Great idea. Are there any actual plans for the mall being developed in the background that anyone knows of or is it just going to continue to limp along welcoming calendar stores and gift shops every holiday season for the next decade?
 
David A said:
It was actually doing quite well until around 2016 to 2018 , people actually did pay to drive downtown then for the shopping experience and there are number of people living nearby for which this remains the closest mall.

However the previous owners were not able to retain the stores that attracted people and did not seem very interested in getting new ones, so there is not much left now.

It would be good to make it more street facing, but the solution is not so much throwing a lot of money at it - the previous owners did that by shuffling things around, which was very disruptive and in the end only make things worse. It requires attention and an intelligent approach first and foremost, rather than cannibalizing one mall you own to benefit another, which was really the previous owners approach.
Click to expand...
Pay a visit to The Core in Calgary and then tell me that CCM doesn't need significant infrastructure investment.
 
scyeg said:
Great idea. Are there any actual plans for the mall being developed in the background that anyone knows of or is it just going to continue to limp along welcoming calendar stores and gift shops every holiday season for the next decade?
Click to expand...

The numbers simply don't work and so it is a chicken egg conundrum.

NADG, LaSalle, BVK and Canderel must be scathing their collective heads with what to do with their expensive white elephant.
 
I think there are many other less "tear-down" possibilities that are viable and desirable. Two obstacles to a cohesive downtown exist in the form of two above-surface parking structures on 103rd Avenue. These two structures need to get razed to the ground and replaced with subsurface parking structures with the potential for high-rise above ground, increasing mixed-use density. The Bay part of EEC has redevelopment potential akin to what was outlined much earlier where the ground floor is opened up to the street and where an interior atrium runs both east-west and north-south, the north-south version connecting to the ICE district at ground level and at the pedway level.
 
Last edited:
^
how would it be less expensive? the arithmetic is actually pretty simple:

lets assume that the demolition of the bay would "remove" 300,000 sf of space from edmonton city centre mall. that space is probably costing a minimum of $15 psf in annual op costs and taxes so demolishing it would stop the bleeding to the tune of about $4.5 million per annum.

there are roughly 1,600 parking stalls in the two above ground parkades. between monthly parking, hourly parking and special even parking, each one of those stalls probably generates in the range of $500 per month in net revenue. that's approximately $9.6 million per annum.

the "net swing" between the two options you're presenting is approximately $14.1 million per annum or potentially $70.5 million if you assume a 5 year difference in their relative cash flow timeframes and $141 million of you assume a 10 year difference (the parkade's generate cash flow now, the potential development revenue you allude to is post development a minimum of 5 - 10 years from now).
 
^^

???

what project???

under current market conditions, there is no project, connected or otherwise.

in 5 years? maybe.

in 10 years? maybe more likely.

in the interim, the owners are caught between a rock and a hard place that can only be fixed with equity, or debt or cash flow.

doing some number crunching on the extend of how much worse your option is was not myopic on my part. it was simply providing you with a simple answer to your asking "one serious question -- how would demolishing the bay for a rebuild be less expensive than demolishing two eye-sore parking structures". if you're not prepared to accept the answers, you shouldn't ask the questions.

or you could offer to provide the owners with $14.1 million in equity or debt or alternative cash flows every year for the next decade - interest free of course - if you're that confident that you're right and i'm myopic. you may well be right regarding the "best form" for future redevelopment to take but that doesn't address the additional risks and costs to the owners in the interim. doing what you propose could just as easily commence in 2034 and not 2024 and would enjoy a $141 million contribution to the bottom line by waiting.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top