First, TY for linking to this piece.
Second, the most pertinent bit is at the end.
View attachment 560423
****
In respect of the above. I'd certainly like to see them return to rental as the basis of the project, incentives for same are now materially better than they were the last time rental was contemplated here.
****
In respect of a project, at currently approved density being non-viable, I don't accept that. I fully understand why they would like more, and the change in what's proposed in the area would certainly suggest they have a reasonable chance of getting more.
That said, the land is a fixed cost on the books, rents and condos have both risen in price relative to pre-pandemic times. The former more than the latter. I fail to see how one could not make money building what's proposed, given that the prices/rents can be re-set.
However, I accept that they would probably be leaving money on the table.
They may wish to consider, though, that the property's retail rental income has now dried up, and the asset is stranded largely because of endless dithering.
At some point, if you can't get a project off the ground in more than 5 years, its not on the weather, the government, the market, or anyone but you. You keep running into changing circumstances, because you keep not moving forward when you have the chance to do so.
****
The LPOA will hate this one being taller, but they are well aware the writing is on the wall, given the relatively cozy treatment here by Concert, I would expect them to extract additional community benefit and live with a material increase here.