Le Village Report

07 JULY 7, 2015

LE VILLAGE CIP ASSESSMENT REPORT

Ben Goodge

Ben Segal-Daly Prepared for Heart of the City

i

ABSTRACT

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report would not have materialized without the support of so many people. We would like to thank Heart of the City and Denis Carr for providing us with the opportunity to work in the city of Cornwall during the summer and for introducing us to an amazing group of people. We’d also like to thanks Dana McLean for providing us access to the CIP files and answering all of our questions; she is truly a wealth of knowledge. Thanks should also be made to Michel Dubuc and Ken Bedford who proved to be valuable contacts throughout the project and to Denis Lalonde for providing us with GIS data. We are thankful to the City of Cornwall for the provision of a work station in the building department, where we were able to access property information on MiTown and City View. Finally, we would like to thank the following organizations: CPPEC, Le Village and Downtown BIAs, the Chamber of Commerce, and other Municipal employees who helped to answer our questions. We wish you a good summer and continued success in making Le Village and the City a great community.

This report looks to assess how CIP uptake can be improved in Le Village to help stimulate regeneration. To do so interviews were conducted with property owners and commercial tenants to assess their perceptions of the programs, their future needs and how the programs have been utilized in Le Village. These interviews were supplemented by a literature review and property data from the City of Cornwall. The results of this found that the major impediments to CIP use was a lack of awareness, money and intimidation by bureaucratic elements. Many, including those previously unaware, had the intention to do future projects and to use the programs. Opportunities for further program use can be seen in the significantly greater demand for residential space and renovations. The CIPs have already had a positive impact on the area. Large projects in particular have provided disproportional benefits. An interest in and cooperative attitude towards regeneration within the commercial community in Le Village is another important element to success of the CIP. From these results and analysis 12 recommendations were formulated. It is recommended to: 1. Establish regular email communication with property owners 2. Establish a working group which matches creative industries with property owners to fill vacant storefronts for temporary uses. 3. Provide creative industries with temporary space at below market rent. 4. Eliminate conditions which remove CIP funding once a property is sold. 5. Eliminate minimum funding for program applications. 6. Provide grants for landscaping. 7. Provide design concepts, costs and potential benefits to owners. 8. Allow for residential work within the CIP programs 9. Monitor and focus attention on at-risk or problem properties 10. Provide upfront funding for problem properties 11. Enable conversion to residential uses. 12. Implement the EDA design recommendations.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract .......................................................................................................................................................... i

Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................................... i

1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1

2 Goals and Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 1

3 Methods ............................................................................................................................................ 2

3.1 Background Research and Establishing Scope .............................................................................. 2

3.2 METHODS ...................................................................................................................................... 6

3.3 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 8

4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... 8

4.1 State of the Property .................................................................................................................... 9

4.2 Reasons for not accessing funding ................................................................................................ 9

4.2.1 Program Awareness .............................................................................................................. 9

4.2.2 Money ................................................................................................................................. 10

4.2.3 Property Sales ..................................................................................................................... 10

4.2.4 Bureaucracy ........................................................................................................................ 11

4.3 Future Projects ............................................................................................................................ 12

4.4 Purchasing Adjacent Properties .................................................................................................. 12

4.5 Conversions ................................................................................................................................. 13

4.6 Future Program Use .................................................................................................................... 13

4.7 Renters vs. Owners ..................................................................................................................... 14

4.8 Temporary Uses .......................................................................................................................... 14

4.9 Out of Town Owners ................................................................................................................... 14

4.10 Multiple Properties ..................................................................................................................... 15

4.11 Property Value Change ............................................................................................................... 15

4.12 Funding Accessed Per Program ................................................................................................... 17

4.13 Engagement ................................................................................................................................ 20

4.14 Length of Ownership ................................................................................................................... 20

4.15 Other indicators of Change ......................................................................................................... 20

4.16 Ideas for Improving Le Village ..................................................................................................... 21

5 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 21

5.1 ESTABLISH REGULAR EMAIL COMMUNICATION WITH PROPERTY OWNERS ............................. 21

iii

5.2 ESTABLISH A WORKING GROUP WHICH MATCHES CREATIVE INDUSTRIES WITH PROPERTY

OWNERS TO FILL VACANT STOREFRONTS WITH TEMPORARY USES ...................................................... 22

5.3 PROVIDE CREATIVE INDUSTRIES WITH TEMPORARY SPACE AT BELOW MARKET RENT ............ 24

5.4 ELIMINATE CONDITIONS WHICH REMOVE CIP FUNDING ONCE A PROPERTY IS SOLD .............. 25

5.5 ELIMINATE MINIMUM FUNDING FOR PROGRAM APPLICATIONS .............................................. 25

5.6 PROVIDE GRANTS FOR LANDSCAPING ........................................................................................ 26

5.7 PROVIDE DESIGN CONCEPTS, COSTS AND POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO OWNERS .......................... 27

5.8 ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL WORK WITHIN THE CIP PROGRAMS ................................................. 27

5.9 MONITOR AND FOCUS ATTENTION ON AT-RISK OR PROBLEM PROPERTIES ............................. 28

5.10 PROVIDE UPFRONT FUNDING FOR PROBLEM PROPERTIES ........................................................ 29

5.11 ENABLE CONVERSION TO RESIDENTIAL USES ............................................................................. 29

5.12 IMPLEMENT THE EDA DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS. ................................................................ 30

Appendix A: At-Risk or Problem Property Inventory………………………………………………………………………………31

Appendix B: CIP Program Summary (English) ............................................................................................. 32

Appendix C: CIP Program Summary (French) ............................................................................................. 34

Appendix D: Interview form for Non-Applicants (English).......................................................................... 36

Appendix E: Interview form for Non-Applicants (French) .......................................................................... 40

Appendix F: Interview Form for CIP Recipients (English) ............................................................................ 45

Appendix G: Interview Form for CIP Recipients (French) ........................................................................... 49

Appendix H: Property Information…………………………………………………………………………………………………………55

ABOUT THE AUTHORS ............................................................................................................................... 568

1

1 INTRODUCTION

The Heart of the City Community Improvement Program (CIP) was created in 2005 through extensive

visioning, research and analysis. The initiative is a broad-based community rejuvenation plan that

promotes redevelopment in order to improve the aesthetic, character and vitality of the two priority

areas, the Downtown and Le Village. By leveraging private investment in the CIP area through public

funds in the form of grants and loans, the Heart of the City hopes to achieve the goals of the CIP. The

programs have been successful in the Downtown priority area, 73% of properties along Pitt Street from

Water to Third and Second Street from Augustus to Sydney have been approved for CIP funding. The

increase of private investment seen in the downtown has resulted in improvements to the streetscape

and a reduction of commercial vacancies. While take up of the CIP has occurred in Le Village, it has by

no means matched the level of success of the downtown. Only 34% of properties have been approved

for funding and uptake has occurred in a piecemeal manner. Additionally, the amount of funding

accessed is much lower, and vacancies remain high. Despite the low take up of the CIP in Le Village, the

programs continue to be a crucial strategy to grow and strengthen the district. Assessment values

increased by 74% from 2008 to 2014 for properties who used the programs compared to a 39% increase

for properties that did not. In general, taking advantage of the CIP is a positive undertaking, however,

few are using the programs. Examination of the CIP programs in Le Village can aide in understanding

how or if uptake can be increased. Low uptake could suggest there is a disconnect between the needs

of property and commercial tenants in Le Village and the programs that are offered. This report will

explore the state of the CIP in Le Village and how property owners perceive the programs. Regeneration

of Le Village is not solely linked to the success of the CIP, thus the report will also discuss additional

initiatives and strategies to improve the streetscape of Montreal Road and help CIP uptake

2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The School of Urban and Regional Planning at Queen’s University is in its fifth year of partnership with

the Heart of the City. Much of the work that has been done by former Queen’s students has examined

streetscape design in the public realm throughout the City. This report, however, marks a shift from

previous years’ work as it examines the effect of private property rehabilitation on streetscape

2

regeneration and vacancy reduction. Upon our employment we were given the task to investigate the

state of vacancies in Le Village. Through the review of literature, municipal documents and discussion

with stakeholders we decided that the situation in Le Village would be best examined through the CIP.

The foundation of this project was established by our research questions, which is listed below. It is

followed with objectives that provided direction throughout the project:

How can the CIP programs be better utilized in Le Village to stimulate regeneration?

