Chard built their first Victoria rental tower recently, and it was sold to an REIT upon completion, and the lot we're discussing has been held for 15 years by a local developer post-approvals (and bought long before that). Both of your theories are now debunked. So what now?

Like I said though, it all comes down to the market. Developers big or small are bound by market conditions, and holding smaller or local developers to some other standard ultimately vilifies them for making future decisions you don’t like because you had the wrong idea. I guess what I’m saying is, developers act to secure their future, so that they may continue building more housing for our communities.

Well this has turned in to the most boring road to nowhere discussion ever, so my final words here.

Mike, giving one example (or even two) does not debunk arguments, but I’m sure you know that. For every example you provide, I can provide one to back my contention, but that doesn’t make me ‘right’. I claimed no absolute unlike you, but based on probabilities why I prefer local developers. This is why I purposely used language as “tend to” or “generally”. Of course there will be a mix of REITs, large, medium and small scale developers, but I believe we need to be wary of REIT’s having too much leverage/power. Having another perspective or being wary of the potential risks in a free market that can be manipulated (logical action of capitalism) is not vilifying. I believe it’s called critical thinking and free speech. If not, feel free to move this to the Nutbar/Conspiracy Theory Dancing Banana Thread! :).

I think the challenge that Gateway Green had was that they just couldn't compete with Jawl Office to line up tenants. This isn't due to anything nefarious on Jawl's part: Jawl simply has long-standing relationships with many major office tenants in town, and their buildings are well-run and highly regarded (even the retail tenant mixes on the ground levels tend to heavily favour local businesses and cafes). I believe Jawl likely has an anchor tenant lined up for its planned office redevelopment of the Capital 6, and that building is still in its initial planning stages; Gateway Green had approvals in place years ago but failed to line up any tenants. Tri-Eagle seems to have had more success in its suburban office buildings as these generally don't compete directly with Jawl.

My assumption is that this site will be redeveloped as rental apartments unless it's bought by Jawl.

I was the IT director at the LTSA back when GG came onto our radar as the org was planning to move from the old HO location on Davidson St in Saanich.

One of the primary reasons LTSA never signed on and eventually moved to the Atrium - in spite of its hefty price tag - was that the Jawls had a definite vision and more critically a concrete timeline for its construction. The GG folks never could provide much if anything in way of substantive info re a construction framework never mind an actual schedule,and like any org needing more space "now" the LTSA wasn't prepared to sit around waiting forever......

And that's just how it goes. Huge sums of money spent on proposing the project, getting it approved, and marketing it to tenants. Lots of time, lots of effort, lots of investor capital gone.

It doesn't matter how big or small you are as a developer, every project is viewed through the lense of its immediate financial pros and cons. Zoomer gave us the example of the Winnipeg project, but he won't tell us how much Starlight spent pursuing that proposal which it will never recover following the proposal's collapse.

There are more skeletons in the world of development than there are shining examples of perfectly executed projects. This is not a pursuit for the faint of heart, and vilifying those who have the ability and experience to deliver housing/commercial spaces is only going to hinder the provision of what we need, even if our intentions are good by propping up one type of developer over another.