Plaza | 113.5m | 33s | Cantiro | GEC

Hopefully this is to actually spur the development and not leave it as an empty lot. I didn't mention in the article of the city's money is contingent on the project going ahead, or not, but 176K doesn't seem like enough to make or break a developer's decision to go ahead.
This excerpt from the article sounds promising.
The approved application is for Edmonton-based Cantiro Group, and CEO Jodie Wacko said the incentive was a factor in helping move this project forward. He said there’s a real need for housing in Calgary, and they would have found a way to make the project work.
 
I think it bodes well. The city wouldn’t have allocated the funds, nor would the developer had applied, if they didn’t intend to go forward. With all of this momentum we’re seeing lately, I’m gonna optimistically call this one a sure thing.
 
Seriously. A demolition incentive program. Now I've heard everything. Demolition is comparably cheap so it's not a lot of money in the grand scheme. It's still monies that could go towards other civic and social programs. A project will go ahead or not regardless of the incentive or not.
 
City funded demo ongoing.
IMG_5462.jpeg
IMG_5461.jpeg
 
haltcatchfire said:
Can we get a parking lot replacement program instead of a demolition program? Seriously what kind of idiots are in charge of this stuff.

Surely the economics of this brand new tower can handle the demolition costs.
Click to expand...
To be fair, These buildings at least were in terrible condition and needed to be torn down IMO. Almost on the same level as getting rid of parking lots is getting rid of these eye sores in the middle of downtown.
 
Nawads said:
To be fair, These buildings at least were in terrible condition and needed to be torn down IMO. Almost on the same level as getting rid of parking lots is getting rid of these eye sores in the middle of downtown.
Click to expand...
Don't disagree, but taxpayers shouldn't need pay for it to subsidize a private corporation in this situation.
 
haltcatchfire said:
Don't disagree, but taxpayers shouldn't need pay for it to subsidize a private corporation in this situation.
Click to expand...
The goal of the subsidy is to create housing in the downtown core. This in turn, increases property tax collections (relative to the amount being collected currently, which is based on land value). In this example, the Gov will recover their subsidy within ~5 years. We need more of this IMO, particularly on the west side of DT.
 
$176,000 doesn't kickstart a $100 million tower. It's an unnecessary subsidy and $176,000 could fully fund other social programs. Also, It's disingenuous to say the subsidy will be recouped in 5 years based on the increased property value from one property. That's how it's sold to the public. That's not how it really works.

I don't think governments should be subsidizing private development in any fashion. It's a terrible investment that our children's children will pay for if developers can't make a go of it with record growth, high demand and, still comparably low interest rates.
 
maestro said:
$176,000 doesn't kickstart a $100 million tower. It's an unnecessary subsidy and $176,000 could fully fund other social programs. Also, It's disingenuous to say the subsidy will be recouped in 5 years based on the increased property value from one property. That's how it's sold to the public. That's not how it really works.

I don't think governments should be subsidizing private development in any fashion. It's a terrible investment that our children's children will pay for if developers can't make a go of it with record growth, high demand and, still comparably low interest rates.
Click to expand...
Development doesn't just increase property value for the one property. We're talking about a rapid diversification of the entire downtown area.
Call it the expense the City is liable for given their shoddy land-use planning when most of the Downtown was being built out, it's an investment that they need to make to turn the page on our Downtown.

Though I am quite skeptical of corporate welfare, I hope to see more of these incentives awarded to non-profit corps in the future. CHC, Homespace, etc.
 
maestro said:
$176,000 doesn't kickstart a $100 million tower. It's an unnecessary subsidy and $176,000 could fully fund other social programs. Also, It's disingenuous to say the subsidy will be recouped in 5 years based on the increased property value from one property. That's how it's sold to the public. That's not how it really works.

I don't think governments should be subsidizing private development in any fashion. It's a terrible investment that our children's children will pay for if developers can't make a go of it with record growth, high demand and, still comparably low interest rates.
Click to expand...
Do developers pay for streetscape work around their property? If they do, $176,000 is probably cheaper than the city redoing the sidewalk around the property, planting a few trees, etc.
 
TooBizzy said:
Development doesn't just increase property value for the one property. We're talking about a rapid diversification of the entire downtown area.
Call it the expense the City is liable for given their shoddy land-use planning when most of the Downtown was being built out, it's an investment that they need to make to turn the page on our Downtown.

Though I am quite skeptical of corporate welfare, I hope to see more of these incentives awarded to non-profit corps in the future. CHC, Homespace, etc.
Click to expand...

In simple terms, property tax mill rates are adjusted around the annual city budget and current property values. It's bullshit when a development is presented as increasing property tax revenues by x millions of dollars. Toronto is financially worse off than it was in 1990s with it's properties value increased in the trillions. Just listen to the national news. Of course, it has to mentioned Toronto is reliant on higher commercial rates and commercial values have tanked with high vacancies. They are still much higher than the 1990s when the commercial market was more depressed.

Increased densities increases the cost of amenities and infrastructure. A few quick examples. High order transit will be built underground than on the surface. The land to build a park will cost several times more than on the outskirts. A multi-level school or community centre costs higher than a single level structure. Highrise districts save farmland but, are not exactly green or, productive (ex. food) environment. Sprawl is the absolute worst. It shouldn't be the benchmark of good vs bad. We have space in Canada to build small to mid sized connected communities that don't pave over or build high above farmlands but, is harmonious and highly productive. Instead we obsess about how to make concrete mega cities out of the existing urban centres.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top