Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 145

Thread: Ice District for Sale

  1. #1
    Last edited by fifty_in39; 12-02-2018 at 04:49 PM.

  2. #2
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,693

    Default

    Looks like only Stantec Tower and Edmonton Tower.

  3. #3
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    Rumoured for a while now.

    Curious more about who picks up ECC.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  4. #4

    Default

    link somthing thats not behind a paywall thanks

  5. #5
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Magnus View Post
    link somthing thats not behind a paywall thanks
    You should consider subscribing to the Globe and Mail. Its a great paper.


    However, I do find that this article takes a usual 'surprised' tone about Edmonton. The article seems rather unsure what to make of the fact that the two towers are priced at around a billion dollars. In fact it very very good news for the City. Quite brilliant for Katz and partners to unlock capital this way while also simultaneously boosting the value of their development to come.

    The $$$$$ valuation will cause quite a few people in Toronto to gasp. Shows us what kind of City we are becoming. Only good news for YEG I think.

  6. #6
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    Stop the loading of the full page before it hits the paywall.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Magnus View Post
    link somthing thats not behind a paywall thanks
    There's no paywall on the mobile app where I shared the link from.

  8. #8

    Default

    The Edmonton Journal does that too. I have a paid subscription and they have very large inviting icons to share a story. When I share it I just get complaints that people can't open it because they don't have a subscription. Someday newspapers will learn that they should either make it difficult to share, or making sharing easy to people like it and want to subscribe.

  9. #9
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Southwest YEG
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Not sure what to make of that article. Why would Katz Group/One want to sell Stantec already? What does that say for future development by them? Wikipedia states that Stantec will cost 500 million to build and they want to sell it for that much . I'm puzzled by the reasoning for this.
    Skyscraper Enthusiast

  10. #10
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cpnfantstk View Post
    Not sure what to make of that article. Why would Katz Group/One want to sell Stantec already? What does that say for future development by them? Wikipedia states that Stantec will cost 500 million to build and they want to sell it for that much . I'm puzzled by the reasoning for this.
    why would they sell it - and/or the edmonton tower - now? because if you’re not going to keep it in your portfolio, you sell it now because it will never be worth more than it is now. it’s new, it’s virtually fully leased, both cap rates and mortgage rates are as low as they’re ever going to be, there’s little other similar trophy product available not only here but anywhere else else in the country, the canadian dollar is relatively low... selling it now isn’t even necessarily a lack of faith in this market - it may be an opportunity for the existing owners to reset relationships and/or it may be an opportunity to repatriate capital for additional investment either in this market or elsewhere either in real estate or elsewhere. as for stantec costing 500 million, that probably includes the cost of building the sky residences which isn’t likely part of this sale. the condo sales proceeds should still accrue to katz/one in addition to the office sale. the office sale probably includes enough parking for the office space but not the rest of the parkade even though that’s also likely in the construction cost. edmonton tower being standalone including parking is probably a cleaner deal and attractive to a larger set of purchasers which - along with the total value of both also excluding some purchasers - is why there would be a willingness to sell them separately as well as together.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  11. #11
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,330

    Default

    ^awesome insight and thoughts. Thank you. That makes a lot of sense.

  12. #12

    Default

    Re. the "paywall," open the link in an incognito page. Right click on the link and press "open link in incognito." This only works if you're using Chrome. Firefox has this feature as well, but I can't remember what it's called on Firefox.

  13. #13

    Default

    Still get a paywall even in incognito

  14. #14
    Forum Administrator *
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,562
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Posting an entire article gets C2E in trouble with publishing companies. They have bigger lawyers than I do. Post unapproved.

    Sorry.
    Ow

  15. #15
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cpnfantstk View Post
    Not sure what to make of that article. Why would Katz Group/One want to sell Stantec already? What does that say for future development by them? Wikipedia states that Stantec will cost 500 million to build and they want to sell it for that much . I'm puzzled by the reasoning for this.
    why would they sell it - and/or the edmonton tower - now? because if you’re not going to keep it in your portfolio, you sell it now because it will never be worth more than it is now. it’s new, it’s virtually fully leased, both cap rates and mortgage rates are as low as they’re ever going to be, there’s little other similar trophy product available not only here but anywhere else else in the country, the canadian dollar is relatively low... selling it now isn’t even necessarily a lack of faith in this market - it may be an opportunity for the existing owners to reset relationships and/or it may be an opportunity to repatriate capital for additional investment either in this market or elsewhere either in real estate or elsewhere. as for stantec costing 500 million, that probably includes the cost of building the sky residences which isn’t likely part of this sale. the condo sales proceeds should still accrue to katz/one in addition to the office sale. the office sale probably includes enough parking for the office space but not the rest of the parkade even though that’s also likely in the construction cost. edmonton tower being standalone including parking is probably a cleaner deal and attractive to a larger set of purchasers which - along with the total value of both also excluding some purchasers - is why there would be a willingness to sell them separately as well as together.
    Exactly what Ken said. Add in the fact that the tenant profile in these buildings come with some strong covenants, and you have a good opportunity to purchase a brand new, premier building that's producing a solid income for the next several years.

  16. #16
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cpnfantstk View Post
    Not sure what to make of that article. Why would Katz Group/One want to sell Stantec already? What does that say for future development by them? Wikipedia states that Stantec will cost 500 million to build and they want to sell it for that much . I'm puzzled by the reasoning for this.
    why would they sell it - and/or the edmonton tower - now? because if you’re not going to keep it in your portfolio, you sell it now because it will never be worth more than it is now. it’s new, it’s virtually fully leased, both cap rates and mortgage rates are as low as they’re ever going to be, there’s little other similar trophy product available not only here but anywhere else else in the country, the canadian dollar is relatively low... selling it now isn’t even necessarily a lack of faith in this market - it may be an opportunity for the existing owners to reset relationships and/or it may be an opportunity to repatriate capital for additional investment either in this market or elsewhere either in real estate or elsewhere. as for stantec costing 500 million, that probably includes the cost of building the sky residences which isn’t likely part of this sale. the condo sales proceeds should still accrue to katz/one in addition to the office sale. the office sale probably includes enough parking for the office space but not the rest of the parkade even though that’s also likely in the construction cost. edmonton tower being standalone including parking is probably a cleaner deal and attractive to a larger set of purchasers which - along with the total value of both also excluding some purchasers - is why there would be a willingness to sell them separately as well as together.
    Thanks Ken, very insightful indeed.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  17. #17

    Default

    If anyone has trouble getting through the paywall, just a reminder that you can read all Globe and Mail articles (and many other newspapers) for free online through your Edmonton Public Library account.

