Lister Block

Lister Recap in the Spec

By Jason Leach
Published July 02, 2008

Andrew Dreschel gives us a nice recap of Lister events in today's Hamilton Spectator. Congrats to everyone involved, especially to Councillor McHattie for helping turn this from a demolition project into a restoration project.

Jason Leach was born and raised in the Hammer and currently lives downtown with his wife and children. You can follow him on twitter.

14 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By reuben (registered) - website | Posted July 02, 2008 at 10:35:22

well, if we are keeping score, things are now all tied up. suburban car lovers - 1 (they got their expensive highway), downtown restorationists - 1 (they got their expensive listerblock rehab).

actually, to be truely even from a monetary point of view, LRT still needs to be built :)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By scorekeeper (anonymous) | Posted July 02, 2008 at 10:57:19

Hmm, the ledger still looks a little off....

Capital Costs

suburban car lovers - $250,000,000
downtown restorationists - $ 25,000,000

Annual Lifecycle Costs

suburban car lovers - $8,650,000[1]
downtown restorationists - # 115,000[2]

[1] $6 million debt servicing, $2.65 million operating
[2] $115,000 debt servicing (operating costs equivalent to other city owned office space)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted July 02, 2008 at 11:52:04

Wasn't the Redhill more like $500,000,000?

Reuben's right. We need LRT to even this up. Plus a little extra for pain and suffering.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By markb (anonymous) | Posted July 02, 2008 at 12:01:58

Scorecard's lifecycle costs for Lister are grossly underestimated. Debt servicing for the Lister deal will come in closer to $800,000 p.a., and city staff have estimated annual maintenance costs at $500,000.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By scorekeeper (anonymous) | Posted July 02, 2008 at 13:19:02

highwater - AFAIK the $500,000,000 includes the Linc.

markb, to clarify, the lister lifecycle price (oops, should be $ sign, not #) doesn't include building operating costs, since they'd be the same as any other office the city uses, therefore they don't represent a **net addition** to the city's operating expenses. I got debt servicing cost with an amortizing calculator over 25 years.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By markb (anonymous) | Posted July 02, 2008 at 13:42:43

As owner of the building, the city will need to assume capital maintenance expenses which are not currently in the city's expense list for the leased space this building will (theoretically) replace. This is estimated at $500,000 annually, and is a net-new expenditure.

My $800,000 debt servicing is based on the city's estimate of accumulated interest on the purchase loan over a 20-year period.

The entire exercise borders on the ridiculous anyway. A 'us vs. them'-style scorecard attempts to perpetuate civic divisions based on demographics. Better to try to heal the rifts in the city than expand upon them. The city would be so much further ahead if it weren't constantly embroiled in divisive 'tit-for-tat' politics like this.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jelly (anonymous) | Posted July 02, 2008 at 13:51:40

At least it only took us "downtown restorationists" four years of public debate, as opposed to 50. ;)

It was good to see The Spec acknowledge some of the people who have been dragged through the mud over the course of this ordeal. It's nice to see a change in position. However it would have also been great for them to give a nod to all those pesky activists who put this issue on the agenda in the first place. ;)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By w willy (registered) | Posted July 02, 2008 at 14:30:23

My scorecard: LIUNA/construction industry: 2 Property tax payers: so far zero (maybe Lister will pay off more than Red Hill... where are all those industries that were waiting to relocate once we built that highway? Oh yeah, now we need to add Aerotropolis. Still not coming? We need mid-Pen. Still not coming? Its the fault of the naysayers who held up these projects too long.)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By markwhittle (registered) - website | Posted July 02, 2008 at 14:34:13

The City's share of 22.1 million will have to be borrowed, costing over 20 years an extra $16 million dollars in interest, for a total of $38 millon. We will not invest the $500 thousand a year to maintain the building (2 per cent of the cost of the building according to our staff). Therefore the value of the "asset" once it's paid off is hard to predict. The City Hall has been a poor investment for tax-payers, since at the end of its 40 year life span we are forced to spend upwards of $70 million dollars to refurbish it. Throughout its history taxpayers spent millions to repair its leaky roof, and the support system for the marble slabs, which began falling off shortly after its construction. None of the building's many problems were attributed to the architect or contractors, so it became a liability to the taxpayers. As for the Lister we won't know until October the details of what we have actually purchased, know in construction terms as the "shell building". To purchase land or buldings, the City's acquisition policy requires that a need has to be shown. Compare our direction with today's news from Buffalo, where a private developer will purchase a partially collapsed 1870's stable and turn it into condominiums. You can read it by clicking on this link: http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/stori...

Posted by: Bob Bratina | July 01, 2008 at 10:02 PM http://hallmarks.thespec.com/2008/07/lis...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By markwhittle (registered) - website | Posted July 02, 2008 at 15:49:32

The City's share of 22.1 million will have to be borrowed, costing over 20 years an extra $16 million dollars in interest, for a total of $38 millon. We will not invest the $500 thousand a year to maintain the building (2 per cent of the cost of the building according to our staff). Therefore the value of the "asset" once it's paid off is hard to predict. The City Hall has been a poor investment for tax-payers, since at the end of its 40 year life span we are forced to spend upwards of $70 million dollars to refurbish it. Throughout its history taxpayers spent millions to repair its leaky roof, and the support system for the marble slabs, which began falling off shortly after its construction. None of the building's many problems were attributed to the architect or contractors, so it became a liability to the taxpayers. As for the Lister we won't know until October the details of what we have actually purchased, know in construction terms as the "shell building". To purchase land or buldings, the City's acquisition policy requires that a need has to be shown. Compare our direction with today's news from Buffalo, where a private developer will purchase a partially collapsed 1870's stable and turn it into condominiums. You can read it by clicking on this link: http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/stori...

Posted by: Bob Bratina | July 01, 2008 at 10:02 PM http://hallmarks.thespec.com/2008/07/lis...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted July 04, 2008 at 11:59:57

Still waiting for Dreschel to call himself out on last Friday's column. "In one horrible day, Eisenberger lost the Lister vote and became the subject of a code of conduct investigation. He's not likely to shrug off either any time soon."

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By dreadful (anonymous) | Posted July 04, 2008 at 11:59:58

Still waiting for Dreschel to call himself out on last Friday's column. "In one horrible day, Eisenberger lost the Lister vote and became the subject of a code of conduct investigation. He's not likely to shrug off either any time soon."

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Benito (anonymous) | Posted July 06, 2008 at 09:33:48

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By JH (anonymous) | Posted July 06, 2008 at 18:34:56

How are people in this forum even comparing the creation of a "expensive highway" to the restoration of a heritage building? Sheesh.

Cost-benefit analysis obscures the actual disparity in the scope of what we are talking about.

Sheesh again.



geez.

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds