[Tropical]

Based on my spreadsheet and Avenuer's maps, I don't think the general public realize the amount of residential development that's going to happen downtown (outside of people on this forum and some other areas like the city or real estate agents/developers).

This isn't adding the Attainable Housing Incentive, which while slow in uptake from what Ian mentioned, is another massive boost to what we can get housing wise. 20,000 by 2031 is doable. Combine that with the office vacancy rate decreasing, and commercial units slowly being filled up, and I wouldn't be surprised if we can get even higher.

Downtown isn't a lost cause.

I completely agree. Some quick math tells me that Downtown's residential density is going to reach Garneau and Wihwentowin-type levels in a relatively short period of time. For context, Downtown will increase from ~6,500/km2 living downtown to ~9,500/km2. That puts it within arms length of the ~12,000/km2 in our two densest neighbourhoods.

Just think about how pleasant and active those parts of the city are. Yes, I understand that there are safety perception issues that are specific to Downtown, but that degree of eyes on the street is going to have a massive impact on the lived experience of it.

Add the bursts in activity that come from events, nightlife, education and employment - and downtown is absolutely not a lost cause.

The next step will be replicating this level of residential density northeast of the Legislature - which of course can also happen.

 

[christopherj]

I believe CN Tower conversion is on hold with AHS staying in there.

 

[thommyjo]

I believe CN Tower conversion is on hold with AHS staying in there.

What. Kick AHS out. Not like there’s a shortage of office space haha.

 

[Tropical]

I believe CN Tower conversion is on hold with AHS staying in there.

A leased office tower is a good thing for downtown, rather than the other way around.

 

[policyenthusiast]

A leased office tower is a good thing for downtown, rather than the other way around.

100%. Non-residential property taxes subsidizes the residential base, so office-to-residential should be a last resort based on an inability to find commercial tenants.

 

[Kosy123]

View attachment 734069

I have mapped all of the new residential and non-residential conversion projects in Downtown & Chinatown South/Quarters to see how many net-new residential units and residents will be added for projects under construction or likely to be under construction within 5 years:

New Construction:

E4C Quarters (Edmonton City Centre Church Corporation) - 11 units
Falcon II (Langham Developments) - 275 units
Quarters Student Housing (Five Oaks Inc.) - 174 units
Lilac Park (Westrich Pacific) - 239 units
Lotus Park (Westrich Pacific) - 152 units
Massey Ferguson (Faction Projects) - 696 units
Residences at Connect Centre (Wiikwemkoong Unceded Territory) - 371 units
The Parks Phase 2 (Maclab) - 575 units
The Shift (Autograph) - 226 units
The Switch (Qualico) - 408 units
The Terrace Residences (Abbey Lane) - 118 units
Vantage Park (Westrich Pacific) - 201 units
Village at Ice District Phase 1 (Oilers Entertainment Group) - 354 units

Non-Residential Conversions:

CN Tower (Strategic Group) - 344 units
Highfield Centre (Cidex) - 108 units
Phipps McKinnon (Josan Properties) - 91 units
Standard Life Building (Leder Investments) - 80 units (my estimate, no unit counts published yet)
Williams Hall (Bejan Developments) - 90 units

New Construction & Non-Residential Conversion total net new residential units - 4,513
Total new population growth - 4,513 X 1.25 people per unit = 5,641

So, a potential addition of 5,641 new residents living Downtown/Chinatown South within the next 5ish years, pretty good I say. Would likely put the Downtown population over 20,000 in time for the 2031 Federal Census.

Pretty minor but I think you forgot to add the McKenney project on 104 St, which has 33 units. Super minor but it's another conversion.

 

[David A]

100%. Non-residential property taxes subsidizes the residential base, so office-to-residential should be a last resort based on an inability to find commercial tenants.

IMO having an occupied building rather than an unoccupied one is better for the economy and area. I'm not sure at what point you consider it to be a last resort, many of these buildings have had a lot of vacancy for 3 to 5 years or longer, with no prospect for improvement any time soon. Usually, its older buildings that would cost a lot to upgrade to attract more commercial tenants anyways and there is more demand in the residential market now. So if you are going to have to spend money on the building, residential probably makes more sense.

 

[IanO]

3-on-3 Community Basketball Tournament

3-on-3 recreational basketball tournament for fun! Come enjoy the sun and O-day'min Park - come for some snacks and prizes, stay for hoops!

www.eventbrite.ca