News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 4.8K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 6.6K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 3.8K     0 

General Construction Updates

IT has a mish mashed look to it.You're probably right that it won't be going ahead anytime soon, but it gives an idea of the scale they're going for.
 
gsunnyg said:
Found a couple images of another project by Arlington Street Investments that I think haven't been shared here. This ones called Royal Park, located between 7th/8th street on 17th ave (across Tomkins Park). Its 8 storeys, "main floor and second floor will consist of 58,000 sf of prime retail space, with floors 3-8 comprised of 102,000 SF of residential space." Im sure the final renderings will differ a bit, I don't think this one is going ahead anytime soon but worth the share.
View attachment 170297

View attachment 170299[/QUOTE
Ground-floor retail like this would fit much better along the avenues closer to the railroad(10th-13th). Though it's only 8 floors, the retail space isn't very human scale considering it looks a good 8-9 meters tall if not more and looks far too sleek for 17th ave.
Click to expand...
 
Since we no longer have the urban development thread I'll post this here. Was a very nice treat to see this underway at the 4 Street SW Underpass, as I'm certain it's going to be a beautiful piece when done!

IMG_3945.JPG
 
Maybe ASI can spring for a sign change, and make the National sign silver instead? I like the silver look, but agree it's a bit awkward against the National. I'm guessing since the National is a tenant and could changer at some point, they aren't going to do much to coordinate the two colors.
 
Beltline_B said:
The more I see this reno work, the more I like it. Not big changes, but just enough to give the building a different look.
Click to expand...

I actually really like the silver. It gives the building a lighter look, as if the whole thing is held up by those brick columns. The contrast with the black National signage doesn't bother me. In fact the signage would look to bland if it blended in with the rest of the building.
 
integerhomes said:
On these types of projects the city tends to act in such a way as to interpret its rules and regulations to maximize its own revenue and pass on as many City costs onto the builder as it can such as asphalt, curb, streetlight, storm upgrades, etc, so there is no way to make it affordable. If you guess the land cost at 3m, that would be about 125k per unit in its raw form. So you just look at the fixed costs and it gets frighteningly expensive.
land/door $125k
construction at say $175/ft so maybe $250k each depending on quality
soft costs @ some % of $6M - can't even guess but a lot
cost of financing, taxes, city fees - a lot
marketing/commission/gst at 9% of the total value of sales
I'd guess these need to be sold for 500k just for the builder to crack even. Compare that to what a half million gets you in a sprawl area...no comparison. A lot of the market would object to this type of row house and simply never buy it at any price. Hard to fit your diesel pickup and RV lifestyle into the inner city. The same builders that specialize in detached tract homes with tremendous productivity would be crushed by the challenge and complexity of this build, their staff just wouldn't be used to the high degree of management it would take to run that site effectively. Despite all these issues, building a dozen new communities is a giant leap in the wrong direction. We don't even have enough resources to update archaic and harmful ARPs that prevent the sort of changes you suggest need to happen, yet there is political will to raise taxes to fund sprawl? It does seem crazy.
Click to expand...

Those numbers seem close. But $3M for a ~50x120ft corner lot? Seems high. I was finding functional MC-1 possibly MC-2 3 lot (~50x120ft) land assembly's walking distance to LRT in the SW for $3M. I feel like even $1-1.25M is a little rich for a single RC-G lot.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top