Assess the general interest, perceptions and awareness of the programs by property and

commercial tenants.

Analyze how the CIP has been utilized in Le Village

Develop an understanding of the current and future needs of property and business owners in

order to increase effectiveness of programs

Develop suggestions to reduce the negative impact of store vacancies

3 METHODS

3.1 BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND ESTABLISHING SCOPE

Being new to the City of Cornwall, the first two weeks of the project consisted of familiarizing ourselves

with the area, the two BIAs, past reports and other municipal documents. In this period we met with

key stakeholders involved in the CIP. The following individuals were especially helpful in developing an

understanding of the history and current state of the plan and Le Village:

Denis Carr (Heart of the City/Chamber of Commerce)

Dana McLean (City of Cornwall, Planning Department)

Michel Dubuc (Le Village BIA)

Ken Bedford (City of Cornwall, Planning Department)

The Heart of the City Community Improvement Plan, 2014 was the key document consulted for this

report. In conjunction with our conversations with Dana McLean, the CIP document allowed us to gain a

thorough understanding of the programs and how they are used to leverage private investment through

public funds. Other documents consulted include: the Centretown Streetscape Revitalization Strategy,

Le Village: Retooling for the Next Century, Le Village Strategic Plan, City of Cornwall Official Plan,

Centretown Cornwall’s Trade Area Report, and Streetscape Design Report. A literature review was also

conducted to examine cases of commercial area revitalization in other municipalities. The Revitalization

of Vacant Properties: Where Broken Windows Meet Smart Growth by J.M. Schilling and Redeveloping

Commercial Vacant Properties in Legacy Cities: A guidebook to linking property reuse and economic

3

revitalization by Marianne Eppig and Lavea Brachman were particularly helpful in informing both our

process and recommendations. An inventory for at-risk or problem properties was generated from

ideas discussed in Eppig and Brachman’s work. This inventory consists of information that was collected

from site visits, interviews and City databases and can be viewed in Appendix A.

A study area was created to establish the scope of the project. Wanting to focus solely on properties

along Montreal Road, the area is not an exact match to the Le Village CIP priority area. The study area

captures every property facing Montreal Road between Marlborough Street in the west, and Belmont

Street in the East and is represented in Map 1. Despite being part of the priority area, the study area

does not capture Marlborough Street between Water Street and First Avenue East and Montreal Road

between Belmont Street and St. Felix Avenue. From our observations, these sections function as a

transition into the commercial area and are not part of the core of Le Village. As a result, it was decided

that these portions of the priority area should be excluded from the study in order to utilize our

resources more effectively.

Some of the analysis compared Le Village to the Downtown. Only the core of the downtown was taken

for our purposes, as the effects of the CIP programs are most pronounced in this main commercial

corridor. The downtown study contains the majority of lots along Pitt Street from First Street to Second

Street, the West side of Pitt between Water Street and First Street and Second Street between Augustus

Street and Sydney Street. Major institutional properties were excluded. The CBD study area can be seen

in Map 2.

Municipal records were used extensively to supplement the other data collection methods. The CIP

application files, along with Dana McLean’s wealth of knowledge, were used to provide information on

who applied for CIP programs, which programs they applied for, how much they were awarded and the

total cost of the works to be completed. Additionally, the City of Cornwall generously provided us

access to the MiTown and City View databases allowing information on property ownership, assessment

values and property standard violations to be gathered and used in our analysis and recommendations.

6

3.2 METHODS

A multi-method approach, including a walking survey, semi-structured interviews and data collection

from existing databases, was used to assess how and to what effect the CIP has been used in Le Village

and what opportunities exist for improvement. We began by recording the physical state of every

property in the study area through a walking survey. Properties were assessed based on the

methodology of Le Village: Retooling for the Next Century a report prepared for Renaissance Waterfront

Associates in 1999 by the McGill University School of Architecture. Properties were given a grade from 1

to 4 (1: renovation not needed, 2: minor renovation required, 3: renovation required, 4: serious

renovation required). The properties were assessed from the street, so their grades may not be fully

representative of their actual condition as their interior and rear yards could not be examined. By using

the same ranking method as the McGill Study, changes of property conditions were examined over time.

This, in turn, created a basis for assessing the effectiveness of the CIP, since a tool for measuring the

change in the condition of the building stock was established. The state of the properties in the study

area can be seen in Appendix H.

Two semi-structured interviews were created, one for CIP recipients and one for non-recipients, in order

to gain information on how commercial tenants and property owners perceived the CIP. Interviews

focused only on commercial properties as these are the focus of the CIP programs with the exception of

program 8, which does not apply to the study area. Semi-structured interviews were selected to allow

flexibility for respondents to better express their view points and to highlight unidentified issues. These

interviews can be viewed in Appendix D and F in English and E and G in French. The interviews were

conducted either in person or over the phone over a three week period in June, 2015. The interview

questions were created to address several key issues relating to the research question outlined in the

Goals and Objectives Section. The major topics included in the interview are as follows: How property

owners and commercial tenants understand the CIP programs, their financial situation and plans for

their property or premises (renovations, willingness to sell, etc.), how involved respondents were in

their property as well as the community and their openness to various projects in Le Village.

The interview employed yes-no, Likert scale, short answer and ranking questions depending on what

was being asked. Yes-no questions were used to learn more about the respondents on a basic level to

enable quantification. Do you own or rent, have you inquired about the programs and do you

7

own multiple properties were typical yes-no questions. Some yes-no questions were more complex

and required more thought from the respondents, such as: would you consider using you property

for temporary uses such as events, pop-up stores, temporary work space or art displays and

would decreasing the minimum funding for program applications to complete small projects,

such as painting, fence work or placement of permanent planting increase the likelihood of

you using a Heart of the City Program? Likert scale questions were employed similarly to yes-no

questions, however, the topics allowed for a range of possible answers. What is the likelihood of you

selling the property, did you find your interaction with the city as informative helpful or

pleasant, and would you consider changing property uses were typical Likert scale questions.

Short answer was the predominant question type in the interview. These types of questions allowed for

more in depth and impromptu dialogue with the respondents. These questions gave the most detailed

responses concerning the respondent’s knowledge of the program, future renovations and intentions

for their property and how they perceived the area. Follow up questions were designed for many of the

short answer questions to further discussion on the same topic. Most, but not all, of the qualitative data

was collected through these short answer questions. How likely would you be to use each of the

programs on a scale of 1 to 5 was the only ranked question in the interview. During this question,

the content of each program was summarized to allow respondents to better understand and rank the

likelihood of applying for each program. During in person interviews respondents were provided with a

summary sheet of the CIP programs. Additionally, these sheets were supplied to property occupants

who did not wish to participate in the interview process. The summary sheets are found in Appendix B

and C for English and French respectively. The ranking ranged from 1 (respondents would not apply) to 5

(respondent would definitely apply). This question allowed interest in the programs among property

owners and commercial tenants to be quantified. Space for additional comments was also created on

the interview form for questions that were believed to elicit longer responses. This allowed qualitative

data to be captured for yes-no and Likert scale questions as well.

Upon completion of the interviews, the information was inputted into an excel spreadsheet. Responses

were categorized into quantifiable categories in order to examine the following variables and the

relationships that exist between them: the state of the property, vacancies, assessment values

ownership, awareness of the CIP, reasons why respondents have not accessed CIP funding, the

likelihood respondents would use the programs, their future intentions for the property, future

8

renovations, the desire to sell the property, ways to improve the programs, how to improve Le Village,

permanent residence of owner and how many properties are owned by a single owner. Qualitative

responses from the surveys were examined. The Qualitative data was more specific and anecdotal in

nature and was a useful supplement to the general quantitative data. A list of 12 recommendations

were established from both the analysis and background research. The recommendations can be seen

in Section 5.

3.3 LIMITATIONS

The methods used in this report are varied, capturing a wide range of information and increasing the

validity of the findings. However, analysis using data on the amount of funding awarded to CIP

applicants should be examined with caution. Information was gathered from two sources provided by

the City’s Planning Department, as well as during the interviews, and were not always consistent. These

discrepancies are a limitation of this study and negatively impact reliability. Additionally, the permanent

address for non-respondents to the survey and CBD property owners were taken from municipal tax

mailing records. This address might not correspond with the owner’s permanent address.

