Natika33 said:
I'm not sure I understand this comment. The gov't contracted Therme to redevelop this land. Therme is therefore attempting to fulfill their contract. Where are they showing they are "so desperate"?
Click to expand...
That's alright. I'm not sure I understand your comment either. /shrug
 
picard102 said:
Which part isn't "publicly accessible" like Ontario Place has been for decades?
Click to expand...
...and that question sure seems to come with the gaslight dialed up on high. Do I need to really answer that?
 
Ontario is ponying up $400M a sweetheart lease of absolutely prime real estate in a massive growing city. It boggles my mind that some people think that this is the best we can get for that. Or even an adequate return on that investment.
Either people lack imagination or cynicism has worn their optimism down to a nub.
 
JohnnyRaylander said:
Ontario is ponying up $400M a sweetheart lease of absolutely prime real estate in a massive growing city. It boggles my mind that some people think that this is the best we can get for that. Or even an adequate return on that investment.
Either people lack imagination or cynicism has worn their optimism down to a nub.
Click to expand...
People don't realize that the parking garage may have a $400 million capital cost (even then, that's a guesstimate - I suspect it'll come in well below that number given the scale of the facility saving money per sf) - but it is also revenue generating. It's not a $400 million giveaway. That garage will be full of thousands of cars a day paying $20 to park there.

Will that be enough to offset all of the capital cost? Maybe not. Certainly it'll offset much of it - statements the government has made make it sound like they believe it'll pay for itself. It's absolutely not, unequivocally, in any way, a $400 million giveaway.
 
innsertnamehere said:
People don't realize that the parking garage may have a $400 million capital cost (even then, that's a guesstimate - I suspect it'll come in well below that number given the scale of the facility saving money per sf) - but it is also revenue generating. It's not a $400 million giveaway. That garage will be full of thousands of cars a day paying $20 to park there.

Will that be enough to offset all of the capital cost? Maybe not. Certainly it'll offset much of it - statements the government has made make it sound like they believe it'll pay for itself. It's absolutely not, unequivocally, in any way, a $400 million giveaway.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with the last part. The objection, at least for me, is that the parking garage is in many ways a subsidy for Therme. There is no shortage of parking around. The point of the garage would be to service the spa. Shouldn't the people building the spa take on the risk of that investment?

generalcanada said:
Litterally any nimby could use that argument.
status quo of not building a 25 storey condo: no construction noise, no traffic impacts, no new people moving into the neighborhood
Click to expand...

Opposition to this project is not NIMBYism, full stop.

First off. The closest house or apartment is a km away. No one is saying "don't build this because it will affect my property in some way that I don't like" There is opposition to this because it is a waste of public resources.

When a NIMBY opposes housing, they prevent other people from having a home, they drive up the cost of living in a city, and they exert unfair influence over the development of another persons private property. This site is not private property and the building doesn't provide any homes or essential services. Nothing bad happens if it doesn't get built.

It is perfectly reasonable for the public to oppose the permanent use of public space for private profits. It is completely inappropriate to compare this to NIMBYism. The public has every right to say no to this. This is the equivalent of the city leasing Christie Pits to Cineplex for a giant multiplex theatre. In no way is it relatable to a 25 story building anywhere.

If they absolutely insist on putting a spa at Ontario Place why not build it on the hectares of available asphalt? This proposal boggles the mind with how unnecessarily destructive it is.
 
innsertnamehere said:
People don't realize that the parking garage may have a $400 million capital cost (even then, that's a guesstimate - I suspect it'll come in well below that number given the scale of the facility saving money per sf) - but it is also revenue generating. It's not a $400 million giveaway. That garage will be full of thousands of cars a day paying $20 to park there.

Will that be enough to offset all of the capital cost? Maybe not. Certainly it'll offset much of it - statements the government has made make it sound like they believe it'll pay for itself. It's absolutely not, unequivocally, in any way, a $400 million giveaway.
Click to expand...
2,000 spots at 100% occupancy at $20 a day for 365 days a year generates $15M a year of gross revenue, which does not account for any sort of maintenance of the lot or real-estate taxes. So I would argue that a $400M parking garage is a huge capital cost and subsidy. That's a 27 year pay back (and I'm not even doing any sort of discount cash-flow analysis which would make the payback even longer, and I'm not even considering the fact that the parking lot won't have 100% occupancy). This is a HUGE waste of taxpayer money to subsidize a really wasteful endeavor (a private spa). Every single Torontonian should be up in arms over this.
 
