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
It's interesting how things change over the years. I'm old enough to remember when those townhomes were a welcome addition to the area. Before that most of Eau Claire was gravel parking lots, and the market combined with the townhomes seemed like great progress.
I can only imagine what it is costing the city to buy out all those owners. The total cost of this project now that the station is going underground is going to be staggering.
 
The total cost of this project now that the station is going underground is going to be staggering.
If it was underground as per the original plan, it did not require non-city owned land in the area. Avoiding the tunnel under the river now means part of the market and part of the townhouses will likely be acquired at some point in time.
 
That's a good question. Is the City obligated to purchase them at any point in time? I imagine once the plan is set, resale value for the current residents to anyone other than The City is pretty abysmal. What happens if your life circumstances change and you need to move? Is the City obligated to buy you out? Or, do you just have to wait until it is convenient for The City?
 
That's a good question. Is the City obligated to purchase them at any point in time? I imagine once the plan is set, resale value for the current residents to anyone other than The City is pretty abysmal. What happens if your life circumstances change and you need to move? Is the City obligated to buy you out? Or, do you just have to wait until it is convenient for The City?
There is a concept called defacto expropriation/constructive takings. https://www.blg.com/en/insights/2022/10/significant-expansion-to-the-law-of-constructive-takings
 
That's a good question. Is the City obligated to purchase them at any point in time? I imagine once the plan is set, resale value for the current residents to anyone other than The City is pretty abysmal. What happens if your life circumstances change and you need to move? Is the City obligated to buy you out? Or, do you just have to wait until it is convenient for The City?
What an interesting thought... To develop the mall/Eau Clair station Harvard and the city can avoid the townhomes.

If you wanted to sell a townhome in the meantime would the value actually go down?

What's the history of the city buying property that's obviously needed in the future for a infrastructure project, but not necessarily required now? The city buys property at 'market' value doesn't it? Does a guaranteed buyout for a buyer from the city incentivize buying or deter it?
 
More prime Eau Clare trees will be cut down, more newly constructed park infrastructure will be ripped up. Eau Clare will go from being a nice mature urban park to a barren wasteland. Such a shame…..
 
Why would Eau Claire Park transform at all because of this development or the green line? It’s 4 blocks west of Eau Claire Plaza. Do you mean Prince’s Island? Because that also will be minimally effected tree-wise, though the bridge will be an eye sore.
 
A nice bridge wouldn't be so bad, but this will probably end up being pretty bare bones due to the cost and drama over the green line.
The bridge over the elbow in stage 1 should be bare bones. Here, you have a chance to build a downtown viewpoint defining bridge, like the peace bridge. I really hope they don't just build a guideway. Use the fact it's at the edge of a park to your advantage in the design, get creative. The peace bridge was contentious but worth it, this will be contentious no matter what because of its location so make it something worth fighting for.
 
Last edited:
The bridge in the rendering is a multi-use bridge. The underside of such a wide bridge including the most stunning bridge in the world has my concern. It should be LRT only to keep it as narrow as possible.
 
The bridge in the rendering is a multi-use bridge. The underside of such a wide bridge including the most stunning bridge in the world has my concern. It should be LRT only to keep it as narrow as possible.
I never noticed that before, but yeah, that is one wide bridge. Depending on where the bridge terminates on the side of the river, they might not even not the pedestrian usage.
 

Back
Top