Posted Feb 25, 2012, 5:14 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,642
|
|
^ It is very hard to move water uphill. Expanding what currently works, that is residential in downtown, is a much better strategy than trying to incent something that currently doesn't.
For offices, getting engineering companies to move back downtown would be really hard. What I would look at is two things:
what is keeping CWB in downtown?
what caused ATB to move out of downtown?
If you find out the answers, you can put in place measures to excentuate the positives, while minimizing the negatives. You would be surprised how much small changes can influence things, look at Calgary's Clean to the Core initiative.
To get new towers, more drastic measures might be needed. Not taxing the value of the extra value of an office tower vs a suburban but in Edmonton campus that employs the same amount of people for 30 years would be an interesting incentive. In back of the envelope theory, the city shouldn't be hurt too much on the tax side (if the company was going to build in the suburbs in the first place and simply was not a free rider), while benefiting on the service side by taking advantage of existing infrastructure.
Getting rid of much of the zoning restrictions that increase cost while not increasing societal benefit would be good too. If there is a requirement for parking (minimum or maximum to a point) axe it. Any requirements for pedway connections or future pedway connections gone. Requirements for plazas? Art? Left to the market.
Only restrictions I would keep or put in are having the main floor be either transparent or lined with outward (or dual) facing retail bays. You don't want to just create suburbs in the sky. Economics and the airport overlay should deal with the rest.
|