EdmTrekker
Senior Member
Doesn't Katz own the building and lot next to it?
Horne and Pitfield Building Redevelopment | ?m | ?s | Limak Investments
- Thread starter Avenuer
- Start date
Doesn't Katz own the building and lot next to it?
ChazYEG
Senior Member
Not sure it's possible. They'd need to acquire that land... Unfortunately it's not Sim City
kcantor
Senior Member
we can agree on this one IanO...
we can then take it a step further and say this building and it's vacant lot should be sold to kgre and developed comprehensively with block h.
or they should acquire block h from kgre and complete a comprehensive development.
either of those - if they actually got completed - would be a win win win...
kcantor
Senior Member
for clarification, kgre owns the lots north of the first vacant lot that is part of the horne & pitfield site.
it's also worth keeping in mind that the existing horne & pitfield building is set back 20' or so from its east property line which means there a tremendous opportunity to animate at least the south end of the lane.
EdmTrekker
Senior Member
Iirc there are several loading docks at the south end of the podium under construction. With Loblaws trucks coming and going how would you animate that alley?
MCXavierL
Active Member
ChazYEG
Senior Member
It's kinda meh from the previous iteration, but not bad! Hope it gets approved
IanO
Senior Member
I'm still very, VERY much divided on this one given other options, lack of character space respect and the owner's track record.
ChazYEG
Senior Member
Again, we cannot dictate who sells what to who, and we cannot say if they haven't tried to buy something adjacent or not.
I am all in favor of preserving our historical resources, but I don't see how it could be good for downtown, losing this tower and probably getting nothing: no one will restore or repurpose this building and the developers will probably just pull out altogether.
If there was ANY indication that not moving forward with this would result in the building being restored and repurposed as apartments/condos or office (like, being taken by a new company HQ or so...), I would be one to pick up a rake a a torch a march against the development.
Avenuer
Senior Member
Agreed, I don't put much faith in Limak.
EdmTrekker
Senior Member
Nothing to be divided about. This project will either proceed or not with this developer if Limak was actually the developer that built the 3 properties on the website and did not simply purchase them as an investor. . I dont know "what" is going to council - is it a rezoning? If so my money is on Limak flipping it and taking a walk.
IanO
Senior Member
Sorta/Bingo.
IanO
Senior Member
kcantor
Senior Member
^
sorry, but i just don't get this one at all from a city planning perspective, from an architectural perspective or from a financial perspective.
as near as i can tell, this site has a total area of approximately 22,500 sf.
this application will see the maximum height increased from 115m to 160m.
it will see the maximum fsr increase from 8.0 to 16.0.
that's an increase of approximately 180,000 sf of buildable area.
and the total cost to the developer is $325,622 which is to be deemed paid via the provision of public art, the completion of street amenities and boulevard trees adjacent to the building and the retention of most of one wall of a heritage structure, the rest of which will be demolished even though the entire structure is in perfectly serviceable condition.
sooo... if my math is correct, the city has gifted the developer 180,000 sf in additional density at the top of the building where it worth the most for the grand sum of $1.81 per buildable square foot and which only needs to be paid "in kind" when the project is completed (and which will likely provide more than that in value to the project than the city at that time) along with the developer paying for the cost of demolition of the rest of the heritage structure (because we all know that actual heritage structures apparently don't have any real value in the urban fabric of the city's heritage area zone).
if i'm missing anything here, i'm happy to be better informed although i will remain just as disappointed.
sorry, but i just don't get this one at all from a city planning perspective, from an architectural perspective or from a financial perspective.
as near as i can tell, this site has a total area of approximately 22,500 sf.
this application will see the maximum height increased from 115m to 160m.
it will see the maximum fsr increase from 8.0 to 16.0.
that's an increase of approximately 180,000 sf of buildable area.
and the total cost to the developer is $325,622 which is to be deemed paid via the provision of public art, the completion of street amenities and boulevard trees adjacent to the building and the retention of most of one wall of a heritage structure, the rest of which will be demolished even though the entire structure is in perfectly serviceable condition.
sooo... if my math is correct, the city has gifted the developer 180,000 sf in additional density at the top of the building where it worth the most for the grand sum of $1.81 per buildable square foot and which only needs to be paid "in kind" when the project is completed (and which will likely provide more than that in value to the project than the city at that time) along with the developer paying for the cost of demolition of the rest of the heritage structure (because we all know that actual heritage structures apparently don't have any real value in the urban fabric of the city's heritage area zone).
if i'm missing anything here, i'm happy to be better informed although i will remain just as disappointed.
Seandroid
New Member
I personally really hope this gets built as depicted. It’s basically exactly what is needed there.
I wish it was partially a hotel too. (I now see it likely is) I think people who don’t live on 104 patronizing the area will be good for retail.
Last edited: