Might as well start a thread for this, as it's going to be happening sometime in the future.
So the plan is to spend $109M on a new building ($491k per unit) when the estimated repairs for the existing building were $15M?Affordable housing, halfway covered: City of Calgary to pitch in $53.5M for Bridgeland Place redevelopment
The City of Calgary will fund nearly half the estimated cost of its planned Bridgeland Place affordable housing redevelopment.calgary.ctvnews.ca
The city has offered to fund up to half.
My understanding is that figure also includes a number of local pedestrian and road improvements, would love confirmation from someone closer to thisSo the plan is to spend $109M on a new building ($491k per unit) when the estimated repairs for the existing building were $15M?
How many centuries of "reduced utility costs" will it take to recoup that extra $94M in capital costs?
They could build another 300+ units somewhere else in the city if they just repaired the existing building!!!
Yeah - I feel there's something missing here in the story, to your point - it wouldn't make sense to cost this much per door if you can really refurbish the existing structure for cheaper.So the plan is to spend $109M on a new building ($491k per unit) when the estimated repairs for the existing building were $15M?
How many centuries of "reduced utility costs" will it take to recoup that extra $94M in capital costs?
They could build another 300+ units somewhere else in the city if they just repaired the existing building!!!
I'm wondering the same thing. Maybe they've have factored in long term savings with a new building? The way I understand it, is the new building would be a lot more efficient, even if the existing building was renovated, but could wrong.So the plan is to spend $109M on a new building ($491k per unit) when the estimated repairs for the existing building were $15M?
How many centuries of "reduced utility costs" will it take to recoup that extra $94M in capital costs?
They could build another 300+ units somewhere else in the city if they just repaired the existing building!!!
I'm wondering the same thing. Maybe they've have factored in long term savings with a new building? The way I understand it, is the new building would be a lot more efficient, even if the existing building was renovated, but could wrong.
The hypocrisy of some of these climate initiatives.My cynical hypothesis is that it is easier to find $109M in government funding for a shiny new energy efficient building than $15M to do deferred maintenance to keep something habitable if basic.