Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 126 of 126

Thread: Ice District for Sale

  1. #101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Give it a rest man.
    Great contribution. Excellent summary of this thread. Your viewpoints are ones that I hadn't thought about before. Thanks for such an enlightening post.

  2. #102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whattagame View Post
    As for the big miss, yeah - so far so good, but this was pitched as a district, and not a building. If you're aiming that high, and using public funds for part of it, the expectation is a complete district. The vision of such a district clearly includes Tower B in the eyes of the public who are now financially attached to the project. There are other minor misses that we've already seen, but those are nitpicky things. An entire tower missing, leaving a gaping hole across a third of the focal square is conspicuous by its absence. And I said nothing about a (reasonable) delay. I'm talking about if that site remains vacant for a decade or never rises at all.
    It’s a success in the sense of profit maximization. The oil price dip affected the economics and not having built a second tower could quite easily be spun as good management which avoided financially impairing the project. Over-promising, it seems is standard practice in this industry so any ‘incompleteness’ will be portrayed as adding future optionality.

    Any failure occurred at the approval stage and with public perceptions that any vision presented would actually come to fruition. Just look at all the other projects in Edmonton over the decades that fell well short of the original vision. It’s a reoccurring theme and everyone should appropriately discount expectations if they wish to more accurately envision a final product.

    From a taxpayer perspective a missing tower may be a net positive. In a slow economy, a new tower might have only served to poach tenants from otherwise sound, taxpaying properties in other parts of the downtown or the city. I don’t know what the net impact might be in terms if taxes or of market values of such properties.
    Last edited by KC; Yesterday at 10:14 AM.

  3. #103
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards
    Am I one of the few people that sees both sides of the argument? I flip flop on this daily. Yes, I think Katz got a great deal from the city, but I also believe the city got a decent return on its investment, and will continue to do so for a few more decades.


    Nope, I feel much the same way, although I don't flip flop back and forth. To me the entire thing is a win-win, although perhaps Katz's win was bigger than it could/should have been.

  4. #104
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    76

    Default

    Some on here would be more happy with this!!!!!

    arena4.jpg by BLACK STAR III, on Flickr

  5. #105
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Southwest YEG
    Posts
    156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards
    Am I one of the few people that sees both sides of the argument? I flip flop on this daily. Yes, I think Katz got a great deal from the city, but I also believe the city got a decent return on its investment, and will continue to do so for a few more decades.


    Nope, I feel much the same way, although I don't flip flop back and forth. To me the entire thing is a win-win, although perhaps Katz's win was bigger than it could/should have been.
    While I grew up in Edmonton, I wasn't living here during the arena negotiations but followed it. Initially, I didn't want the citizens of my hometown being taken advantage of. However, on the other side, I was frustrated by the decades long, lack of development within the downtown core. Looking at how the city has progressed in the last five years, I must say I'm very pleased that the deal was made with Katz. Let's look at the gains in development since the deal in which I doubt would have happened without it.
    1)Rogers Place
    2) JW Marriott and Residences
    3) Stantec and Residences
    4) Ultima
    5) Encore
    6) Fox 1& 2
    7) Scotia Reclad
    WSP reclad
    9) Tower B (heard a rework of podium )
    10) Phase 2!?
    That's a lot of gain there. ICE district gave other developers confidence in the core or made existing structures improve to compete. Without Katz and Mandel's vision, downtown would of been the same old same old... mediocre.
    Skyscraper Enthusiast

  6. #106
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,899

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by David Jackson View Post
    I would like to echo IanO's optimism for Downtown office rates.
    It's amazing how optimistic he is when it suits his purpose, yet so very doom & gloom when THAT suits him as well. Evidently Downtown is booming, but DynaCare moving 700 people out is a death knell...

