kcantor
Senior Member
Turning out to be??? It's always been one classy development setting a high standard for more than just Edmonton!
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
David A
Senior Member
Yes and the nice thing about gentrification here is this land was undeveloped so nobody has been displaced by it
Kosy123
Senior Member
With leasing numbers like that, I don't think that tower is going to be reduced at all. If anything this should tell developers to build higher and more. Like this is right beside the Hope Mission, probably the most undesirable area in all of downtown.
AND ITS 75% LEASED. BY THE HOPE MISSION.
Out of Towner
Active Member
Qualico's project is an example of responsible inner city development. Who knows what city council was thinking when it changed the zoning bylaws to allow higher density housing in established inner city communities. Higher density zoning increases property values making inner city housing less affordable - not more affordable. The end result of the higher density bylaws is that it forces anybody wanting an inner city single family dwelling to pay more, accept less, or accept the suburbs. And vice versa for anybody moving from the suburbs to an established inner city community. Qualico's project doesn't create the same issue because it's located in an area with a low land use value.
Barnaby
Senior Member
Yeah, no thanks. Government regulations aren't the answer.
constance_chlore
Active Member
Hot take: I don't think renters and condo/townhouse owners should be relegated to "low land use value" areas.
Garceyues
Active Member
Limiting housing supply through restrictive anti-density zoning in established neighborhoods doesn't increase property prices? Give me a break with these textbook NIMBY arguments, real estate is not exempt from basic supply-demand economics. I'm super pleased with Qualico's development so far, but the need for reasonable densification with infills is very much present.
Out of Towner
Active Member
Land value is a function of zoning. That's not a NIMBY talking point as you allege. Go to any real estate web site and you will see that the cost of land on a square foot basis increases in concert with its permitted density. So by permitting 8 suite infills anywhere in established neighborhoods, the effect is that it makes single family housing more unaffordable.
Out of Towner
Active Member
Correct me if I'm wrong but the City grants exclusives to builders on its land developments. I believe that mom and pop builders are restricted from building product in Blatchford for example. It's open shop for mom and pop builders in established neighborhoods but closed shop for them in large developments and sub-divisions. That's government regulation.
Out of Towner
Active Member
You have commuter bike paths to high land use areas. Use them.
whattheheck
Active Member
out of towner, your analysis is absolutely correct! But you dare critisize the current progressive group think. So, how dare you!
The inner city is being bought up by developers with deep pockets and they will want to ensure a return in their investment. mom/ pop landlords are disappearing. no more breaks on rent, no more friendly relations with a good landlord. everything is a corporate transaction.
seriously, how does an eight unit 'luxury' apartment in the middle of a community, with no parking actually make it better? it doesn't. those rentals in crestwood, for example, will not be for the average family. the city should have focused density first in the dt and central edm, around certain lrt stations, etc.
why isn't dt seeing any 'infill'? part of the reason is the low hanging fruit council created by deleting zoning all together. why build dt, when you can buy a single family home and build a 'luxury' eight unit apt. i do expect down votes.
The inner city is being bought up by developers with deep pockets and they will want to ensure a return in their investment. mom/ pop landlords are disappearing. no more breaks on rent, no more friendly relations with a good landlord. everything is a corporate transaction.
seriously, how does an eight unit 'luxury' apartment in the middle of a community, with no parking actually make it better? it doesn't. those rentals in crestwood, for example, will not be for the average family. the city should have focused density first in the dt and central edm, around certain lrt stations, etc.
why isn't dt seeing any 'infill'? part of the reason is the low hanging fruit council created by deleting zoning all together. why build dt, when you can buy a single family home and build a 'luxury' eight unit apt. i do expect down votes.
Kosy123
Senior Member
Are we seriously defending mom/pop landlords? Out of anyone I know who's dealt with mom/pop landlords, they've been the most abusive and egregious when it comes to violations, breakdown of tenant relations and lack of maintenance. I don't like the corporatization of housing but larger corporations and enterprises have been more consistent than and responsive than small scale landlords.
"Why isn't dt seeing any infill?"
"Why isn't dt seeing any infill?"
Gus Haynes
Active Member
"There's no downtown infill."
(points to downtown infill)
"No, not like that."
(points to downtown infill)
"No, not like that."
whattheheck
Active Member
^there has been no new tower for residential construction erected in the dt core in the last several years.
www.ctvnews.ca
Puneeta McBryan, chief executive officer of Edmonton's Downtown Business Association, told the executive committee while tens of thousands of new units are being built across the city, there have been no housing starts downtown in the last two years.
"If we don’t do anything to make sure that residential development happens, we are building a donut city," McBryan said, adding that while construction costs in Edmonton are about the same as those in Calgary and Victoria, rents on finished housing in the latter two cities "are double or, in some cases, triple."
"The math simply doesn’t work right now for downtown Edmonton," she said. "The land is too expensive, the property taxes are too high, and then building costs and everything else."
Kalen Anderson, the director of the Urban Development Institute - Edmonton Metro, which lobbies governments on behalf of the land development industry, said the city's downtown is struggling mostly due to increasing commercial vacancy rates as well as "a lack of private sector financial viability to support new residential development."
also: https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/resourc...ed-unaffordable-rents-evictions-and-long-term
Developers seek financial incentives to spur downtown housing construction
A tug-of-war over downtown development saw city council and advocates for property developers trade stances over the best way to spur home construction in Edmonton's core.
www.ctvnews.ca
Puneeta McBryan, chief executive officer of Edmonton's Downtown Business Association, told the executive committee while tens of thousands of new units are being built across the city, there have been no housing starts downtown in the last two years.
"If we don’t do anything to make sure that residential development happens, we are building a donut city," McBryan said, adding that while construction costs in Edmonton are about the same as those in Calgary and Victoria, rents on finished housing in the latter two cities "are double or, in some cases, triple."
"The math simply doesn’t work right now for downtown Edmonton," she said. "The land is too expensive, the property taxes are too high, and then building costs and everything else."
Kalen Anderson, the director of the Urban Development Institute - Edmonton Metro, which lobbies governments on behalf of the land development industry, said the city's downtown is struggling mostly due to increasing commercial vacancy rates as well as "a lack of private sector financial viability to support new residential development."
also: https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/resourc...ed-unaffordable-rents-evictions-and-long-term
constance_chlore
Active Member
Edmontonians need to recognize that Edmonton is a big city now. If you were to go to Chicago and start talking about the need to keep single-family homes affordable in inner-city neighborhoods, people would look at you like you had seven eyes. Edmonton now has more in common with Chicago than with Red Deer, and that will only get more true every year.
If you want a single-family home in Edmonton... you're in luck because that's still most of Edmonton! But if you feel an inalienable right to a single-family home in an inner-city neighborhood, maybe consider Lloydminster?
The fact that people are even talking about keeping inner-city land values low is nuts. Zero sense of fiscal responsibility.
If you want a single-family home in Edmonton... you're in luck because that's still most of Edmonton! But if you feel an inalienable right to a single-family home in an inner-city neighborhood, maybe consider Lloydminster?
The fact that people are even talking about keeping inner-city land values low is nuts. Zero sense of fiscal responsibility.