I'm not sure exactly what the developer has in mind or what exactly his timeline, but the development/municipality communication here could definitely ought to get some specifics hammered out if this project is to move forward in the right direction. Re: underground parking, I don't know if you can do anything about the necessity of parking, but definitely building up something that doesn't work and having to turn to restoration is slowing things down. Is this about the municipality's rigid ideas or is this a matter of miscommunication? Perhaps there are just general concerns in terms of parking and one of the problems with the underground concept is very confused navigation of vehicles. The most important element is likely the LEEDs certification in terms of direction with this project. Is it perhaps that not having the LEEDs has hampered momentum? certainly it seems like the municipality (why?) is intentionally veering development away from its initial direction, so perhaps that has discouraged Ben McCrea and set him off in the wrong directions. Point being that the lack of encouragement and easement from the municipality re
evelopment, could be creating more fears than are really necessary and troubling in terms of sustainability of this project as a whole. Last, vague on the details of the HRM agreement. Could it not proceed because it was a tie? Or are increased expectations causing further setbacks? Perhaps emotions have gone too high?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16
I think the Waterside project needs special consideration from the municipality. The municipality could be doing much more to help this development proceed.
A few things that the HRM could do:
1) Provide tax credits. Projects along Barrington Street are getting tax credits from the muicipality for restoration projects. Although this isn't on Barrington Street, Ben McCrea is spending extra money to maintain the facades. Although some people are against such developments, which only maintain the facade, if this were an actual restoration project then it should be through a government agency that can afford such restorations - such as the Citadel Hill Fortress through Parks Canada.
2) Trying to incorporate underground parking into an old heritage development that wasn't built to accommodate such a structure. Now the structure has to be almost completely demolished and excavated in order to build the underground parking. Couldn't the municipality relax the rules to make it less expensive and less destructive for Ben McCrea to develop this property? In other words, require less parking for this development. I know that adding 9 storeys will require that the internal structure must be rebuilt; but by decreasing the underground parking it won't need as much excavation.
3) Ben McCrea is trying to make it LEEDS certified which will add to the initial capital cost. Possibly, Ben McCrea and the municipality should just forget this worthy goal and instead just proceed with the development without the LEEDS certification. The municipality isn't helping Ben McCrea with this goal - if they were then they would have done everything to make the easement proceed as quickly as possible.
It really brothers me that some people with the municipality (not all) are taking an adversarial approach to dealing with developers. As can be seen with the Barrington Street historic district, the municipality has to work with developers by including tax credits in order to see these projects proceed. I also wonder if the HRM is purposely delaying to this project in order for the development agreement to expire. If that is the case, I wonder if Ben McCrea can go to the NSURB for assistance in dealing with the municipality since I think it was through the NSURB that this project was initially approved? (I think the HRM vote was a tie which meant that it couldn't proceed)
|