    It's like Schroedinger's Cat, but for self-serving urbanist bullcrap.
    what have you got against schroedinger's cat?

    that cat had to be (has to be?, i'm never quite sure ) the most carefree pet one could imagine.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  7. #107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cpnfantstk View Post

    1)Rogers Place
    2) JW Marriott and Residences
    3) Stantec and Residences
    4) Ultima
    5) Encore
    6) Fox 1& 2
    7) Scotia Reclad
    WSP reclad
    9) Tower B (heard a rework of podium )
    10) Phase 2!?
    That's a lot of gain there. ICE district gave other developers confidence in the core or made existing structures improve to compete. Without Katz and Mandel's vision, downtown would of been the same old same old... mediocre.
    1) This wouldn't have happened with out Katz
    2) Stantec has been considering a tower in our city for a long time. Perhaps they even delayed one knowing that Katz arena district was were they wanted to be, if the arena was built. Stantec was consoldating to a new tower regardless of arena. The residences on top? Might not have happened with out the arena
    4, 5, 6 - still would happen new arena or not.
    7+ 8 ) still would happen. Has nothing to do with the arena
    9 + 10 ) should still happen, but wouldn't without the arena

    I'll add 11) Edmonton Tower - Still would happened, arena or not. Katz basically strong-armed his way to making sure this tower was part of the arena district.

    Trying to credit Katz and the new arena with all the above is a knock against our downtown. A lot of that would've still happened with or without the arena.

  8. #108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Star View Post
    Some on here would be more happy with this!!!!!

    arena4.jpg by BLACK STAR III, on Flickr
    If Katz wasn't holding this land, someone else might have done something with it. Lets not forget, the arena was not the first proposal for these lands.

    I don't have a real issue with the ice district, or Katz, or Mandel, or the improvements to downtown related to the arena, but lets get back to reality here and stop jerking off Katz. He's not quite the savior you all think he is. Downtown was already well on its way to re-vitalization with or without the arena.

    Some of this stuff might have went ahead sooner, instead of waiting a decade or more for the city to make a decision.

  9. #109
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Southwest YEG
    Posts
    156

    Default

    ^ What did we have for development for 30 years before the arena and ICE district ? Canada Place, Commerce Place, Icon, Riverwinds,Epcor.. That's it for 30 years 1983- 2013. After arena deal, you see the list I made. I don't think that's a coincidence.
    Skyscraper Enthusiast

  10. #110

    Default

    Correlation isn't causation.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  11. #111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Am I one of the few people that sees both sides of the argument? I flip flop on this daily. Yes, I think Katz got a great deal from the city, but I also believe the city got a decent return on its investment, and will continue to do so for a few more decades.

    Yes, Katz is profits from this. That was never in question was it?

    Yes, Katz has the money to build on his own in its entirety, but should he have? I see many benefits that the city gets from the arena, from the boosts to downtown.

    Would those condo towers and office towers and new hotels be built? Stantec for sure, yes, Marriott? No way. Edmonton Tower? Yes, for sure, that's been on the books since the early 00's

    in the end, the discussion on the arena funding is over. It's a done deal. It's time to make the best out of the situation.

    Am I surprised to see Stantec and Edmonton tower up for sale already? Absolutely not.

    Does that mean Katz is done investing in Edmonton? Hardly.
    I can see both sides but that doesn't mean that I'm happy about it. As far as economic impact, I'd argue that WEM has had a bigger impact that the ICE district has or will. Looking at Ticketmaster, most of the events at the arena are Oilers games along with the occasional concert. Pretty much the same as we were getting with the old coliseum. No net gain there except for ticket price increases and a few people eating downtown before a game. Strangely, people also went out to eat when the Oilers played at Northlands so the arena is basically moving economic impact from one part of town to another.

    I'm just not happy that sports teams get these sweetheart deals for their arenas when it's been shown that the actual economic impact, like other major sporting events, is minimal.

  12. #112
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Am I one of the few people that sees both sides of the argument? I flip flop on this daily. Yes, I think Katz got a great deal from the city, but I also believe the city got a decent return on its investment, and will continue to do so for a few more decades.

    Yes, Katz is profits from this. That was never in question was it?

    Yes, Katz has the money to build on his own in its entirety, but should he have? I see many benefits that the city gets from the arena, from the boosts to downtown.

    Would those condo towers and office towers and new hotels be built? Stantec for sure, yes, Marriott? No way. Edmonton Tower? Yes, for sure, that's been on the books since the early 00's

    in the end, the discussion on the arena funding is over. It's a done deal. It's time to make the best out of the situation.

    Am I surprised to see Stantec and Edmonton tower up for sale already? Absolutely not.

    Does that mean Katz is done investing in Edmonton? Hardly.
    I can see both sides but that doesn't mean that I'm happy about it. As far as economic impact, I'd argue that WEM has had a bigger impact that the ICE district has or will. Looking at Ticketmaster, most of the events at the arena are Oilers games along with the occasional concert. Pretty much the same as we were getting with the old coliseum. No net gain there except for ticket price increases and a few people eating downtown before a game. Strangely, people also went out to eat when the Oilers played at Northlands so the arena is basically moving economic impact from one part of town to another.

