Quote:
Originally Posted by curnhalio
OK here's a question. It's been said that developers have to build taller and with more units in order to turn a worthwhile profit. If Starfish is able to profit from this building, does that poke a hole in that theory?
|
I guess it all depends on the costs of renovation vs. the lease/rental rates they can charge. I'm sure sometimes the cost-revenue ratio doesn't work if a project is too small.
But I've made the argument that small projects can be feasible based on (zillions of) examples in other cities, and usually people tell me "Halifax is different" because of red tape, or because developers can't charge as much per unit, or whatever. But redevelopments on a small scale have worked in literally every size of city, with every sort of market imaginable, in this country. Including here. Espace is one, and there are lots of nicely restored older buildings converted to condos or up-market rentals (Greenvale Lofts, etc).
And then you've got the planned restorations of the NFB site, or the Waverly Hotel, or the Green Lantern Building (though there's a lot of variables there) and it becomes obvious that when the choice is between small-scale development and no development, developers will make good projects work on a small scale.
The arguments otherwise are just another permutation of the "Halifax can't AFFORD to stipulate things to developers, we need to be open for business, or all our youth will leave, because the Ivany report," or whatever.
The development industry works within certain limitations, here as everywhere, and here as everywhere, they try to get as much leeway as they can above and beyond those limitations. It's up to city planners to strike the balance between what's good for developers and what's good for the city‚ and to try and make those, as much as possible, one and the same.