the state of downtown make new towers uneconomic. Maybe they are right, but I don't think it is unreasonable to carefully consider what will do the most to improve downtown before we start cutting cheques.

View attachment 532232


View attachment 532233

I also read these comments as explicit lobbying to the city for funds. The merits of that are up for debate, but I interpret it with an enormous grain of salt.

 

[crisp]

Well yeah I definitely disagree with any form of financial incentives for residential developers. Especially from a city that seems to be broke considering it now has to charge for street parking on Sundays (this coming from an upset ex-Edmontonian with a recent $50 fine for parking downtown on a Sunday).

Just get the goddamn park built already, and focus on police / peace officer presence to combat loitering as much as possible. It's a major uphill battle for downtown Edmonton, but if the offices keep filling up and nightlife keeps improving, then maybe we'll see more people buying into the core at the end.

 

[David A]

Well yeah I definitely disagree with any form of financial incentives for residential developers. Especially from a city that seems to be broke considering it now has to charge for street parking on Sundays (this coming from an upset ex-Edmontonian with a recent $50 fine for parking downtown on a Sunday).

Just get the goddamn park built already, and focus on police / peace officer presence to combat loitering as much as possible. It's a major uphill battle for downtown Edmonton, but if the offices keep filling up and nightlife keeps improving, then maybe we'll see more people buying into the core at the end.

Yes, when the park starts going ahead that will help improve sentiment. But more and people are already returning to downtown both for work and various events, so the problems are less noticeable.

However, it does take time for perceptions to change, so the suburbanite who is still scared to go downtown because of something they heard in the news a while ago, may not be coming back right away. However, I doubt they are Edgar's or really anyone's main target market.

 

[Clearshades]

Is Edmonton? I don't think so.

Edmonton's market conditions paired the 'condition' of its Downtown is one of the least attractive investment areas in N.A. at the moment.

It does not matter which market segment you are pursuing, the dollars and sense do not support development for the vast majority of developers, the value proposition for living Downtown has eroded considerably and the perception is atrocious (although and thankfully improving).

This ain't no discussion about families or yuppies vs. 'more inclusive housing', as it simply won't get built given everything.

If you want honesty, Maclab and Qualico and to a lesser extent Langham are going to be VERY challenged to not lose their shirts on their current projects.

Happy New Year.

I'm not refering the trend of the moment but the narrow mentality we have period. Enticing people to live anywhere is more than a house or a tower. It has to be a community package selling point. The soon to be built park is a start.