Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Bunk's post literally said "the city asked"
How is that not the city wanting to change the deal?
I even said the Flames took the ask as winning the lottery because they could take the city's commitment and take control.
Bottom line you have two sides that didn't like where costs were going.
Don't think I'm stretching any truths in that assumption.
|
Just to be clear - there is no pre-approved design with a pre-approved set of features in a "deal" and then anything else that's asked about in a normal approval process is "changing a deal". The deal is structured around attributing costs of a fully approved building. Energy features are really no different than the City commenting or requirements that might relate to urban design, height, massing architecture, landscape, material, access points, parking, etc. It's rooted in Council policy.
With respect to the sidewalks, the most charitable interpretation of the situation may be that there was genuine confusion in the handover from CMLC to CSEC's development manager about responsibility over certain costs in the public ROW. As has been mentioned, in the spirit of the deal, the City stepped into costs outside the curb line in the ROW, but felt sidewalks were well within the scope of the building project - not district at large.