Garceyues
Active Member
Which pension funds are these?
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Eau Claire West | 109.11m | 33s | QuadReal | NORR
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
DougB
Senior Member
BCIM. In the past, GWL owned the land. Prior to that, Oxford held it for more than 2 decades.
A few images from the presentation. The same ones posted by @CT (Chinese_T) , but from the online presentation file.
Canadian 001
Active Member
Ah yes: the Zombie Project
CBBarnett
Senior Member
I know we often want every location to be a landmark and stand out, but this one seems to be a good opportunity to just be competent - build a livable, high density tower neighbourhood here with good street walls and trees. Add 2,000 units downtown in a 8 phase tower development with boring ol' functional boxes. You'll never have a problem renting them out for the next 100 years.
Totally my opinion not a fact - but it seems to me that developments in Eau Claire area get tricked up by how "great" and "unique" of a location and feel they have to do something amazing, unique or ultra luxury. Perhaps this results in many over-paying for the land, almost forcing the hand of the development that it has to be a fancy landmark to justify the high price.
For me, finishing off a 50 year old parking lot with 8 to 10 of these things would be a totally fine outcome:
Totally my opinion not a fact - but it seems to me that developments in Eau Claire area get tricked up by how "great" and "unique" of a location and feel they have to do something amazing, unique or ultra luxury. Perhaps this results in many over-paying for the land, almost forcing the hand of the development that it has to be a fancy landmark to justify the high price.
For me, finishing off a 50 year old parking lot with 8 to 10 of these things would be a totally fine outcome:
Last edited:
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
This section of downtown can be well served by Kensington for any retail or social vibrancy. I agree, leave the landmarks for other areas and just build kind of boring competent projects.
Red Star
Active Member
Isn't this the site where any time a development is proposed an economic recession follows?
Albertasaurus
Active Member
It is. Part of the reason for that is the pension funds that own developers like Quadreal are incredibly risk adverse, and wait on the sidelines until the boom cycle is wrapping up, and so by the time their applications are in, demand is already drying up. This cycle appears set to repeat itself yet again...
trtcttc
Senior Member
How many more sites can Truman own/build?!
