Quote:
Originally Posted by Labroco
Well as long as we do not see vehicles parked on the site it’s a step in the right direction I suppose notwithstanding a heritage building being demolished was definitely a wrong decision. If we buy into the concept of “highest and best use” for a site, one also needs to buy into market forces determining what that use may be. If the site was sold for example with a no parking lot caveat, realty taxes and a sale price would have flowed back to the City years ago. To tie up these lands for years and years waiting for your “highest and best use” is not really a successful way to move forward for anyone.
Again any update on a building proposal for the St Regis site? Clarity allows others to move forward and removes uncertainty. No one was going to buy the Sky site and invest development equity until the plans next door were clarified and construction started. A little more transparency goes a long…
|
Agreed. Sam Katz shouldn't have bought those two hotels. Although one will become a two tower hotel/residential development as part of True North Square (assuming it resumes construction) and the other has a developer working through a very aggressive residential proposal, so I wouldn't say it's all bad....I do agree though, displacing low income residents isn't something I would support either.
Not sure what you mean by the St. Regis site should have been sold with a no parking caveat instead of holding out for the highest best use....you have some vision that Centre Venture is swatting way a line up of eager developers telling them they are not good enough and holding on to the site longer than is required?...and if CV wasn't the broker it would have been sold and developed long ago?...that's not the case.
I'm sure you wouldn't want your private developments being published on an internet forum as you worked through it. You will have to wait for them to go public with their proposal just like everyone else.
Prev
Linear Mode
