(10-11-2016, 10:23 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]@Markster Exactly what I said, "private interests trumping public good".
What exactly do you propose as an alternative... that the govt expropriate the property from the owner and hand it over to the developer? Don't get me wrong - I agree it's a shame - the owner is being greedy, and his Karma is that he'll end up with nothing as nothing can be developed (that justifies a much higher price per acre) on a 19' strip of land - but I have a hard time seeing where the 'private interests trump public good' argument leads... ?
Who knows what the current owners reasons were, we weren't at the negotiating table. There may have been multiple shareholders in the property (especially if the land transferred to the children of the original owner). They may have looked at what other downtown property was selling for and figured that they deserved a better deal. Anyone wants to compare this price per acre to the market rate according to more recent transactions? Look at this way, it will give Manulife the option to plant some really big columns if they every decide to build up.
(10-11-2016, 12:18 PM)Owen Wrote: [ -> ] (10-11-2016, 10:23 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]@Markster Exactly what I said, "private interests trumping public good".
What exactly do you propose as an alternative... that the govt expropriate the property from the owner and hand it over to the developer? Don't get me wrong - I agree it's a shame - the owner is being greedy, and his Karma is that he'll end up with nothing as nothing can be developed (that justifies a much higher price per acre) on a 19' strip of land - but I have a hard time seeing where the 'private interests trump public good' argument leads... ?
I am not implying any particular alternative or solution here. This is far more of a deep conversation than belongs here. But as you agree, that doesn't make my statement any less true. I would generally like to see this happen less often.
(10-11-2016, 01:56 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ] (10-11-2016, 12:18 PM)Owen Wrote: [ -> ]What exactly do you propose as an alternative... that the govt expropriate the property from the owner and hand it over to the developer? Don't get me wrong - I agree it's a shame - the owner is being greedy, and his Karma is that he'll end up with nothing as nothing can be developed (that justifies a much higher price per acre) on a 19' strip of land - but I have a hard time seeing where the 'private interests trump public good' argument leads... ?
I am not implying any particular alternative or solution here. This is far more of a deep conversation than belongs here. But as you agree, that doesn't make my statement any less true. I would generally like to see this happen less often.
The "invisible hand" doesn't always act swiftly, but it's much better than the alternative
A good opportunity for the City to expropriate the strip at it's now much-reduced value to create a sculpture garden or other amenity.
It seems silly on the landowners part, I wonder what they are holding out for specifically? Regardless it is nice to hear a very prominent gap Downtown could be filled in, in the relatively near future.
(10-12-2016, 09:13 AM)panamaniac Wrote: [ -> ]A good opportunity for the City to expropriate the strip at it's now much-reduced value to create a sculpture garden or other amenity.
At 19' wide it's a bit small even for a garden.
Mind you, in Tokyo it's not uncommon to see 4-6 storey buildings that are only 3-4m wide. I don't think those would be popular here, though. 19' of lot width means about 18' of interior width. Workable for small retail, but quite restrictive for the layout of the residential floors. You could make it work with just two units per floor (and a staircase in the middle, entered from the back of the building) but only one room would end up having a window in each unit.
At that size you're best off with studio apartments anyway, so one window would be expected.
Today at Spadina and Highland
Some very deep pits excavated very quickly at the Highland/Spadina property:
[
attachment=2505]
I know Kieswetter Demolition was using this as an in town yard and I had understood that they were using the whole site/building. Would be nice though if there were rentals there though!
I used to walk down Madison on a regular basis and the changes to the building are quite significant. I am a big fan of exposed brick especially on old industrial buildings, which I would have preferred here. But the end result looks like it is clean and fresh.
The best changes IMO:
- Removal of the old rickety fence along the parking lot
- The green framing around the windows
- The wood pillars used for the side entrance roof structure
it's great to see an old industrial building be preserved and refreshed.
(10-16-2016, 04:57 PM)rangersfan Wrote: [ -> ]I used to walk down Madison on a regular basis and the changes to the building are quite significant. I am a big fan of exposed brick especially on old industrial buildings, which I would have preferred here. But the end result looks like it is clean and fresh.
The best changes IMO:
- Removal of the old rickety fence along the parking lot
- The green framing around the windows
- The wood pillars used for the side entrance roof structure
it's great to see an old industrial building be preserved and refreshed.
It does look much better. I wish something could be done with the old Robson Lang site across the tracks. I suspect that is one of the most toxic bits of land in K-W.