Ward8 said:
I don't agree with the last part. The objection, at least for me, is that the parking garage is in many ways a subsidy for Therme. There is no shortage of parking around. The point of the garage would be to service the spa. Shouldn't the people building the spa take on the risk of that investment?



Opposition to this project is not NIMBYism, full stop.

First off. The closest house or apartment is a km away. No one is saying "don't build this because it will affect my property in some way that I don't like" There is opposition to this because it is a waste of public resources.

When a NIMBY opposes housing, they prevent other people from having a home, they drive up the cost of living in a city, and they exert unfair influence over the development of another persons private property. This site is not private property and the building doesn't provide any homes or essential services. Nothing bad happens if it doesn't get built.

It is perfectly reasonable for the public to oppose the permanent use of public space for private profits. It is completely inappropriate to compare this to NIMBYism. The public has every right to say no to this. This is the equivalent of the city leasing Christie Pits to Cineplex for a giant multiplex theatre. In no way is it relatable to a 25 story building anywhere.

If they absolutely insist on putting a spa at Ontario Place why not build it on the hectares of available asphalt? This proposal boggles the mind with how unnecessarily destructive it is.
Click to expand...
Unless the rowboats/boats/yachts/ships at the marina are lived in year-long. Then it might be a "NIMBY" cause.
 
pw20 said:
2,000 spots at 100% occupancy at $20 a day for 365 days a year generates $15M a year of gross revenue, which does not account for any sort of maintenance of the lot or real-estate taxes. So I would argue that a $400M parking garage is a huge capital cost and subsidy. That's a 27 year pay back (and I'm not even doing any sort of discount cash-flow analysis which would make the payback even longer, and I'm not even considering the fact that the parking lot won't have 100% occupancy). This is a HUGE waste of taxpayer money to subsidize a really wasteful endeavor (a private spa). Every single Torontonian should be up in arms over this.
Click to expand...
*Ontarian
 
pw20 said:
2,000 spots at 100% occupancy at $20 a day for 365 days a year generates $15M a year of gross revenue, which does not account for any sort of maintenance of the lot or real-estate taxes. So I would argue that a $400M parking garage is a huge capital cost and subsidy. That's a 27 year pay back (and I'm not even doing any sort of discount cash-flow analysis which would make the payback even longer, and I'm not even considering the fact that the parking lot won't have 100% occupancy). This is a HUGE waste of taxpayer money to subsidize a really wasteful endeavor (a private spa). Every single Torontonian should be up in arms over this.
Click to expand...
That's again assuming a $400 million cost - which is $200,000 a space. That's far and above my understanding of what a typical parking space costs.

Looking at the plans for the garage, there is about 967,000sf of space below grade for the parking garage once you exclude the below-grade spaces for the Science Centre.. which means at $195/sf as per the Altus cost guide for below grade parking.. that's $190 million in capital costs for the garage component of the project. That's about $90k a space - still high from my understanding, but closer to realistic. And much closer to being able to be financed on parking revenues.


Again - I'm not claiming that the parking is going completely unsubsidized here, just that it's not a $400 million subsidy. The reality is that we don't know the numbers.

As for why the province is building it and not Therme.. Therme is not the only tenant at Ontario Place that will be using the garage. Parking users will be using it to go to Live Nation, to the park spaces, to the Science Centre, to the Ex, to BMO Field, to etc.. It's very much a multi-use facility which will be used to service a wide variety of uses. It makes sense for the province, and not Therme, to build it, provided there are appropriate kick-backs in the lease to ensure that the province isn't left holding the bag.

And ultimately, not being privy to the lease agreement or the province's budgeting, we have no idea what the level of subsidy, if any, is occurring here. Certainly not a $400 million subsidy for the parking garage alone.

The storey here is to be more transparent on costs. A whole lot of real ugly, misleading numbers are being thrown around here and in the media because the province refuses to release even high level details on the financial terms of the deal.
 
