What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    62
One Bloor West in Toronto is a completely different story (storey) -- mismanagement of construction at the core of the problem. Regardless it is being completed now -- B1M has the whole story on that project...
.
Back to the Quarters Project -- all questions go unanswered... still.
 
Have to agree with those who believe that it's an ambitious project on a building site that has an inherent financial risk attached to it. The LRT tunnel delay and the associated escalating construction cost at the adjacent site serving as an example. In addition to the construction risk, there's also the risk that the project wouldn't generate a sufficient return on capital. It's still in a rough part of town and it's not a given that suites could be sold at their list or profitable price. Potential purchasers could balk at living in the area. Part of that problem stems from the mixed signals City Hall sends out about the Quarters. On one hand City Hall has talked about a bustling Bohemian Village in the Quarters (which is dreaming to begin with) but then on the other, it talks about low cost housing in the area. It's only reasonable though that a suite purchaser would want to know City Hall's future plan for the Quarters. There's a difference between buying an upscale suite in an upscale area and buying an upscale suite in low cost area. If I was an investor in the new Doubletree Hotel in the Quarters, I'd be peeved off over City Hall's commitment in seeing development though to the end. City Hall started things in the Quarters and then dropped the ball. So Alldritt has to be looking at the lack of leadership and direction from City Hall and be wondering what comes next. Asking Alldritt to be the catalyst for development in the Quarters but at the same time having no clear grasp of what City Hall's vision for the Quarters is, is probably a financial risk that Alldritt is unprepared to take. Alldritt may believe the project is a profitable venture but at the same time they don't want to bankrupt their company finding out for sure.
 
Last edited:
Out of Towner said:
On one hand City Hall has talked about a bustling Bohemian Village in the Quarters (which is dreaming to begin with) but then on the other, it talks about low cost housing in the area.
Click to expand...
If you want to bring activity to an area that isn't seeing much, making it attractive for artists is not a bad idea, since they tend to have little money and a high tolerance for disorder. (Think downtown Manhattan in the 70s/80s, for example.) The problem is that that requires a large stock of existing, cheap housing and things like studio space, which the Quarters doesn't really have in that kind of abundance. Unless it's subsidized, new housing will almost by definition not be cheap.
 
inclusion said:
You kind of answer it yourself, no? Sounds like when they did the detailed structural design they found out that it was likely too complex and therefore, too expensive. No one here really knows how much capital Aldritt has nor how much they could have accessed. My guess is it was just too expensive and legal counsel is always risk averse, so I imagine some lawyer somewhere said it was too much risk to take on. One need look no further than "The One" in Toronto to know how risky large projects can be and what happens when you take on too much risk.
Click to expand...
Great view yes, but otherwise not such a great area. Perhaps it could have been viable for Alldritt under certain or ideal economic and other conditions, but we haven't had those over the last several years except fleetingly.

Another problem with the Quarters is even though it is an older area, there is not much older housing stock left that can be rented cheaply and fixed up. Instead, of downtown Manhattan, we had the Edmonton solution, many of the older buildings that were here have been torn down, leaving empty surface lots. So almost any housing will have to be built new and will not have the bohemian character or style of older buildings. If it is subsidized, it could be affordable, but often subsidized housing can look too basic. Will this attract artists much? Maybe, but I have doubts.
 
constance_chlore said:
If you want to bring activity to an area that isn't seeing much, making it attractive for artists is not a bad idea, since they tend to have little money and a high tolerance for disorder. (Think downtown Manhattan in the 70s/80s, for example.) The problem is that that requires a large stock of existing, cheap housing and things like studio space, which the Quarters doesn't really have in that kind of abundance. Unless it's subsidized, new housing will almost by definition not be cheap.
Click to expand...
Gene Dub has been doing his part here... although he has confessed to me that it is a struggle that needs outside support if this wants to be community wide.
 
471CF3B6-DE61-4ECA-A878-C8237B3280FC.jpeg
 
supaflyryguy said:
I can't wait until we pass an undeveloped land tax so these parcels can get moved to developers who develop land in addition to renderings.
Click to expand...
When you can’t make money developing a site even if you got it for free, then an undeveloped land tax won’t make a damn bit of difference.

Except perhaps to see the city taking title to more sites by way of tax foreclosures and losing even more of their property tax base in the process, not just on those sites but on the reduced taxable value of similar sites.
 
kcantor said:
When you can’t make money developing a site even if you got it for free, then an undeveloped land tax won’t make a damn bit of difference.

Except perhaps to see the city taking title to more sites by way of tax foreclosures and losing even more of their property tax base in the process, not just on those sites but on the reduced taxable value of similar sites.
Click to expand...
I feel we need to increase the rate for vacant lots to fund incentives to build. We are already reducing the taxable income by allowing demolition of the properties before they sit on them for 10-20 years as they speculate. After a set time with no movement and building the taxes should revert back to the previous amounts when there was a structure on the property. Hopefully that encourages developers to use properties until they are ready by closing the tax loophole of the tax reduction.
 
Importantly, I feel we need to reduce the incentive to tear down existing buildings. I believe others have indicated we should continue to assess and tax based on if the building was still there and that makes good sense to me.
 
^
^^
On that we agree - I’ve said for a very long time that taxes should remain at the “pre demolition level” until such time as a replacement structure is completed and fully assessed.

The issue is that the MGA doesn’t allow multiple mil rates on the same class of property (ie land without improvements).

The work around is to require a development agreement as a condition of issuing a demolition permit; to have the development agreement require an equivalent payment to the reduction in property taxes be made to the city on an annual basis until the site is developed; and to have that development agreement registered on title so it “flows with the land” and the city doesn’t get short changed if it’s sold.
 
What about a post-construction tax rebate for the time the land was left vacant? As in, a site like Regency's on 101st continues to be taxes at estimated assessed levels had the building been there, but that money is placed in an interest bearing trust so that when the next project is completed, the developer gets a substantial rebate back with interest based off the difference between a bare land and developed tax.

It would add a bit of certainty for honest developers who are facing hold-ups on dependencies and whatnot.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top