Royal Connaught Hotel | ? | 36 fl, 33 fl, 24 fl & 13 fl | U/C - Page 52

SteelTown · #**1021** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 3:25 PM**

Some staff at City Hall I guess could be labeled as "low-income". Some make minimum wage. City Hall doesn't have a living wage policy.

FairHamilton · #**1022** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 3:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelTown

This is not low-income development because the owner is paying somewhere around $200,000 per unit, almost the same for condo units in Hamilton. With the assistance from the goverment the owners will have 100 units with 80% of market rental rate.

My understanding is the $27M is to only develop the 100 below market rate units, and not the entire project (206 units, plus commericial). That means each unit is costing $270,000 with $180,000+ covered by government.

Do you have differing information?

And let us not forget that $18M is only the starting point. The developers also plan to tap the Residential Loan program for a couple of million.

FairHamilton · #**1023** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 3:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by markbarbera

It isn't a low income development, it is a mixed use development. Half the units are reduced rate affordable housing rentals (80% of market rate) and the other half are market rate rentals. Was is everyone obsessing so much about the affordable housing portion of the redevelopment and ignoring the other aspects of this development. Classic half-empty/half-full perspective.

The problem is the development is not operating in parallel, it's operating in serial. We are funding the below market rate, and the market rate are to come sometime in the future.

The market rate units are nothing but a proposal, period. There is no committment. I'd be very surprised if it ever happened.

markbarbera · #**1024** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 3:33 PM**

I can understand how the cost figures seem high, but this is after all a restoration/renovation project. Much higher costs associated to a restoration rather than building new.

Does it matter if they tap into the residential loan program down the road, operative word being 'loan'.

FairHamilton · #**1025** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 3:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by markbarbera

I can understand how that form can give the perception that there are a lot of units in the downtown core. After all, just under 23% of the entire stock is located here - 3573. Given this, an additional 100 units certainly isn't going to tip the scale and cause the core to implode upon itself. In fact, when all the prosed units are added to the pool citywide, the percentage in each area remains about the same.

What's that density wise,? I bet the downtown core density/sq. km is more than triple (probably quadruple) other area's of the city.

markbarbera · #**1026** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 3:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FairHamilton

The market rate units are nothing but a proposal, period. There is no committment. I'd be very surprised if it ever happened.

I must have missed something. Where in the proposal does it say the project is serial and not in tandem? Has anyone actually seen the proposal, or are we still surmising based on the few lines about the project that appeared on the meeting agenda?

FairHamilton · #**1027** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 3:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by markbarbera

I can understand how the cost figures seem high, but this is after all a restoration/renovation project. Much higher costs associated to a restoration rather than building new.

Does it matter if they tap into the residential loan program down the road, operative word being 'loan'.

I understand restoration cost more than new. I'm of the mind that if we could get 300 units of affordable housing for the $18M it's better than the $100 we are getting with this proposal.

Interest free loans still have a cost to the city, and that cost needs to be taken into account.

markbarbera · #**1028** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 3:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FairHamilton

What's that density wise,? I bet the downtown core density/sq. km is more than triple (probably quadruple) other area's of the city.

Another way to look at it is what is the percentage of affordable units vs those at full market rate, and is this significantly different from other parts of the city?

FairHamilton · #**1029** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 3:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by markbarbera

I must have missed something. Where in the proposal does it say the project is serial and not in tandem? Has anyone actually seen the proposal, or are we still surmising based on the few lines about the project that appeared on the meeting agenda?

So why are you assuming this is in parallel? The proposal is not public record, at least to my knowledge (another troubling part of this whole process)

Maybe I'm reading this wrong;

Quote:

COAHP funding of 100 rental units will be the catalyst for the creation of an additional 106 market-rate rental units (for a total of 206 rental units), 20,000 square feet of commercial space

But when I read this there is no mention of building the market-rate at the same time. If they were building it at the same time they'd trumpet it to make the recommendation all the more attractive. I write and read proposals all the time, and ambiguity means something and it's not usually in the favour of the person receiving the proposal.

