PDA

View Full Version : Royal Connaught Hotel | ? | 36 fl, 33 fl, 24 fl & 13 fl | U/C


Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

flar
Apr 28, 2008, 12:09 AM
I'm not sure what kind of news we could expect to hear, other than if the closing date is moved up. Steeltown posted an article at the end of March that said Stinson had the $9.5M and the deal would close in June. Between now and then there's not much Stinson can do. He can't start work or even seal up the building until the deal closes.

HAMRetrofit
Apr 28, 2008, 12:09 AM
A hundred grand of his INVESTORS' money.

Thanks tips.

the dude
Apr 28, 2008, 7:30 AM
i think we're all just a little sensitive and perhaps even paranoid about the connaught. if it fails or is delayed further, i'm throwing myself off the nearest building. i kid you not.:slob:

realcity
Apr 28, 2008, 1:03 PM
^ lol

i feel the same way. If the city f*cks up LRT and then adds Connaught to the Lister heap and the Board of Ed 1. does nothing (because they can't move to the mountain) or 2. actually moves to the mountain.... the City is dead.

Goldfinger
Apr 28, 2008, 6:01 PM
^ lol

i feel the same way. If the city f*cks up LRT and then adds Connaught to the Lister heap and the Board of Ed 1. does nothing (because they can't move to the mountain) or 2. actually moves to the mountain.... the City is dead.

Why would you think that?

There are others that claim Hamilton is a dead city already.

flar
Apr 28, 2008, 6:04 PM
Hamilton is far from a dead city. There are a hundred cities worse off than Hamilton in the US.

BCTed
Apr 29, 2008, 12:36 AM
I have gone back and forth a little bit with a couple of people about Harry's status with the banks, so I finally did a quick Google search. Note that I am not saying that banks are the only way to get things done, but everything I have ever read or heard suggests that Harry has generally had difficulty in lining up money from anyone, which makes me suspicious about his current lineup of investors.

From http://www.torontolife.com/features/arrested-development/?pageno=5 re: the Candy Factory:
There was interest from the buying public. He pre-sold more than 80 per cent of the units. Then it was time to go to the banks for financing. The banks said no—he couldn’t provide the financial guarantees they wanted. Cue very lengthy harangue, even today, about the Canadian financing establishment, about how dreamers are stymied by men who work with spreadsheets, men who couldn’t build a back porch on their own (etc., etc., etc., until you tune out).


From http://www.businessedge.ca/article.cfm/newsID/11302.cfm re: 1 King West:
6. Why didn't you finance the project with a bank?

"Most of the things I've done, whether it's restaurants or lofts or a high-rise hotel condo, have tended to be unique products that, without a local precedent, aren't something conventional bankers want to get involved with. Banks don't like surprises. And I don't do that (conventional products).


From http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/248614 re: 1 King West:
Standing gaunt and pale at the back of the courtroom during a break, Stinson addressed the never-ending question of financing, and why it has perennially proved so problematic for 1 King West, the condo hotel that Stinson created.

"It's more of a kibbutz than a business," says Stinson, which is the best explanation yet as to why conventional lenders have tended to look sideways at the project.

The absence of financing at least superficially explains Stinson's defaulting on loans to Mirvish and Mirvish's motion, heard across two days, to reclaim properties sold to Stinson and have a receiver appointed to oversee 1 King's hotel operations.

It hasn't been pretty.


From http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050819.rmstin0819/BNStory/specialROBmagazine/?pageRequested=all:
But Stinson doesn't have an international brand. That makes it hard to attract international investors, especially ultrawealthy ones who are, in any case, more apt to buy in U.S. cities like Miami and New York. He doesn't have a global marketing and reservation network either. Also, if interest rates climb substantially, those mid-market investors may drift away. With the Sapphire, Stinson hasn't bothered to try to wheedle big money out of banks and other institutional lenders. Their caution annoys him to no end. "The cost of risk aversion is far greater than the cost of proceeding," he says.

BCTed
Apr 29, 2008, 12:45 AM
just chatted with Mocryke. He says things are fine with Harry and this project is a go.
He thinks that Harry will try to do most of this project at the same time and have it all complete by 2010-11. I'll post more later, but it sounds fabulous....by the way, look for an earlybird special on the Connaught condos - half price for a very limited time is the rumour.

Have you heard anything more on this? I don't believe that I have ever heard of half price specials on condos --- it just does not sound right.

raisethehammer
Apr 29, 2008, 1:17 PM
Have you heard anything more on this? I don't believe that I have ever heard of half price specials on condos --- it just does not sound right.

no, I haven't heard anything lately on this project.
I'll dig around this week and see if I can get us an update.

oldcoote
Apr 29, 2008, 1:24 PM
In their continuing series on "Downtown Canada" (Calgary is featured today), next week the Globe and Mail will feature "Toronto's former condo king [as he] seeks a new realm: Helping to revitalize downtown Hamilton".

Next Tuesday.

SteelTown
Apr 29, 2008, 1:28 PM
Oh so Hamilton is next? Sweet

raisethehammer
Apr 29, 2008, 2:00 PM
yikes. this could either be very good or very bad exposure for us.

DC83
Apr 29, 2008, 2:24 PM
In their continuing series on "Downtown Canada" (Calgary is featured today), next week the Globe and Mail will feature "Toronto's former condo king [as he] seeks a new realm: Helping to revitalize downtown Hamilton".

Next Tuesday.

I didn't read that G&M article, but I saw one on cbc.ca today about Calgary developers having troubles selling their condos and are being forced to rent them out.

This makes me somewhat happy as we are obviously in the same situation in Hamilton. So if oil-rich Calgarians 'can't afford' to buy and would rather rent, then it doesn't make Hamilton's market seem so bad.

I personally like mix rentals/owned units. I think it works well.

"Calgary vacancy rate jumps amid sluggish condo sales" (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2008/04/28/vacancy-up.html)

SteelTown
Apr 29, 2008, 2:32 PM
That's the plan for Stinson for the Connaught. The units for the Connaught will be rental for long term stay. New condo units for sale will be built next to the parking lot facing King St with parking garage (think it's no more than 12 storey).

flar
Apr 29, 2008, 2:34 PM
Calgary is another place where I imagine many people would rather live in a house with a yard. I just think large scale condos are more suited to big cities where commutes into the city centre are long and difficult. For Canada that means Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. There's still a place for condos in medium cities like Hamilton and Calgary, but obviously not on a large scale like a big city of several million.

FairHamilton
Apr 29, 2008, 2:58 PM
I just think large scale condos are more suited to big cities where commutes into the city centre are long and difficult. For Canada that means Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. There's still a place for condos in medium cities like Hamilton and Calgary, but obviously not on a large scale like a big city of several million.

I agree, but it's also about the jobs.