4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

The interview process was generally well-received amongst property and commercial tenants in Le

Village. The participation rate was 65% with little variation between owners who had previously

accessed HOTC CIP funding and those who did not. Property owners had slightly higher levels of

participation as compared to business owners. This is mostly likely due to the programs being of more

use to them. Many owners were excited about the potential of using the programs in the future.

Much of what was hypothesized was found in the interview results. A lack of money and decreasing

retail space demand in the area were identified as significant factors in limiting CIP take up within Le

Village. Alternatively, there were several surprising results from the interviews. Awareness of the

program was often limited or non-existent. The programs have had an impact on a rise in property

values and building quality in the area but vacancy rates remain stubbornly high.

9

4.1 STATE OF THE PROPERTY

Residential properties were found to be in a significantly worse state of repair with an average rating

of 2.11 as compared to the rating of 1.7 of mixed or non-residential properties in Le Village. The block

from 1 to 99 Montreal Rd along with the 300 and 400 blocks were in the best shape with average

building ratings of 1.6. Past Louisa Rd. the quality of the buildings deteriorated with ratings near 2. The

100 block also stood out as being in poor repair.

4.2 REASONS FOR NOT ACCESSING FUNDING

Figure 1: Reasons Respondents have not applied to the CIP, lack of awareness being the most common.

4.2.1 Program Awareness

Of the respondents who had not accessed funding, 34% indicated that they were not aware of the CIP

programs. Of those that were aware of the programs many knew little of what the programs actually

encompassed. Several respondents thought that the programs had expired. Better communication of

the programs was also the most commonly cited as a way to improve the programs. Communication

by email was specifically mentioned by several owners. Awareness of the programs generally came

from people who seemed to have a personal relationship with someone on the Heart of the City or Le

Village Board. Awareness was also gained through walk-in visits by people involved with the Heart of

the City.

11%

16%

3%

26%

21%

11% 11%

Money Bureaucracy Selling Unaware ofthe

programs

No reason Lack of Time No need forrenovations

Reasons for not accessing funding

10

4.2.2 Money

As expected, a lack finances was identified as an impediment to the CIP programs for some. This

included several owners of vacant, unusable buildings who wished to renovate but lacked matching

funds. Providing financing upfront along with increased communication of the programs were the

most common suggestions for program improvements.

4.2.3 Property Sales

Figure 2: Likelihood of selling for those who have not accessed funding

The desire to sell their property caused several owners to not consider accessing CIP funding. The

majority of owners however, are not interested in selling. Owners who had not accessed CIP funding

were much more likely to sell. Figures 2 and 3 show the likelihood of selling for owners who have not

accessed CIP funding and those who have respectively

16%

52%

12%

20%

Likelihood of Selling - No Funding Accessed

Will not sell under any circumstances Not likely Likely Very likely

11

Figure 3: Likelihood of selling for those who accessed funding

4.2.4 Bureaucracy

Issues with the process or perceptions of bureaucracy were frequently cited as reasons for not accessing

funding or as a way to improve the programs. Many seemed to be intimidated by the process.

Conversely, there was frequent acknowledgement that Dana McLean was easy to deal with, informative

and generally made the application process smooth. Several thought the creation of her position was a

very positive move for the CIP programs.

The building department on the other hand was cited as a source of intimidation. The department

was perceived as being overly aggressive and lacked an attitude of co-operation. There was a belief

among respondents that the department actively searched to create more problems during inspections.

The department’s lack of consistent expectations was also mentioned as a problem. This apparent

distrust of the building department could be the result, in some part, of individuals who knowingly have

code violations that do not want them exposed. However, distrust towards the department was a

common view shared by those who seemingly had little to hide. One owner with properties in multiple

municipalities felt that Cornwall’s building department was by far the most aggressive that he has

experienced. If this is true, then Le Village would be effected to a greater degree than other parts of

Cornwall. The older and poorer repair of the building stock would be more likely to be in conflict with

32%

63%

5%

0%

Likelihood of Selling - Funding Accessed

Will not sell under any circumstances Not likely Likely Very likely

12

the building code. The poorer financial situation of owners would make meeting building department

demands more challenging. Strict code enforcement however is a double edged sword, as it plays an

important part in regeneration by ensuring the care of buildings and in reducing the impact of problem

properties on the community.

The time it took to access funding was another reason respondents did not access the funding. The

process was believed to have many hurdles and excessive red tape, leading many to believe applying for

CIP funding was a lengthy procedure. However, in practice the process was often quite rapid, with most

getting funding approval in a month. Several individuals found the need to get multiple quotes

impractical and time consuming. In general, the perceived bureaucracy was exaggerated compared

to what exists in reality.

4.3 FUTURE PROJECTS

Just over half of respondents declared an intent to do future work on their premises or property.

Many who either did not know of the programs or did not realize their work was eligible for funding

expressed excitement. Window, façade and sign work were the most common projects. Next

were interior renovations and painting. Work on roofs, foundations, paving, fire alarm installation,

design work and conversions were also mentioned during the interviews. Several expressed a desire to

complete projects that would not be covered under the CIP programs, either because they were too

small or they would be done on residential property. Two owners expressed interest in major tear

down redevelopments. One at 208 and 214 Montreal and the other 627 and 629 Montreal, both out

of town owners. Several owners expressed a desire to establish a coffee shop, bar or restaurant with

patio space in the area.

4.4 PURCHASING ADJACENT PROPERTIES

Roughly a quarter, 27%, of respondents were potentially interested in purchasing adjacent

property in the future. Often these respondents owned property adjacent to buildings in poor repair.

In each case, their intent would be to tear down the building and put in parking.

13

4.5 CONVERSIONS

Thirty-two percent of respondents said they would consider changing property use in the future.

Most wanted to convert commercial space to residential. The ease of renting residential as opposed

to commercial was given as a reason for this. One property was looking at expanding residential into

commercial space.

4.6 FUTURE PROGRAM USE

Average ratings of respondents’ intent of using CIP programs is listed below in Table 1. The ratings are

on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being a program they will not use and 5 being a program that they will

definitely use in the future. Programs 2, 4 and 5 were the programs listed as the most likely to be used

in the future. This is to be expected as they are also the programs with the greatest use. Those

property owners with a vacancy expressed the greatest likelihood of program use. As compared to the

average, owners with vacancies were more likely to express an intent to use programs 1, 2 and 3.

These programs are generally used for bigger projects and therefore indicate greater desire for major

change. Vacancies and ownership were not evaluated amongst those who have accessed funding as the

sample size was too small to be significant.

Interestingly, those who have accessed funding rated that they were more likely to use the

programs in the future. Only in a few cases had owners withdrawn funding to their maximum limit on

programs. Renters, while expressing less interest in the programs, are relatively more interested in

programs 4 and 5. Generally the responses indicate that there is still demand for the programs in

Le Village.

Average Rating for Future Program Use 1 to 5 (1 = Will not Use, 5= Will Use)

Program 1

Program 2

Program 3

Program 4

Program 5

Program 6

Program 7

Funding Not Accessed 1.87 3.00 1.89 3.26 3.05 2.37 2.16

No Funding and Owner 2.32 3.16 2.20 3.36 3.04 2.76 2.44

No Funding and Renter 1.00 2.69 1.31 3.08 3.08 1.62 1.62

No Funding and Vacancy 3.13 3.88 2.88 3.88 3.50 3.38 1.81

Differential Vacancy vs. Average +.81 +.72 +.68 +.52 +.46 +.62 -.63

Have Accessed Funding 2.70 3.45 2.95 3.35 3.60 3.25 2.30 Table 1: Average rating given by responds on how likely they would use each program. Average ratings were taken for several scenarios in order to compare the perspective of respondents in different scenarios.

14

4.7 RENTERS VS. OWNERS

The ratio of renters to owners who have taken up the CIP programs is quite low as compared to both the

total ratio of renters to owners in Le Village and to the ratio of renters to owners who have taken up the

CIP programs downtown. Statistics are shown below in Figure 4.

This could be due to the higher turnover rate of retail space in Le Village. Renters were also slightly less

aware of the programs. Renters were more likely to believe that a reduction in minimum funding for

the programs would increase the likelihood of applying. This is probably the result of smaller scale

projects that renters would engage in, as well as their decreased amount of finances. Additionally,

communication about the programs between landlords and tenants was low with only 25% of owners

declaring they had spoken with their tenants.

Figure 4: Ratio between renters and owners. Renters in Le Village are less likely to access funding.

