What do you think of this project?

  • I like it a lot

    Votes: 10 47.6%

  • I like it

    Votes: 11 52.4%

  • I neither like nor dislike it

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I dislike it

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I dislike it a lot

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    21
Stevey_G said:
That would explain things. If the building is constantly dealing with flood repairs that would cost an arm and a leg.
Click to expand...
I think that is probably the explanation, as Boyle Street said it was not financially viable. There may be some major work required on the building, which wouldn't make sense if they were not going to stay for the long term.

However, I feel this may become a distraction from the real underlying problem, which is needing more permanent shelter space, which is a provincial responsibility. The Boyle Street situation will get sorted out, with a better, larger more useful space. It is the underlying problem which is not being resolved.
 
Stevey_G said:
That seems like a logical decision. The timing is pretty rough with winter coming and whatnot.

I don’t know a thing about commercial leasing, but it seems wrong that tenants should have to cover the costs of remediation regardless of cause. It would make more sense for the property owner to cover insurance for the facility, and for the tenant to insure improvements and items of ownership. How it is sounds unethical.
Click to expand...
The Katz group bought the building from them so who knows what the terms of that agreement were. It could be they agreed that Boyle street would assume responsibility for the chronic deficiencies. We don’t know so best not pull out the old ethical card until we get some clarity.
 
Stevey_G said:
That seems like a logical decision. The timing is pretty rough with winter coming and whatnot.

I don’t know a thing about commercial leasing, but it seems wrong that tenants should have to cover the costs of remediation regardless of cause. It would make more sense for the property owner to cover insurance for the facility, and for the tenant to insure improvements and items of ownership. How it is sounds unethical.
Click to expand...
building insurance is typically part of the operating costs that tenants are responsible for. standard practice is that that would include any deductibles as well as the policy cost.

you also have to remember that the condition of the building and the availability/costs of insurance etc. are a result of circumstances and decisions previously made by boyle street and not the current landlord who only recently acquired the building from them and who paid far more than what the market in general would have paid them for it.
 
I liked this tidbit from the EJ linked above. "“The terms of our lease agreement with the Katz Group reside in a larger real estate agreement and that I am not able to comment on publicly.” Makes me wonder what is in the "larger real estate agreement" and why since Boyle Street sold it they would be privy to anything in a Katz project.
 
while the decisions are between boyle street and their new albeit temporary landlords (and those landlords’ other tenants) i’m pretty sure the comments about all of the new spaces being handicap accessible isn’t actually the case for the mercer building.
 
EdmTrekker said:
I liked this tidbit from the EJ linked above. "“The terms of our lease agreement with the Katz Group reside in a larger real estate agreement and that I am not able to comment on publicly.” Makes me wonder what is in the "larger real estate agreement" and why since Boyle Street sold it they would be privy to anything in a Katz project.
Click to expand...
Is it possible the Katz Group threatened to pull funding for the new Boyle Street building if they didn't vacate? That's a rumor I've heard.
 
Glenco said:
What do you know for sure? Otherwise best not to spread rumours.
Click to expand...
There wouldn't be much on this site if people didn't share rumours ;) It does add up though.

Boyle Street could surely afford the unchanged "nominal" lease the Katz Group was charging. If building maintenance/immediate repairs were too expensive, that's something they could probably just say outright.
 
It does sound like the building needed some major work. I suspect in the end neither the tenant or the landlord wanted to spend signifcant money on a building that may not be around much longer.
 
Reference ID:Job No 485385111-002
Description:To Operate a Professional, Financial and Office Support Service and Community Recreation Service (NDPR)
Location:10363 - 104 STREET NW
Plan NB1 Blk 3 Lots 187-188
Applicant:THE BOYLE STREET SERVICE SOCIETY
Status:No DP Required
Create Date:2023-09-21T10:26:57Z
Neighbourhood:DOWNTOWN
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top