I’ve seen a lot of posts about why certain projects sell, or don’t sell in Hamilton, which ones are overpriced, or right priced, why the trend in Hamilton is to build condos for retirees vs. younger people. But not many posts regarding what I think is the biggest impediment to condos in downtown Hamilton which is the lack of high paying, professional jobs for people in their 20’s and early 30’s.

Building condos for young people won’t attract the companies to employ them, but attracting companies that employ a predominantly younger workforce will get them downtown and that demographic wants to live downtown, close to where they work and play.

If you want to see more condos in downtown Hamilton, than push City Hall to attract young high-tech companies to the downtown area. There's a reason for the plans to develop retiree type projects, it's because by definition retirees don't need jobs, they are retired.........

BTW, where I work in Toronto (small - mid sized software company) 3 of our Sales Team are MAC grads, and one (25 years old) earned $10K in commissions last month, and $20K so far this month. Think (dream) about that purchasing power in downtown Hamilton and that spending power spread over many others............

HAMRetrofit
Apr 29, 2008, 3:43 PM
I agree, but it's also about the jobs.
Building condos for young people won’t attract the companies to employ them, but attracting companies that employ a predominantly younger workforce will get them downtown and that demographic wants to live downtown, close to where they work and play.


Actually this is the best way to attract employment for them. Creating an urban environment that young people like will attract the companies or new business. Companies only locate where they have access to a skilled workforce. It is population growth that is the driver of employment development and not the other way around. So for Hamilton the best thing to do is to create the environment for these residents and they will commute or whatever else to their work originally. Overtime a skilled labor pool is created and businesses will be attracted to the area or these individuals will begin their own businesses.

Once again population growth of people with certain skills sets are essentially the drivers for new employment and economies and not the other way around.

FairHamilton
Apr 29, 2008, 4:20 PM
Actually this is the best way to attract employment for them. Creating an urban environment that young people like will attract the companies or new business. Companies only locate where they have access to a skilled workforce. It is population growth that is the driver of employment development and not the other way around. So for Hamilton the best thing to do is to create the environment for these residents and they will commute or whatever else to their work originally. Overtime a skilled labor pool is created and businesses will be attracted to the area or these individuals will begin their own businesses.

Once again population growth of people with certain skills sets are essentially the drivers for new employment and economies and not the other way around.

Governments all over spend money to attract industry, because they employ people. Do you think they are doing it wrong? I would think it's pretty hard to create an urban environment. I think they are a natural out growth of the area.

There’s not a for-profit company around which is going altruistically going to spend capital developing projects for the purpose of “creating an urban environment”. They are only going to develop when there’s a need, and where they can profit, period.

Do you think LIUNA would be sitting on the Lister Block and asking the city to fund it’s development, if there were zero vacancy in downtown with companies knocking on the door looking for space, and lease rates rose to let's say $40sf? I've seen reports of 25% office vacancy in downtown, lease rates are low, so nothing new gets developed without a government handout. And how does that help the rest of downtown which remains at a 25% vacancy rate?

IMO, the city would be wise to attract businesses, which would lower the vacancy rate, causes upward pressure on lease rates and entice developers to build more space (with all those vacant lots). Really, companies choose where to locate, and employees then choose how close they want to live to work.

Wheras, you are suggesting governments, companies and people spend lots of money (capital) “creating an urban environment”. That money would be spent with the hope it will attract people (very altuiristic, and not in a for-profit company's interest), and then companies will follow the people. Sorry, but that's counter to reality.

coalminecanary
Apr 29, 2008, 4:31 PM
FairHamilton, I have to disagree.

Up until recently I was a young person. I worked in essentially Scarborough. I did not move there, because it sucks. I lived in Hamilton. Why? Because of the lifestyle here. I like mtn biking. Try doing that anywhere in the GTA, it's nothing remotely like what we have here. I also like going out to see music, and doing so at a reasonable price.

I developed a theory years ago that I'm sure is not news to most people, but it was what answered the question for me about why so many people (esp younger workers) waste so much of their time commuting: They'd rather live closer to where they "play" and not closer to where they "work".

So there is definitely an argument that creating a great place to live will attract people who want to live in a great place, and those crowds will attract companies who want these people as employees.

I think that creating a people-friendly urban environment with fantastic transit will do more than spending the same amount on tax breaks which may or may not attract a handful of companies to the core.

What are your ideas for attracting companies? What will make them uproot and locate here? I'd think that a rapidly building young workforce would do that better than any tax incentives could. If we rely on tax incentives, it's not like we'll be able to pick and choose who comes. We could just end up with buildings full of call centres which I don't think is the goal...

HAMRetrofit
Apr 29, 2008, 4:34 PM
We are debating over a chicken and egg scenario.

It is Hamilton's job to create the environment and market for investment. They are not the direct creators of new investment. All they can do is seed it it. The city cannot or does not have any direct way to locate employment in its urban boundaries. These things are created by the market.

The best way to seed investment is to create the highest quality of life for its people and to offer incentives to businesses that can benefit from its skilled labor supply. If it does not have the available skilled labor, businesses will look elsewhere. To attract new white collar employment in Hamilton new labor forces with white collar skills will need an environment created that will attract and retain them.

Toe to toe Hamilton will loose every time to attracting low skilled labor like assembly plants to smaller communities like Cambridge and Woodstock. Hamilton is a larger city now and needs to go after new things. It is doing a fantastic job of attracting Health Services employees however.

JT Jacobs
Apr 29, 2008, 4:39 PM
I didn't read that G&M article, but I saw one on cbc.ca today about Calgary developers having troubles selling their condos and are being forced to rent them out.

This makes me somewhat happy as we are obviously in the same situation in Hamilton. So if oil-rich Calgarians 'can't afford' to buy and would rather rent, then it doesn't make Hamilton's market seem so bad.

I personally like mix rentals/owned units. I think it works well.

"Calgary vacancy rate jumps amid sluggish condo sales" (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2008/04/28/vacancy-up.html)

For one, it isn't that Calgarians cannot afford these condos or see the wisdom of renting over owning. If you haven't been to Calgary lately then you cannot understand the kind of concentrated wealth and booming economy that is happening there--and will continue for at least another five years. The prosperity is truly jaw-dropping and eye-opening, and, quite frankly, nauseating to watch the arrogance of the gauche new rich.

The issue, more than likely, or one of them, is that Calgarians are shrewd investors and have bought plenty of condos for speculation purposes. The real estate market, after a year or so of being unfathomably hot, has now settled down and become more reasonable.

Quite honestly, aside from being Canadian cities, all points of comparison really melt away between Calgary and Hamilton. For one, Calgary has 400,000+ more people. It really isn't instructive to compare real estate markets.

