Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
It looks like they are just pointing out that there is interest in an NSLC location for the Queen Street site. It makes sense to mention that since it makes the site more attractive.
From the perspective of growing that area I think it's positive to have major tenants on "fringe" sites. That stretch of Queen can become like Dresden Row.
I have never seen a good explanation for this delay. Turner Drake described HRM/provincial (which is mostly WDCL) development as "leisurely". There doesn't seem to be any consequence for bureaucrats when a key parcel of land sits vacant for decades.
|
I've gotten the sense (from the people I've talked too 'inside') it really isn't the planning department, so much as the real estate arm, which is in a completely different section. Either way though; it's disturbing that a group (whose purpose is to sell city land for a good return) is so slow - that doesn't say much. I don't recall who all is there still, but I got the sense that many had been around for a while - so I wonder if once the retirements start, if the speed will pick up with new blood? Just a guess on that though. BUt I wouldn't call it bad SDM - I know we're doing something similar with the east village, but I don't think we're naming the lots. I guess it's just something different, but I would hope they didn't hire someone to do it for them and at least did it in house.
As for the packaging of the lots - it's interesting. I'm neither here nor there about it; but it's an interesting idea. I think this is the first time they've done it this way but I'm sure it will get better.