HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted May 31, 2022, 2:39 AM
ColSJ's Avatar
ColSJ ColSJ is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 852
I won't quote word for word what the article says because I know the TJ can be very stingy about that but here are the main points.

As a result of inflation, interest rates, and supply chain woes have pushed the original $40 million dollar price tag up an additional $8 million.

They are redesigning the project to accommodate for rising costs and to "be economical".

He insists on maintaining the mixed-use aspect and adds he has a couple of prospective tenants "who haven't walked away, but they're on hold".

As far as the timeline he was hesitant to make any commitments. "All we can do is hope for the best". Goes on to say how he'd like to be under construction right now and that as soon as there is stability he'll get things started.

Furthermore, he mentions sidewalks in the area will be reopened.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted May 31, 2022, 11:34 AM
Pugsley Pugsley is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColSJ View Post

He insists on maintaining the mixed-use aspect and adds he has a couple of prospective tenants "who haven't walked away, but they're on hold".
Not to be "that guy" but I will be. This is why the city needs stronger development terms within the planning department. I brought this up before related to this project as well as Fundy Quay. If you don't have penalties based on time to build including land use deadlines, you end up with these kinds of stalled projects or eyesores in the core. Essentially, the city gave him a green light to demolish a building and leave it as an eyesore and potentially be marketing it to another buyer privately. A cleared lot is easier to sell than one with an older building on it.

The city can afford to be picky when it comes to prime real estate like this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted May 31, 2022, 1:31 PM
bridgeoftea's Avatar
bridgeoftea bridgeoftea is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2021
Posts: 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pugsley View Post
Not to be "that guy" but I will be. This is why the city needs stronger development terms within the planning department. I brought this up before related to this project as well as Fundy Quay. If you don't have penalties based on time to build including land use deadlines, you end up with these kinds of stalled projects or eyesores in the core. Essentially, the city gave him a green light to demolish a building and leave it as an eyesore and potentially be marketing it to another buyer privately. A cleared lot is easier to sell than one with an older building on it.

The city can afford to be picky when it comes to prime real estate like this.
My thoughts exactly. If I was apart of the city and knowing this site might sit empty for a few months before the original construction date, I'd still be a bit worried! I get there's probably more politics and regulations then I'll understand but if you're not 100% committed to starting the building on time, then maybe wait before leaving a giant crater in a key part of the city center.

Which is another thought, why aren't more developers keen on this location to build something? Sure inflation is increasing costs which is a bummer but the location is prime, walkability is great, the views will be good. And as a developer you know that your building will be a standout building from all sides of uptown.

If only I had millions of dollars, I'd just try to help these stalled projects ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted May 31, 2022, 2:56 PM
ColSJ's Avatar
ColSJ ColSJ is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 852
Now that the buildings are demolished I’m sure there are developers out there who’d bite this project. Looking back I think it would’ve been smarter to start construction immediately after demolition was complete as the costs wouldn’t of been as bad as now. I am eager to see what changes they make to the design whether it’s just a change in the # of floors or an outright new look.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted May 31, 2022, 4:46 PM
Pugsley Pugsley is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColSJ View Post
Now that the buildings are demolished I’m sure there are developers out there who’d bite this project. Looking back I think it would’ve been smarter to start construction immediately after demolition was complete as the costs wouldn’t of been as bad as now. I am eager to see what changes they make to the design whether it’s just a change in the # of floors or an outright new look.
Yes, that is the point I was getting at. When council approves something, they should be establishing legally-binding expectations and delivering penalties if the developer does not fulfill on what they have asked council to approve. This takes council and PACs away from more urgent work to basically "package" a site for a developer to speculate and sell. In this case, he has approvals to build a type of building with plans and has established a flattened lot which someone else may find attractive to pay more for to build. But then again, that may not happen anytime soon. Helping a prospector package a piece of land so they can turn a buck and leave it empty isn't something the PAC should be doing or allowing to happen.

Instead, projects should be approved with penalties if the developer does not start building by a certain date or complete their entire project by x-date. This way, there is pressure on the developer to deliver and ensure they have their funding in place before approaching council/PAC - versus demolishing a site and having an option to sell it or convert to a parking lot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted May 31, 2022, 5:07 PM
OliverD OliverD is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,818
Not sure it's fair to penalize developers for issues that are out of their control though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted May 31, 2022, 5:15 PM
Taeolas Taeolas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fredericton
Posts: 3,977
It's easy enough to add a way to request extensions for minimal proof. It would show the developer is actually still active on the project, and lets council decide whether to grant an exemption/extension or say "You're BSing us. S- or get off the pot".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted May 31, 2022, 5:18 PM
adamuptownsj adamuptownsj is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 1,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by OliverD View Post
Not sure it's fair to penalize developers for issues that are out of their control though.
Yeah, when he started this we were looking at, what, 6-8% annual inflation and stable transportation costs? Now it's that inflation monthly and 2x fuel costs, which do impact construction.

If this was lack of due diligence regarding geotechnical work, financing, etc, I'd be more inclined to blame the developer.

