Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12
Do you know how much land this will free up for sale and future property taxation?
|
Not much.
That's why the City is even willing to bend the rules and allow the proposed buildings to defy viewcones just to get as much density as possible, so that developers will at least be able to help them with part of the 1.7billion the City doesn't have. But, if you use your head to ponder harder, do you really think the developers will have 1.7bil of spare change lying around to give the City, especially when so much of the housing is dedicated to social units?
Able to achieve the same density by going short you used to say?
The City won't allow tall towers you used to say?
Tearing down the viaducts a done deal you used to say?
I told you then, never say never.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld
In the article it says there was an anonymous source that said that of the $1.7 B cost, $500 Million will have to come from non-developer sources. Likely some of that will come from the Provincial and Federal governments, probably to support the environmental remediation ($170 M), affordable housing ($603 M) and parks ($251 M) components.
Nobody, said this would be cheap, but it's definitely feasible and plausible they can get the funding necessary.
Does anybody know if similar projects like the removal of the Bonaventure Expressway in Montreal got funding from higher levels of government?
|
Are you sure? When they first mooted this, a figure of $100 million was proposed. Yup, they said this would be cheap, way cheaper than seismically upgrading the viaducts.
Chances are, the "non-developer" funding means what's coming from Vancouver residents and business owners, or the suckers who pay the City property or business taxes.