12-04-2014, 01:05 PM
(12-04-2014, 12:31 PM)Markster Wrote:(12-03-2014, 08:45 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: Sorry, but I stand by my comment. If it isn't economically feasible then say exactly that: we got no expressions of interest that were commensurable with the cost. None of this lame "structural reasons" excuse.
Simply because "a solution exists" doesn't mean that they need to specify the exact parameters of their economic assumptions. There is clearly an assumed "using the structural capacity of the existing building" restriction, as anything further would have been outside the scope of the proposed work. Retrofitting heritage buildings with steel supporting structures is still the exception, not the rule.
I agree. Enough money can fix anything. Economics always has to be considered. There are structural issues here - simple. In my mind, I don't think the developer is being misleading or unfair by saying that (if that's, in fact, what they are actually saying). In any event, hats off to them for taking on this project. They may still be sourcing tenants and could be waiting on detailed tenant requirements before moving forward with completing the project. My understanding is that the inside of the building has been mostly gutted.