DC83
Apr 29, 2008, 4:44 PM
^^ I think you guys should consult the SSP: Kitchener-Waterloo section.
KW is probably a key example of what you guys are referring to... is it the new business that is forcing KW to adopt Light Rail/traffic slowing/new urban streetscapes? or vice-versa?

I'm sure the KW forumers will have some answers... it IS the 'smartest community in Canada' after-all!

FairHamilton
Apr 29, 2008, 4:55 PM
FairHamilton, I have to disagree.

Up until recently I was a young person. I worked in essentially Scarborough. I did not move there, because it sucks. I lived in Hamilton. Why? Because of the lifestyle here. I like mtn biking. Try doing that anywhere in the GTA, it's nothing remotely like what we have here. I also like going out to see music, and doing so at a reasonable price.

I developed a theory years ago that I'm sure is not news to most people, but it was what answered the question for me about why so many people (esp younger workers) waste so much of their time commuting: They'd rather live closer to where they "play" and not closer to where they "work".

So there is definitely an argument that creating a great place to live will attract people who want to live in a great place, and those crowds will attract companies who want these people as employees.

I think that creating a people-friendly urban environment with fantastic transit will do more than spending the same amount on tax breaks which may or may not attract a handful of companies to the core.

What are your ideas for attracting companies? What will make them uproot and locate here? I'd think that a rapidly building young workforce would do that better than any tax incentives could. If we rely on tax incentives, it's not like we'll be able to pick and choose who comes. We could just end up with buildings full of call centres which I don't think is the goal...

Let me start by saying, thanks for slagging where I grew up, and lived as an adult for many years. Like any place Scarborough has it's challenges, but you do know the Rouge River is easily accessible and great for mountain biking if that was important to you. Also, did you ever visit the Guild Inn park behind the Inn along the bluffs?

Second, my Marketing Prof in university told our class the biggest mistake you can make is to think you are a normal mainstream consumer and what you like/think is what the majority of others will like/think. You are thinking what you did, would be what others would like to do as well.

Third, many (if not most) that live in all the condos in Downtown Toronto walk, cab or transit to work in the downtown area. They do a lot of their living, working and playing within a few square blocks. I'll challenge you to come down to sit at the corner of Spadina and Front any weekday and see how many people are taking a short commute from their condo to work. Sure, some young people commute from outside the core to work, but many others live here. But remember we are talking about building condos in downtown here, not suburban commuting. None of the Downtown Toronto condo developments are proposing or marketing to retirees, which seems to be a re-occurring theme in Hamilton.

I don't have all the answers on how to attract businesses. But I have some ideas, like cheap rents, wage supplements, lease assistance/rebates, access to educated college and university grads, co-op students, leverage the hiring re-trained workers (federal/provincial monies) membership for executives on municipal taskforces, mayoral round tables (i.e. be a big fish in a smaller pond).

Also, you can interview the business, set criteria for those applying, and reject any that don't fit the companies you want to attract. It's wouldn't be a free-for-all.

I fear if people keep believing "Build it and they will come", when they don't come it will provide years of "what's wrong" discussion on the forum.

coalminecanary
Apr 29, 2008, 5:11 PM
Let me start by saying, thanks for slagging where I grew up, and lived as an adult for many years. Like any place Scarborough has it's challenges, but you do know the Rouge River is easily accessible and great for mountain biking if that was important to you. Also, did you ever visit the Guild Inn park behind the Inn along the bluffs?

I'm sorry to have generalized my opinion about scarborough, as I am sure it is well suited to many of the people who live there. By no stretch of the imagination is it anything near a walkable, urban community which is the lifestyle I prefer (as do many of the downtown Toronto dwellers you mention later in your post).

Second, my Marketing Prof in university told our class the biggest mistake you can make is to think you are a normal mainstream consumer and what you like/think is what the majority of others will like/think.

Understandable, but my point was that a LOT of people commute a LONG way to get to work. So clearly for a LOT of people, proximity to work must be very low on their priority list in terms of choosing a place to live. I am not claiming that everyone acts that way, but a lot certainly do, as any rushour go train or traffic camera will confirm!

Third, many (if not most) that live in all the condos in Downtown Toronto walk, cab or transit to work in the downtown area. They do a lot of their living, working and playing within a few square blocks.

But this is my point... we need to create an atmosphere that encourages people to live downtown, and be able to live out most of their day-to-day needs and desires there. This is the environment we need to foster.

So, yes, some of these dwellers moved there because they got jobs there. But I'm sure just as many (I'd argue more) looked for jobs there because that's where they wanted to live for other reasons.

I'm just saying that attracting employers may not be an effective enough catalyst. It definitely won't hurt. But there are many other things that could be considered more important. Creating bylaws that encourage mixed uses and a more human scaled downtown would help. Creating a word class transit system would help. Enforcing property standards to avoid collapsed buildings would help. Getting more trains in and out (GO and VIA) would help. My argument isn't against attracting employers, it's just that there could be other things that need to happen first.

I don't have all the answers either, but I'd argue that the most important one in your list is access to skilled work force (i.e. our grads). So perhaps the number one thing we should be doing is convincing these people that Hamilton is a great place to be, and maybe more of them willl stick around after convocation day :-)

FairHamilton
Apr 29, 2008, 5:17 PM
We are debating over a chicken and egg scenario.

It is Hamilton's job to create the environment and market for investment. They are not the direct creators of new investment. All they can do is seed it it. The city cannot or does not have any direct way to locate employment in its urban boundaries. These things are created by the market.

The best way to seed investment is to create the highest quality of life for its people and to offer incentives to businesses that can benefit from its skilled labor supply. If it does not have the available skilled labor, businesses will look elsewhere. To attract new white collar employment in Hamilton new labor forces with white collar skills will need an environment created that will attract and retain them.

Toe to toe Hamilton will loose every time to attracting low skilled labor like assembly plants to smaller communities like Cambridge and Woodstock. Hamilton is a larger city now and needs to go after new things. It is doing a fantastic job of attracting Health Services employees however.

I agree, chicken & egg.

I'm also sure if you ask business leaders, one of their criteria on re-location is the availability of government incentives. I also agree that access to a skilled workforce is also key.

Though, I'd also state that private money won't be invested until their is a need and profit to be made, and creating an urban environment when it's attempted to manufacture one, will take longer than most can handle.

How long before Light Rail runs in Hamilton? 1 year, 2 years, 5+ years, etc. than how long to attract people and businesses, 1 year, 2 years, 5+ years.......

