Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678
Results 701 to 751 of 751

Thread: Edmonton Central Park

  1. #701

    Default

    I didn't mean to imply that the incentives were for Railtown, my first condo in Oliver was built under the auspices of the incentive program.

    But yes, program wasn't perfect or complete, but it did a lot of good & accomplished its goals in a cost-effective manner.
    Giving less of a damn than everÖ Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  2. #702

    Default

    ^Similar incentive plan was included in the latest Downtown Plan, however most developers didn't support it, as it would likely provide funds near the end of a project, something they said wasn't that beneficial.
    www.decl.org

  3. #703
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    I didn't mean to imply that the incentives were for Railtown, my first condo in Oliver was built under the auspices of the incentive program.

    But yes, program wasn't perfect or complete, but it did a lot of good & accomplished its goals in a cost-effective manner.
    neither your first condo nor any others in oliver were built under the auspices of the incentive program.

    the need for the policy was first articulated in the 1997 capital city downtown plan and the $4,500 per door was specifically allocated to housing units built within the confines of the downtown plan boundary.

    that boundary included railtown but it certainly didn't include oliver, central mcdougall (the north edge) or boyle street (jasper east village at the time, now the quarters).
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  4. #704

    Default

    Why would they agree to something that's not "let the City pay for something that'll make you money entirely at their cost & with zero onus & responsibility on you?" aka the current scheme?
    Giving less of a damn than everÖ Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  5. #705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    neither your first condo nor any others in oliver were built under the auspices of the incentive program.

    the need for the policy was first articulated in the 1997 capital city downtown plan and the $4,500 per door was specifically allocated to housing units built within the confines of the downtown plan boundary.
    You're exactly right, my bad. Realized talking with my friend who I initially purchased it with that I got it all jumbled. The developer won some sort of recognition from the City for cost-effective building under the program, but my unit/building wasn't covered. I'd be in one of the 9,000 spinoff units.

    Cheerfully withdrawn.
    Giving less of a damn than everÖ Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  6. #706

    Default

    Love the willingness to reward land speculators who have had plenty of decades to develop their land rewarded for doing nothing... Just goes to show that it pays to be a land speculator... Maybe more will follow.

    "if I leave my gravel parking lot for long enough, the city will buy me out"

    sounds solid to me.

    I thought the Ice District was suppose to generate all sorts of incentives for downtown developers to develop, and ADP too, and the upcoming 2nd LRT line throughout downtown...

    What's going to be the next ask when this park fails to deliver all the promise from the hype that you can already see the usual suspects ramping up on?
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  7. #707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Why would they agree to something that's not "let the City pay for something that'll make you money entirely at their cost & with zero onus & responsibility on you?" aka the current scheme?
    Exactly. Just sit back and watch their properties gain value at Taxpayer expense. Sit on the adjacent lands for years, paying nominal taxes and then rake in the profits.

    Spectator = Speculator
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  8. #708

    Default

    ^^ Jasper Ave street renewal.
    Giving less of a damn than everÖ Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  9. #709

    Default

    The easiest solution would be to raise community amenity fees and have a more varied approach. I can't recall what the exemptions are but.. $37.50 / metre of increase FAR is too low for what we're paying for in upgrages, and new community infrastructure. While it can increase construction costs and house prices, it can be an effective tool in proper and controlled City Building.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  10. #710
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    neither your first condo nor any others in oliver were built under the auspices of the incentive program.

    the need for the policy was first articulated in the 1997 capital city downtown plan and the $4,500 per door was specifically allocated to housing units built within the confines of the downtown plan boundary.
    You're exactly right, my bad. Realized talking with my friend who I initially purchased it with that I got it all jumbled. The developer won some sort of recognition from the City for cost-effective building under the program, but my unit/building wasn't covered. I'd be in one of the 9,000 spinoff units.

    Cheerfully withdrawn.
    not to worry...

    unless it's about both of us being cheerful on the same day in the same thread.

    hopefully it's not something in the water.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  11. #711

    Default

    Maybe they could create a Park CRL overlay on top of the Arena CRL.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  12. #712

    Default

    1.4. “Community Amenity” may include the following:
    i. public art,
    ii. preservation of Historic Resources,
    iii. publicly accessible open space,
    iv. streetscape improvements,
    v. public park improvements,
    vi. dwelling units with three or more bedrooms,
    vii. improvements to Community League facilities,
    viii. contributions in support of Child Care Services,
    ix. other capital improvements to the public realm or for public use at the discretion of the City.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  13. #713

    Default

    I am glad that every reasonable person has agreed that the park idea is dead and that the area should be properly developed. Lol
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  14. #714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    I am glad that every reasonable person has agreed that the park idea is dead and that the area should be properly developed. Lol
    "Everyone that disagrees with me on a controversial matter with fair points on both sides is unreasonable."

    Communicated that more clearly for you.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  15. #715

    Default

    Glad that you have come to your senses... lol
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  16. #716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    ^^not mutually exclusive issues/funding/needs.
    You're not fooling anyone. We have parks we can't maintain properly due to funding, so we are building more parks? You said this park will have ROI. Prove it, or retract your comment.