My guess is they'll do this in phases, and after the government sponsored Phase 1 is done, there will be an excuse to delay Phase 2.

FairHamilton · #**1030** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 3:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by markbarbera

Another way to look at it is what is the percentage of affordable units vs those at full market rate, and is this significantly different from other parts of the city?

I'm sure it does, but you didn't answer my question.

markbarbera · #**1031** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 3:54 PM**

It could very well be triple the density of other areas in the city, but this makes perfect sense if the overall population of downtown is at least triple that of other parts of the city. That would mean the distribution is proportionately balanced throughout the city.

markbarbera · #**1032** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 4:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FairHamilton

So why are you assuming this is in parallel? The proposal is not public record, at least to my knowledge (another troubling part of this whole process)

Maybe I'm reading this wrong;

Quote:

COAHP funding of 100 rental units will be the catalyst for the creation of an additional 106 market-rate rental units (for a total of 206 rental units), 20,000 square feet of commercial space

But when I read this there is no mention of building the market-rate at the same time. If they were building it at the same time they'd trumpet it to make the recommendation all the more attractive. I write and read proposals all the time, and ambiguity means something and it's not usually in the favour of the person receiving the proposal.

My guess is they'll do this in phases, and after the government sponsored Phase 1 is done, there will be an excuse to delay Phase 2.

Some pretty big assumptions going on based on this one line. You are assuming 'catalyst' implies phased development. There is no mention whatsoever on how the development will proceed, so why jump to this conclusion?

If this is all the evidence we are working with on the development details, then your guess is as good as mine.

FairHamilton · #**1033** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 4:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by markbarbera

It could very well be triple the density of other areas in the city, but this makes perfect sense if the overall population of downtown is at least triple that of other parts of the city. That would mean the distribution is proportionately balanced throughout the city.

But ignores geographic concentration, which is important as well.

FairHamilton · #**1034** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 4:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by markbarbera

Some pretty big assumptions going on based on this one line. You are assuming 'catalyst' implies phased development. There is no mention whatsoever on how the development will proceed, so why jump to this conclusion?

If this is all the evidence we are working with on the development details, then your guess is as good as mine.

Great!

I'll stop saying serial, if you stop justifying the proposal by saying we are getting market rate at the same time with this proposal.

markbarbera · #**1035** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 4:05 PM**

Don't put words in my mouth. What I have consistently pointed out is that the proposal is a mixed use redevelopment that includes 100 units at 80% market rate, 106 units at full market rate, and 20,000 square feet of commercial space.

SteelTown · #**1036** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 4:11 PM**

That proposal was even stated out nice and clearly from City Hall staff during Council last night. Mixed used-mixed income development.

highwater · #**1037** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 4:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by markbarbera

Was is everyone obsessing so much about the affordable housing portion of the redevelopment and ignoring the other aspects of this development. Classic half-empty/half-full perspective.

Probably because the developers are sleazeballs and we don't want them raking in profits on the public dime for doing sweet f*ck all.

astroblaster · #**1038** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 4:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by coalminecanary

Hamilton Civic League anyone?

Wednesday, September 30. Workers Arts and Heritage center
7:30

Let's talk Civic league.

I'll post more details soon.

highwater · #**1039** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 5:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by markbarbera

Some pretty big assumptions going on based on this one line. You are assuming 'catalyst' implies phased development. There is no mention whatsoever on how the development will proceed, so why jump to this conclusion?

The assumptions are going on based on the character of the developers. They have brought this well-deserved skepticism on themselves.

markbarbera · #**1040** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 5:35 PM**

The developers are Ted Valeri, Oscar Kichi, Tony Battaglia and Mehran Koranki.

Is your opinion of them based strictly on their handling of the Connaught thus far, or is there more of a history here? What past developments by these individuals has been mishandled to justify the tags of 'sleazeballs'?