147 replies to this topic

[aastra]

...they can crunch numbers and realize that the financial sustainability of a building much smaller just isn't there...

You think? Two years ago and more we were all debating the financial viability of the Hudson's conversion while local politicians were insisting in the media that the project was a veritable gold mine that would make the developer countless millions even with a couple of lowrise buildings on the parkade site.

Methinks the only time financial viability/sustainability enters the equation is when the city thinks it can be used against a proposal. How many times did we hear criticisms that this project or that would be profitable, and therefore it should be scaled back?

[jklymak]

OK, I know I've asked before, but I must be slow - how is "the financial sustainability of a building" determined?

In the case of the Hudson there is a cost associated with 1) buying the land, and 2) preserving the existing structure. So I can understand in that case why development would be "unsustainable" if the extra density was not awarded.

I understand the esthetic points (its on Douglas and a big building would be fine), but what is the "sustainability" rationale?

[Rob Randall]

OK, I know I've asked before, but I must be slow - how is "the financial sustainability of a building" determined?

In the case of the Hudson there is a cost associated with 1) buying the land, and 2) preserving the existing structure. So I can understand in that case why development would be "unsustainable" if the extra density was not awarded.

I understand the esthetic points (its on Douglas and a big building would be fine), but what is the "sustainability" rationale?

From what I've learned, the bottom line with the Kirk Hall tower is they need so much square footage to pay for the ongoing maintenance of the old St. Andrew's church and to pay for charity work as well as functions and programming in the portion of the Kirk Hall tower that the church will own.

IIRC, cutting one floor from the tower would reduce church revenues by $125,000 or more per year and cutting two floors would make it unviable (so claims the church).

[Phil McAvity]

You think? Two years ago and more we were all debating the financial viability of the Hudson's conversion while local politicians were insisting in the media that the project was a veritable gold mine that would make the developer countless millions even with a couple of lowrise buildings on the parkade site.

Methinks the only time financial viability/sustainability enters the equation is when the city thinks it can be used against a proposal. How many times did we hear criticisms that this project or that would be profitable, and therefore it should be scaled back?

Exactly.

Concern for what is best for the city seems to be the last thing council is interested in. They seem terrified that someone, somewhere is actually making a buck so they are determined to make that as difficult as possible. The requirements for city council seem to be this: 1- They must be hard-working and dedicated. 2- They must be micromanagers. 3- They must be completely oblivious to economics (Geoff Young of course being the exception) 4- They must hate rich people.

[Rob Randall]

This council has yet to call the APC to sit. I don't know why. Years ago council would have routinely sent any major proposal or change through to APC for review. So far this council doesn't seem to use that input in the same way. It is a shame - it is expertise available free to the city by volunteers. But whether or not to use it is entirely up to council's discretion.

Tomorrow's planned APC meeting is canceled for reasons unknown.

[G-Man]

Weird. Something going on there. Perhaps the new council is not happy with the people on it and are waitiing for a chance to reappoint?

[Mike K.]

Any updates?

[Caramia]

The forms are now out there for people who want to apply to one of the city's new committees. The deadline for application is May 11th.