Currently, I leave my house in the King and Sherman area at 6:30am and I'm sitting on the Toronto bound GO Train at 6:46am. HSR Transit works OK, and would be enough to pitch to employers about having a great infrastructure to get employees to work. I know it's a short run for me, but sales is almost always at least part smoke & mirrors........... And oh yeah, I'd love to work in Hamilton but there just aren't the concentration of jobs in my field (or similar fields), i.e. not many software/high tech firms

raisethehammer
Apr 29, 2008, 5:18 PM
I read the piece in today's G&M about Cowtown.
Good stuff.
It's still low density out there, but they are at least trying to change things.
They specifically mentioned removing unfriendly one-way streets (like every other normal city on planet earth who actually cares about their downtown) and adding more condos to the mix.
Next week is our turn. Hopefully it's not all about Stinson, but the other successes and struggles that we've been facing (please mention our crappy one-way streets!!!)

HAMRetrofit
Apr 29, 2008, 5:21 PM
Third, many (if not most) that live in all the condos in Downtown Toronto walk, cab or transit to work in the downtown area. They do a lot of their living, working and playing within a few square blocks. I'll challenge you to come down to sit at the corner of Spadina and Front any weekday and see how many people are taking a short commute from their condo to work.

The majority of these Lakefront Condos buyers are actually 905 expats and are commuting to their work in GTA business parks. This is the reverse commuter trend that is all over the news lately.

This is what I think Hamilton has the perfect opportunity to develop. Since so much employment growth is in GTA business parks (Burlington, Oakville, and Grimsby) the downtown has the opportunity to develop a condo market to offer a living arrangement that differs significantly from their work environment. These new residents will create a new consumer market in the downtown that will inturn attract employment there. Hamilton's infrastructure (GO train, tight street grid, possible, RT) is the perfect opportunity to exploit this situation on the Western front. LRT will make this opportunity golden.

Once tha labour is there (in the downtown) start presenting the information to employers to attract transplants. Point is that Hamilton has plenty of this employment on its doorstep but has yet to create an environment to attract them as residents.

HAMRetrofit
Apr 29, 2008, 5:27 PM
And oh yeah, I'd love to work in Hamilton but there just aren't the concentration of jobs in my field (or similar fields), i.e. not many software/high tech firms

They will follow you if you can bring another 2000 or so of your friends. Tell everyone in your field how much you like Hamilton and maybe in seven or eight years this is a possibility. Plus the Hamilton institutions (provided they care) can create local programs where student move directly into related employment.

Another factor that is certainly important is information tracking. Hamilton needs to keep track of how many of you there are so they can present the information to skilled employers to attract them there. Information is marketing in trying to attract skilled labour.

FairHamilton
Apr 29, 2008, 5:37 PM
I'm sorry to have generalized my opinion about scarborough, as I am sure it is well suited to many of the people who live there. By no stretch of the imagination is it anything near a walkable, urban community which is the lifestyle I prefer (as do many of the downtown Toronto dwellers you mention later in your post).

Yes, but it developed as a suburb and never had a historic downtown core. Still there are some walkable areas, you just need to know where to find them.

Understandable, but my point was that a LOT of people commute a LONG way to get to work. So clearly for a LOT of people, proximity to work must be very low on their priority list in terms of choosing a place to live. I am not claiming that everyone acts that way, but a lot certainly do, as any rushour go train or traffic camera will confirm!

I'm willing to place money many (majority) of those long distance commuters are 35+. I'm willing to take an unscientific poll on the GO Train tomorrow. Most that live in the small condos downtown are young. Even in my workplace, those that hit early 30's, get married leave downtown for the suburbs (Burlington, Waterdown, etc.)

But this is my point... we need to create an atmosphere that encourages people to live downtown, and be able to live out most of their day-to-day needs and desires there. This is the environment we need to foster.

Yes, but Hamilton has a lot of this already. It just needs to be promoted and positively 'spun' to others. There's a reason we just moved to the core of Hamilton from Toronto. Perhaps, I see what many others who are native to Hamilton don't. We (my wife and I) got home (GO Bus and HSR) last night, and stopped at the Drug Store on the corner, walked some clothes up to the dry cleaners, swung by the ABM at the bank on the corner, etc...... Lots of pluses to Hamilton and we aren't even downtown.

So, yes, some of these dwellers moved there because they got jobs there. But I'm sure just as many (I'd argue more) looked for jobs there because that's where they wanted to live for other reasons.

But I think it started with some who had jobs, restaurants & bars opened to serve them, more moved to the area, more jobs located in the area. I agree they are all inter-connected. But on this board everyone talks infrastructure building and no one talks job creation/attraction.

I'm just saying that attracting employers may not be an effective enough catalyst. It definitely won't hurt. But there are many other things that could be considered more important. Creating bylaws that encourage mixed uses and a more human scaled downtown would help. Creating a word class transit system would help. Enforcing property standards to avoid collapsed buildings would help. Getting more trains in and out (GO and VIA) would help. My argument isn't against attracting employers, it's just that there could be other things that need to happen first.

Sure and that's part of what the City should be doing, but not at the exclusion of attacting commerce.

I don't have all the answers either, but I'd argue that the most important one in your list is access to skilled work force (i.e. our grads). So perhaps the number one thing we should be doing is convincing these people that Hamilton is a great place to be, and maybe more of them willl stick around after convocation day :-)

If there were jobs some would stay convocation day. I know when I graduated from WLU, there was nothing in K-W for me, and my graduating class. Unless you wanted to work at an insurance company there was pretty much nothing. This was before the high-tech boom of Open Text, RIM, etc (we actually turned RIM down for credit during that period, hahaha little did we know at that time). Everyone of my graduating class, except my best friend who married a Kitchener girl left after graduation. The reason was at that time there were no jobs for us. I eventually found a job in K-W, but it was a shitty job and only a stopping point until I landed in software back in Toronto a few years later.

FairHamilton
Apr 29, 2008, 5:48 PM
They will follow you if you can bring another 2000 or so of your friends. Tell everyone in your field how much you like Hamilton and maybe in seven or eight years this is a possibility. Plus the Hamilton institutions (provided they care) can create local programs where student move directly into related employment.

Another factor that is certainly important is information tracking. Hamilton needs to keep track of how many of you there are so they can present the information to skilled employers to attract them there. Information is marketing in trying to attract skilled labour.

My point exactly, 2000 people is a lot of people to convince when you work for a company that employs 65 people. But, that's up from 50 a year ago.

Hmmm I guess a few companies like that in Hamilton would be good for downtown Hamilton. Seems easier, if Hamilton would go to a bunch of small high-tech companies and say what can we do to get you to locate your operations (or part of your operations) in less expensive Hamilton as you look at the cost of additional space in that expensive Toronto market............

If the city or anyone else wants to know how many of us are out there, they can interview people at the GO Station on any morning of the week.

matt602
Apr 29, 2008, 5:50 PM
So... how's that Royal Connaught Hotel doing anyway?