    Moving the medical lab was always very forward looking and intent on protecting public health care and providing for the future.... but you were against that because it wasn't downtown.

    You're so two faced that it won't surprise me one bit when you run for council in the coming years (shudders)
    2300 units are planned around the perimeter of said park... 5 towers... call it $500,000,000.00 of investment. Let alone taxes in perpetuity and an improved desirability of the area.
    And the only reason those projects were planned is because of this park? Even though the much larger legislature grounds are just two blocks away? Much like your claim that LMP shouldn't count because it's too far away from downtown even thought your employer touts in on their webpage as being right downtown? Oh right, the "two block rule". Anything further than two blocks needs to be duplicated throughout downtown.

  17. #717

    Default

    Well if 2,300 units will be built around said park, then the goal has been achieved.

    The COE should now flip the land and sell it to the highest bidder. The avoided costs of building a park and the loss of taxable lots is a sound financial reason for the COE to place the properties on the market.

    You can't tell us that the COE cannot sell land they deemed for parks because they did it all over in the river valley after they bought up dozens, if not hundreds of houses in the valley back in the 1980's.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  18. #718
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,829

    Default

    Clearly, some folks here are unsure/clear of how important these are to urban environments.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  19. #719

    Default

    Have you got those ROI calculations ready for us to review?




    ...still waiting...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  20. #720

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Have you got those ROI calculations ready for us to review?




    ...still waiting...
    Try speaking less like an *******. I offered and you never responded.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  21. #721

    Default

    It shouldnt be about whether to build or not to build. I would just like to see the current parks completed before another gigantic arise at X amount. I dont want incomplete parcels lying around not used AT X AMOUNT.

    It is good to create stimulus; it isn't wise to forge blindly as we have in the past though. If you believe those parks are successful, prove it to me.

    Going forward, what will be done that will be affective? Show that to us. All I hear is reasonings for the park. Show us the blueprint that will entice people to come. Show me the research, studies, and surveys etc. that we have done so much hence all the fails to date and waste. My concern is the WASTE not the BUILD. Is it wise to spend it here, or go back to complete LMP/ CONVENTION area. There has been how much spent on here and completely ignored. We cant just ignore it and pretend everything is solice
    Get it done, and get the value that the tax payer paid for. Like I say, I'm easily top 3 when spending other people's money.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  22. #722

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Clearly, some folks here are unsure/clear of how important these are to urban environments.
    You mean beside LMP, Churchill, the Legislature, Beaver Hills, Michael Phair, ADP, Dick Mather (McKay Ave)?

  23. #723

    Default

    IRR is 6%. This is information you should more interested in for long term developments and projects such as these.

    Investment gain over the 100 years you originally requested is 780 million dollars from surrounding developments and an ROI not factoring in inflation (which would drive this number up) is 1430% (not that ROI numbers matter for the length of time you requested). For being a jerk you don't get the spreadsheet. Nor do you get me trying to give you more conservative numbers by factoring tax generated over the first ten years. Which also showed economic numbers for the park. :P

    This also doesn't factor in economic stimulus from job creation or ancillary industrial activity as a result of 4 towers constructed. Nor does it factor in increasing property values as empirically seen in comparable projects in other cities (it only uses a conservative assumption of 250 dollar generated per unit per month and assumes the both 106 st towers and J107 will go ahead.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  24. #724

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Clearly, some folks here are unsure/clear of how important these are to urban environments.
    Seriously...Urban environment? You cant throw simple psychosis like that; or, were you refering to the river valley that is under 10 blocks away not to mention parks with a lush continuous small forest. You spat that out like you didnt even process. I'm not admonishing you but reasoning your reason
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  25. #725
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,829

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Clearly, some folks here are unsure/clear of how important these are to urban environments.
    You mean beside LMP, Churchill, the Legislature, Beaver Hills, Michael Phair, ADP, Dick Mather (McKay Ave)?
    Happy to go for coffee with you to explain further.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  26. #726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Clearly, some folks here are unsure/clear of how important these are to urban environments.
    Seriously...Urban environment? You cant throw simple psychosis like that; or, were you refering to the river valley that is under 10 blocks away not to mention parks with a lush continuous small forest. You spat that out like you didnt even process. I'm not admonishing you but reasoning your reason
    How does one "throw" psychosis?

    And [email protected] it. Here's the accounting numbers for the project over 10 years since some of you can't see past $$$$$$$$$$$ towards what these spaces do for other downtown cores. It's not necessarily my #1 want. I'd rather see the money go into renovating the Remand Centre to keep homeless out of winter nights. But it's still important.

    Investment Gain: 27 million
    ROI 52%
    IRR 4.2%
    Investment Length 10 years
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  27. #727
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    IRR is 6%. This is information you should more interested in for long term developments and projects such as these.

