Urb
Active Member
It just traded again in January.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
Urban Outdoorsman
Active Member
New land use change adjacent to Banff Trail LRT.
I grew up in the neighborhood and always wondered why nobody had developed those houses. That whole street facing the train tracks is full of run down rentals and it seemed to me like the most prime place in the area for higher densities. Glad there's finally some movement!
I grew up in the neighborhood and always wondered why nobody had developed those houses. That whole street facing the train tracks is full of run down rentals and it seemed to me like the most prime place in the area for higher densities. Glad there's finally some movement!
MichaelS
Senior Member
They have the same issue that the projects along 24th Avenue NW have, that being restrictive covenants on title preventing the construction of mult-family housing I think. There is a path forward as shown by the 24th Avenue projects, but it is a long a legal process.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
It's strange the invisible processes at work to keep logical things from happening. On account of a major university adjacent, Banff Trail has likely the most robust and stable rental apartment demand of any neighbourhood (perhaps other than the Beltline) in the city for the last 50 years. It will likely continue to have that demand for the next 50 years. Yet apartment developments get hung up from this kind of invisible process preventing an efficient outcome.
So much sustained demand for housing in the area eventually did spill over into the surrounding Brentwood and University District clusters, but good to see some issues are being resolved and more action planned for the existing community.
Last edited:
adamyyc
Active Member
I think about how ironic the window coverings are every time I walk by the building considering how long it was covered in scaffolding, and how long the street front has been vacant. They're even more ironic now.I must say, the last few years have been nothing but disappointment with the Lougheed Building. There is so much potential there. Tenish years ago, the Grand Theatre was in full swing and all of the street facing retail units were occupied and offered great street presence. For the last 4 years all the retail has been closed with posters covering the windows. The building looks to be either in a permanent state of reno or almost abandoned. Allied seem to manage a bunch of the empty storefronts along Stephen Ave as well. They really don't seem to care about activating spaces and seem to be more about holding the line on rental prices and holding properties.
Historic Grand Theatre could be vacated after landlord refuses to lower rent
Calgary's historic Grand Theatre could be vacated after the building's landlord rejected its tenant's proposal for a rent relief.calgarysun.com
Allied did all this work to renovate (I'm not even sure if they're done yet), but it's not clear to me what their plan is to fill the building. They don't even have any of the retail spaces listed on their website, only offices (https://alliedreit.com/properties/the-lougheed-building-604-1st-street-sw/).
I know that the hope was to fill the commercial space and activate the street with retail, cafes, restaurants and bars when they started this project (or at least that's what was shown on renderings), so what is holding them back now? Is it because the market isn't there for commercial space at this location (including impact from COVID)? Is it because Allied hasn't completed renovations (and maybe that work is on hold due to COVID factors, financing and the current market)? Is it because Allied has unrealistic rental expectations?
Unknown User
New Member
My extremely limited understanding of the way REITs operate is that they will never lower rent and would rather have buildings sit empty than risk de-valuation of the asset based on the decreased potential rental income.
cameronhowe
Active Member
I wish there were laws or some way to deter this from happening. The fact that they're allowed to directly control the vibrancy of areas just because of greed is crazy.
adamyyc
Active Member
That's too bad if true. Allied owns a lot of great, historic buildings in the City.
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
First thing that comes to mind.
ByeByeBaby
Active Member
My if-I-ran-the-city-as-a-dictator idea is a street frontage vacancy tax, at least in pedestrian-oriented areas. I don't know how much it would have to be to get REITs to lower rents, but even if they held steady, it could be a nice little pot of revenue (devote it to pedestrian realm improvements). A vibrant street is a public good; and incentivizing cheap rents might help small start-up retail operations. A couple of thousand bucks a foot might get them to get over themselves.
darwink
Senior Member
Unfortunately if there were rules about more frequent valuations you’d run into loan covenants making outcomes worse not better than you might expect.
badc0ffee
Active Member
Albertasaurus
Active Member
Not sure where this news belongs, but Calgary has a new Planning GM - Timothy Keane, formerly Director of Planning for Boise.