:rolleyes:

DC83
Apr 29, 2008, 5:59 PM
So... how's that Royal Connaught Hotel doing anyway?

:rolleyes:

haha Sorry. I feel somewhat responsible for this one :s haha
I started talking about Stinson making The Connaught half rental, half condo... and this whole "Hamilton condo buyers" debate began. My Bad! haha

But seriously. I think Hamiltonians are somewhat hesitant to purchase condos (for whatever reason, I don't know)... so perhaps given them the option to rent the Connaught unit before buying may sway their decisions.
It's one thing to be stuck w/ a year's lease in a bldg you don't like, it's complete hell to be stuck with a 25yr mortgage in a hole you can't sell!

coalminecanary
Apr 29, 2008, 6:00 PM
FH, so we can agree that we need to attack all of these areas. Your initial post made a strong argument that creating an urban environment was futile unless we attract a bunch of high-end employers first. I just think that we have to focus our energies on more than pandering to the corporate world. We also have to be careful about which companies we bend over for. Great example is how we've let a few large developers have a huge say in how the city has grown.

I didn't mean to get into a discussion about why Scarborough is not urban, or where the pockets of urban living are there.. I jsut meant it as a juxtaposition for our downtown which could be truly urban and dense (and you are right, it *is* -- but it could be better!)


So... how's that Royal Connaught Hotel doing anyway?

:rolleyes:

Well it's still standing, thank god

raisethehammer
Apr 29, 2008, 6:36 PM
ok, a little update. Not much new, but still thought I'd post.
Stinson has purchased the Connaught (in principle), but has till end of June to secure financing to close the deal.
So, I guess we'll have to wait a couple more months on this one.

FairHamilton
Apr 29, 2008, 8:08 PM
FH, so we can agree that we need to attack all of these areas. Your initial post made a strong argument that creating an urban environment was futile unless we attract a bunch of high-end employers first. I just think that we have to focus our energies on more than pandering to the corporate world. We also have to be careful about which companies we bend over for. Great example is how we've let a few large developers have a huge say in how the city has grown.

I just don't think social engineering on it's own works. I'm all for the infrastructure proposed, but personally, I don't think that Hamilton has the money, nor the polical time/will to solely engage in huge social engineering. Is seems that anytime something is suggested to improve downtown the suburban councillors throw up objections (i.e. one-way street conversion). And all the social engineering talked about on this board involves provincial monies, i.e. Lister needs $7M from province, LRT/BRT needs substantial money from the Province, etc. I hope that money tap doesn't dry up....

Look at the $40 Million for the Lister Block, and all we end up with is office space in a market that already has a glut of space (if I owned an office building in Dowtown Hamilton, I'd be calling the mayor and councillors every day asking them for money for my 1/4 empty building because they are adding to the market with susidized space), and senior residences. And what's the budget for an LRT?

Yet, not one says lets set up a million, or two and see what small up-and-coming companies are out there that would like an area with inexpensive rents, access to many university and college grads & co-op students, some financial incentives and the ear of a friendly local government. I'm not talking about throwing money to RIM, Microsoft or IBM, I'm talking about targeting small and mid-sized companies who are employing young people and doing some exciting things. Hardly seems pandering to the corporate world.

I don't understand why so many on this board aren't more interested in filling the vacant office space downtown (25% vacant), but want to stock downtown full of condos. To me it seems we should be helping the landlords who have invested in office buildings Hamilton. If we worked at bringing more business to Hamilton, filled their buildings we could build on that infrastructure that is already in place instead of building more buildings (which might also be 25% vacant).

That's it for my rant!!! Sorry for the thread hi-jack.

BTW, I hope Stinson secures the financing, as I think it would be a boon to downtown Hamilton. I'm looking forward to the Globe & Mail article next Tuesday.

coalminecanary
Apr 29, 2008, 8:15 PM
I see what you are saying.. I just think we can't dismiss the "social engineering". And it doesn't have to be expensive. For instance, maintaining property standards could be a net gain, not an expenditure: you pay someone to enforce it (slap fines) but then you collect fines. And with proper enforcement, this lister debacle could have been avoided. It is only costing this much because LIUNA wants a free ride. If they were fined to the point of not affording demolition by neglect, we may already have begun a lister reno having forced them to shit or get off the pot! Painting bike lanes, giving existing buses transit priority/dedicated lanes... these kind of small things don't cost a lot but they could have a great effect.

With the MIP, I think we have a good example of how we can (and do sometimes try to) attract decent businesses. Let's hope the adjacent land doesn't get wasted on big boxes.

I see value in giving financial incentive to businesses looking at our downtown... but without all of the infrastructure to support a vibrant urban community, it's not going to bring in residents... and in the end, the downtown is nothing without residents.

drpgq
Apr 30, 2008, 2:19 AM
I too think that the MIP is a good first step for attracting high tech
companies. I remember as a graduate student in the ECE
department at Mac, around 6 years ago, they hired a prof who was
at Waterloo who had a little company. When he came, he moved
it to Burlington rather than Hamilton. With the MIP hopefully that
won't happen as much, as there will be a logical destination.

BCTed
Apr 30, 2008, 5:34 AM
I too think that the MIP is a good first step for attracting high tech
companies. I remember as a graduate student in the ECE
department at Mac, around 6 years ago, they hired a prof who was
at Waterloo who had a little company. When he came, he moved
it to Burlington rather than Hamilton. With the MIP hopefully that
won't happen as much, as there will be a logical destination.

ECE professors tend to be a weird lot. He probably just thought he was locating in North Hamilton.

fastcarsfreedom
Apr 30, 2008, 6:42 AM
DC83 I agree to an extent that there may be hesitence in the market as far as buying condos goes--it's a very unique lifestyle--and speaking from my own experience, not one that I would ever recommend someone delve into without very careful consideration. The Condo "community" develops it's own character--no two buildings are the same--they are the sum of their parts. It is also a costly lifestyle--again speaking from my own experience. The Connaught is a great spot--and condos on the site are a great idea--I just can't agree wtih the "boutique hotel" strategy--granted, I don't have the market savvy or experience--I just think keeping the Connaught in the 200 guestroom neighborhood and doing condos in an adjacent building is the better strategy--but beggars can't be choosers--anything will beat the status quo.

the dude
Apr 30, 2008, 10:19 AM
personally, i can't imagine wanting to live in a condo. i guess it suits people who don't have the desire to deal with home and yard maintenance. moreso, i think it suits people who can't afford the astronomical cost of home ownership in many of our cities. as has already been stated, the number of condos in hamilton is proportional to the [relative] affordability of homes in hamilton - if my wife and i [engineer & teacher] are able to purchase an older, renovated home 5 minutes from the core, that says something about the market. most people in our income bracket in larger canadian cities are priced out of the market. if we lived in ottawa we'd be forced to live in kanata, barhaven or some other god-awful place [sorry suburbanites]. another good reason to stay in the hammer. anyway, i hope stinson can unload the condos he's planning to build.

oldcoote
Apr 30, 2008, 2:16 PM
I too think that the MIP is a good first step for attracting high tech
companies. I remember as a graduate student in the ECE
department at Mac, around 6 years ago, they hired a prof who was
at Waterloo who had a little company. When he came, he moved
it to Burlington rather than Hamilton. With the MIP hopefully that
won't happen as much, as there will be a logical destination.