  18. #18
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Southwest YEG
    Posts
    209

    Default

    @ kcantor, thanks for your thorough response. Clears things up for me.
    Skyscraper Enthusiast

  19. #19

    Default

    I would imagine the price tag includes the constructing/assembling process that procured long term tenants as well. They branded a product and that is their term for that value.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  20. #20
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,526

    Default

    If only he would sell his hockey team.

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chinpokomon View Post
    If anyone has trouble getting through the paywall, just a reminder that you can read all Globe and Mail articles (and many other newspapers) for free online through your Edmonton Public Library account.
    Interesting. What are the steps to do so?

  22. #22
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,483

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PunjabiOil View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chinpokomon View Post
    If anyone has trouble getting through the paywall, just a reminder that you can read all Globe and Mail articles (and many other newspapers) for free online through your Edmonton Public Library account.
    Interesting. What are the steps to do so?

    I'll buy it. Do they accept Litecoin and Aurora stocks?
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PunjabiOil View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chinpokomon View Post
    If anyone has trouble getting through the paywall, just a reminder that you can read all Globe and Mail articles (and many other newspapers) for free online through your Edmonton Public Library account.
    Interesting. What are the steps to do so?

    1. If you don't have an EPL account, sign-up for free here: https://www2.epl.ca/signup/
    2. Log-in to your EPL account.
    3. Select "Digital Content" at the top, then "Newspapers & Magazines".
    4. Click on "PressReader".
    5. Select The Globe And Mail or any other publication that you'd like to read.

  24. #24

    Default

    More he makes on real estate the more he builds .

  25. #25

    Default

    That describes the term "developer" which he has ventured to.
    As per selling the team, i dont want foreign owners. Local will always ensure the team remains in the city. Furthermore, entrepreneurs that own prestige sports franchises would be perceived to have higher leverages or values imo.

  26. #26

    Default

    Katz isn't local and hasn't been for years. You don't call yourself a local of a place you only spend a couple of weeks a year at.

  27. #27
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    That describes the term "developer" which he has ventured to.
    As per selling the team, i dont want foreign owners. Local will always ensure the team remains in the city. Furthermore, entrepreneurs that own prestige sports franchises would be perceived to have higher leverages or values imo.
    I agree. An Edmontonian owning the team is best. An outside owner might be tempted to move the team one day. Katz will not, ever. He is a fan at heart.

    As much as I admired the Oilers’ investors group, all their wealth combined was a tiny fraction to what Katz has. They were operating at their financial limit.

    Like him or not, Katz ensures we remain an NHL city. For me that is important.

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Katz isn't local and hasn't been for years. You don't call yourself a local of a place you only spend a couple of weeks a year at.
    He still has a home here; he was born here; he studied here... He is not local? If you want to play kindergarden tit for tat. Sure! He is not local despite mom, dad, memories and all.

  29. #29

    Default

    This is slightly a **** off, he cried and complained when he couldnt get money from the city to fund his arena. (IMO) the only reason why those towers are worth anything. Now that the city paid, he cuts his profits and f***s off. I think the city should be entitled to at least a small portion of his profits.

  30. #30
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S3RI3S View Post
    This is slightly a **** off, he cried and complained when he couldnt get money from the city to fund his arena. (IMO) the only reason why those towers are worth anything. Now that the city paid, he cuts his profits and f***s off. I think the city should be entitled to at least a small portion of his profits.
    it doesn't work that way... the city collects property taxes from those buildings regardless of who owns them.

    besides, unless you're going to call for the city to pay a small portion of any losses on this sale or any subsequent sale, the city shouldn't be entitled to a small portion of any profits either.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by S3RI3S View Post
    This is slightly a **** off, he cried and complained when he couldnt get money from the city to fund his arena. (IMO) the only reason why those towers are worth anything. Now that the city paid, he cuts his profits and f***s off. I think the city should be entitled to at least a small portion of his profits.
    it doesn't work that way... the city collects property taxes from those buildings regardless of who owns them.

    besides, unless you're going to call for the city to pay a small portion of any losses on this sale or any subsequent sale, the city shouldn't be entitled to a small portion of any profits either.
    for better or worse, but in this case i expect ice wont lose money for him.

    im just getting the feeling, as a city - as tax paying residents. Katz used us , our passion for hockey and love for the city to make a profit for himself.

    If he stays in edmonton when this is all said and done.. it wont be as bad, but if i see that mansion of his go for sale. Im sure a few people will be upset.

  32. #32
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Southwest YEG
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S3RI3S View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by S3RI3S View Post
    This is slightly a **** off, he cried and complained when he couldnt get money from the city to fund his arena. (IMO) the only reason why those towers are worth anything. Now that the city paid, he cuts his profits and f***s off. I think the city should be entitled to at least a small portion of his profits.
    it doesn't work that way... the city collects property taxes from those buildings regardless of who owns them.

    besides, unless you're going to call for the city to pay a small portion of any losses on this sale or any subsequent sale, the city shouldn't be entitled to a small portion of any profits either.
    for better or worse, but in this case i expect ice wont lose money for him.

    im just getting the feeling, as a city - as tax paying residents. Katz used us , our passion for hockey and love for the city to make a profit for himself.

    If he stays in edmonton when this is all said and done.. it wont be as bad, but if i see that mansion of his go for sale. Im sure a few people will be upset.
    At the very least, ICE District brought momentum to the core.I doubt many of the completed or proposed projects would have existed without it. I stated this a different thread, if Katz stops right now, he's left his mark on the city and I'd say it's a real positive one.
    Skyscraper Enthusiast

  33. #33
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S3RI3S View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by S3RI3S View Post
    This is slightly a **** off, he cried and complained when he couldnt get money from the city to fund his arena. (IMO) the only reason why those towers are worth anything. Now that the city paid, he cuts his profits and f***s off. I think the city should be entitled to at least a small portion of his profits.
    it doesn't work that way... the city collects property taxes from those buildings regardless of who owns them.

    besides, unless you're going to call for the city to pay a small portion of any losses on this sale or any subsequent sale, the city shouldn't be entitled to a small portion of any profits either.
    for better or worse, but in this case i expect ice wont lose money for him.

    im just getting the feeling, as a city - as tax paying residents. Katz used us , our passion for hockey and love for the city to make a profit for himself.

    If he stays in edmonton when this is all said and done.. it wont be as bad, but if i see that mansion of his go for sale. Im sure a few people will be upset.
    Katz has not moved up on the wealth rankings for several years now. I have a feeling he is not making as much money as you think he is on the Ice District.

  34. #34

    Default

    Or he's moving up at the same rate as the rest of the 1%.

    He may have been born here and have family here but his primary residence is in Vancouver. I was born in Europe where my dad was stationed with the RCAF. I don't consider that I'm a resident of that town.

  35. #35
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S3RI3S View Post
    This is slightly a **** off, he cried and complained when he couldnt get money from the city to fund his arena. (IMO) the only reason why those towers are worth anything. Now that the city paid, he cuts his profits and f***s off. I think the city should be entitled to at least a small portion of his profits.
    You are sorely mistaken. He is raising capital to develop north of 104th ave.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  36. #36

    Default

    Other than Katz using us, what other entity paraded itself to city council and declare they wanted to charge the city with big development? His involvement eradicated almost 4 blocks of mud lands in the heart of downtown. Between you and I, I prefer the transient Greyhound crowd; the gravel/mud parking lot next door, and that nasty mud field where Roger now sits. It is so world class hence why we have them all over the core. Other cities jyst haven't fought on yet. He went into development not realist holdings, so what do/did you expect?
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  37. #37
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,422

    Default

    Why are people so upset that a businessman from here is making money in our city? Why is that a bad thing?
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  38. #38
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,928

    Default

    I'm sure that other properties could sell quite well downtown. Also, a $1 B sale in Edmonton is a huge vote of investor confidence for downtown.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Or he's moving up at the same rate as the rest of the 1%.

    He may have been born here and have family here but his primary residence is in Vancouver. I was born in Europe where my dad was stationed with the RCAF. I don't consider that I'm a resident of that town.
    - Not sure if he even lives in Vancouver anymore. He did sell his residence there. I believe his kids have now graduated (assuming they went to private school in Vancouver - which Edmonton lacks)
    - Rich people have residences in multiple locations. He probably pays more in Edmonton property taxes than any other resident. Not sure what the issue is if he doesn't live here year-round.
    - That said, he took the city to the cleaners in the arena negotiations. Mayor/Council gave him a sweetheart deal, and the city took on the risk. With office vacancy projected to push 30% by 2020, the CRL may result in a reallocation of wealth from one area of the city to another (at least in the short term) as opposed to marginal economic benefits.
    - Katz wealth has been eroding. It was 4.14B USD in 2016, now down to ~3B per Forbes. After selling Rexall, probably no steady, predictable stream of income. Curious how it fell that much?

  40. #40
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Why are people so upset that a businessman from here is making money in our city? Why is that a bad thing?
    How Canadian...
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  41. #41
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    '- That said, he took the city to the cleaners in the arena negotiations. Mayor/Council gave him a sweetheart deal, and the city took on the risk. With office vacancy projected to push 30% by 2020, the CRL may result in a reallocation of wealth from one area of the city to another (at least in the short term) as opposed to marginal economic benefits.'

    Not quite.

    Office vacancy is coming down, we are around 13% in the CBD and 15-16% city-wide, down from 17-18%. Things are slowly picking up again.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  42. #42
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PunjabiOil View Post
    - Katz wealth has been eroding. It was 4.14B USD in 2016, now down to ~3B per Forbes. After selling Rexall, probably no steady, predictable stream of income. Curious how it fell that much?
    Thanks for getting the numbers. Most likely he is looking to the long term in the Ice District but sure looks like there has been some short term pain for him.

  43. #43
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Southwest YEG
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    '- That said, he took the city to the cleaners in the arena negotiations. Mayor/Council gave him a sweetheart deal, and the city took on the risk. With office vacancy projected to push 30% by 2020, the CRL may result in a reallocation of wealth from one area of the city to another (at least in the short term) as opposed to marginal economic benefits.'

    Not quite.

    Office vacancy is coming down, we are around 13% in the CBD and 15-16% city-wide, down from 17-18%. Things are slowly picking up again.
    I got the same figures as PunjabiOil in regards to the vacancy rate of 30 percent by 2020. I read that in a recent article although that's one article. There are other articles that state an improvement as you say. One issue of concern mentioned in that particular article is that many of the older office towers are not suitable for conversion to residential so they'll be sitting empty for years or need to be torn down. Thoughts on this Ian ?
    Skyscraper Enthusiast

  44. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cpnfantstk View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    '- That said, he took the city to the cleaners in the arena negotiations. Mayor/Council gave him a sweetheart deal, and the city took on the risk. With office vacancy projected to push 30% by 2020, the CRL may result in a reallocation of wealth from one area of the city to another (at least in the short term) as opposed to marginal economic benefits.'

    Not quite.

    Office vacancy is coming down, we are around 13% in the CBD and 15-16% city-wide, down from 17-18%. Things are slowly picking up again.
    There are other articles that state an improvement as you say. One issue of concern mentioned in that particular article is that many of the older office towers are not suitable for conversion to residential so they'll be sitting empty for years or need to be torn down. Thoughts on this Ian ?
    Then they tear down the old office building and build a modern, tall skyscraper in its place, like we're seeing with the BMO building.

  45. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PunjabiOil View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Or he's moving up at the same rate as the rest of the 1%.

    He may have been born here and have family here but his primary residence is in Vancouver. I was born in Europe where my dad was stationed with the RCAF. I don't consider that I'm a resident of that town.
    - Not sure if he even lives in Vancouver anymore. He did sell his residence there. I believe his kids have now graduated (assuming they went to private school in Vancouver - which Edmonton lacks)
    - Rich people have residences in multiple locations. He probably pays more in Edmonton property taxes than any other resident. Not sure what the issue is if he doesn't live here year-round.
    - That said, he took the city to the cleaners in the arena negotiations. Mayor/Council gave him a sweetheart deal, and the city took on the risk. With office vacancy projected to push 30% by 2020, the CRL may result in a reallocation of wealth from one area of the city to another (at least in the short term) as opposed to marginal economic benefits.
    - Katz wealth has been eroding. It was 4.14B USD in 2016, now down to ~3B per Forbes. After selling Rexall, probably no steady, predictable stream of income. Curious how it fell that much?
    The deal he struck with McKesson for Rexall did not erode any wealth nor lose his stream of income. He sold the business and kept the real estate (with long term leases in place). He has a private business, Forbes cannot accurately predict his wealth.

  46. #46
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cpnfantstk View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    '- That said, he took the city to the cleaners in the arena negotiations. Mayor/Council gave him a sweetheart deal, and the city took on the risk. With office vacancy projected to push 30% by 2020, the CRL may result in a reallocation of wealth from one area of the city to another (at least in the short term) as opposed to marginal economic benefits.'

    Not quite.

    Office vacancy is coming down, we are around 13% in the CBD and 15-16% city-wide, down from 17-18%. Things are slowly picking up again.
    I got the same figures as PunjabiOil in regards to the vacancy rate of 30 percent by 2020. I read that in a recent article although that's one article. There are other articles that state an improvement as you say. One issue of concern mentioned in that particular article is that many of the older office towers are not suitable for conversion to residential so they'll be sitting empty for years or need to be torn down. Thoughts on this Ian ?
    A few will be converted, a few will be renovated, but I do not see anything else coming down.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  47. #47
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S3RI3S View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by S3RI3S View Post
    This is slightly a **** off, he cried and complained when he couldnt get money from the city to fund his arena. (IMO) the only reason why those towers are worth anything. Now that the city paid, he cuts his profits and f***s off. I think the city should be entitled to at least a small portion of his profits.
    it doesn't work that way... the city collects property taxes from those buildings regardless of who owns them.

    besides, unless you're going to call for the city to pay a small portion of any losses on this sale or any subsequent sale, the city shouldn't be entitled to a small portion of any profits either.
    for better or worse, but in this case i expect ice wont lose money for him.

    im just getting the feeling, as a city - as tax paying residents. Katz used us , our passion for hockey and love for the city to make a profit for himself.

    If he stays in edmonton when this is all said and done.. it wont be as bad, but if i see that mansion of his go for sale. Im sure a few people will be upset.
    "Used us", in what manner? He stood by his word to Council that he would develop the lands around the arena. This was done with "private" money. He was successful in leasing up the buildings and selling condos, which in turn generates a "significant" amount of property taxes. Katz also assembled land north of the arena, again, with "private" money and has plans to develop that. So is Katz entitled to "profit" by taking the risk to develop the real estate around the arena, I see no reason why not.

  48. #48
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Or he's moving up at the same rate as the rest of the 1%.

    He may have been born here and have family here but his primary residence is in Vancouver. I was born in Europe where my dad was stationed with the RCAF. I don't consider that I'm a resident of that town.
    Do you own real estate in that town either personal or investment? If no then your comment carries zero weight.

  49. #49
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    '- That said, he took the city to the cleaners in the arena negotiations. Mayor/Council gave him a sweetheart deal, and the city took on the risk. With office vacancy projected to push 30% by 2020, the CRL may result in a reallocation of wealth from one area of the city to another (at least in the short term) as opposed to marginal economic benefits.'

    Not quite.

    Office vacancy is coming down, we are around 13% in the CBD and 15-16% city-wide, down from 17-18%. Things are slowly picking up again.
    Yes it is. Barring any unforeseen correction in the economy that results in the price of oil dropping the consensus on the street is that vacancy rates are stabilizing and dropping. You also have to look at what makes up that vacancy rate and the type of asset. There are a number of older Class B and C office buildings that are simply outdated and will struggle to find tenants without a significant amount of reinvestment. Newer Class A assets continue to perform quite well with the newer product commanding higher rates and interest from 'blue chip' tenants.

  50. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oilers99 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PunjabiOil View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Or he's moving up at the same rate as the rest of the 1%.

    He may have been born here and have family here but his primary residence is in Vancouver. I was born in Europe where my dad was stationed with the RCAF. I don't consider that I'm a resident of that town.
    - Not sure if he even lives in Vancouver anymore. He did sell his residence there. I believe his kids have now graduated (assuming they went to private school in Vancouver - which Edmonton lacks)
    - Rich people have residences in multiple locations. He probably pays more in Edmonton property taxes than any other resident. Not sure what the issue is if he doesn't live here year-round.
    - That said, he took the city to the cleaners in the arena negotiations. Mayor/Council gave him a sweetheart deal, and the city took on the risk. With office vacancy projected to push 30% by 2020, the CRL may result in a reallocation of wealth from one area of the city to another (at least in the short term) as opposed to marginal economic benefits.
    - Katz wealth has been eroding. It was 4.14B USD in 2016, now down to ~3B per Forbes. After selling Rexall, probably no steady, predictable stream of income. Curious how it fell that much?
    The deal he struck with McKesson for Rexall did not erode any wealth nor lose his stream of income. He sold the business and kept the real estate (with long term leases in place). He has a private business, Forbes cannot accurately predict his wealth.
    Would be curious how Forbes calculates wealth in their lists - most of the people on the list do have private businesses.

    The other possibility of his wealth decline may be foreign exchange - the decline of the loonie.

  51. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    '- That said, he took the city to the cleaners in the arena negotiations. Mayor/Council gave him a sweetheart deal, and the city took on the risk. With office vacancy projected to push 30% by 2020, the CRL may result in a reallocation of wealth from one area of the city to another (at least in the short term) as opposed to marginal economic benefits.'

    Not quite.

    Office vacancy is coming down, we are around 13% in the CBD and 15-16% city-wide, down from 17-18%. Things are slowly picking up again.
    There may be short term stabilization - but there has been, and continues to be, and increase in supply. The Globe and Mail article referenced in the original post highlights this and projects office space vacancy will hit 30%.

