Stephen Avenue Quarter | 241m | 66s | Triovest | Gibbs Gage

I think they probably just miscalculated what the reaction to their proposal would be.

They probably think they have a great project that would be well received because it’s a massive investment, they’re keeping facades of the buildings they think have value, and are removing the buildings they view as dispensable.

Make no mistake, a development of this size is about making money, but it’s also about city building, and ego, and I don’t think Triovest is proposing to invest this kind of money to end up with an inferior product, or to deal with opposition in the development planning process due to lack of engagement.

I agree that Triovest has been opaque, but I also think assuming the worst (i.e., that the big bad developer is up to something sinister) is not constructive. Most developers want to build high quality (and I think Triovest fits in this category), but a lot of them have constraints (usually financing). I don’t get the impression financing is the constraint here, but maybe vision and finesse (stakeholder engagement) are for Triovest.

Also keep in mind that the City has not been the most transparent in this file either. The City is responsible for putting up the notice boards. But City staff are also human. The planner on this file is probably swamped, and has other files to deal with.

I think we all need to take a collective deep breath, submit our constructive feedback on the proposal, and let the development planning process play out.

The reality is that this one is going nowhere fast. I’d say this is on the scale of the proposed Eau Claire redevelopment, and there will be a lot of consultation and rework before a shovel is in the ground.
 
Also, I am writing this from the viewpoint of someone who has stakeholder engagement experience for an energy company, who has had people write conspiracy theories about them/their company online/in the papers (e.g., that we’re bribing officials) which couldn’t be further from the truth.
 
Triovest is a private equity firm based in Toronto. They are about maximizing dollars for their investors so that investors invest more dollars. There is a minimum quality standard to maximizing income and/or property values and, depending on co investors, can yield something above that standard like Saskatoon's River Landing. More likely, you get a giant scaled development like Sugar Wharf in Toronto.
 
maestro said:
Triovest is a private equity firm based in Toronto. They are about maximizing dollars for their investors so that investors invest more dollars. There is a minimum quality standard to maximizing income and/or property values and, depending on co investors, can yield something above that standard like Saskatoon's River Landing. More likely, you get a giant scaled development like Sugar Wharf in Toronto.
Click to expand...
Nominally based in Toronto. In this case, Triovest = Mannix.
 
adamyyc said:
I think they probably just miscalculated what the reaction to their proposal would be.

They probably think they have a great project that would be well received because it’s a massive investment, they’re keeping facades of the buildings they think have value, and are removing the buildings they view as dispensable.

Make no mistake, a development of this size is about making money, but it’s also about city building, and ego, and I don’t think Triovest is proposing to invest this kind of money to end up with an inferior product, or to deal with opposition in the development planning process due to lack of engagement.

I agree that Triovest has been opaque, but I also think assuming the worst (i.e., that the big bad developer is up to something sinister) is not constructive. Most developers want to build high quality (and I think Triovest fits in this category), but a lot of them have constraints (usually financing). I don’t get the impression financing is the constraint here, but maybe vision and finesse (stakeholder engagement) are for Triovest.

Also keep in mind that the City has not been the most transparent in this file either. The City is responsible for putting up the notice boards. But City staff are also human. The planner on this file is probably swamped, and has other files to deal with.

I think we all need to take a collective deep breath, submit our constructive feedback on the proposal, and let the development planning process play out.

The reality is that this one is going nowhere fast. I’d say this is on the scale of the proposed Eau Claire redevelopment, and there will be a lot of consultation and rework before a shovel is in the ground.
Click to expand...
My uneducated guess is that they don't have a firm commitment from the prospective tenant and are hesitant to invest into a design for a project that is uncertain.

This could be a great project but I feel like they could use someone like Henriquez to come in and better assemble the pieces.
 
I think if they held a design competition with their spelled out requirements and optionals, and brought Heritage Calgary in as decision stakeholder in the competition, that they'd slam dunk get an approval.

It is a challenging site to accommodate everything. A competition could result in some brilliant ideas.
 
artvandelay said:
My uneducated guess is that they don't have a firm commitment from the prospective tenant and are hesitant to invest into a design for a project that is uncertain.

This could be a great project but I feel like they could use someone like Henriquez to come in and better assemble the pieces.
Click to expand...

Gensler (Chicago) has one of the best mixed-use, multi-phase design teams on the planet. That being said, I think their concept for this project leaves a lot to be desired.
 
darwink said:
I think if they held a design competition with their spelled out requirements and optionals, and brought Heritage Calgary in as decision stakeholder in the competition, that they'd slam dunk get an approval.

It is a challenging site to accommodate everything. A competition could result in some brilliant ideas.
Click to expand...
Agreed! This project deserves a collaborative approach. However all parties would have to be willing to make concessions. Example, it's not realistic for Heritage Calgary to expect all of the buildings to be saved/restored (specifically, some of the buildings on 7th Ave). Similarly, Triovest can't expect that they'll receive all of the variances that this project will inevitably require.
 
maestro said:
Triovest is a private equity firm based in Toronto. They are about maximizing dollars for their investors so that investors invest more dollars. There is a minimum quality standard to maximizing income and/or property values and, depending on co investors, can yield something above that standard like Saskatoon's River Landing. More likely, you get a giant scaled development like Sugar Wharf in Toronto.
Click to expand...
I will say that what’s proposed by Triovest does feel more like Toronto than Calgary. Massive tower with historic facade at pedestrian level is pretty standard in TO.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top