But what I will blame him for is the trashy state of the site. It looks like an airstrike hit it. He should have had 6' chainlink with a canvas wrap like at Fundy Quay installed, and the sidewalks reopened, a month ago... but you'd think someone with the city would have demanded that. They haven't started street sweeping yet for some reason, so, glass houses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted May 31, 2022, 5:36 PM
Pugsley Pugsley is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by OliverD View Post
Not sure it's fair to penalize developers for issues that are out of their control though.
I agree, but it isn't to penalize something out of their control...it is to prevent speculative "packaging" of lots. It happens a lot in other places. A developer buys a run-down property, gets a generic approval for a type of development, clears the land, then sells it at a premium to another developer who now had the rights to proceed quickly without all the red tape.

In this case, it might be inflation however, he could have had shovels in ground immediately after demolition if he had his financing lined up. This makes me think he didn't. That, and his conditional need to have a major tenant to justify the build.

But as AdamUptown noted, he should have his fencing up and signage promoting it if he doesn't want people to think he is speculating. Shit or get off the pot.....or pay a penalty back to the taxpayers for the inconvenience.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted May 31, 2022, 6:47 PM
adamuptownsj adamuptownsj is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 1,235
I don't think arbitrary penalties help- but maybe define something between nominal and painful going forward. And 'packaging' proposals is not bad, per se. I'm doing this right now, albeit on already-vacant land. Local guys with relatively limited access to capital are typically the packagers around here, like Pappas over north with the apartments off Boar's Head IIRC.

Do all the local know-how legwork (surveys, environmental, geotechnical, design, zoning, PAC, etc), shop a proposal around, make a solid profit, repeat. But Wilbur is a known quantity as a builder after the Wentworth so I doubt he's planning this anyway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted May 31, 2022, 6:49 PM
ColSJ's Avatar
ColSJ ColSJ is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 852
3 floors of commercial space was a stretch and made no sense. Heck put a 24/7 Circle K on the bottom and I’d be happy. This area isn’t lacking commercial tenants, it’s lacking residents. He had a chance to get going last summer but he held onto the commercial aspect that has landed us a year later with no clear timeline. He could’ve started and hoped along the construction period that he would secure tenants. It would of been a solution to the mess this property is in now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted May 31, 2022, 10:55 PM
JakeNB JakeNB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Saint John
Posts: 120
The elephant in the room here is Fundy Quay. The factors that are supposedly putting a hold on 99 King must certainly apply to Fundy Quay - probably by a multiple factor, given the size and scope of that project. Is that the next shoe to drop??
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2022, 11:37 AM
bridgeoftea's Avatar
bridgeoftea bridgeoftea is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2021
Posts: 438
I agree on the commercial space argument that it isn't really required. Especially with a lot of the "commercial towers" in uptown that aren't at capacity. If they had maybe 1 floor for commercial space / meeting rooms. Heck why not rent out some small office rooms for people that live in the building that are work from home who might like to use an office space once or twice a week. Give them a discount on it as they live/own an apartment.

There is a chance with Fundy Quay within a month or two of starting the first building maybe that's a risk. It might be an unpopular opinion, but having these semi luxury apartments for sale or rent, might attract the work from home crowd who don't want to live in a Toronto/Vancouver setting.

With work from home options these days, any building with more than a few floors of office space doesn't seem that smart of a decision.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2022, 4:49 PM
adamuptownsj adamuptownsj is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 1,235
I am also not concerned with Fundy Quay. The main barrier for decades was the cost of the seawall and infrastructure extension. With that handled, even if the project completely fails, the site is 100% ready for development.

I'm pretty sure the first building will happen. and I've heard the second could be a hotel, so glass half-full... Water St gets a proper streetscape at its north end, and the boardwalk area and the Passage get revamped completely.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2022, 3:16 AM
cdnguys cdnguys is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,581
I have so many thoughts about this:

- Numbers are confusing - reports state project is $40 million; Percy says it’s $8 million more and 40% more, but if my math is right that’s 20%
- I’m particularly disappointed by his comment that he’s not going to go bankrupt to fix an eyesore. So we have to live with a crater in dead centre of city over someone else’s personal finances? Take on a business partner or sell it as a turnkey development and make $500k profit.
- he waited too long to start looking for a commercial tenant to fit the plans which never made sense. The plans should of reflected market demand which is housing.

Last edited by cdnguys; Jun 2, 2022 at 6:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2022, 10:42 PM
Joe Joe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 200
From Huddle

Changing Economy Means New Plan For Old Woolworth’s Site In Saint John
ALEX GRAHAM NEW BRUNSWICK, NEWS, SAINT JOHN 0

Reading Time: 3 minutes
SAINT JOHN — The developer behind the project at the “Old Woolworth’s” says he anticipates adding twenty new residential on top of the 90 already planned for the site.
The lot at the corner of Charlotte St. is being slightly reimagined due to the changing economic realities in Atlantic Canada.

“The Wentworth has given me the confidence that we are doing the right thing on King St.,” says developer Percy Wilbur, referring to another residential project in uptown he wrapped up early this year.

