drum118
Superstar
Click for full size:
|
|
|
- Thread starter MetroMan
- Start date
urbandreamer
recession proof
26 June 2010:
MetroMan
Senior Member
Great! Thanks for the update. It shouldn't take long for it to spring up now. It's too bad that the other tenants don't have the financial means to recover from the fire so quickly. I expect the neighbouring properties to be sold off to a single developer.
Glen
Senior Member
Lets see,
The planning department recommended not giving these properties a tax break because ........
reports 29028 and 21527 stated ;
The challenges faced by owners whose properties are destroyed by fire may not be as
great as those for other owners, as long as they have adequate insurance coverage that
provides for replacement cost of the buildings. Although they will be required to pay full
municipal CVA property taxes for commercial space, they will also benefit from a lower
education commercial tax rate for new commercial development, as well as the targeted
reduction in the City’s tax rates for all small businesses in the City.
The challenge of paying full CVA taxes for new commercial development applies to
redevelopment on all traditional shopping strips, not just those in Heritage Conservation
Districts or with properties destroyed by fire
and
Overall, being in a Heritage Conservation District brings with it a ‘base’ standard for new
development that is entirely reasonable for all the traditional shopping streets. It should
not pose an additional major disadvantage to redevelopment.
and
The challenges faced by owners whose properties are destroyed by fire may not be as
great as those for other owners, as long as they have adequate insurance coverage that
provides for replacement cost of the buildings. As such, much of the high cost of
redevelopment will be borne by the insurance rather than the future rents and/or income
of the buildings.
It is important, when considering intervening in the marketplace through the use of
incentives, to carefully consider the extent of any impediments to redevelopment in
accordance with the HCD and the extent to which these circumstances are unique. If the
disincentives to redevelopment are not unique, the case for broader application will be
difficult to resist.
and
The challenges of redevelopment along some traditional shopping streets are not limited
to these six properties. Vacant lots and empty stores and occasional fires detract from the
attractiveness of other strips across the City, and higher taxes for new buildings may be a
deterrent to redevelopment in these cases as well. The proposed CIP could be seen to
offer a template to stimulate redevelopment in other locations.
and
In the Queen West case it is clear that the owners would not need grants to offset higher
taxes if the fire had not occurred. In other situations, however, it may be difficult to
determine if the redevelopment would not have occurred ‘but for’ the grants offered by
the CIP program. The grants may simply be a ‘windfall’ for owners for something they
were going to do anyway. As well, owners who build new ground floor retail in other
locations may feel that they are being treated unfairly if they are not eligible for similar
grants
---------------------------------------
In light of this and the timing, one has to wonder if the fix was in. By all means it seems like this was going ahead, and was not contingent on the tax rebates. Yet Council still approved them. On top of this, staff estimated that this will mean giving these property owners $163,000 in tax breaks over 5 years. In reality it will cost much more. The figures staff used are based on the assessment values from the previous assessment cycle (2005). On average the area values increased by 40%. It should also be noted that the even the 2005 values were to low and faced possible upward adjustments. At minimum this is 1/4 million in tax breaks given to these owner despite being advantaged compared to others. Even though these projects looked to be going ahead anyway.
http://www.toronto.ca/council_highlights/2010/051110.htm
staff reports
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29028.pdf
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-29944.pdf
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-21527.pdf
The planning department recommended not giving these properties a tax break because ........
reports 29028 and 21527 stated ;
The challenges faced by owners whose properties are destroyed by fire may not be as
great as those for other owners, as long as they have adequate insurance coverage that
provides for replacement cost of the buildings. Although they will be required to pay full
municipal CVA property taxes for commercial space, they will also benefit from a lower
education commercial tax rate for new commercial development, as well as the targeted
reduction in the City’s tax rates for all small businesses in the City.
The challenge of paying full CVA taxes for new commercial development applies to
redevelopment on all traditional shopping strips, not just those in Heritage Conservation
Districts or with properties destroyed by fire
and
Overall, being in a Heritage Conservation District brings with it a ‘base’ standard for new
development that is entirely reasonable for all the traditional shopping streets. It should
not pose an additional major disadvantage to redevelopment.
and
The challenges faced by owners whose properties are destroyed by fire may not be as
great as those for other owners, as long as they have adequate insurance coverage that
provides for replacement cost of the buildings. As such, much of the high cost of
redevelopment will be borne by the insurance rather than the future rents and/or income
of the buildings.