Commercial property taxes are punitive in Hamilton. And to think, they've come down a lot!

oldcoote
Apr 30, 2008, 2:21 PM
personally, i can't imagine wanting to live in a condo. i guess it suits people who don't have the desire to deal with home and yard maintenance. moreso, i think it suits people who can't afford the astronomical cost of home ownership in many of our cities. as has already been stated, the number of condos in hamilton is proportional to the [relative] affordability of homes in hamilton - if my wife and i [engineer & teacher] are able to purchase an older, renovated home 5 minutes from the core, that says something about the market. most people in our income bracket in larger canadian cities are priced out of the market. if we lived in ottawa we'd be forced to live in kanata, barhaven or some other god-awful place [sorry suburbanites]. another good reason to stay in the hammer. anyway, i hope stinson can unload the condos he's planning to build.

The traditional demographic of condo owners was retiree's who want to downsize and yuppies looking to own their first property.

In Toronto, where housing prices have sky-rocketed, I believe a few other groups, the young family and the investor, was starting to invest more heavily in the condo market.

I believe Hamilton will have to rely, at least at first, upon the aging population to support it's condo market. The question is, will they want to live downtown?

SteelTown
Apr 30, 2008, 2:29 PM
According to the Spec today, Hamilton has 200,000 seniors. The highest senior ratio in Ontario, lemme get the quote.

SteelTown
Apr 30, 2008, 2:30 PM
"With about 200,000 senior citizens, Hamilton's regional health network already has the most seniors of any in Ontario. That number is projected to grow dramatically as baby boomers move from middle age to old age."

HAMRetrofit
Apr 30, 2008, 2:41 PM
^ who will be last to shut out the lights? Is this 200,000 in the metro? or for the old city of Hamilton.

If it is the old city of Hamilton 2/3 the population is going to die off within 25 years.

raisethehammer
Apr 30, 2008, 4:22 PM
I just got my copy of the Downtowner.
The proposed plan for Connaught looks great. It's like a skinny 1KW type of building.
It's still conceptual, but you can see it's been tailored to this site. Much nicer than Sapphire IMO.
You can also see the 7-storey loft building on site too.

HAMRetrofit
Apr 30, 2008, 4:30 PM
Someone with a copy scan it and post it.

chris k
Apr 30, 2008, 10:30 PM
Someone with a copy scan it and post it.

Yes Please
I would be grateful:)


Cheers

matt602
Apr 30, 2008, 11:18 PM
I'd very much like to see this as well.

Millstone
Apr 30, 2008, 11:20 PM
http://fox.memoryfire.com/ssp/con1.jpg
http://fox.memoryfire.com/ssp/con2.jpg

SteelTown
Apr 30, 2008, 11:25 PM
Ohh a slander building, a like skinny buildings myself.

matt602
Apr 30, 2008, 11:26 PM
Well, it certainly is ambitious. I guess the next 2 months will tell the story.

SteelTown
Apr 30, 2008, 11:29 PM
No doubt next Tuesday in the Globe and Mail will contain more infornation.

JT Jacobs
May 1, 2008, 12:03 AM
I love the slender building. Let's recall that 1 King W is only 19 feet wide and represents innovative design, so this modified tower is great, to me. It's much more suitable than the Sapphire concept.

The three phases all sound reasonable to me, too. In fact, I can't find anything to quibble about in this entire project. I have every confidence that he'll pull it off. What a boon for Hamilton!

chris k
May 1, 2008, 12:30 AM
Looks good even though it is only a conseptual drawing.

He even has an email set up to answer our many questions
(info@royalconnaught.com)

Looks great and hopefully G&M does a good positive peice about the project.


Cheers

hammergirl
May 1, 2008, 12:51 AM
Nice!

Looking forward to the G&M article

SteelTown
May 1, 2008, 12:54 AM
Having the corners of the slander building face North and South is another smart move. Imagine having a panoramic view facing South looking towards the waterfront and TO. The North view will be the escarpment.

chris k
May 1, 2008, 1:56 AM
Having the corners of the slander building face North and South is another smart move. Imagine having a panoramic view facing South looking towards the waterfront and TO. The North view will be the escarpment.

You mean vice versa right?? lol

but yeah i agree, those views will be spectacular and it would make more sense according to the shape of the lot. right?

SteelTown
May 1, 2008, 1:59 AM
Crap yea I got my North and South mixed up lol

raisethehammer
May 1, 2008, 2:09 AM
I see your copy was also folded down the middle like mine. haha.

Jon Dalton
May 1, 2008, 5:07 AM
And finally, the redevelopment of the connaught hotel is finally moving forward

two, three and bedroom suites

Who wrote this?

BCTed
May 1, 2008, 12:23 PM
I love the slender building. Let's recall that 1 King W is only 19 feet wide and represents innovative design, so this modified tower is great, to me. It's much more suitable than the Sapphire concept.

The three phases all sound reasonable to me, too. In fact, I can't find anything to quibble about in this entire project. I have every confidence that he'll pull it off. What a boon for Hamilton!

19 feet wide? Are you sure?

realcity
May 1, 2008, 12:27 PM
Where's all the nay sayers? Fast, Ted, Gold? anyone anyone one..... one...


This looks awesome. I can't wait until a crane goes up.

raisethehammer
May 1, 2008, 1:24 PM
19 feet wide? Are you sure?


It's 15 metres according to this website (which, in all friendliness, took me one google search to find....let's all feel free to do light research when questioning statements on the board).

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=1kingwest-toronto-canada

Goldfinger
May 1, 2008, 1:30 PM
Where's all the nay sayers? Fast, Ted, Gold? anyone anyone one..... one...


This looks awesome. I can't wait until a crane goes up.

Oh yes I know, when you see the story breaking in the pages of thr Downtowner you have to know that it's a done deal.:haha:

Fact is, the old consortium still owns the property. When I see the cranes (and that will never happen with Stinson in charge) and the actual sale close then I will believe it.

Don't be so gullible.

raisethehammer
May 1, 2008, 1:50 PM
Oh yes I know, when you see the story breaking in the pages of thr Downtowner you have to know that it's a done deal.:haha:

Fact is, the old consortium still owns the property. When I see the cranes (and that will never happen with Stinson in charge) and the actual sale close then I will believe it.

