(09-22-2017, 04:54 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: The demand may not pay for the added complexity in construction, policy, insurance liability.
Worse, demand for housing may simply be great enough that one floor of housing has a higher ROI than of shops.
Moreover, even if there wasn't demand, maybe they *should* be forced. Even if there is little demand, there are great benefits to the community to having mixed use on King St. Demand could be lagging.
Capitalism is not guaranteed to have good outcomes. We should use it when it makes sense, but not rely on it without evaluating the situation.
I am also curious as to the ownership and management of retail spaces within a condo building.
That's entirely up to the builder. The builder could retain ownership and lease the commercial space, they could sell the commercial space to a holding company that would then lease the space and or they can sell the space directly to the end business user(s), like they sell condos. No matter who ends up owning the space pays condo fees just like all residents do.
In a rental scenario they can hand the commercial component over to a management company that then owns much of the liability. Alternatively they could register the building as a condo, title all the residential to themselves and sell the commercial as above. There are legal implications here but they are not onerous (BarrelYards being a prominent local example of such a setup).
Basically, if the builder does not want liability for the commercial space (though other than seeing more foot traffic, the commercial space is not governed by different statutes than a residential space so there is little reason that should be a worry), they can sell it to whomever they want.
That should not be an excuse for lack of commercial here.
The city should be more concerned with animating the street along the LRT corridor than it should be with parking or setbacks but alas, small town thinking persists on our council.