Last edited:
Which application has the parking garage plans?
 
innsertnamehere said:
As for why the province is building it and not Therme.. Therme is not the only tenant at Ontario Place that will be using the garage. Parking users will be using it to go to Live Nation, to the park spaces, to the Science Centre, to the Ex, to BMO Field, to etc.. It's very much a multi-use facility which will be used to service a wide variety of uses. It makes sense for the province, and not Therme, to build it, provided there are appropriate kick-backs in the lease to ensure that the province isn't left holding the bag.
Click to expand...
All of these places have plenty of parking already is there any evidence that they will need more with the addition of the spa? There is a half square km of parking directly adjacent to Ontario Place. I would be swayed by that argument if parking was in any way at a premium at this site. It might be available for everyone, but the government is building it to service the demand of the spa way more than any other potential use. They frankly don't need to build it at all, which makes it all the more confusing.
 
innsertnamehere said:
That's again assuming a $400 million cost - which is $200,000 a space. That's far and above my understanding of what a typical parking space costs.

Looking at the plans for the garage, there is about 967,000sf of space below grade for the parking garage once you exclude the below-grade spaces for the Science Centre.. which means at $195/sf as per the Altus cost guide for below grade parking.. that's $190 million in capital costs for the garage component of the project. That's about $90k a space - still high from my understanding, but closer to realistic. And much closer to being able to be financed on parking revenues.


Again - I'm not claiming that the parking is going completely unsubsidized here, just that it's not a $400 million subsidy. The reality is that we don't know the numbers.
Click to expand...

To take this in chunks:

A 400M (potential) cash out lay is proposed.

Assuming the government borrows that money (since it reports being in deficit we must assume that this would be contributing to same), we have to look at the government's borrowing cost on that investment.
Currently, the government of Ontario is borrowing money at 4.6%. If you amortize the repayment over 25 years, this adds 67% to your all-in cost.

ie. 1M borrowed would see 1.67M repaid over 25 years.

Even at 190M in direct capital cost you'd be looking at ~ 317M in total cost. One must then add annual operating costs such as maintence, staff, payment fees to credit cards, property tax, if applicable etc.
There is no way that anything less than 400M in gross revenue over that period would achieve a break-even position.

****

Now lets add, I find it highly improbably that the parking will be full every single day of the year, that would be a both a phenomenal business achievement but also very dysfunctional as it would mean customers being turned away every day.
If $15M in gross revenue were optimal as suggested above, I would think a reasonable assumption would be 70% occupancy when factored over 365 days.
That would suggest annual gross revenue of 10.5M On a constant dollar basis, that wouldn't repay the parking for 38 years. (using the 400M number)

innsertnamehere said:
As for why the province is building it and not Therme.. Therme is not the only tenant at Ontario Place that will be using the garage. Parking users will be using it to go to Live Nation, to the park spaces, to the Science Centre, to the Ex, to BMO Field, to etc.. It's very much a multi-use facility which will be used to service a wide variety of uses. It makes sense for the province, and not Therme, to build it, provided there are appropriate kick-backs in the lease to ensure that the province isn't left holding the bag.
Click to expand...

I confess to disliking Live Nation's plans as well....... but I digress.

There appears to be sufficient parking on site to meet the needs of all existing users and the historic demand of Ontario Place which should not reasonably be greater than the parklands.

Only 'new tenants' can justify the investment, and you're limited then to Therme and the OSC.

innsertnamehere said:
The storey here is to be more transparent on costs. A whole lot of real ugly, misleading numbers are being thrown around here and in the media because the province refuses to release even high level details on the financial terms of the deal.
Click to expand...

On this we can definitely agree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: max
Ward8 said:
All of these places have plenty of parking already is there any evidence that they will need more with the addition of the spa? There is a half square km of parking directly adjacent to Ontario Place. I would be swayed by that argument if parking was in any way at a premium at this site. It might be available for everyone, but the government is building it to service the demand of the spa way more than any other potential use. They frankly don't need to build it at all, which makes it all the more confusing.
Click to expand...
The science centre isn’t there right now and Live Nation is being significantly expanded so is expected to see far higher parking demands - so yes, lots more uses here than before than just Therme.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top