    Of course it's only a projection - but there are some concerns due to absorption.

  52. #52
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    170

    Default

    I don’t know why we have this “haterness” about a guy who has and continues to invest about $1.5 Billion in our downtown. Hehis has changed the perception of Edmonton and I for one am happy that the city invested the $250million in the building. I was in favour from day one and am ecstatic about my city’s investment.

    Who the fu** else was willing to invest this much in our downtown? Maybe I missed the Toronto or Calgary or New York investors that were all lining up to put a Billion plus in our city. I hope he tripled his money and keeps on investing.

    Signed,
    Extremely proud of an Edmontonian doing well and improving the city!

  53. #53
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    ^bingo.

    ^^Supply also allows for opportunity and expansion.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  54. #54
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    173

    Default

    This is happening all over north america not just in edmonton.

    new stadiums are being built, so that large companies can right off billions of dollars. sure the company invested in downtown but they walked out of their investment. leaving the tax payers, who have no options but to keep paying the higher taxes. The company gets away with a profit and the citizens are left to clean up the corporations ********, as in keep paying forever.

    http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...h-public-funds
    https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/...doggle/403666/
    http://theweek.com/articles/629756/outrageous-ripoff-taxpayerfunded-stadiums
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/why-fu...-bet-1.1378210

    Last edited by geordieinthecity; 17-02-2018 at 02:07 PM.

  55. #55
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Rizza View Post
    I don’t know why we have this “haterness” about a guy who has and continues to invest about $1.5 Billion in our downtown. Hehis has changed the perception of Edmonton and I for one am happy that the city invested the $250million in the building. I was in favour from day one and am ecstatic about my city’s investment.

    Who the fu** else was willing to invest this much in our downtown? Maybe I missed the Toronto or Calgary or New York investors that were all lining up to put a Billion plus in our city. I hope he tripled his money and keeps on investing.

    Signed,
    Extremely proud of an Edmontonian doing well and improving the city!
    I totally agree.

    Many on this site seem to despise anyone making more than $15/hour. It’s an envy that unfortunately permeates their thinking.
    Last edited by metro; 17-02-2018 at 04:44 PM. Reason: I forgot to acknowledge the quote

  56. #56

    Default

    I have no problem with him building what he's built. I just wish that, since he is obviously capable of building all these buildings, that he also pay for the new arena. After all, his hockey team are the prime beneficiaries. He can somehow afford Stantec, the new hotel/condo, the greyhound tower and whatever he builds north of 105 ave but coughing up the money for the rink was just beyond possibility? How many other businesses, and an NHL team is a business, would the city offer such a sweetheart deal to? And one that tells the city that it cannot use the coliseum in any way that would compete with Rogers, even though both are owned by the city?

    He wants to build a bunch of buildings and make a bunch of money? Good for him. Go to it. Don't play on the emotions of a city that, wrongly or rightly, feel a connection to the Oilers. Yeah, we're sure his trips to Hamilton and Seattle were just a coincidence. He wanted people to think he was this close to moving the team.

  57. #57
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    423

    Default

    I would like to echo IanO's optimism for Downtown office rates.

    The Government of Alberta has some old and tired assets that need to be retired and sub-optimals leases that need to expire.

    Things like the Annex and the Terrace Building.

  58. #58
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    I have no problem with him building what he's built. I just wish that, since he is obviously capable of building all these buildings, that he also pay for the new arena. After all, his hockey team are the prime beneficiaries. He can somehow afford Stantec, the new hotel/condo, the greyhound tower and whatever he builds north of 105 ave but coughing up the money for the rink was just beyond possibility? How many other businesses, and an NHL team is a business, would the city offer such a sweetheart deal to? And one that tells the city that it cannot use the coliseum in any way that would compete with Rogers, even though both are owned by the city?

    He wants to build a bunch of buildings and make a bunch of money? Good for him. Go to it. Don't play on the emotions of a city that, wrongly or rightly, feel a connection to the Oilers. Yeah, we're sure his trips to Hamilton and Seattle were just a coincidence. He wanted people to think he was this close to moving the team.
    ...and yet we have arguably the most successful urban arena development in N.A. and we continue to look back with concern or question?

    Look at 95% of the other examples and their 'deals' were atrocious for what they received. Most were giant new stadiums (primarily NFL/MLB), with giant parking lots and little to no ancillary development, let alone a return on said public investment.

    Nothing is ever perfect, but the partnership that was put forth has created something very special here.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  59. #59

    Default

    Sure our "deal" is better than some but I still don't see why the city had to build the arena for his business. And rest assured that it is a business. If the economy tanks and the team doesn't improve, he's free to pack up the team and move to greener pastures and the city will still be on the hook for the arena. Sure, there's surely a clause in the agreement that says the team won't move for x amount of years but you also be sure that there's weasel clauses in there that would allow the team to move in certain circumstances.

    It's basically like Triple Five coming to the city and asking us to build them a mall. They will take care of getting the tenants and keep the profits. Sure, taxes will cover the cost eventually but why should the city build the necessary infrastructure for a business? Expanding city infrastructure to support it, sure. Roads, transit, etc. But building the actual building you need to operate your business? Why?

  60. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by S3RI3S View Post
    This is slightly a **** off, he cried and complained when he couldnt get money from the city to fund his arena. (IMO) the only reason why those towers are worth anything. Now that the city paid, he cuts his profits and f***s off. I think the city should be entitled to at least a small portion of his profits.
    You are sorely mistaken. He is raising capital to develop north of 104th ave.
    At what cost? 15M to knock down the arena , 113M for the arena, 47M loan attached to the expo center - is what i can think off the top of my head. I stand by my point, we were used.

  61. #61
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    170

    Default

    That’s a valid point. I think that if it’s just a business like a mall or any other business that doesn’t bring strong tangible or intangibles to the table then it’s easy to say no.

    In this case the big difference for me was the chance to transform a key central part of the city. It’s no secret our downtown was horrible. The perception of Edmonton around the country and world was (maybe still is) terrible. So if you’re running a city and you think that a thriving downtown is important and you also maybe think that the future of cities is to be more compact and your job is to help grow the economy and market the city, then it becomes easier to “invest” in a project like this.

