(03-28-2022, 07:20 PM)nms Wrote: Why not have both? Plan for a building with a green roof that slopes towards Victoria Park.  Park users could enjoy the generally south facing slope (which I realize could take away from south facing windows for the gallery space, but I think most art galleries prefer not to have natural (UV) light flowing into their spaces).  It could become a natural amphitheater for outdoor concerts or performances if shaped right.

(07-26-2022, 11:59 AM)ac3r Wrote: Affordable housing expected to be part of former Kitchener bus terminal redevelopment: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/kitchener-charles-street-terminal-redevelopment-1.6528117

(07-26-2022, 11:59 AM)ac3r Wrote: Affordable housing expected to be part of former Kitchener bus terminal redevelopment: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/kitchener-charles-street-terminal-redevelopment-1.6528117

(07-26-2022, 03:49 PM)CP42 Wrote:

(07-26-2022, 11:59 AM)ac3r Wrote: Affordable housing expected to be part of former Kitchener bus terminal redevelopment: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/kitchener-charles-street-terminal-redevelopment-1.6528117

One comment I found interesting and don’t think I have heard before: sell and use the proceeds to offset the price of the new transit hub to taxpayers (which is currently stalled due to a lack of funding). 

One transit hub’s retirement helps fund the transit hub of the future. I like that. 

I’m sure the region could include their requirements in the conditions of the sale so they still have say in what goes there, but are able to help progress the new transit hub as well.

(07-26-2022, 03:54 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(07-26-2022, 03:49 PM)CP42 Wrote: One comment I found interesting and don’t think I have heard before: sell and use the proceeds to offset the price of the new transit hub to taxpayers (which is currently stalled due to a lack of funding). 

One transit hub’s retirement helps fund the transit hub of the future. I like that. 

I’m sure the region could include their requirements in the conditions of the sale so they still have say in what goes there, but are able to help progress the new transit hub as well.

The transit hub isn't stalled due to lack of funding...it's stalled due to lack of priority. We had plenty of money to spend on the airport.

It doesn't help that the estimated price is utter bonkers for a small single floor building and train platform with minimal amenities. It's literally costing as much as a 30 story apartment building.

(07-26-2022, 03:54 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: The transit hub isn't stalled due to lack of funding...it's stalled due to lack of priority. We had plenty of money to spend on the airport.

(07-26-2022, 04:25 PM)taylortbb Wrote:

(07-26-2022, 03:54 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: The transit hub isn't stalled due to lack of funding...it's stalled due to lack of priority. We had plenty of money to spend on the airport.

This really isn't accurate. The budget that matters here isn't total expenditures, it's how much do property taxes increase. The airport is revenue generating (airport improvement fees, landing fees, commercial tenant rent, etc), and those revenues are approximately equal to the cost of expansion.

If the transit hub would generate enough revenue to pay for itself the regional could easily issue the debentures for it, but if it requires property tax increases that's where the hesitation comes from.

The airport expansion also is about 1/3 of the upfront cost as the transit hub, so even ignoring revenues your comparison isn't accurate.

(07-26-2022, 04:25 PM)taylortbb Wrote:

(07-26-2022, 03:54 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: The transit hub isn't stalled due to lack of funding...it's stalled due to lack of priority. We had plenty of money to spend on the airport.

This really isn't accurate. The budget that matters here isn't total expenditures, it's how much do property taxes increase. The airport is revenue generating (airport improvement fees, landing fees, commercial tenant rent, etc), and those revenues are approximately equal to the cost of expansion.

If the transit hub would generate enough revenue to pay for itself the regional could easily issue the debentures for it, but if it requires property tax increases that's where the hesitation comes from.

The airport expansion also is about 1/3 of the upfront cost as the transit hub, so even ignoring revenues your comparison isn't accurate.

(07-26-2022, 02:42 PM)bravado Wrote: It’s disappointing that the apes who wrote the comments on that article have the same voting rights as people with empathy and emotions.

(07-26-2022, 04:25 PM)taylortbb Wrote: If the transit hub would generate enough revenue to pay for itself the regional could easily issue the debentures for it, but if it requires property tax increases that's where the hesitation comes from.

(07-27-2022, 05:20 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Really, a tiny food court would not generate much revenue. This is not really a major transit station, and it will see fewer pax than the old Charles St terminal. The region already has experience as a landlord from that facility with the Transfers restaurant, and I expect they decided that this was not sensible business for the region, who doesn't otherwise manage any other commercial space/tenants, as far as I know.

The main benefit would be passenger convenience, but that is less significant than at Union Station and its ilk (notably Union's retail is also pretty limited) as most of the passengers will be either arriving or departing (rather than connecting) so they will be able to easily access retail outside the hub. This makes it more difficult for the retail merchants to make the business case.

I like the idea of retail inside the hub, but I recognize the challenges for both the region and the potential merchants.