[BobBob]

CN Tower: Have you read the report? Specifically, the part titled "Financing Renewal" on page 110?

 

[junctionist]

So how do you propose encouraging building owners to develop these underused lands? By asking them to spend $$$ retrofitting and then taking on development and market risk that they don't want? The Tower Renewal plan is a fantasy.

They may want to do it if it proves feasible through a favourable culture of urban planning. It's the same deal with laneway housing. Today, a laneway house development is an undesirable proposition because the city's planners aren't supportive. To try to do it anyway is very risky because it would probably involve thousands of dollars in money spent on lawyers and architects with a high chance of failure. But if it can be demonstrated to be easy to realize and profitable, why not do it? There are reasons for being risk-averse; it's not a characteristic that's inherent to these property owners.

Moreover, these owners are going to have to renew their towers anyway in time. The towers are energy hogs and falling apart. Here's a potentially profitable way of renewing them. Condos aren't out of the question, either.

 

[CN Tower]

CN Tower: Have you read the report? Specifically, the part titled "Financing Renewal" on page 110?

Dreaming. No landlord is going to do this for a 20 year payback on his energy bill:

The solution to these constraints is believed to be a credit-enhanced capital pool, backed not by mortgage security
but rather by property tax-based security. In this scenario, private sector funds would be raised by a dedicated
Tower Renewal Corporation in order to finance projects. In addition, government would contribute a relatively
small amount of over-collateralization to improve the credit quality of the capital pool, and reduce the interest
rate associated with it. To ensure payment of project obligations, failure of building owners to repay financing
obligations would lead to a transfer of defaulted payment amounts to property tax, whereupon the City could use
existing priority lien mechanisms to recover obligations.

Financing isn't the problem. Property owners have access to low cost capital. The problem is that the number don't work. Now, if the City would guarantee a minimum return on investment to the owner I could see it potentially working. In the absence of that guarantee it's not going to happen, not wide scale. And Junctionist, you are dreaming! Energy hogs? My friend, if the boiler is broken, you fix the damn thing! If the windows leak heat you replace them! That's what my property owner friends tell me. If not you can't rent the place out! Until you can show the building owner a minimum 10% return on his equity I really doubt he's going to want to invest millions of dollars to 'renew' his asset.

Condo conversion is the way to go! The owner will have to upgrade the building in order to sell it.

 

[jaycola]

There are 2 recent examples of newcondo projects one on surplus land of an apartment tower, Freed and Lash built 777 Steeles ave west.
Another is the Posh condo (hate the name) being built on surplus land from a private school.

I hope the city encourages this type of development in the near future.

 

[junctionist]

And Junctionist, you are dreaming! Energy hogs? My friend, if the boiler is broken, you fix the damn thing! If the windows leak heat you replace them! That's what my property owner friends tell me. If not you can't rent the place out! Until you can show the building owner a minimum 10% return on his equity I really doubt he's going to want to invest millions of dollars to 'renew' his asset.

There's a lot of renovation to do with some of these towers, and some of these buildings probably won't be lucrative as condo conversions. It's been done in the past and the result has been very low-priced units. The idea of property owners wishing to develop surplus land for profit is no dream. The profit provides capital to renovate the building. It's a catalyst. It does increase the value of rentals.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I support this. Build up instead of build out.

 

[toto]

Trouble with building up and especially point towers, is that they are energy pigs for the most part. Too hot in the summer, too cold in the winter = inefficient energy use. I'd like to see higher density, lowrise or highrise built closer together with better than LEEDS construction.

 

[Chuck]

I wonder if it would be possible to just parcel up these large sites and sell the surplus vacant land to new developers? This would allow the current owners to cash in on the sale of property, and relieve them of the risk of building something new. I don't even think that it matters that most underground parking garages occupy the entire site - two towers in the park at Yonge and Eglinton (south side between Lillian and Brownlow) saw the land on top of their parking garages redeveloped with condos.

On the topic of high rise energy efficiency, we have far more pressing issues to deal with than the concrete bunkers from the 1960s. Consider the image of a heat sink, below, which has been designed to exchange the maximum amount of heat. Looks an awful lot like a new condo with wrap around balconies and floor to ceiling windows, doesn't it?

Since I love sarcasm, this might have been a design inspiration for one of the GTA's flagship developments:

 

[doady]

On the topic of high rise energy efficiency, we have far more pressing issues to deal with than the concrete bunkers from the 1960s. Consider the image of a heat sink, below, which has been designed to exchange the maximum amount of heat. Looks an awful lot like a new condo with wrap around balconies and floor to ceiling windows, doesn't it?

Since I love sarcasm, this might have been a design inspiration for one of the GTA's flagship developments:

The heat sinks in my comp looks more like the old slabs buildings from the 60s.

 

[CN Tower]

I wonder if it would be possible to just parcel up these large sites and sell the surplus vacant land to new developers? This would allow the current owners to cash in on the sale of property, and relieve them of the risk of building something new. I don't even think that it matters that most underground parking garages occupy the entire site - two towers in the park at Yonge and Eglinton (south side between Lillian and Brownlow) saw the land on top of their parking garages redeveloped with condos.

This debate is abusing. You guys (and the City) treat building owners like dumb farmers and not owners of multi-million dollar properties that are probably debt free and cash flowing fortunes. They know what their properties are worth.

On the energy efficient retrofit issue, the problem is building owners are not given sufficient incentive to modernize. Where is the dangling carrot? The financing proposal referred to earlier will not do it.