4.8 TEMPORARY USES

Slightly less than half of owners with vacancies said they would be interested in housing temporary uses.

4.9 OUT OF TOWN OWNERS

Absentee landlords often present a challenge to regeneration efforts. The interviews and background

research returned several interesting results for this group. Out of town property owners were less

likely to access CIP funding in Le Village. While, 18% of the property owners in Le Village are based

outside of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (SD & G), only 7% of the owners who have taken up CIP

funding were from outside SD & G. This ratio is contrasted to that found in the downtown area where

6

36

21

Have accessed funding (LeVillage)

Have not Accessed Funding(Le Village)

Have Accessed Funding (CBD)

% Rent to Own

15

21% of property owners and 34% owners who have accessed funding are from outside SD & G.

Out of town owners in Le Village were slightly less likely to be aware of the programs and to have

greater rates of vacancy.

A significant distinction existed between out-town owners who participated in the interviews and those

that did not. Those that did not participate had a property in much worse repair compared to the

average, while the state of the property for those that responded was on par with the average. The

participation rate for out of town owners was 54%. These findings suggest that not all out of town

property owners pose an obstacle to regeneration, however, those that are, display a clear lack of

interest in the community and its regeneration efforts. While involvement in the community varies in

absentee owners, it should be expected that they have greater access to capital than local owners,

leading to the possibility for large redevelopment projects.

4.10 MULTIPLE PROPERTIES

Whether a property owner owned multiple properties yielded inconclusive results in our analysis. 58%

of owners who accessed funding and 67% of owners who had not accessed funding had multiple

properties. Amongst the owners who had not accessed funding there was a positive correlation

between a better quality property and the ownership of multiple properties. However, amongst the

group that had accessed funding, no correlation existed.

4.11 PROPERTY VALUE CHANGE

As expected, increases in property value have a substantial correlation with accessing funding.

Between 2008 and 2015 property values in Le Village have increased by an average of 43% for those

who have not accessed funding and by 72% for those who have accessed funding. Surprisingly, property

values did not consistently change relative to the amount of funding accessed. Increases in values for

properties that accessed between $2,000 and $40,000 in funding were quite similar to those who

had not accessed funding. A comparison between funding accessed to changes in property values can

be seen in both Figure 5 and Map 3.

16

The big difference came with properties who had accessed over $40,000 in funding. These properties

had a staggering increase of 410%. This trend is also seen when looking at the block level. Map 4

shows the change in assessment value by block and should be viewed in conjunction with Table 2 which

provides information on the state of the property, funding and property value change for each block.

With this data, the amount of funding, the percentage of properties accessing funding show little

correlation to increases in property value. The one exception is block 5, which spent substantially more

per property than the other blocks and had correspondingly large increase in its property value.

Block Number (Address along

Montreal Rd)

State of the Property

Amount of Funding per Block

Funding per Property

% of Properties Accessing Funding

Average Increase in Property Value

1 (1-99) 1.6 $29,635.00 $ 4,233.57 57% 36%

2 (100-199) 1.88 $219,255.00 $10,962.75 65% 33%

3 (200-299) 1.75 $48,300.00 $5,366.67 33% 42%

4 (300-399) 1.64 $94,010.00 $5,875.63 38% 20%

5 (400-499) 1.6 $149,085.00 $21,297.86 43% 118%

6 (500-599) 1.71 $26,100.00 $2,900.00 22% 57%

7 (600-699) 2 $39,441.00 $4,382.33 22% 57%

8 (700-799) 1.9 $25,900.00 $2,590.00 10% 40%

9 (800-999) 1.8 $0.00 $0.00 0% 35%

Table 2: Properties in Le Village and related information broken up by block. Except for block 5, no correlation is found between increase in property values and accessing CIP funding.

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

400%

450%

2,000 to 10000 10000 to 20000 20000 to 30000 30000 to 40000 40000 +

Ave

rage

Incr

ease

in P

rop

erty

Val

ue

20

08

-20

15

$ Amount of CIP Funding Accessed

Property Value vs. Funding Accessed

Figure 5: Increase in property values in relation to the amount of CIP funding accessed. Property Values only saw a dramatic increase when over 40,000 dollars was accessed.

17

4.12 FUNDING ACCESSED PER PROGRAM

Table 3 provides a summary of funding accessed per program and how it relates to increases in property

value. Program 2 has been the most highly funded by a substantial margin, followed by program 4.

Program 1 has the highest average amount awarded per application. Funding received per increase in

property value provides a rough understanding of the effectiveness of the programs. Programs 3, 5, 6

and 7 all have very low funding levels per increase in property value. This is likely due to the fact that

funding from these programs is relatively low and used in conjunction with other programs as a part of

large projects. Program 5, for example, would never be used on its own and projects using other

programs would require municipal permits or fees. Program 1 looks to be the most effective in terms of

dollars spent and increases in property value. This corresponds to the earlier data, which showed only

big projects making a significant impact on property values. Program 1 projects are generally large

projects, often involving demolition of the current structure, as was the case for 415 Montreal Road.

Average Funding Received

Total Funding Received

Funding Received per % Increase in Property Value

Program 1 $21,913.00 $43,826.00 $4,330.23

Program 2 Grant $10,616.58 $127,399.00 $8,189.81

Program 2 Loan $10,468.33 $62,810.00 $18,285.48

Program 2 Total $10,542.46 $190,209.00 $12,227.53

Program 3 $1,605.17 $28,893.00 $1,431.96

Program 4 $5,610.06 $100,981.00 $10,242.41

Program 4 (Sign) $1,337.75 $10,702.00 $6,005.39

Program 5 $814.25 $11,399.50 $717.82

Program 6 $481.00 $1,924.00 $162.09

Program 7 $14,350.00 $28,700.00 $2,790.50

Table 3: Summary of funding accessed per program

20

4.13 ENGAGEMENT

Significant differences existed between those that participated in the interview and those that did not.

On average, interview participants had accessed more funding, their properties were in better

shape and they had less vacancies. Two reasons stood out for why individuals did not participate.

First, they either declined outright or showed a lack of interest and were evasive in establishing an

interview time. Second, and nearly an equal proportion, were left phone messages which were

unreturned. For a select few, current contact information could not be found. Of those that declined or

showed a lack of interest a couple trends were apparent. Often, those with poor English or French

skills declined to be interviewed. One owner declared that they were not comfortable doing an

interview in English or French. Age and health seemed to be two other impediments to interviews.

Many owners who declined were elderly and in poor health. This group also showed declining interest

in their properties. A loss of interest also existed amongst those who intended to sell their property and

move from the area in the near future. Finally, being too busy was given as a reason for not

participating. A lack of interest often underlined this statement. Although potentially self-evident,

individuals who showed care for their property and a strong interest in the area, likely represent a

significant factor in regeneration efforts in Le Village.

4.14 LENGTH OF OWNERSHIP

The length of property ownership was slightly longer amongst those who have received funding, with an

average ownership length of 17.5 years compared to 15 years. The property which received the largest

funding amount, however, was a new owner. As mentioned in Section 4.13, we hypothesize that elderly

owners lose interest in their property and might not have the capacity or energy to maintain it. On the

other hand properties that have been in a family for a long time and represented by younger members

are generally in good shape with strong program uptake. A long ownership period can represent

commitment and interest in the community, but new owners can also bring new capital and energy.

4.15 OTHER INDICATORS OF CHANGE

While data on property values indicates little positive impact by accessing lower amounts of CIP funding,

other information points to some positive change. The state of the property is much better for

properties which have accessed CIP funding, even when properties that accessed over $40,000 were

21

withheld from the calculation. The average state of the property rating for those that accessed funding

was 1.34, rising to 1.38 when controlling for files over $40,000. This compares to a rating of 1.74 for

those properties who have not accessed funding. Properties which have accessed funding also have

lower vacancy rates. Generally, owners also report a positive change in the built environment arising

from the programs.

4.16 IDEAS FOR IMPROVING LE VILLAGE

Most respondents found that in order for Le Village to be improved, vacancies need to be filled and

buildings cleaned up. A lack of parking was a major issue, specifically with regards to the south side of

Montreal Road. The condition of sidewalks was raised as a concern among respondents, as they

believed them to be in poor repair and unsafe. Many felt that destination or specialty stores,

especially restaurants and coffee shops, are needed along Montreal Road in order to attract people to

the area. It was suggested that social issues in the surrounding residential neighbourhood are at the

root of the problems facing Le Village and need to be addressed in order to improve the commercial

area. Finally, a few felt that a substantial redevelopment of the harbour as well as the surrounding

neighbourhood should be undertaken.

5 RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 ESTABLISH REGULAR EMAIL COMMUNICATION WITH PROPERTY OWNERS

A lack of awareness and understanding of CIP programs was the clearest obstacle to program uptake in

Le Village. In the past, much effort was made to inform owners about the CIPs by going door-to-door

and mailing out information to the Montreal Rd. properties. A significant gap in this strategy is in

reaching out of town property owners who were less likely to access funding. Email allows this segment

to be better targeted and informed.

A lack information, along with misinformation, was common among interview respondents.

Furthermore, the application processes has an inflated perception of bureaucracy and red-tape

detracting those who could benefit from the programs to apply. These misconceptions demonstrate

that the City should act as an educator for the programs to ensure people have a firm understanding of

the CIP.

22

We recommend e-newsletters be sent out to property owners on an annual basis. These information

packages should contain material about the programs, how to apply, what the process entails and

updates on CIP funding being accessed. This form of correspondence will ensure correct information is

being spread through the community, breaking down misconceptions that exist. In the same manner as

neighbours are encouraged to improve the condition of their homes when one undertakes renovations,

the knowledge of renovations in the area might encourage and spark ideas for others to do the same.

5.2 ESTABLISH A WORKING GROUP WHICH MATCHES CREATIVE INDUSTRIES WITH

PROPERTY OWNERS TO FILL VACANT STOREFRONTS WITH TEMPORARY USES

Increasing the uptake of CIP programs would undoubtedly

benefit Le Village. The programs have already had a

positive impact on the built form and property values.

However, the programs have failed to reduce store

vacancies. Vacancies are visually unappealing and bring

down commercial districts. Any use, even temporary ones,

makes for a more attractive streetscape and draws

increased rental attention to a property. These improvements would then lead to greater confidence in

investing in the area and greater CIP uptake. Matching vacant storefronts with those in creative

industries seeking temporary space, until the store becomes viable to rent long term, has been shown to

be an effective strategy in revitalizing commercial districts. The content of creative industries varies but

generally includes art, advertising, architecture, design, software and music. Creative industries are

more likely to be in need of temporary space and have a strong tie to driving economic growth. Most

significantly, a thriving arts community is known to stimulate community regeneration because of the

way artists care for the aesthetics of the space they inhabit. During the Month of June, 327 Montreal

Road was being used as an art gallery, increasing the aesthetic appeal of the streetscape and introducing

new activity to the area. An image of this can be seen in Figure 6. If these industries locate in the area,

they are also more likely to live in the area, magnifying the effect of their presence.

23

Figure 6: 327 Montreal Road being used as an art gallery for the month of June.

Working groups have been successfully established around the world to help match owners and those

interested in leasing temporary space. These groups have two purposes: to spread awareness of

temporary spaces as a beneficial option and to facilitate the procedure. Groups are frequently lead by

Chambers of Commerce, Business Improvement Areas and City Councils. An excellent collection of

these types of working groups in Australia as well as a best practice tool kit, is found at,

http://emptyspaces.culturemap.org.au/page/empty-space-initiatives

Establishing a temporary space working group is a viable strategy to reduce vacant storefronts and

rebrand Le Village. Utilizing the vacant space along Montreal Road as a space for creative industries

could allow Le Village to develop as the creative and cultural centre of Cornwall, providing the area with

a strong competitive advantage. Additionally, the working group could also be expanded to cover

temporary use of vacant lots for the creation of pop-up parks or community gardens.

http://emptyspaces.culturemap.org.au/page/empty-space-initiatives

24

Figure 7: Poster for 3Space, a UK organization that places non-profits in vacant spaces for temporary periods of time.

5.3 PROVIDE CREATIVE INDUSTRIES WITH TEMPORARY SPACE AT BELOW MARKET

RENT

Artists provide a service to the communities in which they inhabit by beautifying their streetscapes and

thereby increasing property values. This is a service for which they are not remunerated. Providing

creative industries with below commercial market rates attaches value to this public service, fills vacant

storefronts and encourages the positive aesthetic and economic impact that these activities provide.

This approach is frequently part of a successful regeneration strategy. Creative Spaces in Sydney

Australia, Spaceworks in Tacoma, Washington and Storefronts in Auburn, Washington all provide vacant

space to creative start-ups and arts organizations at low or no-cost rents. For maximum effectiveness,

this subsidy would be provided by a working group as mentioned in the previous recommendation or by

25

one of the groups currently tasked with Le Village’s regeneration. Alternatively, the positive impacts on

future rental demand, property values and the community at large of such a strategy could be

communicated to property owners and left to be used and funded at their discretion.

5.4 ELIMINATE CONDITIONS WHICH REMOVE CIP FUNDING ONCE A PROPERTY IS

SOLD

Conditions which remove CIP funding once a property is sold are a significant impediment to some

property owners’ willingness to access the programs. While there is tentativeness to enrich property

owners through CIP funding, the end goal of the CIPs is to encourage investment in the area by making it

financial viable. Ultimately, the program does enrich property owners. Approximately one third of

respondents expressed an interest in selling their property; 20% said they were very likely to sell their

property and 12% said they were likely. It can be assumed that this ratio is higher among those who did

not respond to the survey as they are likely less invested in the community than those who responded

and therefore more likely to sell. Removing these conditions might help encourage owners who are not

committed to revitalizing the area out of an ownership role and attract investment from those who are.

5.5 ELIMINATE MINIMUM FUNDING FOR PROGRAM APPLICATIONS

Natural processes of regeneration often start with a greater care for the aesthetics of a property. Artists

move in to an area and beautify the properties they inhabit and work through gardening, painting and

other small touches. These are projects which cost little to do and would likely not be covered under

the current $2,000 minimum funding limit for programs 2 and 4. Not only do these types of projects

help in creating regeneration, they would also be accessible to the numerous commercial tenants and

property owners in Le Village who cite the lack of finances as impeding their use of programs. Accessing

funding might also have a ripple effect of creating further care for the property moving forward.

Furthermore, small scale landscaping, like permanent planters and painting, have a significant impact on

the attractiveness of streetscape relative to their cost. These types of projects would improve the

walkability and commercial aesthetics of the area, realizing goals of both the CIP and the BIA.

26

Figure 8: Painting while low in cost has a large impact in improving the attractiveness of streets.

5.6 PROVIDE GRANTS FOR LANDSCAPING

As previously mentioned, small scale landscaping has a disproportionate impact on a streetscape

relative to cost. Currently in the HOTC CIP programs, landscaping work is only covered under an

interest-free loan program. We recommend that grants be implemented for landscaping work to

further encourage a greener, more aesthetically pleasing streetscape. This recommendation would

increase the accessibility of the programs to owners and would promote the goals of the EDA report.

Figure 9: Small landscaping projects can provide significant beautification.

27

5.7 PROVIDE DESIGN CONCEPTS, COSTS AND POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO OWNERS

Time was identified in the interviews as another impediment to CIP program uptake. Small scale

commercial tenants and property owners often lack the time and capacity to contemplate renovation

and the costs and benefits to such an action. Visual representations of photoshoped design concepts for

buildings could provide strong stimulation and foster ideas for owners. Figure 10 is an example of a

design concept that could be presented to property owners. A project such as this would also help to

increase communication and awareness of the programs within the community.

Figure 10: Presenting property owners with images of design concepts such as the one seen here could motivate them to apply for CIP funding.

5.8 ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL WORK WITHIN THE CIP PROGRAMS

There is not insignificant stock of residential space in Le Village. Residential buildings are generally in

worse state of repair than mixed-use or commercial buildings in Le Village. During the interviews many

voiced a desire for the programs to be accessible for residential properties. These were both for

personal use but there were also those who felt the residential properties were bringing down the

attractiveness of Le Village. There is residential in the Le Village that is not covered by the CIP programs

and in poor repair. Figure11 shows residential buildings in need of improvement that are located within

28

the Le Village neighborhood. While the Groupe Renaissance Home Renovation program could apply to

many of the properties not covered by the CIP, respondents seemed equally unaware of these

programs. Efforts to rehabilitate the residential building stock in Le Village, both inside and out of the

priority area, should be seen as an essential strategy to improving the commercial corridor. This could

come in the form of increased awareness of current programs offered by all levels of government,

expansion of current programs offered by the City, or the introduction of new residential rehabilitation

programs.

Figure 11: Many properties in the Le Village neighbourhood could benefit from improved awareness and access to the CIP and Renaissance Programs.

5.9 MONITOR AND FOCUS ATTENTION ON AT-RISK OR PROBLEM PROPERTIES

Not all vacant storefronts can be put to temporary use. Some vacant storefronts in Le Village are not in

suitable condition for use. The demolition and revitalization of these buildings would provide the

greatest benefit to the area. The creation and maintenance of an at-risk or problem property inventory

to identify these buildings and others is recognized in the literature as an important element to

successful regeneration strategies. Once these properties are identified, greater attention can be paid

to communicating with their owners and opening a dialogue about taking up the programs, making

other improvements, demolition or initiating a sale. The table in Appendix A is a preliminary inventory

of at-risk or problem properties. It has been informed by data on the state of the property, vacancies

and building code violations. Inventories such as this are also aided by the use of tax delinquency and

29

criminal activity information. This information was not available to this report, but the use of it for

future inventory maintenance is encouraged.

5.10 PROVIDE UPFRONT FUNDING FOR PROBLEM PROPERTIES

Properties which accessed over $40,000 in funding had their property values appreciate at a rate of

410% as compared to an average of 74% for those who accessed any amount of funding. These large

projects have a disproportionately large impact on regeneration efforts. The wagon wheel

redevelopment at 415 Montreal Road stands out as a significant catalyst for regeneration. It was a

major redevelopment of what was identified as a problem property. Major redevelopment of derelict

properties in Le Village would be expected to have a similar impact. Finances are a problem though, as

two of the identified problem properties lack the matching funding required to access the CIP programs.

To let these properties continue as is would be detrimental to the regeneration of Le Village. As such,

we recommend the expansion of the Building Restoration and Improvement Program’s secured loan to

initially cover 100% of costs for identified problem properties. This would still require the property

owner to pay for at least 60% of costs. These costs, however, would initially be provided as a no-

interest loan to be paid back over 10 years.

5.11 ENABLE CONVERSION TO RESIDENTIAL USES

Interviews confirmed the perception that demand for retail space in the area is considerably weaker

than demand for residential. Le Village has essentially changed from a downtown commercial centre to

a neighbourhood commercial centre. Conversion of commercial storefronts to residential can have

adverse effects to the streetscape if windows are boarded or haphazardly covered. This however can be

avoided with the use of design guidelines and grants for conversions to ensure quality renovations. The

use of space is generally better than vacancy. Conversion therefore can enhance the streetscape,

provide increased rents and increase retail demand for the remaining commercial use.

30

Figure 12: Successful commercial to residential conversions can be seen above. Attractive conversions can have a positive effect on the streetscape and are a better use of space than vacant storefronts.

5.12 IMPLEMENT THE EDA DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS.

CIP programs have a significantly greater chance of success if they are coupled with a comprehensive

regeneration strategy including public investment in area infrastructure. Le Village has an excellent

regeneration strategy for public areas in the form of the EDA Streetscape Revitalization Strategy and

Implementation Plan. The effects of the plan though are not yet noticeable along Montreal Road.

When asked about what physical improvements should be made to help regenerate Le Village

respondents overwhelming mentioned the need for beautification and capital investment by the City.

Notable responses included the need to improve sidewalks, add more crosswalks and improve the

quality and quantity of parking. Commencing work for projects outlined in the EDA plan will not only

improve the streetscape but provide investor confidence in the area that the City is fully committed to

revitalization.

Figure 13: Implementation of the EDA recommendations would provide investor confidence and increase uptake of the CIP programs.

32

APPENDIX B: CIP PROGRAM SUMMARY (ENGLISH)

Program 1: Rehabilitation and Redevelopment Grant (tax increment)

A land owner is reimbursed part or all of the increase in municipal taxes paid as a result of

improvements made to a building.

The reimbursement for commercial development is done on a sliding scale for up to 10 years. In

year one 80% is returned, which declines to 40% in year ten.

Residential development is rebated at 100%

All grants terminated upon Sale

All grants maximum 50% of costs.

Acceptance based on the projects ability to meet the goals and objectives or urban

regeneration.

Program 2: Building Restoration and Improvement Program

Dedicated to interior renovation for non-residential uses or,

Partial or full conversion to residential.

Can include increases in ground floor area. Less than 10%.

Option between

o Unsecured Loan

Maximum $10000 or minimum $2000.

Forgivable over 5 years at 20% per year.

o or secured loan

Max $30,000.

60% paid back over 10 years at zero interest.

40% is forgivable over 5 years at 20% per year

Program 3: Project Design Grant Program

Provides part funding for costs to determine the viability of a proposed development.

Only for major rehabilitation and redevelopment projects in priority areas

Maximum $7,500.

The first $1,000 of design costs is covered by the grant, and 50% of costs after that.

Not available with a brownfields CIP project feasibility grant.

Grant provided after design work is completed.

Program 4: Façade Improvement and Heritage Sign Grant Program

For Non-residential

Façade Improvement

o Maximum of $10,000 per property. Minimum of $2,000 per property.

o Unsecured loan forgivable over 5 years at 20%.

o 25% of renovation must be façade work

33

Sign program

o Signage includes building name, district name and business name.

o Maximum $2,000 and 50% of cost

o Not open to non-owners.

Except BIAA members

Grant provided after final invoices are presented.

Municipal Planning/Development Fee Grant Program

Grant for planning and development permit costs for rehabilitation and redevelopment

projects.

o Includes but is not limited to official plan amendment costs, building permit

fees, zoning by-law amendments minor variances.

o Does not include necessary technical studies.

Maximum two years from application to building permit

Discretionary Municipal Tipping Fees Grant Program

Intended to reduce costs for removal of non-hazardous material to landfill as part of

projects, which will substantially increase the assessed value of a property

o Grant for 50% tipping fee at landfill

Parking and Landscape Enhancement Program

For commercial, mixed use and high density residential properties and applicable to

group projects.

Intended for improvements to car and pedestrian accessibility.

Interest free loan of $25,000 maximum per property owner per project over a maximum

10 year period

Maximum $75,000 per property owner

Includes but is not limited to seating, parking creation & improvement, sidewalk

creation, wayfinding & parking signage, lighting and landscaping.

80% payment upon substantial completion of the project and 20% upon complete

completion.

Le Village Residential Façade Improvement Grant Program

Program provides grant for exterior renovations to designated residential properties in Le

Village.

Grant is a loan, fully forgivable over 5 years at 20% per year.

Eligible areas include Water St. E. between Adolphus St. and Marlborough St.; Marlborough St.

between Water St. E. and Race St.; Edwards between Montreal Rd. and Cotton Mill Rd.;

McConnell Ave. between Montreal Rd. and the River. Montreal Rd. between McConnell Ave.

and École L’Héritage

Maximum of $10,000 and a minimum of $2,000 per property

Should be consistent with design guidelines and a part of the streetscape revitalization strategy.

34

Not eligible to properties with previous Renaissance CIP funding.

For more details please contact Dana McLean of the Planning Department at 613-930-2787 ext. 2105 or

email at [email protected]

APPENDIX C: CIP PROGRAM SUMMARY (FRENCH)

Programme de subvention pour rénovations (fondée sur les taxes) de la Ville de

Cornwall

Un propriétaire foncier est remboursé en partie ou en totalité en fonction de l'augmentation

des taxes municipales payées à la suite des améliorations apportées à un bâtiment.

Le remboursement pour le développement commercial se fait sur une échelle mobile pour un

maximum de 10 ans. Pendant la première année 80% est retourné, qui décline à 40% dans la

dixième année.

Le développement résidentiel est remboursée à 100%.

Toutes les subventions sont d'un maximum de 50% des coûts.

Toutes les subventions sont terminées sur une vente

Subvention d'amélioration de façade et de panneau d'affichage patrimonial

Pour les utilisations non résidentielles d'aider à améliorer une façade de bâtiment ou pour

l'installation d'un nouveau panneau d'affichage.

Subvention jusqu'à un maximum de $10,000 et minimum de $2,000 pour l'amélioration des

façades et de $2000 pour un nouveau panneau d'affichage.

