[dowlingm]

Where did the original funding for this project go? Have we overspent or under budgeted? Why isn't the Toronto Star investigating where the money went, or how this project was given the go ahead without sufficient funding?

You're assuming TorStar isn't investigating, or their Globe colleagues. It's not like the City and this mayor's office hands over a full and frank accounting when journalists come calling, so this will take a while.

 

[Admiral Beez]

You're assuming TorStar isn't investigating, or their Globe colleagues. It's not like the City and this mayor's office hands over a full and frank accounting when journalists come calling, so this will take a while.

I'm not assuming anything. Either they've reported on it or they haven't. We can't know what they've got in the works.

 

[maestro]

The plan is for 1,800 RGI units in the total Regent Park project, with over 5,400 market value units. That's a ratio of 3 to 1, not the 24:1 you suggest above, but still AIUI 3:1 was the ratio that sold the project to Daniels in the beginning.

What's your point though? Daniel's partnership and project management expertise still isn't enough for the sale of condos to cover the costs of the RGI units.

 

[dowlingm]

I'm not assuming anything. Either they've reported on it or they haven't. We can't know what they've got in the works.

I'm just puzzled by your aggressive tone towards the press here. It can take months to get clarity on City issues particularly under a mayor who, like this one, is not transparent in his dealings. Look at the info only now trickling out about the TTC's reports on the Scarborough subway.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

From Jpags:

Jennifer Pagliaro ‏@jpags 55m55 minutes ago
New report from city staff outlines failure of much-lauded Regent Park revitalization funding model http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/bu/bgrd/backgroundfile-100433.pdf…

From the report (p. 6/7):

In October 2014, TCHC presented their Phase 3 Anchor Business Plan (ABP). The revitalization objectives remained the same. The Phase 3 ABP outlined a TCHC Board-approved change in development strategy that would see TCHC exit its partnership with Daniels in the market component of development, and instead, sell Daniels serviced sites and use the proceeds to fund replacement social housing. This new arrangement would reduce TCHC's exposure to market risk by securing land value upfront, and with funding in hand, allow TCHC to set its own timelines for the City Funding for Regent Park Phase 3 - Blocks 16N and 17N development of the social housing component. However, this reduced risk arrangement also reduced the projected returns for TCHC, possibly contributing to a funding gap/debt requirement estimated at that time of $120 million for Phase 3

So basically, they went from co-developing to selling sites to reduce risk and increase timing flexibility, but it turns out that nets the org less money.

AoD

 

[jje1000]

The reason for leaving the partnership with Daniels:

After substantial completion of the first two phases, the funding model has fallen short of its initial projections. According to TCHC, delays in timing of sales of market housing resulted in delays in the social housing redevelopment.

The Sun is going to have fun with this- wonder if they're going to be calling for the remainder of Regent Park to go ahead instead as private development?

This also has troubling implications for the redevelopment going on in Alexandra Park and Lawrence Heights.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The reason for leaving the partnership with Daniels:

The Sun is going to have fun with this- wonder if they're going to be calling for the remainder of Regent Park to go ahead instead as private development?

This also has troubling implications for the redevelopment going on in Alexandra Park and Lawrence Heights.

Not really - from the sounds of the report you either subject yourself to market forces and let it dictate how quickly you develop; or you sell the site for cash and end up with less funding, but you control when you build. TCHC is legally required to replace all the units - selling it all won't resolve that issue.

AoD

 

[christiesplits]

From Jpags:

Jennifer Pagliaro ‏@jpags 55m55 minutes ago
New report from city staff outlines failure of much-lauded Regent Park revitalization funding model http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/bu/bgrd/backgroundfile-100433.pdf…

From the report (p. 6/7):

So basically, they went from co-developing to selling sites to reduce risk and increase timing flexibility, but it turns out that nets the org less money.

AoD

Hasn't the Regent Park redevelopment been heralded by international planners and policy makers?

 

[salsa]

TCHC is legally required to replace all the units - selling it all won't resolve that issue.

AoD

It would be nice if they add more units instead of only matching what's already there, given the lack of housing in this city.

 

[ChesterCopperpot]

With what money?

 

[interchange42]

Hasn't the Regent Park redevelopment been heralded by international planners and policy makers?

It has…

but the TCHC has been under increased pressure to redevelop the affordable housing faster than the model allows. They are looking at building larger buildings than originally planned too. With their new model having decreased their income, and with the demand for larger buildings, they are looking to make up a shortfall now. I suppose it's pretty tough to predict how the redevelopment of an entire neighbourhood over the course of a couple of decades will go over the long term. The plan for Regent Park was put together in 2002, so there have been several years of changing conditions to push and pull at that original plan.

It will be interesting to see if and how plans for Alexandra Park and Lawrence Heights change over time, but I think they were both set up slightly differently already, having taken into account some lessons learned at Regent Park.

42

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It would be nice if they add more units instead of only matching what's already there, given the lack of housing in this city.

Also keep in mind that one goal is to reduce the proportion of RGI in the district through market units - adding significantly more social housing will bump it up. One way to get around it is maybe increasing the number of market units as well so that the overall mix remains the same. Perhaps time to not build any additional townhomes?

AoD

 

[interchange42]

Daniels has been asking for increased sizes for its market buildings as well, so there should still be a healthy mix.

42

 

[salsa]

With what money?

From the city, if only the mayor cared about housing instead of just cutting the budget.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

were are all the people that live public housing going to go if they build more condos here in Regent Park?