Don't be so gullible.

hmmm, so if Stinson doesn't use cranes how did 1KW get built??

realcity
May 1, 2008, 3:07 PM
Stinson owns the Connaught.

Why are you so against this happening? or don't want to see it happen?

HAMRetrofit
May 1, 2008, 3:20 PM
He is probably just bitter because he knows he won't get the drywall contract.

raisethehammer
May 1, 2008, 3:24 PM
Lol....

JT Jacobs
May 1, 2008, 4:17 PM
19 feet wide? Are you sure?

Yeah, that doesn't look right to me now. I can't remember the precise measurement, but it is slender. Why don't you scour for it?

FairHamilton
May 1, 2008, 4:18 PM
Stinson owns the Connaught.



I'm not against it happening, but I do believe there is still a June date for having financing lined up before Stinson unequivocally owns the building (or his financiers own it).

beanmedic
May 1, 2008, 5:15 PM
19 feet wide? Are you sure?

I think that should be 1.9 feet. :banana: :banana:

But seriously...

Quote:
two, three and bedroom suites

I think that should read 'two, three and four bedroom suites'

HAMRetrofit
May 1, 2008, 5:25 PM
I am pretty sure it should read one, two, and three bedroom suits.

what about bachelors though?

FairHamilton
May 1, 2008, 5:32 PM
Yeah, that doesn't look right to me now. I can't remember the precise measurement, but it is slender. Why don't you scour for it?

1KW is 14.25m wide, but I believe that's the width once it gets above the Dominion Club building on the corner of King & Yonge. I think it's narrower below the top of the Dominion Club building.

I'll try to remember to look tonight on my way home and post the configuration.

matt602
May 1, 2008, 7:49 PM
Oh yes I know, when you see the story breaking in the pages of thr Downtowner you have to know that it's a done deal.:haha:

Fact is, the old consortium still owns the property. When I see the cranes (and that will never happen with Stinson in charge) and the actual sale close then I will believe it.

Don't be so gullible.

Fact is, the consortium never got anything done either. They ripped the asbestos out, then whored the building out to movie studios. They can't even be bothered updating the fire system for the fire department, nor sealing the building up.

Running out of money isn't an excuse in my book. They should have sold the building to someone that actually HAS money and plans for the building, instead of sitting on it and letting it go to shit. Wow, this is starting to sound like another famous slumlord owner that we talk about often (who also has their hands in this consortium).

raisethehammer
May 1, 2008, 8:59 PM
that bloody consortium is one of the worst things to ever happen to Hamilton. Slumlords at it's worst, especially the principle group that is destroying King William before our eyes.

Goldfinger
May 1, 2008, 10:51 PM
Stinson owns the Connaught.

Why are you so against this happening? or don't want to see it happen?

Stinson owns f-all.

I see every commercial transaction go though the LRO and they have not closed.

realcity
May 2, 2008, 12:23 AM
^ did you quote me to answer the question? because your comment has no relation to the quoted question. He'll soon own it, then reveal the plans, then start building.

flar
May 2, 2008, 12:55 AM
Stinson owns f-all.

I see every commercial transaction go though the LRO and they have not closed.

As has been stated here a few times already, the closing date is in June.

BCTed
May 2, 2008, 1:04 AM
It's 15 metres according to this website (which, in all friendliness, took me one google search to find....let's all feel free to do light research when questioning statements on the board).

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=1kingwest-toronto-canada

It seems that you felt free to do my research for me.

BCTed
May 2, 2008, 1:11 AM
Where's all the nay sayers? Fast, Ted, Gold? anyone anyone one..... one...


This looks awesome. I can't wait until a crane goes up.

I am right here. Goldfinger already replied to your post.

This article changes nothing, and nothing has come up to this point to suggest to me that there is any real likelihood that this building will ever come about.

"Images depicted are conceptual in nature and subject to final design approvals". Those images will probably remain conceptual forever.

Even in the extremely unlikely event that a 50+ story tower gets built, I will still be here.

Why the constant antagonism?

raisethehammer
May 2, 2008, 2:43 AM
Why the constant skepticism?

BCTed
May 2, 2008, 2:47 AM
Why the constant skepticism?

The skepticism is warranted. The antagonism is not.

Millstone
May 2, 2008, 2:57 AM
I sense some posts have been disappearing.

raisethehammer
May 2, 2008, 2:57 AM
antagonism?? please, for once can you just have a normal conversation?
Why the skepticism? How is it warranted?

raisethehammer
May 2, 2008, 2:58 AM
I sense some posts have been disappearing.

I wish some would. lol.

Maybe our new mods are taking their first stab at dominating the world. :worship:

BCTed
May 2, 2008, 3:06 AM
I already linked to a few articles on Harry's shady financing and his non-relationship with the banks.

Here is one that talks a bit about some investors, large and small, who were lefting holding the bag after putting money into Stinson:

http://www.thestar.com/article/252412

What is there to be optimistic about with this guy?

raisethehammer
May 2, 2008, 3:14 AM
His projects have turned out well. They've made a lot of money for a lot of people.
1KW is a smashing success.
The only project that didn't get built was Sapphire because
a) TO city council started screwing around with it, and
b) the lawsuit with Mirvish

At least his track record shows quality, mixed-use projects to be completed and sold-out.

HAMRetrofit
May 2, 2008, 3:20 AM
I already linked to a few articles on Harry's shady financing and his non-relationship with the banks.

Here is one that talks a bit about some investors, large and small, who were lefting holding the bag after putting money into Stinson:

http://www.thestar.com/article/252412

What is there to be optimistic about with this guy?

Everyone knows the Stinson and Mirvish story. It is old news, developers get back up again, shake off the dust and get back into the game. No project is entirely perfect. Especially in Ontario where home ownership is so ingrained into the collective. He has built impressive projects in the past. He is ambitious to pursue this Hamilton project. I think that the project is warranted and will receive strong political backing at this point in time.

The thing to be optimistic about is that he envisions great projects and gets them built. That is something that Hamilton has to look forward to. As for the project making money who knows? I am sure that it will but that is for the future to decide. Until then I expect this project to proceed as planned.

raisethehammer
May 2, 2008, 3:22 AM
yea, for once we'll see Hamilton city council allow a development that TO council would fret over and scrutinize to death.
We don't have much choice here....it's Stinson or more BS from LIUNA.

raisethehammer
May 2, 2008, 3:23 AM
by the way, I really think that the Globe and Mail piece on Tuesday will be good.
Knowing that Stinson is a main character in the story leads me to believe that it will be positive. he's been nothing but great for the city and our exposure since coming here.
G&M gives him a national presence to hopefully draw some other curious builders to our city. I expect he'll hit one out of the park in this article.

