Regina Construction III

[pappcam]

Originally Posted by one_brick_at_a_time

Yes. And would most likely be apart of multi use including retail, other office and maybe hotel too.

So much space empty to be built on downtown. Wish the city had rules that either you build on your land downtown or you have to make mandatory green space until a project is built.

If we had overly strict rules like most seem to want here then nobody would build here. I'm not sure of many of you have noticed but our economy is basically in the toilet in this city/province so getting anything built anywhere is fine with me. People need to start working.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by J-Walker

Just a friendly jab for a little bit of fun, don’t take offense.

I agree with you though. Both projects are marred by issues with proper procedure and fairness. But I don’t consider them equals – I think the Brandt’s project is much more nefarious than the Connexus deal (but yes, both are good examples of behind the scenes dealings that were meant to subvert the public’s anticipated pushback).

Here’s why I think Brandt’s is far worse.

The CNIB building was a “non-conforming” use in the park. Any change in use or alteration to the building (>15%) should have resulted in the non-conforming use status being revoked. This should have prevented the construction of a new building in its place. The Connexus building, on the other hand, is being constructed in the specific area that was always identified in the Wascana Centre Plan for the eventual construction of another building. The Connexus building is completely in line with what was envisioned for that spot.

The Brandt deal only provides value to the CNIB in the form of free lease space – no value at all to Wascana Park – Brandt received 95% of the benefit of this deal. The Connexus deal provides at least some value to Wascana Park and city heritage in the form of the restoration of Darke Hall and other improvements in the vicinity. Its providing value to the park, albeit Connexus does still benefit quite substantially.

Yes, both public tenders were complete BS – they had no intention of ever awarding it to anyone else but Connexus and Brandt – If I were a developer who had spent time and money on putting together a proposal package for either of these tenders I would be suing either party right now for putting out a false and illegitimate tender.

The Brandt deal is being done on Provincial land (owned by the public) however no public representation at all has been solicited. The deal with Brandt and CNIB is specifically being kept secret in order to undermine the public’s ability to scrutinize the agreement. Connexus deal was different – we knew exactly what was going on. When City council voted to provide the land for the Connexus development, they did so willingly and with full and complete information – we were adequately notified and represented by our council. Council new exactly what they were donating the land for and to whom. This was not a behind the scenes deal. Our councilors and mayor are absolute idiots for not getting anything in return (like an equal sized parcel of land at the University or something similar), but that’s our fault that our Councillors are too stupid to scrutinize the land transfer before they voted on it - they sure did after they had already voted though.

Just my thoughts, add to it or criticize where you may disagree.

The main problem is that Conexus is more disturbing to the park and is an entirely new building. Brandt is using an existing land lease and rebuilding, albeit, significantly larger.

Conexus is a new building, a new land lease. It's entirely moving a road. It's ruining College Ave by installing a new traffic light for no reason. The donation to the university is simply prepaying the land lease and is a complete scam.

[skphc08]

Originally Posted by pappcam

If we had overly strict rules like most seem to want here then nobody would build here. I'm not sure of many of you have noticed but our economy is basically in the toilet in this city/province so getting anything built anywhere is fine with me. People need to start working.

That doesn't mean we should accept any development, particularly when it is overtly against the five pillars. The economy is cyclical, in the short-term you'd probably have little building; however, in the long run, if there is money to be made, construction will occur, its that simple. Even if there is more regulation around it. This is true of any industry.

[Dan0myte]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

Conexus is a new building, a new land lease. It's entirely moving a road. It's ruining College Ave by installing a new traffic light for no reason. The donation to the university is simply prepaying the land lease and is a complete scam.

Totally agree. Conexus is "ruining the park" if people want to say that. It's eating up green space and replacing it with development. CNIB is building a similar building on the existing footprint.

It feels like people missed the bus on the Conexus building because the U of R went hard & fast on the building plans and it was going up before people could get upset. Now that everyone is pissed off they're focusing their anger on Brandt because it's not complete yet and they feel like there's time to affect this build, even though it's the lesser of the two evils.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

The main problem is that Conexus is more disturbing to the park and is an entirely new building. Brandt is using an existing land lease and rebuilding, albeit, significantly larger.

Conexus is a new building, a new land lease. It's entirely moving a road. It's ruining College Ave by installing a new traffic light for no reason. The donation to the university is simply prepaying the land lease and is a complete scam.

That is not true. There is a land lease component based on several independent appraisals and then a very large donation to Darke Hall on top of that.

[jigglysquishy]

It's literally impossible to appraise something that has never been open to the free market to purchase. When there is only ever one potential buyer the appraisal is voodoo science.

Appraisers look at comparable property. There is zero comparable property in the city in private hands.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

It's literally impossible to appraise something that has never been open to the free market to purchase. When there is only ever one potential buyer the appraisal is voodoo science.

Appraisers look at comparable property. There is zero comparable property in the city in private hands.

Sure it is difficult to appraise, but appraisers deal with one-offs and difficult properties all the time.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by Stormer

That is not true. There is a land lease component based on several independent appraisals and then a very large donation to Darke Hall on top of that.

You are being sold a story.

Directly from Conexus' website.


Thus from their own admission they are paying $32,500 per year to lease the most valuable land in the city. Are you kidding me?

A 100 year land lease should be considered a the equivalent of a purchase, especially when the user doesn't have to externally finance their build. They have purchased the 2.6 acres of the most prime real estate in the city for 1.25M per acre or $29 per square foot. This is an absurdly paltry sum. I mean for f*ck's sake dirty gas stations go for double that. Harvard paid between $275 psf and $500 psf to assemble the land for Agriculture Place.

Even if you take the full real purchase price of $8.25M, that's only $73 psf which is way below the market price. If it was appraised by the usual suspect they should ridden out of town on a rail.

Conexus got an amazing deal at wayyy below the market rate. And all we're going to gain from it is a ruined College Ave for pedestrians, bikes and cars and a shitload of rush hour traffic driving down Wascana Drive.

But it's ok, Eric Dillion can now gloat over Affinity.

[LittleBoy]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

But it's ok, Eric Dillion can now gloat over Affinity.

While I think your points are very valid and I agree with you, I think the public blame falls too much on Dillon alone. While he may be the talking head for the project, one voice isn't enough to get a project past. The blame should be spread further than just the CEO of an organization.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

You are being sold a story.

Directly from Conexus' website.


Thus from their own admission they are paying $32,500 per year to lease the most valuable land in the city. Are you kidding me?

A 100 year land lease should be considered a the equivalent of a purchase, especially when the user doesn't have to externally finance their build. They have purchased the 2.6 acres of the most prime real estate in the city for 1.25M per acre or $29 per square foot. This is an absurdly paltry sum. I mean for f*ck's sake dirty gas stations go for double that. Harvard paid between $275 psf and $500 psf to assemble the land for Agriculture Place.

Even if you take the full real purchase price of $8.25M, that's only $73 psf which is way below the market price. If it was appraised by the usual suspect they should ridden out of town on a rail.

Conexus got an amazing deal at wayyy below the market rate. And all we're going to gain from it is a ruined College Ave for pedestrians, bikes and cars and a shitload of rush hour traffic driving down Wascana Drive.

But it's ok, Eric Dillion can now gloat over Affinity.

I disagree. It is not the most valuable land in the City. That land is in the heart of downtown. For example you can only build a 3 story building on it so it is inherently less valuable. Also it is not fully serviced and servicing is very expensive, as you know. Also I don't know what Harvard paid, but I do know they had to buy out properties that were not for sale from active businesses. You pay a premium for that.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by Stormer

I disagree. It is not the most valuable land in the City. That land is in the heart of downtown. For example you can only build a 3 story building on it so it is inherently less valuable. Also it is not fully serviced and servicing is very expensive, as you know. Also I don't know what Harvard paid, but I do know they had to buy out properties that were not for sale from active businesses. You pay a premium for that.

The park wasn't for sale either.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by LittleBoy

While I think your points are very valid and I agree with you, I think the public blame falls too much on Dillon alone. While he may be the talking head for the project, one voice isn't enough to get a project past. The blame should be spread further than just the CEO of an organization.

Fair enough, we can blame the whole c-suite and the board.

It's entire true that these types of projects are largely dictated by the by executives wanting to leave a "legacy".

[LittleBoy]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

Fair enough, we can blame the whole c-suite and the board.

Meh, even then, it is a two-way street. Conexus is at the end of the day still a business, and frankly, this is a massively beneficial project for Conexus. They are getting access to the most sought after spot in Regina for way below market value, can't fault Dillon and the rest of the c-suite for doing what is in Conexus's best interest.

Why does the University never seem to receive any of the blame in the discussion?

[Festivus]

Originally Posted by LittleBoy

Meh, even then, it is a two-way street. Conexus is at the end of the day still a business, and frankly, this is a massively beneficial project for Conexus. They are getting access to the most sought after spot in Regina for way below market value, can't fault Dillon and the rest of the c-suite for doing what is in Conexus's best interest.

Why does the University never seem to receive any of the blame in the discussion?

They deserve blame, but at least it's easier to sympathize with them. They are permanently underfunded by the provincial government. It's like it the local mafia ran a hospital and kept raising the rates for patients (and lowering insurance benefits) and then goes to a sick person and says "hey, we'll pay you 1/2 of market value for one of your kidneys so you can pay to treat your cancer!"

Sure the UofR is to blame, but they are financially strapped and will take money anywhere they can get it. If they were allowed they'd probably sell their naming rights to Brandt or Mosaic, too.

[UPP]

Originally Posted by Festivus

They deserve blame, but at least it's easier to sympathize with them. They are permanently underfunded by the provincial government. It's like it the local mafia ran a hospital and kept raising the rates for patients (and lowering insurance benefits) and then goes to a sick person and says "hey, we'll pay you 1/2 of market value for one of your kidneys so you can pay to treat your cancer!"

Sure the UofR is to blame, but they are financially strapped and will take money anywhere they can get it. If they were allowed they'd probably sell their naming rights to Brandt or Mosaic, too.

I've always said they should sell their naming rights to Harvard Developments.

If people really cared for the park they should have put their money where their mouth is and pay for the Darke Hall/CNIB refurbishment. No one did, so corporate stepped in.

I don't like the development either but I can't complain since I stopped donating to the U of R years ago.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by UPP

I've always said they should sell their naming rights to Harvard Developments.

Well...

Originally Posted by UPP

I don't like the development either but I can't complain since I stopped donating to the U of R years ago.

More seriously, universities shouldn't require alumni donations to maintain their properties and I would discourage anyone from doing so. If we're going to have the province lead our universities, they should fund the damn things and tax accordingly.

[HomeInMyShoes]

They were drilling some soil samples on the brownfield site at 14th and Albert yesterday.

[Draftsman]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

They were drilling some soil samples on the brownfield site at 14th and Albert yesterday.

I noticed that too. They were also there on Saturday doing the same. Probably just monitoring the contaminants in the soil.

[HomeInMyShoes]

Probably. It's the first time I've ever seen that done on that lot though.

[Dan0myte]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

Probably. It's the first time I've ever seen that done on that lot though.

Yeah they've done it multiple times on the brownfield lot at 15th & Albert, but I've never seen 14th & Albert.