darwink said:
The above is from 2021. Money up front (reimbursement as cost is incurred) would have vastly accelerated this project. Instead, it has limped forwarded and is taking a rest again. Sigh.

Is it better that the city hasn't cut a cheque yet, but the project failed?
Click to expand...
When dealing with Strategic - absolutely. That money would've disappeared faster than a fart in the wind and the project would've still stalled out.
 
^Exactly.
The City paying all up front is not a good idea.

Perhaps some type of threshold increments would work.
 
FCC1982 said:
^Exactly.
The City paying all up front is not a good idea.

Perhaps some type of threshold increments would work.
Click to expand...
Oh, like reimbursement as costs were incurred 🤣

Anyways. The city will continue to city, making choices on how they wish the world to work instead of designing programs and land sales which manage risk while aligning with development and project economics to improve outcomes.

The city needs to take into account the risk of projects not going forward or not going forward fast enough as a risk to the city too.
 
I would imagine that at this point Strategic is looking to get rid of the project, likely at a massive loss. At this point in the project, the issues are likely known and I could see a sale with a very small price to someone that has the resources to take over. Basically "we have sunk $x million into it, but it's going to take $2x million to complete and will be worth $2x million at completion and I don't have that, so buy it for a buck"

As an aside, I recall reading an article in the very late 90's to very early 2000's about a guy that bought this building. If I recall correctly, he was an accountant or lawyer and moved into the penthouse with plans to bring the building back. Again, it was a long time ago, but I think this person put in a "stink bid" on an auction and won because they were the only bidder.
 
Definitely over 600.

And no, there’s no update 🥲
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJX
At least the article says that the adaptations to the plan won’t be discernible to the naked eye. They might just be asking for a parking relaxation and the like. Possibly stuff related to the elevator shaft too, as those are both mentioned. Here’s hoping!
 
MichaelS said:
calgaryherald.com

Cost of Barron Building conversion doubles as engineering issues plague construction

Construction will restart this fall after major issues were discovered during initial construction, said CEO Riaz Mamdani
calgaryherald.com calgaryherald.com
Click to expand...
"These plans — paired with ambitious changes to the building, such as widening the elevator and adding underground parking — have wrought challenges for its structural engineers at every turn."

These are some of the only examples in the article, and perhaps I am just dense - why don't you just not do these things? Particularly if they cost double what you expected? Rather than inflate the project and add a ton of risk to a building you don't understand, perhaps try to work with the asset you have? The Barron Building survived 75 years without underground parking, surely it would be fine!

I get it we have frustrating and inflexible code requirements sometimes for things like stairs or elevators, but I find it difficult to believe it's anything but a choice to have underground parking at this location among other things.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top