    Investment gain over the 100 years you originally requested is 780 million dollars from surrounding developments and an ROI not factoring in inflation (which would drive this number up) is 1430% (not that ROI numbers matter for the length of time you requested). For being a jerk you don't get the spreadsheet. Nor do you get me trying to give you more conservative numbers by factoring tax generated over the first ten years. Which also showed economic numbers for the park. :P

    This also doesn't factor in economic stimulus from job creation or ancillary industrial activity as a result of 4 towers constructed. Nor does it factor in increasing property values as empirically seen in comparable projects in other cities (it only uses a conservative assumption of 250 dollar generated per unit per month and assumes the both 106 st towers and J107 will go ahead.
    in addition to its capital cost, did you deduct the foregone "investment gain" that would have occurred on the park site if those parcels were developed under their existing zoning over the same 100 years from your irr calculation? if you have just moved that development activity from one place to another there is no net gain for your irr. you need to deal with the incremental gains/costs only to determine if it is a financially net positive or net negative for the city.

    as for the "increased property values" being a positive, if that's a result of higher values on fewer units, the market might be better off with more units developed at a lower value if affordability is going to be an escalating concern in the market. even at lesser values, there might actually be more total property tax revenue for the city.

    i'm not trying to take sides here as much as point out that these are complex issues with multiple variables and there isn't necessarily a single right or wrong answer. as someone once said about almost everything, "it's complicated".
    Last edited by kcantor; 27-08-2019 at 10:06 PM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  28. #728

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    IRR is 6%. This is information you should more interested in for long term developments and projects such as these.

    Investment gain over the 100 years you originally requested is 780 million dollars from surrounding developments and an ROI not factoring in inflation (which would drive this number up) is 1430% (not that ROI numbers matter for the length of time you requested). For being a jerk you don't get the spreadsheet. Nor do you get me trying to give you more conservative numbers by factoring tax generated over the first ten years. Which also showed economic numbers for the park. :P

    This also doesn't factor in economic stimulus from job creation or ancillary industrial activity as a result of 4 towers constructed. Nor does it factor in increasing property values as empirically seen in comparable projects in other cities (it only uses a conservative assumption of 250 dollar generated per unit per month and assumes the both 106 st towers and J107 will go ahead.
    in addition to its capital cost, did you deduct the foregone "investment gain" that would have occurred on the park site if those parcels were developed under their existing zoning over the same 100 years from your irr calculation? if you have just moved that development activity from one place to another there is no net gain for your irr. you need to deal with the incremental gains/costs only to determine if it is a financially net positive or net negative for the city.

    as for the "increased property values" being a positive, if that's a result of higher values on fewer units, the market might be better off with more units developed at a lower value if affordability is going to be an escalating concern in the market. even at lesser values, there might actually be more total property tax revenue for the city.

    i'm not trying to take sides here as much as point out that these are complex issues with multiple variables and there isn't necessarily a single right or wrong answer. as someone once said about almost everything, "it's complicated".
    Not being difficult or taking sides at all that's a legitimate question.

    No I'm not going to engage in unrecognized gains regarding the lots not being developed because that would compound speculation on top of speculation and make the forecasts even less likely to be accurate than they are. There's no proof any of those sites would ever become a tower without a catalyst and they've sat there vacant for decades for very good reasons. They likely would continue to sit vacant. Also, these types of economic forecasts are shaky at best when you start trying to forecast beyond a few years because of unforeseeable market events and circumstances.

    This calculation works on several assumptions and I did my best to keep it simple:

    -That the price tag is 51 million all in
    - That all towers get built and otherwise wouldn't without the park
    -No inflation/No Debt financing
    - Unit valuation based off the value of my own unit (250k), this provides a conservative estimate for long term tax revenue generation, most units will be significantly higher
    -More is better. I assumed 2600 units built immediately as of today with forecasts of both 10 (more reasonable) and 100 years (impossible to be accurate at all)

    As for less units being more. You might be right, however there's the argument that thousands of people living in the area is going to spur sustained tertiary economic activity for decades and thus generating tax revenue from the business draw.

    I was requested a simple ROI calculation. But anyone who's ever been involved in designing billion dollar projects such as large gas fields or a pipeline system knows there's intangibles at work here that make it more complicated than simple math.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  29. #729

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Clearly, some folks here are unsure/clear of how important these are to urban environments.
    You mean beside LMP, Churchill, the Legislature, Beaver Hills, Michael Phair, ADP, Dick Mather (McKay Ave)?
    Happy to go for coffee with you to explain further.
    Incapable of explaining here?

    The Downtown Business Association continues to:


    Be heavily involved in major Council initiatives such as Catalyst projects, Bike Lanes, Louise McKinney Riverfront Park and Sir Winston Churchill Square redevelopment projects;


    Sure, LMP is mostly ignored and covered with weeds and has gravel parking lots and next to no reason to go there so let's look for the next new, shiny thing.

  30. #730

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Clearly, some folks here are unsure/clear of how important these are to urban environments.
    Seriously...Urban environment? You cant throw simple psychosis like that; or, were you refering to the river valley that is under 10 blocks away not to mention parks with a lush continuous small forest. You spat that out like you didnt even process. I'm not admonishing you but reasoning your reason
    How does one "throw" psychosis?

