Sunlife Towers | 2x 24 fl | Proposed

[danbrotherston]

...
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.

Thanks for the detailed explanation.  I am curious, how do those scenarios work in terms of votes for the condo board.  I wouldn't think a "corporation" could get a vote.  I guess in general, how do votes work in terms of different sizes of units anyway?

As for liability, I kind of assumed that business insurance would be greater than residential insurance, but I really have no idea, having never owned a business.

The city does need to be concerned with animating the street, but there are also pretty high parking requirements.  If I was looking for a condo, I wouldn't want to be paying for a parking space.  But I'm pretty sure I'd have little choice in the matter.