    I'm just not happy that sports teams get these sweetheart deals for their arenas when it's been shown that the actual economic impact, like other major sporting events, is minimal.
    Not that anyone here seems to care but there are still some significant outstanding issues with the deal that, while having benefitted the downtown, have left another central area of the city is a bit of a lurch. The article below highlights how poorly this was all thought out

    From the Edmonton Journal re: Edmonton Coliseum

    Committee to consider pros, cons and risks of Coliseum site redevelopment

    Should the city decide to sell the Northlands Coliseum building to a third party, it cannot encourage the purchaser to renovate or rebuild a sports or entertainment facility in its place and nor can it offer financial support or advocate for such an initiative, a new report says.

    Because of a master agreement between the city and the Edmonton Arena Corporation, an affiliate of the Oilers Entertainment Group, if future zoning of the land or the area development plan requires a sports or entertainment facility, the city would be considered in contravention of the agreement signed in 2013 as part of the Rogers Place redevelopment.

    ...

    Delaying the decision until 2019, “or later,” would mean the city would incur the arena holding cost. Leaving the site inactive for an extended period of time “could have a negative effect on the surrounding communities,” which was “one of the greatest community concerns” when the closure was announced last year, the report says

    http://edmontonjournal.com/business/...-redevelopment
    Parkdale

  13. #113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cpnfantstk View Post
    ^ What did we have for development for 30 years before the arena and ICE district ? Canada Place, Commerce Place, Icon, Riverwinds,Epcor.. That's it for 30 years 1983- 2013. After arena deal, you see the list I made. I don't think that's a coincidence.
    I started making a list of other significant provate buildings in the last 20 years or so and I came up with another 7 in downtown proper, a couple in strathcona, a couple at the bottom of the hill near symphony and 15 or so in Oliver including railtown. Add in contemporaries of the arena that have nothing to do with it (Edgewater, Hendrix, more) and of course Fox is far more icons phase 3&4 than it is arena dependent.

    The Marriot, Tower B and the condos on top of stantec are nothing to sneeze at but they're really more evolution than revolution
    There can only be one.

  14. #114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cpnfantstk View Post
    ^ What did we have for development for 30 years before the arena and ICE district ? Canada Place, Commerce Place, Icon, Riverwinds,Epcor.. That's it for 30 years 1983- 2013. After arena deal, you see the list I made. I don't think that's a coincidence.
    I started making a list of other significant provate buildings in the last 20 years or so and I came up with another 7 in downtown proper, a couple in strathcona, a couple at the bottom of the hill near symphony and 15 or so in Oliver including railtown. Add in contemporaries of the arena that have nothing to do with it (Edgewater, Hendrix, more) and of course Fox is far more icons phase 3&4 than it is arena dependent.

    The Marriot, Tower B and the condos on top of stantec are nothing to sneeze at but they're really more evolution than revolution
    I’m trying to remember who provided it to me, but there once was an Edmonton company (real estate or leasing?) that maintained a list of major buildings with construction dates, square footage area and other details. That was years ago, so I’d imagine that far more detailed lists should be available today.

  15. #115
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,899

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Am I one of the few people that sees both sides of the argument? I flip flop on this daily. Yes, I think Katz got a great deal from the city, but I also believe the city got a decent return on its investment, and will continue to do so for a few more decades.

    Yes, Katz is profits from this. That was never in question was it?

    Yes, Katz has the money to build on his own in its entirety, but should he have? I see many benefits that the city gets from the arena, from the boosts to downtown.

    Would those condo towers and office towers and new hotels be built? Stantec for sure, yes, Marriott? No way. Edmonton Tower? Yes, for sure, that's been on the books since the early 00's

    in the end, the discussion on the arena funding is over. It's a done deal. It's time to make the best out of the situation.

    Am I surprised to see Stantec and Edmonton tower up for sale already? Absolutely not.

    Does that mean Katz is done investing in Edmonton? Hardly.
    I can see both sides but that doesn't mean that I'm happy about it. As far as economic impact, I'd argue that WEM has had a bigger impact that the ICE district has or will. Looking at Ticketmaster, most of the events at the arena are Oilers games along with the occasional concert. Pretty much the same as we were getting with the old coliseum. No net gain there except for ticket price increases and a few people eating downtown before a game. Strangely, people also went out to eat when the Oilers played at Northlands so the arena is basically moving economic impact from one part of town to another.