    And [email protected] it. Here's the accounting numbers for the project over 10 years since some of you can't see past $$$$$$$$$$$ towards what these spaces do for other downtown cores. It's not necessarily my #1 want. I'd rather see the money go into renovating the Remand Centre to keep homeless out of winter nights. But it's still important.

    Investment Gain: 27 million
    ROI 52%
    IRR 4.2%
    Investment Length 10 years
    "... how important these urban environment..." The word " environment" should give you clues. That said, it contradicts the argument he is making since our city purposely left the rivervalley untouched and less than 10 blocks away for that very reason he claims ( URBAN ENVIRONMENT). That is emotional fear porn if you ask me... I dont think it was intentional, but wasnt processed with much thought to it- a band-aid obhective . Three foot size space is going to factor more than 20 Central Park? Central park is roughly 4-5 blocks wide and 20 blocks long so imagine that. You see how unimportant that was when you know and see a bigger picture than his argument? There has been plenty of debates to develope it, but we remained the course to preserve the Urban Environment that is the envy of many world class cities.

    For KK, do not miss read the word " world class " lol...
    Last edited by ctzn-Ed; 27-08-2019 at 10:45 PM.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  31. #731

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    .. how important these urban environment..." The word " environment" should give you clues. That said, it contradicts the argument he is making since our city purposely left the rivervalley untouched and less than 10 blocks away for that very reason he claims ( URBAN ENVIRONMENT). That is emotional fear porn if you ask me... I dont think it was intentional, but wasnt unprocessed . Three foot size space is going to factor more than 20 Central Park? Central park is roughly 4-5 blocks wide and 20 blocks long. You see how unimportant that was when you know and see a bigger picture than his argument? There has been plenty of debates to develope it, but we remained the course.


    I'mma let Jesus take the wheel on this one.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  32. #732

    Default

    We had a study and stimulus spreadsheet for the hockey rink too. Listen, as I stated a few comments above... it shouldnt be about dont build or build. Do one thing at a time and do it right then we move to the next step.

    Let me remind everyone, parks is not the only failure when we don't do things right. NAIT LRT, Groat road bridge, AH freeway. Our lovely new arch bridge, and a colossal Fpuck of traffic congestion because we cant think to spread out over time, do it right, rush into things, and they become inadequate or dead.
    Why is LMP, The Leg , and river valley fails? Any major city would kill for the three I mentioned let alone other ones that are FAILS.

    Finally, what you gave us is a hypothesis not guarantee. I ask you this, what exactly is being done to garner this, and that is where it is relevant? You're chasing " what we can get ", now show " how we will get" . I'm interested in that , so that the 25 or 50 million dont go down the drain... like the list I showed with more through out the city. It is not only the initial physical cost; there are maintainence addington more cost for nothing. The facet is broken but no one is fixing it, yet here we go... You said we couldnt see clarity, so the platform is for you to show us what will guaranty success. If no one can, finish our other incomplete projects first us all I ask.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  33. #733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    .. how important these urban environment..." The word " environment" should give you clues. That said, it contradicts the argument he is making since our city purposely left the rivervalley untouched and less than 10 blocks away for that very reason he claims ( URBAN ENVIRONMENT). That is emotional fear porn if you ask me... I dont think it was intentional, but wasnt unprocessed . Three foot size space is going to factor more than 20 Central Park? Central park is roughly 4-5 blocks wide and 20 blocks long. You see how unimportant that was when you know and see a bigger picture than his argument? There has been plenty of debates to develope it, but we remained the course.


    I'mma let Jesus take the wheel on this one.
    Jesus was a wise man...
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  34. #734

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    ⁰This calculation works on several assumptions and I did my best to keep it simple:

    -That the price tag is 51 million all in
    - That all towers get built and otherwise wouldn't without the park
    -No inflation/No Debt financing
    - Unit valuation based off the value of my own unit (250k), this provides a conservative estimate for long term tax revenue generation, most units will be significantly higher
    -More is better. I assumed 2600 units built immediately as of today with forecasts of both 10 (more reasonable) and 100 years (impossible to be accurate at all).
    SteveG, I thought you were directing your offer to IanO, not me specifically.

    You 'Several assumptions'???

    More like a complete abstraction based upon more unrealistic presumptions than fact.

    You assume that the lack of a park is a complete deal breaker for 2,600 units. Do you have some knowledge that developers are just going to sit on those properties for a decade or more just because it fits your fiscal model? Did you model the COE avoided cost option of selling off the land and using that money for other needs or projects? What is the prospect of new owner then building units or an office complex on the site that also spurs development, the multiplyer effect that yields a greater tax base plus the proverbial 2,600 units.

    "No inflation/No Debt financing" That's a hoot! Are you a part of the COE Administration that believes in pink unicorns and that they can cause the economic world to stop spinning on its axis? Try buying a house and tell your bankers that your assumptions are "No inflation/No Debt financing". Yeah, the COE is so cash flush and the Administration can just take out $51M from the vault.

    This whole park idea is looking more like the economic projections they did on the HUGELY SUCCESSFUL Station Pointe project on Fort Road.

    BTW, anyone can tell when you are losing a debate when you start swearing at your opponent.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 28-08-2019 at 06:38 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  35. #735

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    ⁰This calculation works on several assumptions and I did my best to keep it simple:

    -That the price tag is 51 million all in
    - That all towers get built and otherwise wouldn't without the park
    -No inflation/No Debt financing
    - Unit valuation based off the value of my own unit (250k), this provides a conservative estimate for long term tax revenue generation, most units will be significantly higher
    -More is better. I assumed 2600 units built immediately as of today with forecasts of both 10 (more reasonable) and 100 years (impossible to be accurate at all).
    SteveG, I thought you were directing your offer to IanO, not me specifically.

    You 'Several assumptions'???

    More like a complete abstraction based upon more unrealistic presumptions than fact.

    You assume that the lack of a park is a complete deal breaker for 2,600 units. Do you have some knowledge that developers are just going to sit on those properties for a decade or more just because it fits your fiscal model? Did you model the COE avoided cost option of selling off the land and using that money for other needs or projects? What is the prospect of new owner then building units or an office complex on the site that also spurs development, the multiplyer effect that yields a greater tax base plus the proverbial 2,600 units.

    "No inflation/No Debt financing" That's a hoot! Are you a part of the COE Administration that believes in pink unicorns and that they can cause the economic world to stop spinning on its axis? Try buying a house and tell your bankers that your assumptions are "No inflation/No Debt financing". Yeah, the COE is so cash flush and the Administration can just take out $51M from the vault.

    This whole park idea is looking more like the economic projections they did on the HUGELY SUCCESSFUL Station Pointe project on Fort Road.

    BTW, anyone can tell when you are losing a debate when you start swearing at your opponent.
    I apologize for swearing at you, I get irritated by loud and vocal ignorance and it's pretty evident this forum may not be for me when there's absolutely no room for discussion, people seem to have no respect for one another and without moderation, the forum is getting worse. I'll be closing my account after all this is said and done.

    As for every comment you made, of course it's a basic forecast, I did the math at 9:30 at night in 10 minutes. If you want a more comprehensive one based on less conservative numbers, do it yourself. I'm not going to spend 2 hours building a program for you when you're gonna cherry pick assumptions (which all forecasts use we're not psychics).

    Like I said, I don't have the crystal ball nor the time, so I use the numbers you guys were arguing about and a non-inflationary reactionary tax revenue to temper it. You need to learn more about these things if you want to interpret them better because it's evident from your demand for an ROI that these are just buzz words to you and you've never actually went and looked at when they're useful, or if there's better tools to use.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  36. #736

    Default

    Also, making someone swear doesnít mean youíve won an argument. More likely that your lack of any argument or attempt to counter them with academically sourced material or economics after requesting those things yourself has annoyed them.

    I invite you to do some numbers, and find articles as Iíve linked above to support your stance. A good scientist doesnít work on conjecture. So develop your hypothesis by proving or disproving YOUR ideas.

  37. #737

    Default

    Let's get this straight. You were the first one to bring up ROI on post #477 on May 31st in an effort to squelch the Speculator Video that seemed to trigger you. Then yesterday , IanO brought up the whole 100 year ROI. Several posters wanted to see the math and had an issue with a multigenerational goalpost. But you call anyone who questions a park as " loud and vocal ignorance" and then state that anyone who questions the farcically assumed ROI calculations with no actual workup shown, that we should "do it yourself.".

    In my business classes I would have gotten an 'F' from my instructors if I did a fiscal plan and then when they asked me where I derived my numbers from and the assumptions that I made, I would have told them to F-Off and "do it yourself."

    That is quite a compelling argument on your part.

    How can anyone "You need to learn more about these things" when you state a position on ROI and then attack anyone who questions it without a shred of evidence to support your position nor examples of how other existing parks in DT are some economic wonder. If your argument held such sway, it would have made just as much sense for the COE to buy up Darryl Katz's properties and turn them into parks rather than an arena or as I suggested, turn Central Park into a much larger NYC style 4km x 500m park, 4 blocks wide and longer than 95th street to 124th street. What an economic boom that would be.

    The onus on the proponents is to make a proper case for their position and then answer the serious questions about the enormous cost of building a park at $230 per ft2 and why the other parks in the direct vicinity are not close enough, other POV's on what should be done and other issues that serious posters want answers to.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  38. #738

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Also, making someone swear doesn’t mean you’ve won an argument. More likely that your lack of any argument or attempt to counter them with academically sourced material or economics after requesting those things yourself has annoyed them.

    I invite you to do some numbers, and find articles as I’ve linked above to support your stance. A good scientist doesn’t work on conjecture. So develop your hypothesis by proving or disproving YOUR ideas.
    I used Railtown as but one example of how the COE got an excellent ROI with proper incentives. We also got a park out of it that is connected along the 110th street corridor to the River Valley Parks.

    Actually, I am about the only one who posted sourced reports but they did not fit your world view, so you ignored them. Here, I will repost them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    More on downtown incentives such as the Warehouse district

    This residential expansion has its roots in 1998, thanks to an initiative by The City of Edmonton.That year, the city created the Downtown Housing Investment Program (DHIP). This $4,500-perunit for 1,000 units incentive was part of the
    1997 Capital City Downtown Plan to kick start residential development in the core. Up to that
    time, Downtown had an abundance of vacant and redundant office space. The DHIP allowed
    developers to convert these office and warehouse spaces into residential units at a cost-effective price.
    As a result of DHIP incentives, which ran from 1999-2001, 15 residential projects were completed,
    including new buildings, conversions/retrofits, and heritage buildings, resulting in 1,022 new
    residences. This program was enormously successful, generating $11 of private investment for
    every $1 of investment by the city.
    https://www.edmontondowntown.com/upl...ports/2013.pdf


    Since the 1980‟s, the City has tried to stimulate development through maintaining veryhigh densities throughout the Downtown and minimizing barriers to development. In thelate 1990‟s, the City sponsored a housing incentive program and this helped stimulate asurge in residential growth in all areas of the Downtown.Despite very high-density zoning, or perhaps because of this favourable zoning, surfaceparking lots are the dominant presence in large portions of the Warehouse CampusNeighbourhood. The abundance of these lots breaks up the urban fabric and seriouslydetracts from the vibrancy of this western portion of the Downtown.This Plan suggests a number of initiatives that will make development more attractiveto property owners than land speculation.

    https://www.edmontondowntown.com/upl...ports/2013.pdf
    Maybe the COE Administration should learn from these reports and planning documents.

    BTW, where are these links to articles you posted? You posted one called Why America Needs More City Parks and Open Space

    But we do not have the density like many American cities and you fail to acknowledge that Edmonton ALREADY has the greatest amount of urban park space in North America per capita. It is like all our park space does not exist, IanO even stated that Montreal had better foresight hundreds of years ago in creating park space and we are doing it all wrong and this Central Park will solve everything. This is an insult to Edmonton's long history of civic minded leader who creating our excellent and world renowned park spaces, not only in the river valley but abundantly placed throughout the city.

    Edmonton's river valley constitutes the longest stretch of connected urban parkland in North America, and Edmonton has the highest amount of parkland per capita of any Canadian city; the river valley is 22 times larger than New York City's Central Park. The river valley is home to various parks ranging from fully serviced urban parks to campsite-like facilities with few amenities. This main "Ribbon of Green" is supplemented by numerous neighbourhood parks located throughout the city, to give a total of 111 km2 (27,400 acres) of parkland. Within the 7,400 ha (18,000 acres), 25 km (16 mi)-long river valley park system, there are 11 lakes, 14 ravines, and 22 major parks, and most of the city has accessible bike and walking trail connections.[
    Would the proponents please acknowledge that the COE has already a wealth of parks and an abundance of them throughout the city.?
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 28-08-2019 at 08:34 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  39. #739
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Also, making someone swear doesnít mean youíve won an argument. More likely that your lack of any argument or attempt to counter them with academically sourced material or economics after requesting those things yourself has annoyed them.

    I invite you to do some numbers, and find articles as Iíve linked above to support your stance. A good scientist doesnít work on conjecture. So develop your hypothesis by proving or disproving YOUR ideas.
    sooo... using that same criteria however would - by your own admissions - mean that your assertion of a positive irr (in 10 years no less!) is but a fairy tale.

    that's not to say the park is a bad thing or even something we shouldn't be doing. the city's obligations are, after all, to provide infrastructure and services to its citizens. but there is folly in believing that you can manipulate tax dollars like this to generate a positive return. i'm not even sure it's a useful analytical tool other than allowing and monitoring funds from other sources (which is what happens with a crl, sometimes with good results, sometimes not - there is risk with everything).

    the 2,600 units you surmise aren't a discrete either/or. they will provide accommodation and shelter for people needing it. if these particular units never get built, those needs don't go away. they will be met elsewhere downtown or in oliver or the north edge or in the quarters. and each if those units will still pay property taxes. maybe they're less valuable units (which as previously noted is not a bad thing) and those property taxes would only be 225 a month instead of 250. which means your irr would need to be run at 25 per month, not 250. even for 100 years, never mind 10, your irr is going to be a very negative number a long way from what you posited.

    there is a big difference in these kinds of analysis when looking at commercial vs residential occupancy. the catchment area for a stantec is probably a dozen or more cities in two countries and there is a huge impact on the city of edmonton (either positive or negative) hinging in their decision. the catchment area for a condo or an apartment is probably fewer than a dozen core neighborhoods, all of them in the city and none of them having a huge impact on the city of edmonton (either positive or negative) when compared to any of the others.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  40. #740

    Default

    Thank you kcantor for your excellent rebuttal.

    At one point SteveyG said IRR was 6% (where he got that number, nobody knows)

    Then he posted
    Investment Gain: 27 million ROI 52% IRR 4.2% Investment Length 10 years (ditto) and claims that opponents will "cherry pick assumptions".

