Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P.
The buildings as-is are largely unrentable for the reasons MacDonald stated. He could have had them under long-term lease agreements otherwise - I know, because I am aware of several big retailers that looked into them and found them functionally deficient. This is prime real estate on the #1 shopping street in the region. The kind of tenants who are willing to pay top dollar to be on that street want modern, usable space. What he has is suitable mostly for small boutiquey-type operations that may not last a year. Once again, what is published in planning textbooks often is at odds with economic reality.
|
I think the salient point is what kind of development they will put in the place of these buildings. While removing the existing buildings will change the character of the street, you want a net improvement rather than just something new. A monolithic blockbuster will fulfill the 'new' requirement, but would change the character of the street in a negative way if not done properly (IMHO). Following the example of the Doyle doesn't seem like a net improvement (again IMHO) over current in terms of street character and how it meets pedestrian level.
Of course opinions are like bellybuttons, so let's see what they are proposing. Hopefully it will be better than the Doyle or the MaryAnne, or whatever it's called.
Threaded Mode