Posts: 2,402
Threads: 7
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
48
(09-13-2016, 10:03 AM)Canard Wrote: So in that case it'd be better to come down. Right now, sitting stagnant it's doing nothing for the heritage of the building, and it's hindering he development of better traffic flow in the area. Lose/Lose. The current situation is the worst possible one.
It’s definitely true that neglect takes its toll on a building and makes restoration more costly and less likely. But, while the building stands, there’s hope for its restoration. If it’s torn down to accommodate roadway, that’s no longer the case.
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
So shit or get off the pot.  Restore it and make it useful. Having it sit there rotting with an empty promise of future development simply holds back everything.
Posts: 896
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
11
09-13-2016, 07:16 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-13-2016, 07:16 PM by DHLawrence.)
As I said, it's on De Haas' to-do list. Last I heard it's still his company's name on the deed.
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
All I'm saying is:
Neutral Outcomes:
1. hotel is developed (+1) and we have something/some reason why the road is not better(-1): net outcome 0.
2. Hotel is demolished (-1) so road can get better (+1): net outcome 0.
Bad Outcomes:
1. Hotel stalls (-1) and blocks road improvements (-1): net outcome -2.
Posts: 7,580
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
196
(09-13-2016, 08:10 PM)Canard Wrote: All I'm saying is:
Neutral Outcomes:
1. hotel is developed (+1) and we have something/some reason why the road is not better(-1): net outcome 0.
2. Hotel is demolished (-1) so road can get better (+1): net outcome 0.
Bad Outcomes:
1. Hotel stalls (-1) and blocks road improvements (-1): net outcome -2.
Not everyone may agree with your assignment of 1 to all outcome values. Some might feel for example that demolishing the hotel is far worse (-5 for example) than simply having it sit there.
I don't have an opinion on the matter so much, but I do understand that this is a serious oversimplification.
Posts: 744
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
11
Unless I'm misunderstanding, the effect of the Preston Springs Hotel on the adjacent road project has already happened. The designs are final, contracts are awarded, and work is progressing. So demolishing it right now wouldn't help any.
Posts: 2,402
Threads: 7
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
48
(09-13-2016, 05:06 PM)Canard Wrote: So shit or get off the pot. Restore it and make it useful.
Who? The owner? I'm not sure what mechanism the municipal government or anyone else can use to force someone to redevelop a property. It's designated, so it can't be demolished, and that's a good outcome- it might seem like an "empty promise," but one day it could be redeveloped, and that's likely given a long enough time frame.
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
Ok.
I think you know what I'm saying, though - it's kind of a dick move to just buy up property that is prime and then not do anything with it. It doesn't further the community at all. It just looks awful and holds up anything else from happening. Like those two plots of land next to Kitchener City Hall. Sure, it's theirs, but that didn't stop a massive public outcry about how awful it is that they're there.
Posts: 262
Threads: 3
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
22
(09-14-2016, 08:37 AM)Canard Wrote: Ok.
I think you know what I'm saying, though - it's kind of a dick move to just buy up property that is prime and then not do anything with it. It doesn't further the community at all. It just looks awful and holds up anything else from happening. Like those two plots of land next to Kitchener City Hall. Sure, it's theirs, but that didn't stop a massive public outcry about how awful it is that they're there.
Dick move, but legal and even rational.
So how do you make it either not legal or not rational? It's hard to legally compel anyone to develop a property. You can't legislate profitable development.
What you might do is make it irrational to let a (potentially) productive property sit fallow. In the case of downtown Kitchener, having a way to calculate the potential value of a property and factoring that into the taxes for that property would pressure the property owner to do something with it, to either get off the pot or... do the other thing. It would help speed up development of open parking lots and reduce the incentive to demolish underused buildings for tax savings.
(It might have negative second-order effects though. Someone wants to build a development that's high value? Might see opposition from all the neighbours who are afraid of it showing how they're underutilizing their own properties.)
Anyway, could this apply to Preston Springs? It's harder to justify that this property has a productive use than something in a downtown core. If you try too hard, all you do is make a property valueless because it's so encumbered by obligation. It's like having a brownfield requiring cleanup: it's not worth buying even for 1 dollar because you have to invest millions before you can do anything with it.
So much for the stick. What about some carrots?
Posts: 1,099
Threads: 6
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
99
Posts: 4,328
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2015
Reputation:
178
(09-14-2016, 06:14 PM)Coke6pk Wrote: This?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-co...-1.3761496
Coke
Define “vacant”.
Posts: 2,402
Threads: 7
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
48
(09-14-2016, 02:15 PM)zanate Wrote: What you might do is make it irrational to let a (potentially) productive property sit fallow. In the case of downtown Kitchener, having a way to calculate the potential value of a property and factoring that into the taxes for that property would pressure the property owner to do something with it, to either get off the pot or... do the other thing. It would help speed up development of open parking lots and reduce the incentive to demolish underused buildings for tax savings.
(It might have negative second-order effects though. Someone wants to build a development that's high value? Might see opposition from all the neighbours who are afraid of it showing how they're underutilizing their own properties.)
Anyway, could this apply to Preston Springs? It's harder to justify that this property has a productive use than something in a downtown core. If you try too hard, all you do is make a property valueless because it's so encumbered by obligation. It's like having a brownfield requiring cleanup: it's not worth buying even for 1 dollar because you have to invest millions before you can do anything with it.
So much for the stick. What about some carrots?
Properties are assessed in Ontario based on the highest and best use of the land, if the highest and best use is not the current use. So, if someone owns a single family home on a parcel of land on a commercial corridor, it might be tempting to call him names and assume he is speculating while paying relatively little taxes, but the land portion of his assessment will be based on the highest and best use of the parcel, and will be a lot higher than someone with a comparable property elsewhere.
But I know that you're saying to levy taxes based on the potential value of a potential building or use on any given site. That could get really complicated for an assessor. We now have twenty story buildings in downtown Kitchener, for instance- does that imply that a given lot of a certain size in downtown Kitchener could accommodate a building like that? Maybe it could, but not all of them can. If you decided to assess based on the potential value of a piece of land, you would have endless appeals for property owners explaining why the market would not bear such a development, or why their particular lot is not suited to such and such development.
We do have carrots like grants for heritage properties, and development fee waivers in certain areas.
To bring this back to the topic, I think that Building Scout is right that the road configuration is what is holding back reuse of the hotel.
Posts: 896
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
11
Can't blame it all on the road configuration; Preston Springs has spent more years empty than full, and King and Fountain was not always that busy an intersection. The place lost its purpose after the sulphur springs craze died out. It's too much hotel for what was then a sleepy mill town and is now just a sleepy part of Cambridge - a part of town that everyone drives through rather than driving to. The only options are seniors home and apartments, and there's not much parking available for either use. That's why the trend has been to develop Preston Springs and the Kress/Dorchester site as a package deal.
Posts: 10,275
Threads: 65
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
296
(09-15-2016, 04:21 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: (09-14-2016, 06:14 PM)Coke6pk Wrote: This?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-co...-1.3761496
Coke
Define “vacant”.
Not the primary residence of at least one person.
Posts: 6,469
Threads: 38
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
85
(09-18-2016, 02:14 PM)tomh009 Wrote: (09-15-2016, 04:21 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: Define “vacant”.
Not the primary residence of at least one person.
Wouldn't that render short term rentals "vacant"?
|