BCTed
May 2, 2008, 3:28 AM
His projects have turned out well. They've made a lot of money for a lot of people.
1KW is a smashing success.


How much money for which people?

One King West is only a success in that it somehow got built.


Here's an article on Sapphire investors and their fun ride:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070825.STINSON25/TPStory/?query=sapphire

BCTed
May 2, 2008, 3:41 AM
by the way, I really think that the Globe and Mail piece on Tuesday will be good.
Knowing that Stinson is a main character in the story leads me to believe that it will be positive. he's been nothing but great for the city and our exposure since coming here.
G&M gives him a national presence to hopefully draw some other curious builders to our city. I expect he'll hit one out of the park in this article.

I really can't imagine that Stinson has done anything to change perceptions of Hamilton. All he has done to this point is make a bit of noise for his own publicity.

As far as I can tell, you had never even heard of the guy until last fall. If you had never heard of him when he was a high profile Toronto guy, then you can bet that people across the country have never heard of him or what he has done as a Hamilton guy. This stuff is barely even a blip on anyone's radar.

If anything, Torontonians who have heard about his move to Hamilton are probably laughing about it.

flar
May 2, 2008, 3:48 AM
If anything, Torontonians who have heard about his move to Hamilton are probably laughing about it.

Torontonians are definitely laughing about it, the general level of contempt for Stinson is high there. I don't care much about Stinson's financial dealings. Investing in anything is risky, and based on what I've seen I personally wouldn't invest my money. But some of his projects have been made a reality, if he can reopen the Connaught Hotel more power to him. I'll be happy.

matt602
May 2, 2008, 4:10 AM
Generally Torontonians laugh about anything to do with Hamilton. The fact that Stinson has anything to do with it probably doesn't change it much.

HAMRetrofit
May 2, 2008, 4:37 AM
Guys the only thing that Torontonians gawk at is the heavy industry on the waterfront. There is a warm buzz about a turn around downtown and potential light rail. Keep in mind it was Toronto expats that helped turn around James North. So try to give yourselves and us here in Toronto some credit. Consensus among people I know in Toronto is that Hamilton is not that bad.

We won't get into the Mirvish thing because as you know there are mixed feelings on both sides. There are two sides to every story and one of which received far more publicity for obvious reasons.

raisethehammer
May 2, 2008, 11:03 AM
How much money for which people?

One King West is only a success in that it somehow got built.


Here's an article on Sapphire investors and their fun ride:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070825.STINSON25/TPStory/?query=sapphire

many investors and partners made a fortune off 1KW. The place sold out in no time.
In fact, I'm betting that we'll see some of those same investors on board with Connaught.

And yes, I knew who he was back 'in the day'.
In fact, 1KW has always been my favourite new tower in TO. I was pulling for him when he was set to dual Trump for tallest in TO.
All you ever bring up is Sapphire.
1KW was a resounding success. His mixed-use loft concepts at Candy Factory et al have also proven to be insanely popular in TO.

BCTed
May 2, 2008, 11:50 AM
many investors and partners made a fortune off 1KW. The place sold out in no time.
In fact, I'm betting that we'll see some of those same investors on board with Connaught.

And yes, I knew who he was back 'in the day'.
In fact, 1KW has always been my favourite new tower in TO. I was pulling for him when he was set to dual Trump for tallest in TO.
All you ever bring up is Sapphire.
1KW was a resounding success. His mixed-use loft concepts at Candy Factory et al have also proven to be insanely popular in TO.


I have never heard about any investors/partners making a fortune off of One King West --- where have you heard it?? Are you making it up? Is your post anything other than a troll? I have heard the opposite many, many times. The only people I can see making money are contractors who physically built the place and those people who purchased and flipped units that appreciated in price, but that profit would be strictly because of exogenous factors and not because of the project itself. The whole thing was a financial boondoggle.

All I ever bring up is Sapphire?? What are you talking about? I just posted a link maybe a dozen posts ago about 1KW investors losing their shirts. I have posted about Sapphire, One King West, the Candy Factory, other projects, and this "conceptual" 80 story building in equal measure.

If One King West had been a "resounding success", Stinson would not have lost control of it. He would not have closed the Dominion Club. He would not have taken forever to finish the interior of the building. He would not have incorrectly assumed that units would have been appropriate for residential taxation rather than commercial taxation and would not have advertised so falsely. He would not have had David Mirvish chase him around in court for money. He would not have thrown away other investors' money. The only successful thing about the building is that it somehow got built.

Stinson got kicked out of the Candy Factory and was not there to see it through to completion --- in fact, I think it was far from completion when he got the boot.

Going forward, which 1KW investors do you think are coming back to put money into the Connaught? David Mirvish? Average Joes? If Stinson were so good at lining up investors, he would never have gone to these average Joes for financing and lost them money. Goodness, the guy did freaking infomercials to get people to buy into his false promises. Banks will certainly not lend him money. I would not invest in him. flar would not invest in him. The last thing I read about the Connaught suggested that he was still looking to firm up his financing --- he may well be standing at Gore Park with an outstretched ball cap hoping for a few nickels.

The guy has simply always had financing problems and that has been very well documented --- I still do not understand how you cannot see this. If he had any recourse in Toronto, he would still be there --- city hall would not have been enough to keep him away. Even if he did have people who would still invest in him for Toronto projects, Hamilton would be a much tougher sell, and a 50+ story tower would be near impossible.

There is a reason why the guy is looked upon with disdain. There is a reason why I have no belief in him.

If he proves me wrong and saves Hamilton, fine. I have never said that it cannot happen, but I sure have difficulty believing it right now.

FairHamilton
May 2, 2008, 12:45 PM
As has been stated here a few times already, the closing date is in June.

Then in all fairness to everyone, lets refer to Stinson's interest in the Connaught as 'pending' ownership until its a closed deal.

FairHamilton
May 2, 2008, 1:04 PM
How much money for which people?

One King West is only a success in that it somehow got built.


Here's an article on Sapphire investors and their fun ride:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070825.STINSON25/TPStory/?query=sapphire

Didn't I read something on one of these threads about Stinson mentioning in an interview a great condo sale deal on pre-purchased condos? Hmm, history repeating itself or perhaps he's trading on peoples short memories?

Let me say, I hope something happens with the Connaught but I'm also in agreement with BCTed, Stinson track record does not bode well.

I think, optimism is great, but unbridled optimism can be dangerous. Ask David Bergart on his feelings of treating things with a good dose of skeptism now..............

I have the feeling the optimism which exists on this board exists because no one here is opening there wallet for what they think is the best thing ever. Who here is going to pre-buy at the Connaught? Full payment upfront, with only a promissory note. You'll be last in line during a bankruptcy. Any takers??