Rogers Place Construction Thread

[MoneyGuy]

I think what you're missing in the equation is this is merely one building going up to generate taxes, mind you it's a big one. There will be many more towers going up on VACANT parking lot land that will essentially generate new taxes. Unless you want to continue to skewer it with the fact that we already had parking lot taxes.

New taxes that would not have happened, or just a rearrangement of taxes from other areas or from development that would have happened anyway but is happening downtown? That's the age-old argument.

I'm sure someone will point out that the Stantec tower would not have happened without the arena, but who's to say that Stantec wouldn't need the space anyway and maybe now is just consolidating everyone in one downtown tower? Maybe Stantec would otherwise take over some of the existing vacant space around the downtown and the city.

I do support the new arena in that location, but the economic benefit is nebulous.

 

[Bank Shot]

This isn't 'everyone gets a ribbon' participant contest.

North Edmonton is universally panned by the international community. An area of the city that evokes a sense of shame, hollowness, and regret.

Sounds like hot air. I have never heard of the international community discussing Edmonton period.

 

[Frank the Tank]

Sounds like hot air. I have never heard of the international community discussing Edmonton period.

And when they did I believe it was referred to as "Deadmonton" back in 2001 when the international press stayed a few weeks for the IAAF Championships.

Nice to see the downtown development increasing in Edmonton. I never knew what I was missing in having a vibrant and appealing downtown area until I moved to Chicago. Since then, the rare trip we have made to Edmonton's downtown this past decade was even more depressing. Hopefully that changes over the next couple of decades, although I know the two cities are laid out completely different in function and form.

 

[Replacement*]

One comment property taxes are paid by someone no matter if a building is full or not.

So property taxes will be paid by whoever owns the new Stantec tower.

And property taxes will continue to be paid by whoever owns the current Stantec buildings.

It doesn't matter whether there is a tenant or not - someone is paying.

I guess you could argue that a tenant could build a tower outside the CRL and stay pay taxes into general revenues. But a tenant could also build somewhere in Sherwood Park, St. Albert, Calgary, etc and pay taxes there.

So I guess I get what you're saying... but don't think it is as black/white as you appear to.

A glut in real estate eventually results in a downturn of both property value, and eventually the assessed value, which in turn of course impacts property tax.

Same thing with office builds. Are we headed for an office space glut in this market and especially in the downtown? Sure looks like it.

Next, properties with limited or decreased value that have resulted in price drop can also result in people defaulting on loans, declaring bankruptcy, or just walking away. Good luck on collecting tax from such busts where there is no equity position and no reason to retain. Whats the city going to do. Put a lean on an abandoned property?

Finally, Edmonton's population has been expanding a lot. It has been for around a decade, and that expansion would of course be occurring with or without an arena. So housing starts, sales occur with or without an arena, with property tax increases occurring with or without an arena.

An arena district doesn't result in MORE people deciding to live in a city and I challenge anybody to come up with a substantiated study that it does. The increases occur anyway in an expanding market. So its disingenuous of either Farbrother or Iveson to act like it is.

Only the NET increases should be looked at as paying off this mortgage.

The strongest argument one could make though is that 1700 Stantec employees have stayed in this marketplace and have not moved elsewhere. I buy that argument easy and its good that this occurred in this case. I would prefer that coherent arguments like that be made.

 

[Replacement*]

I think what you're missing in the equation is this is merely one building going up to generate taxes, mind you it's a big one. There will be many more towers going up on VACANT parking lot land that will essentially generate new taxes. Unless you want to continue to skewer it with the fact that we already had parking lot taxes.

I responded to Chris already if you want to look at that. But again we're benefitting from an expanding economy and influx in population. Which would be paying property tax from somewhwere with or without an arena.

Maybe an argument could be made that an arena increases the probability that newcomers to the region will settle within Edmonton as opposed to surrounding area. That's a possibility.

My post was just meant to clarify that its intentionally misleading for Farbrother or Iveson to count this property value as a net increase that would not otherwise be realized and that is servicing the debt. Its very clear what they are stating, and very clearly misleading.

 

[Willis]

This is conjecture.

Plus that the projected finish date of the Stantec Tower is 2yrs past the finish date of the Arena. So theres going to be ample initial carrying of the debt. The figures probably assume full leasing, continued boom economy, no unexpected costs from Arena, and are also potentially playing with numbers specifically for the Arena only and not the corollary costs, city infrastructure costs, pedway, i.e. TOTAL city costs.

Finally, if the taxbase from Stantec tower were to be solely relocation from somewhere else taxbase then what Farbrother says could have some bearing. That these are actually office space relocations from already within the city negates the tax increases to a large extent. Additonally, of the condo portion of the tower this assumes new residents to Edmonton otherwise its just people paying tax somewhere in Edmonton, that will pay tax somewhere else in Edmonton. Most of these "found" monies are in fact already had. That point strangely missing. Staples, being an investigative journalist is supposed to question that type of thing. But of course he's a shill instead.

This is the nature of fudge figures that on closer examination deserve scrutiny. I know everybody is giddy at City Hall today but you'd have to be drunk or intentionally misleading to make these kind of projections. To anybody that reads between the lines I find it a bit insulting how often aour intelligence is being questioned with these bold faced lies. Rather than being convincing or helpful this is the nature of claim that causes one to question a lot of the claims made in general.

But knowing how these fallacies work todays statements will be accepted as actual fact tomorrow by 90% of the people that would support this endeavor anyway. I know I'll be hearing this quote for years here now no matter how erroneous or unsubstantiated it is. Its misinformation, wilful, from people getting paid and who you would like to think would know better in their incumbent occupations.

Property taxes are based on market value of the real estate and not similar to what you would have like an income or corporate tax. In other words I leave an office building on 112 St into the new building, the old building is still there and will still pay property taxes. An argument could be made that the market value of that building has decreased due to the move, but there is still taxes on that building if it is occupied or not. With regards to the condo units same thing. People are moving into the Edmonton area. If development happens downtown vs other areas of the City then the cost of servicing those people is smaller than new developments which require new services while moving downtown is new services.

In otherwords this is very complicated and everyone has it wrong in this respect.

 

[Replacement*]

Property taxes are based on market value of the real estate and not similar to what you would have like an income or corporate tax. In other words I leave an office building on 112 St into the new building, the old building is still there and will still pay property taxes. An argument could be made that the market value of that building has decreased due to the move, but there is still taxes on that building if it is occupied or not. With regards to the condo units same thing. People are moving into the Edmonton area. If development happens downtown vs other areas of the City then the cost of servicing those people is smaller than new developments which require new services while moving downtown is new services.

In otherwords this is very complicated and everyone has it wrong in this respect.

I just made the market value argument above. Of course its been one that's inferred in my argument. Glut impacts market value Thus resultant property tax. As mentioned foreclosure, defaulting on loan, walking away also of course impacts property tax. These instances increase in times of decreasing market value or glut.

That aside people should be forewarned that in interest rate hike is imminent and in the midst of all these projected tower builds going on. Edmonton has been riding a hot economy that is due for a downturn which could occur at the most leveraged moment for a lot of these builds. An increase of even a half or full percent would have huge impacts on the Real Estate market here and property value. Even moreso if theres a glut and downturn.

Historically, and its just interesting is that Rise in skyscrapers has been closely correlated with peaks in economy. Trouble being paying for those skyscrapers ideally involves a continued boom in which to leverage that expenditure. Which often doesn't occur.

Historically speaking investing heavily in tallest skyscrapers has been one of the best ways to lose money.

I hope the readers don't mind the discussion. I enjoy discussing these things.

 

[smackdaddy]

A glut in real estate eventually results in a downturn of both property value, and eventually the assessed value, which in turn of course impacts property tax.

Same thing with office builds. Are we headed for an office space glut in this market and especially in the downtown? Sure looks like it.

Next, properties with limited or decreased value that have resulted in price drop can also result in people defaulting on loans, declaring bankruptcy, or just walking away. Good luck on collecting tax from such busts where there is no equity position and no reason to retain. Whats the city going to do. Put a lean on an abandoned property?

Finally, Edmonton's population has been expanding a lot. It has been for around a decade, and that expansion would of course be occurring with or without an arena. So housing starts, sales occur with or without an arena, with property tax increases occurring with or without an arena.

An arena district doesn't result in MORE people deciding to live in a city and I challenge anybody to come up with a substantiated study that it does. The increases occur anyway in an expanding market. So its disingenuous of either Farbrother or Iveson to act like it is.

Only the NET increases should be looked at as paying off this mortgage.

The strongest argument one could make though is that 1700 Stantec employees have stayed in this marketplace and have not moved elsewhere. I buy that argument easy and its good that this occurred in this case. I would prefer that coherent arguments like that be made.

This all makes sense if you're comparing August 26th to today while completely ignoring the growth that these companies are going to experience.

I do agree, though, that if Stantec did nothing else but remain stagnant for the next 30 years then it was definitely a bad move that didnt add anything to the city.