    For me, this was an investment. A catalyst for the city to encourage more investment in a certain vital part of the city and it’s working. An investment in the image of Edmonton and its future. Yes, the oilers are staying for 35 years and yes the city will make all of its money back and more via taxes, but in my opinion the most important thing is making downtown fun and interesting and economically strong and diverse.

  62. #62
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Rizza View Post
    That’s a valid point. I think that if it’s just a business like a mall or any other business that doesn’t bring strong tangible or intangibles to the table then it’s easy to say no.

    In this case the big difference for me was the chance to transform a key central part of the city. It’s no secret our downtown was horrible. The perception of Edmonton around the country and world was (maybe still is) terrible. So if you’re running a city and you think that a thriving downtown is important and you also maybe think that the future of cities is to be more compact and your job is to help grow the economy and market the city, then it becomes easier to “invest” in a project like this.

    For me, this was an investment. A catalyst for the city to encourage more investment in a certain vital part of the city and it’s working. An investment in the image of Edmonton and its future. Yes, the oilers are staying for 35 years and yes the city will make all of its money back and more via taxes, but in my opinion the most important thing is making downtown fun and interesting and economically strong and diverse.
    Exactly...

  63. #63
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,483

    Default

    How long will it take for Edmonton to see a return on investment for it's part of this project? I can't help but wonder if Stantec really would have moved to Toronto, or what our economy would have been like during the recession had we not had the thousands of primary and ancillary jobs created by the Ice District project.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  64. #64
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    We did about 2 years ago. Without the arena deal, Ice District, the JW, Stantec Tower and perhaps even the COE would not have existed*. Let alone the confidence/game changer it was for other developers and their confidence to proceed with other residential developments.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  65. #65

    Default

    You don't know that. If Katz thought he could make enough money, even if he had to finance the arena himself, he would have done it. He thought that the emotional cost of losing the Oilers would give him leverage to get the city to build the arena. He's going to make more money off of the various office towers than he will off of the arena after all. But people get emotionally attached to a professional sports team for whatever reason. It's funny how other cities manage to build their downtown when they don't have or have never had a hockey arena downtown.

  66. #66

    Default

    I have had mixed emotions on this topic for awhile now. I have landed on "grey" - rather than black or white - conclusion for myself. I don't think, in principle, that the public should subsidize sports facilities and owners like this for all the reasons (right wing, left wing, no wing) critics mention. Frankly, I am a bit embarrassed by the arena deal. HOWEVER, I think the benefits of the deal are quite substantial, all the ones that people have laid out already: triggered other developments, improved perceptions (internally and externally) of Edmonton, raising standards (probably) in design. It has turned out better than I thought, and while I grimace about the material and ethical price the Edmonton public paid for this, I think the benefits are very worth it.

    The question for me is about 'future benefits'. I admit to not understanding the implications of the Ice District sale. The optimist in me latches on to the idea that it was just a good business deal - selling high - so that it can free up cash for other development. The pessimist says that the Katz Group has decided not to finish the original design (Tower B) nor continue with the expansive development they proposed in early 2017 north of the ICE district, and are truly getting out while the getting is good (I would not crucify them for this .... its a business ... but I would be disappointed).

    Do we know enough to hazard a guess on either of these two scenarios, or even create a third one?

    Cheers
    Last edited by Back in Town; 19-02-2018 at 08:18 AM. Reason: spelling mistake

  67. #67
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    They are committed to B and phase 2.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  68. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    They are committed to B and phase 2.
    Is there a legal obligation to complete B? Or is this just katz being mr.niceguy ?

  69. #69
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    They have a rezone, a DP, a BP (likely being revised) and an Ice District to complete. Legal is less important here than anything else.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  70. #70

    Default

    Thank you. Whew.

  71. #71
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    They are committed to B and phase 2.
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    They have a rezone, a DP, a BP (likely being revised) and an Ice District to complete. Legal is less important here than anything else.
    which doesn't really answer the question...

    there is no legal obligation to complete b and/or phase 2.

    and while a rezoning, a dp and a bp (needing revision or not) enable the completion of b, there is still no obligation/requirement for that to happen. while those are - progressively - stronger indications of intent, none of them - even cumulatively - comprise an obligation.

    while my expectations are the same as yours (that we will see tower b), at the same time both of us could probably compile quite a lengthy list of non-completed projects rezoning, dp's and bp's notwithstanding original "commitments". reality might be better reflected by using "intentions" rather than "commitments".
    Last edited by kcantor; 19-02-2018 at 10:50 AM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  72. #72
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    That's correct Ken, but given the other motivation, it is very likely.

    Ice District has significantly more value with Tower B.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  73. #73
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    That's correct Ken, but given the other motivation, it is very likely.

    Ice District has significantly more value with Tower B.
    what "other motivation" outside of intent is there IanO?

    as for ice district having significantly more value with tower b, are you suggesting that edmonton tower, stantec and marriott would be worth more after tower b would be completed? if that were so, the first two wouldn't be for sale now would they?

    yes, the district will have more value after the completion of tower b but that's going to be due to the value of tower b when completed being added to the value of the ice district without tower b, not some kind of alchemy that would have an impact on the existing rental streams and tenant covenants and mortgage and/or capitalization rates that set the existing values of the ice district.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  74. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    They are committed to B and phase 2.
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    They have a rezone, a DP, a BP (likely being revised) and an Ice District to complete. Legal is less important here than anything else.
    which doesn't really answer the question...

    there is no legal obligation to complete b and/or phase 2.

    and while a rezoning, a dp and a bp (needing revision or not) enable the completion of b, there is still no obligation/requirement for that to happen. while those are - progressively - stronger indications of intent, none of them - even cumulatively - comprise an obligation.

    while my expectations are the same as yours (that we will see tower b), at the same time both of us could probably compile quite a lengthy list of non-completed projects rezoning, dp's and bp's notwithstanding original "commitments". reality might be better reflected by using "intentions" rather than "commitments".
    i have minor doubts that tower b will be completed. My concern lies that tower b will flunk and turn into a midrise or worse just a podium. I dont know what they paid for the old greyhound lot. Im assuming that is a big factor in the development of b though.

  75. #75
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    That's correct Ken, but given the other motivation, it is very likely.