    No one said that the proponent swearing meant you have won the argument, it just means that the proponent is losing it (and their cool).

    Going back to basics

    Everyone loves a park. That's a given.

    Is that the best use of taxpayer's money, is the question.

    Why so much doubt on this Central Park fiscal issues? Well look at just one of Edmonton's TOD miracles that was a fiscal bath.

    I looked at previous COE projects like the Old Fort Road redevelopment and Station Pointe (Point with an e) that the COE spent millions on. They expropriated the active businesses that cost them way more than budgeted, forced out a local baseball park that cost millions to relocate, then built a park no one uses called "Patrick Dwyer Square" and funneled more money into building a unbudgeted $6 Million train barrier and then sold only one property in the entire TOD area and that is in receivership. ZERO tax dollar have been collected and ZERO people have been fired who promoted this fiasco. Meanwhile you read a recent glossed over rezoning plan that ignores the reason why this who idea went down the drain. They had the balls to call the report "What We Heard Report:" in the most tone deaf insult to Edmonton taxpayers.


    https://www.edmonton.ca/business_eco...ard_Report.pdf

    Station Pointe: A “design idea” that won awards in 2004, 2008, 2010, but looking at the site in 2019 shows a major fail. https://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/...ject-a-failure


    15 years in, Fort Road's Station Pointe remains stationary
    https://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/...ject-a-failure


    Here is the excerpts from the COE Administration's Master Plan that sold the project to City Council







    https://www.edmonton.ca/city_governm...aster_Plan.pdf

    What a bunch of BS
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 29-08-2019 at 07:19 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  41. #741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Thank you kcantor for your excellent rebuttal.

    At one point SteveyG said IRR was 6% (where he got that number, nobody knows)

    Then he posted
    Investment Gain: 27 million ROI 52% IRR 4.2% Investment Length 10 years (ditto) and claims that opponents will "cherry pick assumptions".

    No one said that the proponent swearing meant you have won the argument, it just means that the proponent is losing it (and their cool).

    Going back to basics

    Everyone loves a park. That's a given.

    Is that the best use of taxpayer's money, is the question.

    Why so much doubt on this Central Park fiscal issues? Well look at just one of Edmonton's TOD miracles that was a fiscal bath.

    I looked at previous COE projects like the Old Fort Road redevelopment and Station Pointe (Point with an e) that the COE spent millions on. They expropriated the active businesses that cost them way more than budgeted, forced out a local baseball park that cost millions to relocate, then built a park no one uses called "Patrick Dwyer Square" and funneled more money into building a unbudgeted $6 Million train barrier and then sold only one property in the entire TOD area and that is in receivership. ZERO tax dollar have been collected and ZERO people have been fired who promoted this fiasco. Meanwhile you read a recent glossed over rezoning plan that ignores the reason why this who idea went down the drain. They had the balls to call the report "What We Heard Report:" in the most tone deaf insult to Edmonton taxpayers.


    https://www.edmonton.ca/business_eco...ard_Report.pdf

    Station Pointe: A ďdesign ideaĒ that won awards in 2004, 2008, 2010, but looking at the site in 2019 shows a major fail. https://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/...ject-a-failure


    15 years in, Fort Road's Station Pointe remains stationary
    https://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/...ject-a-failure


    Here is the excerpts from the COE Administration's Master Plan that sold the project to City Council
    https://previews.dropbox.com/p/thumb...ue&size_mode=5







    https://www.edmonton.ca/city_governm...aster_Plan.pdf

    What a bunch of BS
    If you have so little faith in the forecasting of these projects, why did you ask for numbers in the first place? This is proof that of the inherent risk in developments under different incentive models. And that (as ken said) itís difficult to effectively do. I gave you the equivalent of a rough estimate based on the figures you and Ian were arguing about and then conservatively kept tax revenue in todayís dollars instead of tomorrowís not subject to inflation. I did this because I donít feel like spending a couple hours of my time doing a technical report for you, and to try and work to YOUR argument.

    I dunno, on one hand you want numbers, then you hear the boardís real expert chime in and suddenly you say you canít forecast based off assumptions (were all making assumptions here).

    I agree with you a lot of the time on your points on other topics, but youíre kinda moving the goal posts on this one and wasting the solid seven minutes of calculating I spent last night.

  42. #742

    Default

    It is interesting to watch you make a case and then blow it up.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  43. #743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    It is interesting to watch you make a case and then blow it up.
    Itís not blowing it up mate. Itís being honest with the limitations of forecasting which is what I was doing from the beginning. Thatís why I laid out those assumptions. It was a quick and dirty forecast and I pointed that out right from the first post explaining your requested numbers didnít mean anything.

    A good scientist publishes all info including things opposed to or inhibiting his or her hypothesis.

    Iím still waiting for peer reviewed information and your own financial forecast as requested. I saw your copy and paste of the railtown program, but thatís not good enough. I want you to prove to me using the ways you requested from me that this project is unfeasible. Iíve tried looking for these things myself but thereís overwhelming evidence using jstor and google scholar that these projects only have significant benefits to local communities and economies.

