City wants Bay tower built
I suppose the city’s hungry for a larger tax base, because the mayor’s really keen to see the Hudson’s Bay tower get built in some form.
I suppose the city’s hungry for a larger tax base, because the mayor’s really keen to see the Hudson’s Bay tower get built in some form.
denpanosekai 14:16 on 2021-07-31 Permalink
OCPM is NIMBYing the shit out of this project……… it’s downtown for fuck’s sake. Build them tall and often!
Kate 14:26 on 2021-07-31 Permalink
Taller than Mount Royal?
Ephraim 17:43 on 2021-07-31 Permalink
If we don’t build more places for people to live in the city… they will live in the greenbelt. We need higher density… higher, but with some greenery around it or in it. People complain about rent… well, we need more apartments, houses and condos if you want rents to be affordable. It’s economics 101… supply and demand. And if we curtail supply while demand is increasing… we get higher rents and higher prices for condos and houses. Open up the supply… build higher, smarter, more sustainable with more green space.
ant6nd 18:42 on 2021-07-31 Permalink
There are diminishing returns for height. Skyscrapers in parks don’t compete well on density with more urban/human-scale forms.
Kate 18:55 on 2021-07-31 Permalink
Ephraim, you would be astounded to know how many flats and apartments are standing empty in this town right now. If they were rented out, we would have no housing crisis.
ant6n 21:08 on 2021-07-31 Permalink
Germany has the Zweckentfremdungverbotsverordnung, declaring leaving residential units empty an illegal use for them. Isn’t there something similar here?
Ephraim 21:25 on 2021-07-31 Permalink
@Kate – There are likely many reasons, including the fact that with the standard lease, it can take from 6 months to a year to regain possession, but if you rent short-term, you can take possession at the end of a month. And of course we don’t tax unoccupied apartments. Which is one reason that we should have a registry of addresses and occupancy for tax purposes. But then… that’s a silly idea, following the money.
Perhaps a modification of the tax roles so that you have to register the occupant to pay residential rates, and if it isn’t occupied, a tax rate that is commercial, for example… so there is an incentive to have it occupied. I don’t know enough to figure out how to do this, but we do need to do this. Just as we need to build more to lower the supply and demand curve.
Ephraim 21:27 on 2021-07-31 Permalink
RQ requires you to list the SIN of someone that you pay as an independent contractor. I had to list the payments to my handyman for RQ. I don’t see why we can trace SIN to occupancy.
Philip M 00:46 on 2021-08-01 Permalink
Just pointing out that the Bay tower would be for offices, not housing.
Kate 09:16 on 2021-08-01 Permalink
Is there growing demand for office space, though?
Uatu 10:09 on 2021-08-01 Permalink
Office space? I thought that there was enough downtown. I just don’t want even more of de maisonneuve covered in shadows
Kevin 17:09 on 2021-08-01 Permalink
There is demand for smaller offices, tiny spaces for a couple people to work, and that’s why contractors are carving up large offices into small places.
Another big office tower downtown is a pre-pandemic business model that should have been rethought before it was submitted.