News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.9K     0 

Barnaby said:
Quality mall retail space is essentially full throughout the city in the big 3 malls.

Any money wasted on demolition could be spent on development of 1-3 residential towers on ECC property.

We've gone over how the old Bay space has dummy piles on the roof. The northwest corner parking lot by itself could support two substantial towers.

Demolishing the mall would just be lighting money on fire, as any newly available land would probably be equal to the cost of demolition.
Click to expand...
I feel it is sort of an Edmonton thing, the passion for tearing things down just to likely leave more vacant lots downtown for years and years. It kind of explains how we got where we are.
 
Gronk! said:
I hate to say this, but there is already a Shoppers Drug Mart in ECC East so good riddance.
I have never understood the rationale for two Shoppers Drug Marts in the same mall.
Click to expand...
Yes, it did not seem to make sense. The east location seems to be the better one and the opportunity for that space arose after they already had the west space for some time.

So I suspect Shoppers decided at some point it would be best to just continue to the end of the lease there and not go on after that, which seems to be what is being communicated now.
 
I will say that the ECC West has the superior cosmetics section; my wife would often make a special trip there just to redeem Optimum/PC points to take advantage of their inventory. But yeah, it never made much sense to me to have two Shoppers' in the same small-ish mall. Another big blow to ECC, though, regardless, unless a they can pull a rabbit out of their hats here.
 
I just hope they improve the hours. It's frustrating as someone living nearby that Shoppers is closed so early.
 
I had talked to the pharmacist who works in both locations and ECC west location has been month-to-month for at least a year. They survive on prescription fulfillment. There's just not enough traffic to justify both location. I have found myself going to 104 Street/Jasper location more since COVID, slightly better hours.
 
Greenspace said:
I had talked to the pharmacist who works in both locations and ECC west location has been month-to-month for at least a year. They survive on prescription fulfillment. There's just not enough traffic to justify both location. I have found myself going to 104 Street/Jasper location more since COVID, slightly better hours.
Click to expand...
Good point, not just two but three locations close to each other which makes even less sense.

I go to the 104 Street Jasper location regularly also, although mainly because it is closer for me. I like it has street access and the hours are a bit better too.

The departure of Shoppers might be the opportunity or incentive to redevelop City Centre West. It couldn't have been a surprise, maybe the mall owners were waiting for them to end their lease.
 
After digesting the state of ECC for too many decades, my present mindset is that the current owner should sell either east or west and focus on whatever they retain. I'm feeling that East and West are now completely different kinds of investment. Concentrate the retail in East and redevelop West. They're almost two entirely different investment classes, IPP and land held for development, and sometimes it's better to hold these kinds of investments in separate vehicles and/or different ownership.
 
The plan to redevelop City Centre West that was put forward by the current owners a year or two ago was actually a good one. So I feel the current owners may see and understand how to develop it better than potential buyers who may or may not even exist.
 
David A said:
The plan to redevelop City Centre West that was put forward by the current owners a year or two ago was actually a good one. So I feel the current owners may see and understand how to develop it better than potential buyers who may or may not even exist.
Click to expand...
My own opinion, but I feel that the past proposal was weak and largely just threw stuff at the walls to see what would stick, and now it's likely at the point that the walls should have instead been knocked down in the first place. Their proposal appeared to be largely constrained by believing one could make an economic go of it with the existing shell. Perhaps the market is signalling otherwise?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top