    Please, back up your opinion. Iím willing to change mine if you can provide sourced data to back up your point of view. But right now youíve got nothing short of some personal jabs.

    If you donít have the skill sets to do this thatís totally cool, everyone has their own specialties and limitations, but you canít go attacking things you donít know either. If such is the case, we can just agree to disagree.
    Last edited by Stevey_G; 28-08-2019 at 02:10 PM.

  44. #744

    Default

    Ok, you posted yor figures with no supporting data, here are mine

    Investment Gain: -27 million (loss)
    ROI -52%
    IRR -4.2%
    Investment Length 10 years

    -That the price tag is 51 million all in with 15% cost overrun and hidden administration costs. $58.6 Million.
    - That all towers get built and regardless if there is a park or not a park
    - 2.5% inflation/2.0% Debt financing
    - Annual maintenance costs 2% of project values = $1.17 Million
    - Unit valuation based off the value of my own unit (250k), this provides a conservative estimate for long term tax revenue generation, most units will be significantly higher
    -More is better. I assumed 2600 units built immediately as of today with forecasts of both 10 (more reasonable) and 100 years (impossible to be accurate at all)


    I will not show my work either...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  45. #745

    Default

    You wonít show your work? Come on man if youíre gonna use an online calculator just say you did. Itís obvious considering you donít use proper terminology. ROI with inflation adjusted numbers isnít ROI itís DROI.

    And those numbers are far too skewed into the areas of an economic loss. You think park maintenance costs 1.2 million dollars a year? Use common sense.

    How did you factor in a 15% overhead? Why? Which projects did you do a cost comparison analysis against? Considering these kinds of projects are relatively simple and come in on time on budget.

    All towers get built either way? You took the catalyst away that spurred the announcements of these projects the week after expropriation and you assume it not getting built means they all go ahead anyways?

    At least you admitted no supporting data because there is none. I tried hard to temper my opinion and couldnít find any.

    Ill try to reproduce your numbers doing back math when I get home but they come off very biased to try and prove your point. At least my numbers were conservative.

  46. #746

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    You wonít show your work? Come on man if youíre gonna use an online calculator just say you did. Itís obvious considering you donít use proper terminology. ROI with inflation adjusted numbers isnít ROI itís DROI.
    You won't show your, you don't see mine...
    And those numbers are far too skewed into the areas of an economic loss. You think park maintenance costs 1.2 million dollars a year? Use common sense.
    You think that plowing the snow, salt, sanding, removing the garbage, mowing the grass, painting benches, lighting maintenance, repairing vandalism, policing, planting flower beds, replacing landscape trees and bushes and then every few years doing major renovations is cheap? 2% was extremely conservative.
    How did you factor in a 15% overhead? Why? Which projects did you do a cost comparison analysis against? Considering these kinds of projects are relatively simple and come in on time on budget.
    Just look at many COE projects. Many are 200%, 300% and more over budget. 15% is a very low bar.
    All towers get built either way? You took the catalyst away that spurred the announcements of these projects the week after expropriation and you assume it not getting built means they all go ahead anyways?
    Do you think that the park is THE ONLY REASON they that these projects are going forward? Give you head a shake. As if they will shelve these projects now. Get real.
    At least you admitted no supporting data because there is none. I tried hard to temper my opinion and couldnít find any.
    Neither do you
    Ill try to reproduce your numbers doing back math when I get home but they come off very biased to try and prove your point. At least my numbers were conservative.
    So us your work and assumptions. Also show us a link to your online calculator.

    Remember you are the proponent and thee onus is on you to prove you theory.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  47. #747

    Default

    Well weíve monopolized the thread letís just agree to disagree and wait and see. Iíll be happy to admit Iím wrong if in five years the area hasnít dramatically improved. We can goto the park and Iíll give you a beer.

  48. #748

    Default

    The police would give you a ticket for drinking in the park
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  49. #749
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Well we’ve monopolized the thread let’s just agree to disagree and wait and see. I’ll be happy to admit I’m wrong if in five years the area hasn’t dramatically improved. We can goto the park and I’ll give you a beer.
    the problem with that is that you can't just "agree to disagree" and wait and see five years from now can you?

    that only works if you are going to postpone development of the park until your "wait and see" has determined whether a $51 million expenditure would be worthwhile or not.

    spending the $51 million now based on positive financial returns and finding out in five years that it was a disaster financially is a bit too late - you can't unspend it and get your money back.

    you might be able to convince me that spending $51 million on a park is a good investment in municipal infrastructure. i'm certainly open to that discussion.

    but spending $51 million on a park based on it being a good financial investment that will not only return its principal but will pay interest thereon to the taxpayer? you're more likely to convince me to buy a bridge in edmonton because it's in pristine condition.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  50. #750
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,213
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    10,000 points to kcantor for coming up with a new version of a "bridge to sell you".
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  51. #751

    Default

    A rusty one at that...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678

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
  •