    Ice District has significantly more value with Tower B.
    what "other motivation" outside of intent is there IanO?

    as for ice district having significantly more value with tower b, are you suggesting that edmonton tower, stantec and marriott would be worth more after tower b would be completed? if that were so, the first two wouldn't be for sale now would they?

    yes, the district will have more value after the completion of tower b but that's going to be due to the value of tower b when completed being added to the value of the ice district without tower b, not some kind of alchemy that would have an impact on the existing rental streams and tenant covenants and mortgage and/or capitalization rates that set the existing values of the ice district.
    There is a bigger picture in play here.

    Actually they would be, with the anticipation of Tower B being completed to finalize the other two developments and area.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  76. #76
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    That's correct Ken, but given the other motivation, it is very likely.

    Ice District has significantly more value with Tower B.
    what "other motivation" outside of intent is there IanO?

    as for ice district having significantly more value with tower b, are you suggesting that edmonton tower, stantec and marriott would be worth more after tower b would be completed? if that were so, the first two wouldn't be for sale now would they?

    yes, the district will have more value after the completion of tower b but that's going to be due to the value of tower b when completed being added to the value of the ice district without tower b, not some kind of alchemy that would have an impact on the existing rental streams and tenant covenants and mortgage and/or capitalization rates that set the existing values of the ice district.
    There is a bigger picture in play here.
    maybe because it's a holiday weekend IanO but i'm just as unclear as to what you actually mean by "a bigger picture" as to what you meant my "other motivation"? perhaps you could actually define those for me instead of just alluding to things?

    Actually they would be, with the anticipation of Tower B being completed to finalize the other two developments and area.
    so it's your contention that the existing rental streams and tenant covenants and mortgage and/or capitalization rates that set the existing values of the ice district are based on the completion of tower b?

    because if that's the case, there would need to be some mechanism for rents to change based on whether tower b was completed or not (i.e. the city's rents and stantec's rents and denton's rents etc. would contractually come down if it wasn't or their rents would go up if it was) and mortgage rates would to increase or decrease on the same basis and appraised/capitilazed values also adjusted accordingly. and clearly there are no such mechanisms, at least that i am aware of. which means these buildings are rented and financed and capitalized on their own merits, as they should be, not on something that may or may not happen in the future.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  77. #77

    Default

    Don't forget, Eaton's Centre, now ECC West, was sold as having office and apartment towers as part of the project. Developer promises are useless unless it's expressed in an iron clad contract. Even then, there's no guarantee that any tower would be built if they simply have to pay a penalty for non completion.

  78. #78
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    This is phase 1 of a much larger development and to suggest or think that one would sabotage or upset the rest is heading down the wrong path of thinking here.

    No directly Ken, but indirectly absolutely. Both are much more attractive because of what's coming with tower B and its podium.

    ...not really for it is anticipated and so I would expect rents/$/sqft etc. take the more complete development into account.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  79. #79
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Don't forget, Eaton's Centre, now ECC West, was sold as having office and apartment towers as part of the project. Developer promises are useless unless it's expressed in an iron clad contract. Even then, there's no guarantee that any tower would be built if they simply have to pay a penalty for non completion.
    Not sure I would make those comparisons for a variety of reasons/history/meeting record, but there is always some risk and certainly we want delivery.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  80. #80

    Default

    I'm sure the Ghermazians were very credible at their meetings too. The reason (or excuse) they gave for not building them was "economic conditions". Just because you're a fan of Katz doesn't make him more credible. He's in it for the money, just like Triple 5 was. Just like any developer is.

  81. #81
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    Of course, but from my understanding there was A LOT more behind the bait and switch in the 80s.

    I have faith in Phase 1 and certainly am looking forward to even more development to the north, but we can all agree upon one thing, it will be based on market research and 'economic conditions'.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  82. #82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    I'm sure the Ghermazians were very credible at their meetings too. The reason (or excuse) they gave for not building them was "economic conditions". Just because you're a fan of Katz doesn't make him more credible. He's in it for the money, just like Triple 5 was. Just like any developer is.
    I have read this entire thread and simple reasoning would be did Katz promise to build a 30 storey tower to the city did he promise to build a 56 floor hotel and luxury condo did he promise to build the tallest building outside Toronto ? So why would people think he did all this just to bait and switch with tower B ? Maybe a more reasonable conclusion is the Market is not dictating any more towers ATM for the heart of Downtown Fox 1 FOX 2 Ultima and Encore are new and some going up that is quite a few units for Edmonton right there. Seem like maybe the delay is it might not be feasible at this time.

  83. #83
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    This is phase 1 of a much larger development and to suggest or think that one would sabotage or upset the rest is heading down the wrong path of thinking here.

    No directly Ken, but indirectly absolutely. Both are much more attractive because of what's coming with tower B and its podium.

    ...not really for it is anticipated and so I would expect rents/$/sqft etc. take the more complete development into account.
    both might - nominally - be more attractive because of what's coming with tower b and its podium but that doesn't necessarily make them more valuable which is what you were saying previously. as for rents/$/sqft etc., you know as well as i that those were all contractually set completely independent of tower b (most of them in fact having being set before the tower b site and 103 street were even acquired). it would take quite a bit of prescience on both sides to have negotiated lease rates and values based on something that hadn't even happened yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Of course, but from my understanding there was A LOT more behind the bait and switch in the 80s.

    I have faith in Phase 1 and certainly am looking forward to even more development to the north, but we can all agree upon one thing, it will be based on market research and 'economic conditions'.
    emphasis added...

    and agreed with.

    it won't be based on "other motivations" or "big pictures", as altruistic and desirable as they (whatever "they" are) might be, it will be based on economics. and that's not a negative, that's as it should be.
    Last edited by kcantor; 19-02-2018 at 01:42 PM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  84. #84
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,565

    Default

    Aren’t retail leases partially based on sales? If that is the case the more people in close proximity would equate to higher sales and would assume rents. Higher rents equals higher property values.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  85. #85

    Default

    Someone with more knowledge of the development business may be able to answer this:

    This being Katz' first development, if he was looking to get a project off the ground in Toronto for example, would they look to Ice District and see it as incomplete? Would this give other cities pause in granting Katz permits?

