Tower 101 | 175m | 50s | Regency Developments | DER + Associates

What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    46
City needs to really start putting conditions into their demo permits for all developers with DC2 zoning. “Demo your building and build within 5 years or your land gets auctioned off.” There could be some arbitrary program in place for extensions if the area is kept exceptionally clean and provides some social or economic benefit to the community. Something like a park or a well manicured parking lot at the least.

What this is is completely unacceptable for a major Canadian city and if I owned surrounding properties I’d be livid.
 
20220824_182527.jpg
 
occidentalcapital said:
3-storey podium is simply too short for this site. Consider the Tegler building which formerly stood on this site. We do need something with a bit of presence here.
Click to expand...
The number of floors for podiums are irrelevant as a floor on a podium could be constructed for 40' high as an example. The ideal situation is to understand scale and proportion in respect to designing irregardless of whatever discipline of art's.

A 6' tall girl will not have a small feet size as 5'3" is the best way to analyze that; otherwise, she'll look deformed and awkward.
 
Stevey_G said:
City needs to really start putting conditions into their demo permits for all developers with DC2 zoning. “Demo your building and build within 5 years or your land gets auctioned off.” There could be some arbitrary program in place for extensions if the area is kept exceptionally clean and provides some social or economic benefit to the community. Something like a park or a well manicured parking lot at the least.

What this is is completely unacceptable for a major Canadian city and if I owned surrounding properties I’d be livid.
Click to expand...
there’s a better solution, at least imho…

don’t allow owners to reduce their property tax obligations through demolition.

make it a condition of demolition that the owner agrees to pay the city the equivalent amount that property taxes would have been if demolition had not taken place.

this could be done contractually without having to amend the mga.

you might even want to include a nominal annual reduction for every year the site is maintained the way alldrit has been doing recently instead of the way this site has been.

if we had done that 50 years ago there wouldn’t be any vacant land in the warehouse district or the quarters or the north edge and we would probably have seen some really innovative building activation in those areas…
 
Last edited:
kcantor said:
there’s a better solution, at least imho…

don’t allow owners to reduce their property tax obligations through demolition.

make it a condition of demolition that the owner agrees to pay the city the equivalent amount that property taxes would have been if demolition had not taken place.

this could be done contractually without having to amend the mga.

you might even want to include a nominal annual reduction for every year the site is maintained the way alldrit has been doing recently instead of the way this site has been.

if we had done that 50 years ago there wouldn’t be any vacant land in the warehouse district or the quarters or the north edge and we would probably have seen some really innovative building activation in those areas…
Click to expand...
That’s a good suggestion. There’d be less incentive to demolish as a developer because at least a vacant building has value on the books. If the tax incentives of demolition aren’t there this situation wouldn’t have happened.
 
Last edited:
occidentalcapital said:
3-storey podium is simply too short for this site. Consider the Tegler building which formerly stood on this site. We do need something with a bit of presence here.
Click to expand...
Something that would bring back some of much of the facade of the Tegler building would be a great idea. So far we seem to have settled for somewhat mediocre on this site and even that is not going anywhere.
 
kcantor said:
there’s a better solution, at least imho…

don’t allow owners to reduce their property tax obligations through demolition.

make it a condition of demolition that the owner agrees to pay the city the equivalent amount that property taxes would have been if demolition had not taken place.

this could be done contractually without having to amend the mga.

you might even want to include a nominal annual reduction for every year the site is maintained the way alldrit has been doing recently instead of the way this site has been.

if we had done that 50 years ago there wouldn’t be any vacant land in the warehouse district or the quarters or the north edge and we would probably have seen some really innovative building activation in those areas…
Click to expand...
Not that I disagree with the concept, but I don't imagine the courts would take kindly to the City contractually preventing a developer from demolishing a building that would otherwise be permitted under the applicable bylaw. Everyone has to follow development rules, including the city.
 
tkoe_ said:
Not that I disagree with the concept, but I don't imagine the courts would take kindly to the City contractually preventing a developer from demolishing a building that would otherwise be permitted under the applicable bylaw. Everyone has to follow development rules, including the city.
Click to expand...
If the development rules were followed, the bmo building would still sit on this site:

“Demolition is the complete removal of a structure from a site including removal of any foundations, footings, piles or slabs to a minimum 0.5m below grade. A Development Permit and a Building Permit are required to demolish a building.”

they are lots of legally available options under which what was proposed could be implemented and enforced even if they were development and/or building permit related. both of those are often conditioned and need to be in place prior to the city issuing a demolition permit if there is a concern that conditioning the demolition permit might be problematic.
 
kcantor said:
If the development rules were followed, the bmo building would still sit on this site:

“Demolition is the complete removal of a structure from a site including removal of any foundations, footings, piles or slabs to a minimum 0.5m below grade. A Development Permit and a Building Permit are required to demolish a building.”

they are lots of legally available options under which what was proposed could be implemented and enforced even if they were development and/or building permit related. both of those are often conditioned and need to be in place prior to the city issuing a demolition permit if there is a concern that conditioning the demolition permit might be problematic.
Click to expand...
If the city or a developer isn't following the law there is a process, but that isn't what you were proposing. You suggested that the city contractually bind developers to avoid having to deal with problems in the MGA. One would think encouraging the city to use its discretion whenever it wished to impose additional conditions on developments wouldn't be a terribly good idea for business certainty.

We all want DT to look good, but what we need is better rules and enforcement, not discretionary powers that are used because they're expedient in the moment.
 
tkoe_ said:
If the city or a developer isn't following the law there is a process, but that isn't what you were proposing. You suggested that the city contractually bind developers to avoid having to deal with problems in the MGA. One would think encouraging the city to use its discretion whenever it wished to impose additional conditions on developments wouldn't be a terribly good idea for business certainty.

We all want DT to look good, but what we need is better rules and enforcement, not discretionary powers that are used because they're expedient in the moment.
Click to expand...
maybe i wasn’t as clear as i should have been. as it stands, the mga sets out how property taxes are assessed. as such, if you demolish the structures on a lot the taxes revert to land only. my suggestion was that instead of changing that, make it a development permit condition that the owner pay an amount equivalent to that differential until such time as the proposed development is completed. it shouldn’t be arbitrary or discretionary, it should simply be in our zoning bylaws as a condition of the development permit under which the demolition permit is issued. it would be contractual in the same way all development permit conditions are contractual, not necessarily as a stand alone agreement although a supplemental agreement may facilitate the process in the same way we have supplemental servicing agreements etc. already.
 
Last edited:
I suppose the problem is that what seems simple from the outside is often much more complex. Issuing a development permit is an administrative decision, not contractual. If the city does not follow it's own bylaws in deciding where and when to issue permits, it can be appealed. This is a principle of the rule of law -- the city must follow its own development rules, just as residents must.

If the problem is that the current bylaws do not or cannot require property tax assessments that are not based on the current state of the property, the solution is to change the law (whether municipal or provincial), not to impose additional contractual requirements that are not required by the law.
 
you will get no disagreement from me when it comes to the city setting and following its own development rules, just as residents must.

its interesting however, that in this case the city specifically agreed - albeit at council and not administratively although i can't remember what administration's recommendation was - not to follow its own development rules. it approved the demolition of the bank of montreal building without a development permit or building permit being in place.

the only benefitting party from this whole fiasco - although it's far from the only time this type of fiasco has been visited upon the city - is the owner/developer who has seen his property tax payments reduced as a result of the demolition of an existing building with no plans in place to replace it. i'm not sure why you think it would be particularly problematic to eliminate that incentive.

you noted that "if the city does not follow its own bylaws in deciding where and when to issue permits, it can be appealed" but that right doesn't really exist in these circumstances does it? a development permit decision is usually only appealed by the owner/developer for being refused, not for being issued. i'm not sure why anyone would appeal something granted to them.

as far as i know, there is no right for anyone else to appeal a development permit or a demolition permit unless there are grounds to be made that relaxations were provided that shouldn't have been or if there were actual errors in process and even then, once the demolition is done there's not much recourse of substance available.

amending the mga to address this is not simple (and it's time-consuming) and wasn't my recommendation.

amending our bylaws and permit fees to accomplish the same thing should be pretty simple. if you demolish a building and as a result reduce the property taxes payable by $xxx.00 per year, there should be an annual fee payable to the city of $xxx.00 until such time as there as completed improvements on the site on which the city collects a minimum of $xxx.00 in property taxes. like a servicing agreement or a heritage designation or a deferred reserve caveat etc., the city should be able to ensure payment by registering that interest on title.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top