General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours

[nms]

Joel Rubinoff wrote a column about the state of downtown Kitchener.  Various locals were interviewed included the owner of the Yeti Café, A Second Look Books as well as former Mayor Carl Zehr and The Museum's David Marskell.  The article has a teased image of dream that David Marskell has for 44 Gaukel.  If he can pull it off, it would definitely be a placemaker.

[panamaniac]

Joel Rubinoff wrote a column about the state of downtown Kitchener.  Various locals were interviewed included the owner of the Yeti Café, A Second Look Books as well as former Mayor Carl Zehr and The Museum's David Marskell.  The article has a teased image of dream that David Marskell has for 44 Gaukel.  If he can pull it off, it would definitely be a placemaker.

With due respect to Marskell, he cannot pull it off.   The real question is whether themuseum can survive.

[Acitta]

Joel Rubinoff wrote a column about the state of downtown Kitchener.  Various locals were interviewed included the owner of the Yeti Café, A Second Look Books as well as former Mayor Carl Zehr and The Museum's David Marskell.  The article has a teased image of dream that David Marskell has for 44 Gaukel.  If he can pull it off, it would definitely be a placemaker.

With due respect to Marskell, he cannot pull it off.   The real question is whether themuseum can survive.

It would be nice to see a building like that downtown, but who is going to finance it? There is a whole row of new retail units in the centre block that are empty. Maybe if they had tenants, more people would venture out of their condos to shop there.

[Vojnik_Vahaj]

With due respect to Marskell, he cannot pull it off.   The real question is whether themuseum can survive.

It would be nice to see a building like that downtown, but who is going to finance it? There is a whole row of new retail units in the centre block that are empty. Maybe if they had tenants, more people would venture out of their condos to shop there.

It always sad for me to see local businesses in uptown or downtown close and the space remains empty

[tomh009]

There is a whole row of new retail units in the centre block that are empty. Maybe if they had tenants, more people would venture out of their condos to shop there.

It always sad for me to see local businesses in uptown or downtown close and the space remains empty

I think Acitta is referring to the row of King Street-facing retail units in the Young Condos development that have never yet had tenants. As other businesses have opened in other King St W locations since then, I do expect that these particular retail units are priced too high to attract new retail tenants.

[panamaniac]

It always sad for me to see local businesses in uptown or downtown close and the space remains empty

I think Acitta is referring to the row of King Street-facing retail units in the Young Condos development that have never yet had tenants. As other businesses have opened in other King St W locations since then, I do expect that these particular retail units are priced too high to attract new retail tenants.

A common problem of new mixed use developments, istm.  These could be sitting empty for years.

[bravado]

I still don’t understand how commercial landlords can stay in business doing things like that. There is a relatively fixed amount of entrepreneurial people and commercial rent has always seemed hilariously out of touch with reality.

[taylortbb]

I still don’t understand how commercial landlords can stay in business doing things like that. There is a relatively fixed amount of entrepreneurial people and commercial rent has always seemed hilariously out of touch with reality.

See https://www.reddit.com/r/boston/comments...ep_spaces/

Commercial buildings are valued based on rent, so it's preferable to leave it vacant as then it gets valued based on theoretical rent rather than lower actual rent. It's less about the carrying costs, and more about the resale value.

[bravado]

Ah I get it, well that helps me sleep at night knowing that bullshit financialization of everything means that I don't get a vibrant downtown and space for local entrepreneurs 

[tomh009]

I still don’t understand how commercial landlords can stay in business doing things like that. There is a relatively fixed amount of entrepreneurial people and commercial rent has always seemed hilariously out of touch with reality.

It's either the developer sitting on unsold retail condo units--or the condo corporation dealing with the operation costs of the units with no rental income to make up for that. But if it were the latter case, I expect that the condo corp would drop the rent in order to attract tenants.

[panamaniac]

I still don’t understand how commercial landlords can stay in business doing things like that. There is a relatively fixed amount of entrepreneurial people and commercial rent has always seemed hilariously out of touch with reality.

It's either the developer sitting on unsold retail condo units--or the condo corporation dealing with the operation costs of the units with no rental income to make up for that. But if it were the latter case, I expect that the condo corp would drop the rent in order to attract tenants.

Are there residential condo corps that are responsible for attached commercial units?  I'd run like hell ...

[taylortbb]

I still don’t understand how commercial landlords can stay in business doing things like that. There is a relatively fixed amount of entrepreneurial people and commercial rent has always seemed hilariously out of touch with reality.

It's either the developer sitting on unsold retail condo units--or the condo corporation dealing with the operation costs of the units with no rental income to make up for that. But if it were the latter case, I expect that the condo corp would drop the rent in order to attract tenants.

The units are listed for lease, so the developer isn't sitting on unsold commercial condo units. But I'm certain they're not run by the condo, that would be a multi-million dollar gift from the developer to the purchasers.

[danbrotherston]

It's either the developer sitting on unsold retail condo units--or the condo corporation dealing with the operation costs of the units with no rental income to make up for that. But if it were the latter case, I expect that the condo corp would drop the rent in order to attract tenants.

The units are listed for lease, so the developer isn't sitting on unsold commercial condo units. But I'm certain they're not run by the condo, that would be a multi-million dollar gift from the developer to the purchasers.

This is like saying that the "free gift you get with your purchase" is a free gift...

No...it's just part of the purchase. If these were allocated to the condo corporation by the developer, it would simply increase the value of the properties. And the developer would be motivated to do this because it would transfer risk to the condo corporation (for example, the risk that they would be unable to lease these units).

[tomh009]

Exactly. It's no different from common areas. The developer can sell the retail units individually, or they can build the cost of those retail units into the prices of the residential units.

Most condo developers do not want to retain ownership of the units and lease them out as they are not in the real estate leasing business.

[taylortbb]

The units are listed for lease, so the developer isn't sitting on unsold commercial condo units. But I'm certain they're not run by the condo, that would be a multi-million dollar gift from the developer to the purchasers.

This is like saying that the "free gift you get with your purchase" is a free gift...

No...it's just part of the purchase. If these were allocated to the condo corporation by the developer, it would simply increase the value of the properties. And the developer would be motivated to do this because it would transfer risk to the condo corporation (for example, the risk that they would be unable to lease these units).

"It would simply increase the value of the properties" sounds a lot like the efficient market hypothesis, which I'm really skeptical of in the residential real estate market. People are terrible at accounting for the costs of their purchases. People can't even account for the cost of gas, nevermind the cost of their time, from purchasing homes at the far edges of suburbia. They're not going to account for the value of a commercial unit's rent to offset their condo fees.

Selling the commercial unit(s) as a separate unit would almost certainly have far better returns for the developer than hoping that the promise of a condo fee offset in the future would adequately raise the sale price of all the residential units.

So yes, forgoing the higher return of selling the commercial unit as it's own condo unit, and instead taking the lower return of bundling it in for the residential purchasers, would absolutely be a huge gift to the residential purchasers.

Most condo developers do not want to retain ownership of the units and lease them out as they are not in the real estate leasing business.

I agree, and I never suggested they would. It's almost certainly just another unit of the condo, which was sold to a commercial landlord.