    I would think not being able to deliver on your first high-profile project would limit future opportunities. To be clear, in my opinion, if Tower B does not happen, it's a big miss. The vision of a lively district and bustling square does not include a fenced-off vacant lot.

    What I'm getting at, is that there may be a bigger picture. It's all rooted in profit maximization, but not a simple matter of "we could build it, but we can't sell it."

  86. #86
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    Tower B will happen guys.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  87. #87
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    113

    Default

    Can't wait to see new renderings of tower B. The last design was a miss imo. I wonder if they will go thinner and higher.

  88. #88
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Aren’t retail leases partially based on sales? If that is the case the more people in close proximity would equate to higher sales and would assume rents. Higher rents equals higher property values.
    firstly, percentage rents aren't that common and not that many tenants pay them (you can exclude anchors, fashion, big box, grocery, liquor, drug stores, fitness, theatres, banks, etc.). of those leases that include provisions for it, very few reach the threshold and pay it. few lenders or purchasers will make allowances for it as any assignment or change of tenant or change in the market will see it disappear.

    secondly, when it comes to office buildings like the edmonton tower or stantec, the retail component might be 5% of the project's total area. even if 25% of the retail space had provisions for percentage rent, even if you could add 25% to the base rent of that 25% of that 5% of the total area of the building, the actual impact on the total rent role - and value of the building as a result - would be nominal at best (0.375% in this example) compared to the typical rent roll deductions of 1% for non-recoverable structural repairs and between 3-5% for vacancy.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  89. #89
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whattagame View Post
    Someone with more knowledge of the development business may be able to answer this:

    This being Katz' first development, if he was looking to get a project off the ground in Toronto for example, would they look to Ice District and see it as incomplete? Would this give other cities pause in granting Katz permits?

    I would think not being able to deliver on your first high-profile project would limit future opportunities. To be clear, in my opinion, if Tower B does not happen, it's a big miss. The vision of a lively district and bustling square does not include a fenced-off vacant lot.

    What I'm getting at, is that there may be a bigger picture. It's all rooted in profit maximization, but not a simple matter of "we could build it, but we can't sell it."
    ignoring any previous development and investment success personally or with rexall etc., let me get this straight. in the first decade of a multi-decade development project we've seen:


    • the new arena
    • the new edmonton tower
    • the jw marriott
    • the legends
    • the stantec tower
    • the sky residences


    yet if market conditions delay the start - or the completion - of tower b, you're prepared to call the ice district a big miss by katz/one???

    i wish i could miss that well with my projects.

    as for financing elsewhere, assuming it's project specific and not corporate borrowing (and it almost always is), then that project would have to stand on its own.

    as for municipal permits and approvals, municipal permits and approvals "run with the land", they aren't granted to the project developer per se. if the project complies and any permit conditions or preconditions are met, municipalities are obligated to issue permits.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  90. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Whattagame View Post
    Someone with more knowledge of the development business may be able to answer this:

    This being Katz' first development, if he was looking to get a project off the ground in Toronto for example, would they look to Ice District and see it as incomplete? Would this give other cities pause in granting Katz permits?

    I would think not being able to deliver on your first high-profile project would limit future opportunities. To be clear, in my opinion, if Tower B does not happen, it's a big miss. The vision of a lively district and bustling square does not include a fenced-off vacant lot.

    What I'm getting at, is that there may be a bigger picture. It's all rooted in profit maximization, but not a simple matter of "we could build it, but we can't sell it."
    ignoring any previous development and investment success personally or with rexall etc., let me get this straight. in the first decade of a multi-decade development project we've seen:


    • the new arena
    • the new edmonton tower
    • the jw marriott
    • the legends
    • the stantec tower
    • the sky residences


    yet if market conditions delay the start - or the completion - of tower b, you're prepared to call the ice district a big miss by katz/one???

    i wish i could miss that well with my projects.

    as for financing elsewhere, assuming it's project specific and not corporate borrowing (and it almost always is), then that project would have to stand on its own.

    as for municipal permits and approvals, municipal permits and approvals "run with the land", they aren't granted to the project developer per se. if the project complies and any permit conditions or preconditions are met, municipalities are obligated to issue permits.
    I stated clearly that I'm seeking expert opinion, and asking the question of if this would be viewed as a miss that would impact future projects.
    Last edited by Whattagame; 19-02-2018 at 11:15 PM.

  91. #91

    Default

    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.

  92. #92

    Default

    Man...this thread is full of such ridiculous views its actually making my head spin.
    Tower B IS happening. Further development WILL happen (with capital injections that oh you know....might be obtained from a brand new fully leased building). And what has been developed to date is monumental. End of story.

  93. #93

    Default

    A lot of development groups limit themselves to developing. That is, they have no intention to hold the property, simply build it, then sell it for profit, rise and repeat.

    I'm pretty sure this is just business as usual for Katz Group. Remember that they have 6 or 7 towers in Ice District north, plus a "trophy" tower on the former Baccarat site. I don't think they ever stated they were going to own all of Ice District, nor could they afford to. This is exactly the approach they should be taking, selling as soon as it's viable, regardless of completion date. It shows they are serious about building the district out quickly (and that the next phase may be built on spec). We've had other developers sit on sites for over a decade waiting for all the stars to align, what Katz Group is doing is a breath of fresh air.

  94. #94
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,723

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whattagame View Post
    I stated clearly that I'm seeking expert opinion, and asking the question of if this would be viewed as a miss that would impact future projects.
    Your question was extremely leading in the way it was framed. And now that Ken's responded, you've got your expert opinion.

  95. #95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S3RI3S View Post
    im just getting the feeling, as a city - as tax paying residents. Katz used us , our passion for hockey and love for the city to make a profit for himself.
    Better 10 years late than never, welcome to this side of the argument.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  96. #96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Why are people so upset that a businessman from here is making money in our city? Why is that a bad thing?
    Because he's profiteering using public funding gleaned via crocodile tears & vague threats?
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  97. #97
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    Give it a rest man.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  98. #98

    Default

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

  99. #99

    Default

    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.

  100. #100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Give it a rest man.
    Right back atcha. You're far more of a one-note, no-trick pony than I am.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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
  •