Engineers are drafting plans now to turn the proposed office space floors into residential units instead. The ground floor will stay as retail, with Wilbur seeking a grocery store to be one of the tenants.

For now, The King St. site remains a hole left over from the demolition of the Woolworth’s, as Wilbur strategizes how to proceed with the project.

Instability necessitates changes
Wilbur says the current market conditions made the changes necessary.

“The instability in the marketplace, and supply chains, and inflation, and interest rates are really dangerous waters to try to navigate a project of this magnitude. Even labour is very difficult at this stage,” he says. “It’s the perfect storm.”

That’s why investing in office space no longer made sense.

In its June 2022 Office & Warehouse Market Survey, the Halifax firm Turner Drake and Partners says the office vacancy rate for Saint John increased 2.23 percentage points from 2021, finishing June 2022 at a whopping 21.85 percent.

That’s a higher office vacancy rate than Moncton or Fredericton, although both of those cities are also trending higher. Moncton’s office vacancy rate now sits at 19.84 percent, up from 15.08 percent in 2021, while Fredericton’s vacancy rate sits at 16.81 percent, up from 9.48 percent in 2021.

Most of Atlantic Canada seems to be trending differently than the rest of the country when it comes to the market for office space. While most Canadian cities are still in post-pandemic recovery mode, many have seen improvements in office vacancy rates over the past year.

Colliers Canada, a national real estate research and services company, recently released its National Market Snapshot for Q3, 2022, finding that office vacancy had decreased in over half of its tracked markets.

High office vacancy conditions
“It may be that it is just market specific. There is a lot that goes on, on an individual basis, so if you add a building, that will usually push your vacancy rate up because it takes time to lease it out,” says Alexandra Baird Allen, manager of economic intelligence at Turner Drake and Partners.

She says several Saint John-specific factors have influenced the office vacancy rate in the city.

“Part of that is due to the nature of the economy in Saint John where there’s a lot of owner-occupied office space because one of the biggest employers is Irving.

“There’s also a strong industrial segment there so it’s not as office based an economy.”

She adds that the changing nature of commerce in Saint John, which included successful urban shopping malls in the 60s, 70s and 80s, created a glut of downtown space when many of those stores moved to the suburbs in the 90s.

“The urban malls were no longer viable as malls but the space still exists and the buildings still have life in them, and a lot of them have converted over to offices,” she says.

She cites the recent announcement of Cooke Aquaculture leasing 11,000 square feet in Brunswick Square as an example of this phenomenon.

Baird Allen says that the decision to not move ahead with office space right now at the Old Woolworth’s site, makes sense.

“That seems from a market perspective to be fairly logical, because residential has very low vacancy, so if you are going to build something there’s a need for residential.”

Vibrant communities
Wilbur agrees.

“We’ve got the empty nesters moving back to the city. We’ve got the young professionals living in the uptown core” he says of his residential units. “The only piece of the puzzle we’re missing is young, working families and we’re not going to get them until we have a good school for them to go to. It’s absolutely essential.”

He has a hopeful vision for a vibrant Saint John core and is confident his developments both at King St. and whatever projects lie ahead in the future, can be a part of that.

“With a school you’ll bring that segment of society into the uptown core, and with it you’ll bring things like bike lanes,” he says, envisioning a cycling network that would allow kids to ride their bikes “up to Rockwood park or down to Harbour Passage.”

But for now, navigating the economic headwinds of bringing the King St. project to life, remain at the forefront.

“We hope to make it happen as soon as possible, it’s the biggest priority of my career.”

The project will take two years to build, once construction begins.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2022, 12:58 PM
adamuptownsj adamuptownsj is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 1,235
Cross-posting here: Wilbur has been sued by 5 contractors from the Wentworth. All lawsuits came after the May completion of the Wentworth and almost simultaneously-announced delay of King.

Lindsay Construction suing for $3.67M breach of contract + more for subcontractors/indemnity

Security Electrical $253K

J-Mar $392K

Mike's Custom Woodworks $248K

Skyrise Prefab $287K
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2023, 9:30 AM
sailor734 sailor734 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Posts: 687
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColSJ View Post
I won't quote word for word what the article says because I know the TJ can be very stingy about that but here are the main points.

As a result of inflation, interest rates, and supply chain woes have pushed the original $40 million dollar price tag up an additional $8 million.

They are redesigning the project to accommodate for rising costs and to "be economical".

He insists on maintaining the mixed-use aspect and adds he has a couple of prospective tenants "who haven't walked away, but they're on hold".

As far as the timeline he was hesitant to make any commitments. "All we can do is hope for the best". Goes on to say how he'd like to be under construction right now and that as soon as there is stability he'll get things started.

Furthermore, he mentions sidewalks in the area will be reopened.
Still waiting on the sidewalks.......
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2023, 12:07 PM
gtsoc gtsoc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 76
Can we submit this property to the city as an unsightly premises?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2023, 7:59 AM
Helladog's Avatar
Helladog Helladog is offline
Unregistered Loser
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NB
Posts: 1,347
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:26 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.