News   Apr 03, 2020
 945     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 2K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 775     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

Nimbus

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2017
Messages
377
Reaction score
658
I think you definitely need a concrete time frame on the LRT station to get more sales in the development (quick University access). On the plus side there should be practically no opposition to this regarding heights and density, it's surrounded by large roads and no residential near it at all.
 

darwink

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2016
Messages
1,426
Reaction score
2,328
Now the city can look at cost benefits of doing the station, who it serves, and lay out a price for what would be fair to charge the developer for it. $100 million seems rather high - though that might include extra LRVs, land acquisition, etc
 

MichaelS

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 5, 2016
Messages
1,106
Reaction score
3,627
Remington must have bought the project off of Birchwood Properties, as we have seen this before. It was called "the Dells":
 

JonnyCanuck

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 15, 2017
Messages
828
Reaction score
1,095
Remington must have bought the project off of Birchwood Properties, as we have seen this before. It was called "the Dells":
That's right. Birchwood sold it off. Did not know until now that it was to Remington. 946 units would probably equate to their entire production in Quarry Park, or more.
 

JoeUrban

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 25, 2017
Messages
167
Reaction score
290
The city can buy them with citizens tax dollars if the citizens want to freeze them.
There is no civil suit that a property owner can pursue against the city/government for decreased property values. The only time a property owner might have a hope is if government action removed almost all economic utility from the property and that is a very high bar to reach in Canada.

Under Alberta statute, the city would have to pay compensation if the designation lowered economic value. That would be negotiated between the city and the landowner and if they weren’t able to come to an agreement, it would be dealt with through an administrative board.

They don't need to 'slow play'. Municipalities have a lot of power to manage and direct the use of private property through bylaws, negotiation, and Canadian property law more generally. The city chooses, based on policy reasons, not to leverage developers to better protect heritage buildings.
These are two interesting comments because they're, well the first one isn't true but it has been portrayed as being true.

@Disraeli is correct, the Heritage Act says that compensation for loss of economic value would have to happen.

The City in the past has said what @darwink said, that designating over an owner's wishes basically requires the city to buy the property. The thing is that's completely not true. What the Act says is compensation only for the loss of economic value, and of course the owner would need to prove it.
 

darwink

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2016
Messages
1,426
Reaction score
2,328
These are two interesting comments because they're, well the first one isn't true but it has been portrayed as being true.

@Disraeli is correct, the Heritage Act says that compensation for loss of economic value would have to happen.

The City in the past has said what @darwink said, that designating over an owner's wishes basically requires the city to buy the property. The thing is that's completely not true. What the Act says is compensation only for the loss of economic value, and of course the owner would need to prove it.
Loss of economic value, if the site has redevelopment potential, can be quite significant - the cost to buy a parcel of similar with similar zoning, minus the resale value of the designated property. The easy move for the city is to buy it themselves, and then sell it, though I acknowledge that that isn't what is needed. The net effect on the city would be similar.
 

Top