Programme de restauration et d'amélioration d'immeuble

Un propriétaire peut recevoir un prêt, que ce soit un prêt-subvention ou sans intérêt, afin de

l'aider à apporter des améliorations à l'intérieur des bâtiments.

Comprend la conversion totale ou partielle à résidentiel.

Choix entre

o prêt non garanti

Maximum $ 10,000 ou minimum $ 2,000.

Prêt-subvention sur 5 ans.

o ou prêt garanti

Max $30,000.

Partie prêt-subvention sur 5 ans et une partie prêts sans intérêt sur 10 ans.

Subvention de compensation tenant lieu d'affectation de parc

Pour des propriétés commerciale, usage mixte et résidentielles à haute densité et

applicable à des projets de groupe.

Pour les améliorations d’accessibilité de voiture et piétonne.

35

Prêt sans intérêt de $25,000 maximum par propriétaire par projet sur une période

maximale de 10 ans.

Maximum $75,000 par propriétaire.

Comprend des sièges, la création et l'amélioration de stationnement, la création d'un

trottoir, les panneaux piétons et stationnement et l'éclairage.

Subvention d'études de faisabilité de projets

Fournit un financement partiel des coûts afin de déterminer la viabilité d'un projet de

développement, y compris, mais ne se limitent pas à des dessins conceptuels et

rapports de faisabilité.

Seulement pour les grands projets de réhabilitation et de réaménagement.

Maximum $ 7,500.

Subvention pour frais d'aménagement et de planification municipale

Le remboursement complet pour les coûts de planification et de permis de

développement pour des projets de réhabilitation et de réaménagement.

Comprend les coûts de modification du plan officiel, modifications de zonage et permis

de construire.

Subvention discrétionnaire pour redevance de déversement municipale

Un promoteur peut bénéficier d'une réduction du coût de déversement de déchets non

dangereux sur le site de la décharge municipale.

Subvention pour frais à décharge de 50%.

Subvention d'amélioration de façade résidentiel à Le Village

Subventions pour les travaux extérieurs à des propriétés résidentiels désignés dans Le Village.

Grant est un prêt-subvention sur une période de 5 ans à 20% par an.

Maximum de 10,000 $ et un minimum de 2000 $ par propriété

Pour plus de détails s'il vous plaît contacter Dana McLean du Département d’urbanisme au 613-930-2787 ext. 2105 ou par courriel à [email protected]

36

APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW FORM FOR NON-APPLICANTS (ENGLISH)

Preamble

This interview is being conducted on behalf of the Heart of the City Initiative. The interview has resulted

from a desire to determine how the Heart of the City Community Improvement Plan programs could be

better utilized in Le Village to stimulate regeneration. To achieve this objective, the following interview

was created to assess the general awareness and interest in the programs by landowners and renters.

The interview attempts to identify general sentiment amongst the Le Village community.

Property Information

Land Use

Residential Retail Office Hospitality


Renovation not needed Minor renovation required

Renovation required Serious renovation required

Vacant?

No Yes

Assessment Values:

Date:

Address:

Interview Questions:

1. DO YOU OWN OR RENT?

Own Rent

2. HOW LONG HAVE YOU OWNED OR RENTED THE PROPERTY?

3. ARE YOU AWARE OF THE HEART OF THE CITY COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROGRAMS?

No Yes

37

3A. WHICH PROGRAMS ARE YOU AWARE OF?

Rehabilitation and Redevelopment Grant

Building Restoration and Improvement Program

Project Design Grant Façade Improvement and Heritage Sign Grant Program


Discretionary Municipal Tipping



ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

3B. ARE THERE ANY SPECIFIC REASONS WHY YOU HAVE NOT USED ANY OF THE PROGRAMS?

4. HAVE YOU INQUIRED ABOUT THE PROGRAMS

Yes No

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

4a. IF SO, DID YOU FIND YOUR INTERACTION WITH THE CITY AS INFORMATIVE, HELPFUL OR

PLEASANT?

Less than expected As expected More than expected Consistently more

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

5. HOW LIKELY WOULD YOU BE TO USE EACH OF THE PROGRAMS ON A SCALE OF 1 TO 5?

Rehabilitation and Redevelopment Grant:

Building Restoration and Improvement Program:

Project Design Grant:

Façade Improvement and Heritage Sign Grant Program:

Municipal Planning/Development Fee Grant Program:

Discretionary Municipal Tipping Fees Grant Program:

Parking and Landscape Enhancement Program:

Le Village Residential Façade Improvement Grant Program:

38

6. WHAT ARE YOUR FUTURE INTENTIONS FOR THE PROPERTY OR SITE? (FOR BUSINESS? RENTERS)

7. ARE YOU INTERESTED IN PURCHASING ADJACENT PROPERTY? (THE PROPERTY? FOR RENTERS)

Yes No

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

8. IF VACANCY EXISTS. WOULD YOU CONSIDER USING YOUR PROPERTY FOR TEMPORARY USES SUCH

EVENTS, POP-UP STORES, TEMPORARY WORK SPACE OR ART DISPLAYS?

Yes No

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

9. WHAT IS THE MOST PRESSING RENOVATION NEEDED FOR YOUR PROPERTY OR BUSINESS?

10. WHAT RENOVATION WILL YOU MOST LIKELY UNDERTAKE NEXT? (IF DIFFERENT THAN Q.7)

11. WHAT IS THE MOST PRESSING NEED FOR PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENT IN LE VILLAGE?

12. HAVE YOU CONSIDERED CHANGING PROPERTY USE? WOULD YOU IN THE FUTURE? (N/A FOR

RENTERS)

Have considered Would consider Would not consider

12B. WHAT ARE REASONS WHY YOU HAVE NOT OR WOULD NOT CONVERT PROPERTY USE?

13. WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD OF YOU SELLING THE PROPERTY? (N/A FOR RENTERS)

Will not sell under any circumstances.

Not Likely Likely Very Likely

39

14. WOULD YOU CONSIDER COLLABORATING WITH OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS ON PROJECTS AS PART OF

THE CIP? (N/A FOR RENTERS)

Yes No

15. WOULD DECREASING THE MINIMUM FUNDING FOR PROGRAM APPLICATIONS TO COMPLETE SMALL

PROJECTS, SUCH AS PAINTING, FENCE WORK OR PLACEMENT OF PERMANENT PLANTING INCREASE THE

LIKELIHOOD OF YOU USING A HEART OF THE CITY PROGRAM?

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

16. ARE THERE OTHER FACTORS, WHICH WOULD INCREASE THE LIKELIHOOD OF YOU USING A HEART OF

THE CITY PROGRAM?

17. IN WHICH MUNICIPALITY IS YOUR PERMANENT RESIDENCE? (N/A FOR RENTERS)

18. IN THE PAST YEAR HAS YOUR BUSINESS EXPERIENCED

Decline Growth Remained Constant

19. DO YOU OWN MULTIPLE PROPERTIES? (N/A FOR RENTERS)

Yes No

If yes, how many?

Additional general comments on the survey topic:

Yes No

40

APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW FORM FOR NON-APPLICANTS (FRENCH)

Introduction

Cette interview est fait pour l'Initiative Heart of the City. L'interview est un effort pour déterminer comment

les programmes d'amélioration communautaire de Heart of the City pourrait être mieux utilisé dans Le

Village de stimuler la régénération. Pour atteindre cet objectif, l'interview qui suit a été créé pour

comprendre la connaissance et l'intérêt dans les programmes par des propriétaires terriens et les

locataires. L'interview cherche seulement à comprendre le sentiment général parmi la communauté de Le

Village.

Informations sur la Proprièté

L'utilisation des terrains

Résidentiel Détail Bureaux Hospitalité

L'état de la propriété

Rénovation ne sont pas nécessaires

Renovation mineure requise

Renovation requise Renovation majeure requise

Vacant?

Non Oui

Assessment Values:

Date:

Address (Optional):

Questions de l’entrevue:

1 EST-CE QUE VOUS ÊTES ACTUELLEMENT PROPRIÉTAIRE OU LOCATAIRE?

Propriétaire Locataire

2 COMBIEN DE TEMPS AVEZ-VOUS POSSEDE OU LOUE VOTRE PROPRIETE?

41

3 ÊTES-VOUS AU COURANT DES PROGRAMMES D'AMÉLIORATION COMMUNAUTAIRE DE HEART OF

THE CITY?