 

[OilTastic]

And when they did I believe it was referred to as "Deadmonton" back in 2001 when the international press stayed a few weeks for the IAAF Championships.

Nice to see the downtown development increasing in Edmonton. I never knew what I was missing in having a vibrant and appealing downtown area until I moved to Chicago. Since then, the rare trip we have made to Edmonton's downtown this past decade was even more depressing. Hopefully that changes over the next couple of decades, although I know the two cities are laid out completely different in function and form.

Edmonton has desperately needed to get it's head out of it's arse for decades now and it looks like they finally have! hopefully in a few years, downtown will look a lot less depressing.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

Listen the AED is producing what it promised and a chain reaction of others getting into the game when they have emphatically stated that this would not of happened without the arena. The jobs the manufacturing which every tax payer in the city gets a little bit of benefit from. The new eateries bars nightclubs to follow , and don't try and say they would of just opened elsewhere in the city because they already would have. I see you try and defend a stance you took from the beginning and it will be the hill you die on regardless how stupid your stance looks now. But hey keep screaming and kicking. Majority of people n Edmonton love the new vibe . Your stuck in the 1800's mentality.

Those new eateries, bars and nightclubs are not creating any new clientele or new revenue though. It's just shifting clientele from other eateries, bars and nightclubs from other areas of the city to the new establishments downtown. People only have so much disposable income and that will not increase with these new establishments.

Meanwhile, the older establishments outside of the downtown will just see a decline in business and adjust accordingly. I guess it's not an entirely bad thing though as it makes for a busier and more dynamic downtown environment. However, it's not a positive revenue generator for the city overall.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

I just made the market value argument above. Of course its been one that's inferred in my argument. Glut impacts market value Thus resultant property tax. As mentioned foreclosure, defaulting on loan, walking away also of course impacts property tax. These instances increase in times of decreasing market value or glut.

That aside people should be forewarned that in interest rate hike is imminent and in the midst of all these projected tower builds going on. Edmonton has been riding a hot economy that is due for a downturn which could occur at the most leveraged moment for a lot of these builds. An increase of even a half or full percent would have huge impacts on the Real Estate market here and property value. Even moreso if theres a glut and downturn.

Historically, and its just interesting is that Rise in skyscrapers has been closely correlated with peaks in economy. Trouble being paying for those skyscrapers ideally involves a continued boom in which to leverage that expenditure. Which often doesn't occur.

Historically speaking investing heavily in tallest skyscrapers has been one of the best ways to lose money.

I hope the readers don't mind the discussion. I enjoy discussing these things.

Hopefully, most of the new skyscrapers to be built in the coming decades (along with several smaller, less flashy developments) will include residential components. This will make for a considerably more interesting downtown experience. Imagine how lively downtown Edmonton would be 24/7 with the additional of thousands of new households. Imagine how much money would be saved on infrastructure if all those new downtown dwellers simply had to walk 5 - 10 minutes to work instead of driving from some far-off suburb 45 minutes away.

 

[Da McBomb]

Stantec tower is already starting to grow on me.. I kinda like the design more today than I did yesterday.

 

[Oiltankjob Fail]

Those new eateries, bars and nightclubs are not creating any new clientele or new revenue though. It's just shifting clientele from other eateries, bars and nightclubs from other areas of the city to the new establishments downtown. People only have so much disposable income and that will not increase with these new establishments.

Meanwhile, the older establishments outside of the downtown will just see a decline in business and adjust accordingly. I guess it's not an entirely bad thing though as it makes for a busier and more dynamic downtown environment. However, it's not a positive revenue generator for the city overall.

The city is growing 40,000 per year Downtown is one of the fastest growing area's now I disagree.

 

[Philly85*]

Yeah I don't mind it either oersonally

 

[blueandgoldguy]

The city is growing 40,000 per year Downtown is one of the fastest growing area's now I disagree.

Controlling for other factors, like population increase, money would be shifted around from a series of bars/restaurants to others in the downtown core. The arena itself is not going to lead to any substantial increase in the overall revenue that is generated by bars/restaurants in Edmonton. If you factor in population increase, then yes, the city will see an increase total revenues from the bars/restaurants. A greater demand will likely result in more bars and restaurants opening up throughout the city, but the arena itself will not spur this growth.

Again not a bad thing, as it brings more people to the downtown who might be willing to stay longer with some good dining options before and after events at the arena.

 

[MCDAVIDISH]

Shouldn't this thread be locked by now?