Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking
Ah. I see. But if the government offices are moving from the suburbs (MLCC), I would be more than happy to have them relocate.
Personally, I think the provincial money the U of M gets to build new buildings should be used to relocate some of their footprint back to the city. Then the money kills two birds with one stone. Urban renewal and university improvement.
CV's mandate is not to build roads. That's Public Works' job. It is to work with private owners of downtown properties to develop or redevelop their land or buildings most effectively. At least that used to be their mandate. They have been pretty successful at that over the years. Bringing the floor hockey arena and adjacent land owners on Waterfront together to create a larger project is one recent example. That wouldn't have happened without them leading it.
|
1) If office relocation came from the suburbs and not core area buildings then that would be great.
2) U of M programming being relocated downtown would also be helpful.
3) CV was responsible for stick handling Waterfront Drive and overseeing improvements in the East Exchange and on Lily Avenue. They also payed The Docks to be the lead sponsor and in fact judged the submissions so I would say they do have exposure in that regard.
4) Buying the St Regis for $8,000,000 many would say does not fit in the mandate as you describe nor does all the effort put into Market Lands. Both sites if carved up without the CV development agreements would have had the parcels quickly sold and ultimately developed without any government involvement. Most City surplus lands are disposed of that way.
5) While the amalgamation of Waterfront /Duncan I am hopeful will result in a good development, both sites were actively and aggressively being pursued by private interests prior to CV stepping in, over paying and poaching them as you know.
6) The same situation is occurring today on Henry Avenue with private stakeholders being shut out of adjacent City controlled lands required to enhance their holdings and business. So much for working with area stakeholders when sites become available. Why shouldn’t Lawson or Koop have access to their adjacent lands in the area? Why should City owned slivers of land be held as bargaining chips by CV?
Many feel they are competing with CV for lands and do not see the added value of their participation.
If you want an example of how good governance is practiced, The Forks North Portage is exemplary.