It is important, when considering intervening in the marketplace through the use of
incentives, to carefully consider the extent of any impediments to redevelopment in
accordance with the HCD and the extent to which these circumstances are unique. If the
disincentives to redevelopment are not unique, the case for broader application will be
difficult to resist.
and
The challenges of redevelopment along some traditional shopping streets are not limited
to these six properties. Vacant lots and empty stores and occasional fires detract from the
attractiveness of other strips across the City, and higher taxes for new buildings may be a
deterrent to redevelopment in these cases as well. The proposed CIP could be seen to
offer a template to stimulate redevelopment in other locations.
and
In the Queen West case it is clear that the owners would not need grants to offset higher
taxes if the fire had not occurred. In other situations, however, it may be difficult to
determine if the redevelopment would not have occurred ‘but for’ the grants offered by
the CIP program. The grants may simply be a ‘windfall’ for owners for something they
were going to do anyway. As well, owners who build new ground floor retail in other
locations may feel that they are being treated unfairly if they are not eligible for similar
grants
---------------------------------------
In light of this and the timing, one has to wonder if the fix was in. By all means it seems like this was going ahead, and was not contingent on the tax rebates. Yet Council still approved them. On top of this, staff estimated that this will mean giving these property owners $163,000 in tax breaks over 5 years. In reality it will cost much more. The figures staff used are based on the assessment values from the previous assessment cycle (2005). On average the area values increased by 40%. It should also be noted that the even the 2005 values were to low and faced possible upward adjustments. At minimum this is 1/4 million in tax breaks given to these owner despite being advantaged compared to others. Even though these projects looked to be going ahead anyway.
http://www.toronto.ca/council_highlights/2010/051110.htm
staff reports
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29028.pdf
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-29944.pdf
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-21527.pdf
Peepers
Banned
What I would like to know is what the new building is going to look like. I could not find any drawings on the City website. Doesn't the city have to approve plans for these type of buildings or can they build whatever they want? Has anyone seen drawings?
Considering how Dukes did not seem to spend one dime on the upkeep of their old building, allowing it to become shabby looking, I don't think that they would be willing to shell out the kind of money required to rebuild an appropriate structure on this site. They may well try to do this on the cheap.
Considering how Dukes did not seem to spend one dime on the upkeep of their old building, allowing it to become shabby looking, I don't think that they would be willing to shell out the kind of money required to rebuild an appropriate structure on this site. They may well try to do this on the cheap.
Last edited:
cdr108
Senior Member
if they have replacement cost insurance, Duke's can't arbitrarily do it on the cheap if insurance pays the costs directly.
but if Dukes pays it directly, that's another story.
Peepers
Banned
When you consider the severe negative impact on property taxes when a commercial building like this burns to the ground you would think that the building owners would be installing sprinkler systems. If these buildings had sprinklers it is very unlikely that they would have burned to the ground. Also, since it is prohibitive from a tax standpoint to tear down and rebuild on these sites it is about time that these building owners started taking some pride in their buildings and invest in restoring the facades to their original character.
BobBob
Senior Member
Quick update (July 7th):
MetroMan
Senior Member
Iron frame? Looks like somebody learned something about fires 
BobBob
Senior Member
This company's logo is now featured prominently at the site: http://www.formdesignbuild.ca
They seem to specialize in distateful houses for the nouveau riche. There are no commercial projects in their online portfolio, but it's a bit disconcerting.
They seem to specialize in distateful houses for the nouveau riche. There are no commercial projects in their online portfolio, but it's a bit disconcerting.
grey
Senior Member
adma
Superstar
Though maybe poetically speaking, such banality might be more "fitting", at least from some bizarre Jane-Jacobs-cum-Rob-Ford strip-libertarian perspective...
urbandreamer
recession proof
If they can build a highrise or two at mostly lowrise Bathurst and St Clair, why not here as well? I'd say most of Queen West should go midrise--6-10s, with towers on the main corners, east of Bathurst Street.
Duke's Cycle indeed....a euphemism for the cycle of Queen West architectural styles? I give this building a decade before it goes midrise.
Duke's Cycle indeed....a euphemism for the cycle of Queen West architectural styles? I give this building a decade before it goes midrise.
BobBob
Senior Member
A rendering is now on the hoarding:
Doesn't look too bad. I think it will all be in the execution, materials, etc.
Doesn't look too bad. I think it will all be in the execution, materials, etc.
ladyscraper
man alive
Woah. You can just tell that it's going to be a really ugly precast mess from that drawing.