Eau Claire Market Redevelopment | 135.02m | 35s | Harvard Developments

Rating of the development

  • 1 Really Good

    Votes: 12 23.5%

  • 2 Not Bad

    Votes: 11 21.6%

  • 3 So So

    Votes: 16 31.4%

  • 4 Not Good

    Votes: 9 17.6%

  • 5 Terrible

    Votes: 3 5.9%
  • Total voters
    51
YYCguy said:
Is it just me or does development move painfully slow in Calgary, seemingly slower than even in Toronto, where it’s a snail’s pace! There should be some sort of law where prime developments lots such as this one in Eau Claire, where a plan is in place, cannot languish vacant/undeveloped for years and years, unless there are extenuating circumstances.
Click to expand...

No one will ever invest in real estate development in Calgary again with such a law.

I'm a little surprised that nothing tall has broken ground in a long time. That's not a reflection of desire as your post makes it out to be. It's a reflection of the complexities of getting something into the ground. A bank won't loan to cover all the upfront costs with 100% presold. Large towers in Vancouver or Toronto are built with private equity. Towers were popping up everywhere when Calgary boomed in the mid 2010s. The condo market has been flat ever since. There's some understandable hesitancy but, the investment will come and a boom will take off. Toronto is not a good place to invest in development and that equity is flowing outwards.

Oxford is a major international commercial developer with assets in the hundreds of billions. That also means they are writing down billions from that portfolio. Havard isn't big at all. Bentall is just a manager for funds that don't have their own real estate arm like BCIMC before they launched Quadreal.
 
Mountain Man said:
There are a ton of projects about to break ground, people are getting excited for absolutely no reason.
Click to expand...
I know you're right - im old enough to vividly remember the big boom that started in 06 and how it took a couple years for much to get off the ground, and then suddenly dozens of towers were going up in downtown and beltline - but it does still feel like things are slow here, without even a lot of proposals to get excited about. I think part of it stems from the fact that we are waiting on other huge city building projects (GL, EC, Arts Commons) that also arent underway yet so it feels like we've been on the cusp of things happening for a while but without a lot of actual construction happening in our city, at least when compared to the other big cities. The next one to break ground is most likely going to be the 3rd Cidex WVT which I'm not particularly excited for.
 
There were only 750 units proposed. I can see twice as much proposed today. GWL was acting on behalf of BCIMC. They are sitting on a lot of real estate to develop as rental and office. My hope is they shift strategies partnering with condo developers otherwise these lots could last awhile
 
A buddy of mine is a real estate lawyer who typically works with larger developers. He tells me that a lot of the developers from Toronto and Montreal who are now keen on Calgary don't understand the regulations, policies or process here, and often ask for superfluous amounts of information when considering purchasing development sites. That's probably why big local developers like Truman and Cidex proceed more quickly - they've got lots of experience working here so have a much better feel for the market. Some of the big Vancouver guys who've built here for years like Grosvenor, Anthem and Bosa have a much better understanding of the process, market, risks etc when it comes to developing in Calgary than the developers from out east.
 
Personally I think that if a developer buys land from the city promising a development, they should be given a timeframe when the development must happen (lets say 15 - 20 years.) If the development doesn't happen in that timeframe the city should have the option to buy back the land at a discount.
 
Duck Lightning said:
Personally I think that if a developer buys land from the city promising a development, they should be given a timeframe when the development must happen (lets say 15 - 20 years.) If the development doesn't happen in that timeframe the city should have the option to buy back the land at a discount.
Click to expand...
That was this deal. The project has had very bad luck plus the city injecting chaos as well at different stages. In the end, the city didn't want to buy it back and then sell it for likely less money, with no assurance of faster development.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top