    I'm just not happy that sports teams get these sweetheart deals for their arenas when it's been shown that the actual economic impact, like other major sporting events, is minimal.
    Not that anyone here seems to care but there are still some significant outstanding issues with the deal that, while having benefitted the downtown, have left another central area of the city is a bit of a lurch. The article below highlights how poorly this was all thought out

    From the Edmonton Journal re: Edmonton Coliseum

    Committee to consider pros, cons and risks of Coliseum site redevelopment

    Should the city decide to sell the Northlands Coliseum building to a third party, it cannot encourage the purchaser to renovate or rebuild a sports or entertainment facility in its place and nor can it offer financial support or advocate for such an initiative, a new report says.

    Because of a master agreement between the city and the Edmonton Arena Corporation, an affiliate of the Oilers Entertainment Group, if future zoning of the land or the area development plan requires a sports or entertainment facility, the city would be considered in contravention of the agreement signed in 2013 as part of the Rogers Place redevelopment.

    ...

    Delaying the decision until 2019, “or later,” would mean the city would incur the arena holding cost. Leaving the site inactive for an extended period of time “could have a negative effect on the surrounding communities,” which was “one of the greatest community concerns” when the closure was announced last year, the report says

    http://edmontonjournal.com/business/...-redevelopment
    while it would be easy to say the concern is just a outstanding issue with the arena deal, i'm not sure it's not a deeper issue... this lack of having plans in place prior to needing them isn't unique to rexall/northlands. it's the same thing with blatchford, the quarters, the remand centre, the old royal alberta museum, the original planetarium, rossdale, the high level bridge and the old rail lines in strathcona, strathearn and hollyrood and station pointe (and scores more) underzoned development opportunities in the city with no plans other than to wait for a developer to propose something the community will fight tooth and nail...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  16. #116
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,198

    Default

    ^ I agree that all those areas suffer the same lack of attention and planning from the city but none of the sites you listed actually had any binding covenants placed on them. This isn't just a case of neglect, I'd liken it to the Safeway covenants. They've all but ensured that any development that includes sports or entertainment.. and that's a major swath of potential development, can never happen there. This is not neglect, this is more willful stifling.
    Parkdale

  17. #117
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,899

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    ^ I agree that all those areas suffer the same lack of attention and planning from the city but none of the sites you listed actually had any binding covenants placed on them. This isn't just a case of neglect, I'd liken it to the Safeway covenants. They've all but ensured that any development that includes sports or entertainment.. and that's a major swath of potential development, can never happen there. This is not neglect, this is more willful stifling.
    with proper attention and planning, i'm not sure all of these terms would have been surrendered. i'm also pretty sure that with the right language that would still have been acceptable but hindsight is 20/10 and neither you nor i were at the table. perhaps some of the outcomes would have been improved if we were? regardless, there is still an opportunity there and if that means some renegotiations elsewhere when more clarity for all is available, there is an optimist in me that says some things may well be possible on that front.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  18. #118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cpnfantstk View Post
    ^ What did we have for development for 30 years before the arena and ICE district ? Canada Place, Commerce Place, Icon, Riverwinds,Epcor.. That's it for 30 years 1983- 2013. After arena deal, you see the list I made. I don't think that's a coincidence.
    Airport closure had more to do with the growing skyline than the arena....

  19. #119
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    ^ I agree that all those areas suffer the same lack of attention and planning from the city but none of the sites you listed actually had any binding covenants placed on them. This isn't just a case of neglect, I'd liken it to the Safeway covenants. They've all but ensured that any development that includes sports or entertainment.. and that's a major swath of potential development, can never happen there. This is not neglect, this is more willful stifling.
    with proper attention and planning, i'm not sure all of these terms would have been surrendered. i'm also pretty sure that with the right language that would still have been acceptable but hindsight is 20/10 and neither you nor i were at the table. perhaps some of the outcomes would have been improved if we were? regardless, there is still an opportunity there and if that means some renegotiations elsewhere when more clarity for all is available, there is an optimist in me that says some things may well be possible on that front.
    It's still pretty hard to argue that the restrictions placed on the site haven't put it at a significant disadvantage when it comes to redevelopment. I've yet to see a sign that the OEG may capitulate and the city itself, like many other city matters, has taken the path of least resistance and refrained from taking responsibility for previous bad decisions. The city has ample avenues to deal with OEG and take its rights back, but as with dealing with overzealous community organizations or problem landlords, the city takes the cowardly route as usual. I hope that changes for the area but given that the city has even refused to talk about the coliseum site or Northlands site at large with regards to the ARP consultations currently underway for the area immediately surrounding means that the city isn't interested in taking a holistic approach and guarantees that in a few years we'll either be exactly where we are now or even worse dealing with disjointed and incompatible plans. I wish I shared your optimism but the city has created its own reputation, and you know what they say about reputations..
    Parkdale

  20. #120
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,977

    Default

    Revised DP for a mixed use 141.3m tower with 568 dwelling units and 43 storeys came across my desk today.

    AKA Tower B.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  21. #121
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    From the Edmonton Journal re: Edmonton Coliseum

    Committee to consider pros, cons and risks of Coliseum site redevelopment

    Should the city decide to sell the Northlands Coliseum building to a third party, it cannot encourage the purchaser to renovate or rebuild a sports or entertainment facility in its place and nor can it offer financial support or advocate for such an initiative, a new report says.

    Because of a master agreement between the city and the Edmonton Arena Corporation, an affiliate of the Oilers Entertainment Group, if future zoning of the land or the area development plan requires a sports or entertainment facility, the city would be considered in contravention of the agreement signed in 2013 as part of the Rogers Place redevelopment.

    ...

    Delaying the decision until 2019, “or later,” would mean the city would incur the arena holding cost. Leaving the site inactive for an extended period of time “could have a negative effect on the surrounding communities,” which was “one of the greatest community concerns” when the closure was announced last year, the report says

    http://edmontonjournal.com/business/...-redevelopment
    Actual link, as 240GLT's got truncated: http://edmontonjournal.com/business/...-redevelopment

  22. #122
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,279

    Default

    Too bad someone couldn't buy the building, disassemble it and reassemble it elsewhere. It's a dam good building.

  23. #123
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,899

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Too bad someone couldn't buy the building, disassemble it and reassemble it elsewhere. It's a dam good building.
    interestingly enough, if it was somewhere else now, it's current site might well be considered a place to reassemble it. as 240GLT has noted, it's more a question of use and integration into the neighborhood than it is a statement of how good - or not good - the existing building is. one of the not-so-good things is it's full of asbestos that can't be removed (it was used extensively in the concrete) which means that repurposing the building may well be a better option than attempting to demolish it.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  24. #124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cpnfantstk View Post

    1)Rogers Place
    2) JW Marriott and Residences
    3) Stantec and Residences
    4) Ultima
    5) Encore
    6) Fox 1& 2
    7) Scotia Reclad
    WSP reclad
    9) Tower B (heard a rework of podium )
    10) Phase 2!?
    That's a lot of gain there. ICE district gave other developers confidence in the core or made existing structures improve to compete. Without Katz and Mandel's vision, downtown would of been the same old same old... mediocre.
    1) This wouldn't have happened with out Katz
    2) Stantec has been considering a tower in our city for a long time. Perhaps they even delayed one knowing that Katz arena district was were they wanted to be, if the arena was built. Stantec was consoldating to a new tower regardless of arena. The residences on top? Might not have happened with out the arena
    4, 5, 6 - still would happen new arena or not.
    7+ 8 ) still would happen. Has nothing to do with the arena
    9 + 10 ) should still happen, but wouldn't without the arena

    I'll add 11) Edmonton Tower - Still would happened, arena or not. Katz basically strong-armed his way to making sure this tower was part of the arena district.

    Trying to credit Katz and the new arena with all the above is a knock against our downtown. A lot of that would've still happened with or without the arena.
    This right here, sometimes i think katz did some pushing behind the scenes. How he was able to create all this momentum is beyond me. Timing and probably some luck helped him kick the arena district in the right direction.
    He basically cut deals everywhere he could, COE tower is a pretty obvious one.

    I know this will be very unpopular , but i would have rather seen the original - unedited station lands build into reality, rather than ice district.

  25. #125

    Default

    very unpopular indeed- Stationlands in the original form left many hoping for something better. The current design is better IMO, not just one big solid wall from 97 to 101.

  26. #126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Correlation isn't causation.
    Not unless you bennifit in a form. Keep ignoring facts.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •