Comment 91330

By erskinec (registered) - website | Posted August 24, 2013 at 09:14:06 in reply to Comment 91280

Hi Fred Street,

What you say about properties in well-to-do neighbourhoods and the locations affecting the results may be true. However, this is why researchers are looking at multiple projects in multiple communities. To escape the limitations of individual projects and individual communities.

I would also suggest that the process of gentrification would counter your point. This process would offer the greatest rewards to those who start the process. James Street North or even the Gore Park Condo project may be good future examples.

With regards to the focus on money instead of history and beauty, many have argued on this blog that developers are not doing this for nothing; that they have investors who want to see a return on their projects. I am afraid that many developers share the same mis-understandings as the public - that you can't make money on heritage.

I wanted to show that there is research out there that says both developers and the future re-sellers of heritage properties can make money.

From my perspective, the Gore Park Buildings should be a win-win situation for everyone involved: the developer and his investors, taxpayers, area businesses, and heritage advocates.

A condo development that occupies almost a full city block with lots of access to the street on James and Main should work well for the developer. Using the heritage buildings facing Gore Park would be a great way of re-energizing area and create a wonderful town square that would offer a great attraction to condo owners and visitors.

I can't understand why the developer and his investors are not attracted to this opportunity unless building condos is not the real goal.

Comment edited by erskinec on 2013-08-24 09:53:40

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds