+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Land Development and Real Estate (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Urban Areas (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: 900 King St W | 25 fl | U/C (/showthread.php?tid=1595)
RE: 900 King Street West | 25 fl | Proposed - ijmorlan - 08-25-2021
(08-25-2021, 06:49 AM)Spokes Wrote: But it should!!!
Are you saying demolition should only be allowed if the replacement is already approved?
If so I don’t think this will have the effect you want. People won’t just keep operating the building they would prefer to demolish; they’ll just leave it empty and do minimal maintenance on it.
Then the next government will come along and try to address the problem of unwanted empty buildings, and cause even more distortion.
Much better to just set some basic rules on how empty lots have to be maintained to avoid real eyesores.
RE: 900 King Street West | 25 fl | Proposed - plam - 08-25-2021
Or tax it so that it's unprofitable to leave empty...
RE: 900 King Street West | 25 fl | Proposed - ijmorlan - 08-25-2021
(08-25-2021, 05:08 PM)plam Wrote: Or tax it so that it's unprofitable to leave empty...
Easier said than done: define “empty”.
Generally speaking, it’s a good idea to really dig into an apparent problem and understand it thoroughly before attempting to solve it by changing the rules that other people have to follow with their stuff.
RE: 900 King Street West | 25 fl | Proposed - plam - 08-25-2021
(08-25-2021, 05:28 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:(08-25-2021, 05:08 PM)plam Wrote: Or tax it so that it's unprofitable to leave empty...
Easier said than done: define “empty”.
Generally speaking, it’s a good idea to really dig into an apparent problem and understand it thoroughly before attempting to solve it by changing the rules that other people have to follow with their stuff.
Yes, implementation details matter too, but the principle of taxing things that we don't want is actually a good one.
RE: 900 King Street West | 25 fl | Proposed - tomh009 - 08-25-2021
(08-25-2021, 06:29 PM)plam Wrote:(08-25-2021, 05:28 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Easier said than done: define “empty”.
Generally speaking, it’s a good idea to really dig into an apparent problem and understand it thoroughly before attempting to solve it by changing the rules that other people have to follow with their stuff.
Yes, implementation details matter too, but the principle of taxing things that we don't want is actually a good one.
Agreed. Some things are easy: vacant land in a PARTS zone (near a station) clearly shouldn't be discounted. An empty building that cannot be rented? Should be the same as one that is rented.
Other cases can admittedly be more complicated.
RE: 900 King Street West | 25 fl | Proposed - ijmorlan - 08-26-2021
(08-25-2021, 10:19 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(08-25-2021, 06:29 PM)plam Wrote: Yes, implementation details matter too, but the principle of taxing things that we don't want is actually a good one.
Agreed. Some things are easy: vacant land in a PARTS zone (near a station) clearly shouldn't be discounted. An empty building that cannot be rented? Should be the same as one that is rented.
Other cases can admittedly be more complicated.
Those are great examples where the complicated tax policy pushes in the wrong direction, so things can be improved by simplifying the tax code to stop pushing. This is easy to justify and requires much less care than making the tax code more complicated in order to push for some outcome.
On a similar note, I’ve heard that tons of buildings in New York (and probably other cities as well) have empty storefronts because the value of the building (relevant for mortgage-backed securities) depends on the rent; but for some reason it doesn’t depend on the rent collected but on the stated rent. If they say the space is “for rent” for $100,000 per month, then the value of the property is some multiple of $100,000; but if they actually rent it for $90,000 per month, the value drops by the corresponding 10%.
This is of course absurd, and calls into question the intelligence of the bankers; except that I’m sure their bonuses are being paid, so their intelligence is fine; but the regulators really ought to do something about it, like require them to use the rent they can actually realize as the basis for valuation.
RE: 900 King Str W | 25 fl | Proposed - bgb_ca - 08-26-2021
So where do I file a NIMBY complaint about this project. It's going to block my view of the CTV Microwave tower from my place...
(Just kidding)
RE: 900 King Street West | 25 fl | Proposed - Spokes - 08-28-2021
(08-25-2021, 02:14 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:(08-25-2021, 06:49 AM)Spokes Wrote: But it should!!!
Are you saying demolition should only be allowed if the replacement is already approved?
If so I don’t think this will have the effect you want. People won’t just keep operating the building they would prefer to demolish; they’ll just leave it empty and do minimal maintenance on it.
Then the next government will come along and try to address the problem of unwanted empty buildings, and cause even more distortion.
Much better to just set some basic rules on how empty lots have to be maintained to avoid real eyesores.
I actually meant it as a joke. Disregard Haha
RE: 900 King Str W | 25 fl | Proposed - TMKM94 - 08-29-2021
(08-26-2021, 11:31 AM)bgb_ca Wrote: So where do I file a NIMBY complaint about this project. It's going to block my view of the CTV Microwave tower from my place...I wonder how CTV and Bell media feels about the building? I'm assuming a 25 floor tower across the street from there studio would block a big portion of there aerial view of Waterloo from the tower.
(Just kidding)
RE: 900 King Str W | 25 fl | Proposed - ijmorlan - 08-29-2021
(08-29-2021, 08:18 AM)TMKM94 Wrote:(08-26-2021, 11:31 AM)bgb_ca Wrote: So where do I file a NIMBY complaint about this project. It's going to block my view of the CTV Microwave tower from my place...I wonder how CTV and Bell media feels about the building? I'm assuming a 25 floor tower across the street from there studio would block a big portion of there aerial view of Waterloo from the tower.
(Just kidding)
Move the tower on top of the new building … I understand that is why the CN Tower was built, although in other big cities the same problem was typically solved less iconically.
RE: 900 King St W | 25 fl | Proposed - Lebronj23 - 09-16-2021
https://outline.com/UMJehx
RE: 900 King St W | 25 fl | Proposed - Chris - 09-16-2021
(09-16-2021, 01:07 PM)Lebronj23 Wrote: https://outline.com/UMJehx
Headline = 25-storey rental tower slated for midtown Kitchener, across from Grand River Hospital
RE: 900 King St W | 25 fl | Proposed - ac3r - 09-16-2021
Quote:The developer is considering partnering with the Grand River Hospital Foundation to provide 13 hotel rooms for families of people who are in hospital on a long-term basis.
Interesting. I wonder how useful this would be.
At least this will be a rental building rather than a condo that is out of reach for half the people who live here...not that renting is that affordable either.
RE: 900 King St W | 25 fl | Proposed - Rainrider22 - 09-16-2021
I would say it would be very useful considering many people travel here for Cancer care from outside our region. A lot of people in Bruce and Grey county utilize Grand River hospital for cancer care.
RE: 900 King St W | 25 fl | Proposed - jeffster - 09-16-2021
(09-16-2021, 01:33 PM)Chris Wrote:(09-16-2021, 01:07 PM)Lebronj23 Wrote: https://outline.com/UMJehx
Headline = 25-storey rental tower slated for midtown Kitchener, across from Grand River Hospital
Quote:Some in the nearby Mary-Allen neighbourhood in Waterloo are worried about additional traffic congesting their streets.
Legally, do they even have a say? Not their city.