Search results

optionality and risk.

He forgot to move a motion in the house the other day, literally the only job of the opposition leader in the budget process, so the Bloc got to lead the entire debate. He has been in this his entire life, and he misses what is supposed to be his core skill set? He is tired.

Oh, Defining Canada’s Downtown Neighbourhoods: 2016 Boundaries

That was studied but is not in the announced scope.

They're buying the building and the lease revenue, not occupying it.

Oh. So I missed that Ukraine needs financing. Building in Canada means that Export Development Canada/Canada Commercial Corporation can lend it all and the government can then subsidize the interest rate, and defer payments as ‘aid’. It would be a huge win for very little cost.

Throwing maps in for folks’ easy reference. Reading the article it isn’t hard to guess that in some cities boundaries were shrunk on consultation (Vancouver, Calgary) and in others not so (Edmonton, Ottawa). Vancouver’s and Montreal’s boundaries should have the most shift by 2050 to reflect...

That data doesn't exist. The parties can do a bit better estimating, since they know who voted in the advance polls, but it is a lot of squeeze for very little juice. I suspect they just topped up the polls with a share of the advance vote. It would be close enough.

I can only think, going all in on super connecting. Seatac is also overwhelmed. For much of the region, getting off the continent without going to Seatac would be very appealing.

not an either or. A yes, and scenario.

That building has a lot of parking compared to what you’d expect from the street presence. It also has parking in the now non alley alley, and underground parking. The rentable area of the building has sort of locked in stagnation (rent pressure due to address but poor street presence). The...

Maybe? But not as many as the gut would think driving up the street. Proof will be in the doing but I think north of 20th the green line plan makes sense. It just doesn’t feel right. But data convinced me otherwise.

It is really hard though, as it could remove the incentive for good policy moves if there is a downturn, or a housing oligopoly that thinks there is a downturn. Planner organizations protested the HAF hard by saying there were millions of properties zoned for that weren't being built, thinking...

The problem with that logic is low floor LRVs are just inherently more expensive all other things being equal due to complexity. Often that is worth it if you have significant street level sections. With significant street level sections constraints already exist on operations that make any...

Defence iDeas is that if perhaps not at the scale you’d like.

All LRVs are bespoke. Calgary has a large enough fleet to not have scale issues even on relatively small orders. Low floor LRVs are more complicated, more expensive, and lower capacity. The station size savings (no ramps) you have the tradeoff of longer trains. Low floor LRVs are great...

I doubt they would need to add floors. It would probably work. What is it, 360,000 square feet? Nothing in the interior has heritage value. A hundred million or so could go a long way, depending on how much remediation would be needed.

Dense enough greenfield growth can pay for growth. Brownfield and densification of existing residential most certainly pays for itself. The subsidy does make the greenfield harder for sure.

It isn't a matter of efficiency. Spending is not rising faster than population growqth + inflation. The amount of revenue the city can raise from non-residential properties is relatively fixed, via two factors: the legislated tax ratio (influenced heavily by property commerical property...

Residential taxes don't cover the cost of residential services, plus incremental city wide services for residents, in most neighbourhoods in Calgary today. As Calgary grows on the residential side much more than it does on the non-residential side in recent years, it means almost all of the...