So what was the impetus for the redevelopment in the first place?
Was it "unlocking" development potential or was it the "greening" of Central Heat Distribution or likely the first under the guise of the second?
If it was largely the second, then it should be something that should stand on its own merits.
The failure of the development and its impact on the shared use occupant (Creative Energy) echoes other co-development / shared space projects such those embarked on by churches with low attendance and the failed Canadian Legion redevelopment in Burnaby.
https://www.burnabynow.com/local-new...d-deal-3079012
The question in this case is whether Creative Energy was adequately and independently represented in its dealings with Westbank. If the facility does not get built, Creative Energy should be suing its lawyer and Westbank.