Non Oui

3A. QUELS PROGRAMMES ÊTES-VOUS AU COURANT?

Programme de subvention pour rénovations (fondée sur les taxes)







Subvention d'amélioration de façade résidentiel dans Le Village

COMMENTAIRES SUPPLÉMENTAIRES:

3B. Y AT-IL DES RAISONS PARTICULIERES POUR LESQUELLES VOUS NE L'AVEZ PAS UTILISE UN DE

CES PROGRAMMES?

4 AVEZ-VOUS DEMANDE A LA VILLE SUR L'UN DES PROGRAMMES?

Oui Non


4B SI OUI, AVEZ-VOUS TROUVÉ VOTRE INTERACTION AVEC LA VILLE COMME INFORMATIVE,

UTILE OU AGRÉABLE?

Moins que prévu Comme prévu Plus que prévu Beaucoup plus que prévu

42

COMMENTAIRES SUPPLÉMENTAIRES :

5 DANS QUELLE MESURE SERAIT-IL PROBABLE QUE VOUS UTILISIEZ CHACUN DES PROGRAMMES SUR

UNE ÉCHELLE DE 1 À 5?

Programme de subvention pour rénovations (fondée sur les taxes):

Programme de restauration et d'amélioration d'immeuble:

Subvention d'études de faisabilité de projets:

Subvention d'amélioration de façade et de panneau d'affichage patrimonial:

Subvention pour frais d'aménagement et de planification municipale:

Subvention discrétionnaire pour redevance de déversement municipale:


Subvention d'amélioration de façade résidentiel dans Le Village :

6 QUELS SONT VOS PLANS FUTURS POUR LA PROPRIETE ?

7 ÊTES-VOUS INTÉRESSÉ A ACHETER UNE PROPRIÉTÉ ADJACENTE? (LA PROPRIÉTÉ, POUR

LOCATAIRES)

Oui Non


8 SI VACANCE EXISTE. ENVISAGERIEZ-VOUS D'UTILISER VOTRE PROPRIETE POUR DES UTILISATIONS

TEMPORAIRES TELS QUE DES EVENEMENTS, DES BOUTIQUES POP-UP, L'ESPACE DE TRAVAIL

TEMPORAIRE OU DES EXPOSITIONS D'ART?

Oui Non


9 QUEL EST LE PLUS URGENT RENOVATION NECESSAIRE A VOTRE PROPRIETE OU VOTRE ENTREPRISE?

43

10 QUEL EST VOTRE PROCHAIN RENOVATION LA PLUS PROBABLE? (SI DIFFERENT DE Q.7)

11 QUEL EST LE BESOIN LE PLUS PRESSANT POUR L'AMELIORATION PHYSIQUE DANS LE VILLAGE?

12 AVEZ-VOUS ENVISAGE DE CHANGER L'UTILISATION DE LA PROPRIETE? CONSIDÉRERIEZ-VOUS A

L'AVENIR?

Je l'ai considéré Je voudrais considérer Je ne voudrais pas considérer

12B. QUELLES SONT LES RAISONS POUR LESQUELLES VOUS AVEZ PAS OU NE SOUHAITEZ PAS

CONVERTIR L'UTILISATION DE LA PROPRIETE?

13 QUELLE EST LA PROBABILITE DE VOUS VENDRE LA PROPRIETE?

Je ne vais pas vendre en toutes circonstances

Pas probable Probable Très probable

14 CONSIDÉRERIEZ-VOUS À COLLABORER AVEC D'AUTRES PROPRIÉTAIRES DE PROPRIÉTÉ SUR DES

PROJETS DANS LE CADRE DES PROGRAMMES D'AMÉLIORATION COMMUNAUTAIRE.

Oui Non

15 SERAIT DIMINUER LE FINANCEMENT MINIMUM POUR LES APPLICATIONS DE PROGRAMME POUR

COMPLÉTER DE PETITS PROJETS, TELS QUE LA PEINTURE, LES TRAVAUX DE CLÔTURE OU LE PLACEMENT DE

LA PLANTATION PERMANENTE AUGMENTENT LA PROBABILITÉ DE VOUS EN UTILISANT UN PROGRAMME DE

HEART OF THE CITY?


Oui Non

44

16 Y AT-IL D'AUTRES FACTEURS, CE QUI AUGMENTERAIT LA PROBABILITE DE VOUS EN UTILISANT UN

PROGRAMME HEART OF THE CITY?

17 DANS QUELLE MUNICIPALITE EST VOTRE RESIDENCE PERMANENTE?

18 VOTRE ENTREPRISE A-T-ELLE CONNU UN CROISSANCE, DIMINUÉ OU RESTE CONSTANT DANS LA

DERNIERE ANNEE ?

Diminué Croissance Resté Constant

19 ÊTES-VOUS PROPRIETAIRE DE PLUSIEURS PROPRIETES COMMERCIALE?

Oui Non

Si oui, combien?

Observations générales sur le sujet de l'enquête:

45

APPENDIX F: INTERVIEW FORM FOR CIP RECIPIENTS (ENGLISH)

Preamble

This interview is being conducted on behalf of the Heart of the City Initiative. The interview has resulted

from a desire to determine how the Heart of the City Community Improvement Plan programs could be

better utilized in Le Village to stimulate regeneration. To achieve this objective, the following interview

was created to assess the general awareness and interest in the programs by landowners and renters.

The interview attempts to identify general sentiment amongst the Le Village community.

Property Information

Land Use

Residential Retail Office Hospitality


Renovation not needed Minor renovation required

Renovation required Serious renovation required

Vacant?

No Yes

Assessment Values:

Date:

Address (Optional):

Interview Questions:

1 DO YOU OWN OR RENT?

Own Rent

2 HOW LONG HAVE YOU OWNED OR RENTED THE PROPERTY?

3 WHAT TYPE OF PROGRAM DID YOU APPLY FOR?

46

4 WHAT WORK DID YOU USE THE FUNDING FOR?

5 HOW LONG DID IT TAKE BETWEEN INQUIRING ABOUT THE PROGRAMS AND RECEIVING FUNDING?

5A) DID YOU FIND YOUR INTERACTION WITH THE CITY AS INFORMATIVE, HELPFUL OR PLEASANT?

Less than expected As expected More than expected Consistently more

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

6 HOW DID YOU HEAR OF THE HEART OF THE CITY COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROGRAMS?

6A. WHICH PROGRAMS ARE YOU AWARE OF?

Rehabilitation and Redevelopment Grant

Building Restoration and Improvement Program

Project Design Grant Façade Improvement and Heritage Sign Grant Program


Discretionary Municipal Tipping



ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

7 HAVE YOU TOLD YOUR TENANTS ABOUT THE PROGRAM?

8 IF A NEW LAND OWNER OR RENTER: DID THE PROGRAMS AFFECT YOUR DECISION LOCATE WHERE

YOU DID?

7A. WHAT FACTORS AFFECTED YOUR LOCATION DECISION?

9 HOW USEFUL WERE THE PROGRAMS TO YOU?

10 HAVE YOU NOTICED A CHANGE IN BUSINESS OR RENTAL INTEREST IN YOUR PROPERTY SINCE

ACCESSING FUNDING?

10.1 HAVE YOU NOTICED A CHANGE IN THE AREA?

47

11 HOW DO YOU FEEL THE PROGRAMS COULD BE IMPROVED?

12 HOW LIKELY WOULD YOU BE TO USE EACH OF THE PROGRAMS ON A SCALE OF 1 TO 5?

Rehabilitation and Redevelopment Grant:

Building Restoration and Improvement Program:

Project Design Grant:

Façade Improvement and Heritage Sign Grant Program:

Municipal Planning/Development Fee Grant Program:

Discretionary Municipal Tipping Fees Grant Program:

Parking and Landscape Enhancement Program:

Le Village Residential Façade Improvement Grant Program:

13 WHAT ARE YOUR FUTURE INTENTIONS FOR THE PROPERTY OR SITE?

14 IF VACANCY EXISTS. HOW LONG HAS THE UNIT BEEN VACANT?

13A. WOULD YOU CONSIDER USING YOUR PROPERTY FOR TEMPORARY USES SUCH EVENTS, POP-

UP STORES, TEMPORARY WORK SPACE OR ART DISPLAYS?

Yes No

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

13B. HOW WOULD DESCRIBE THE RENTAL INTEREST IN THE UNIT?(PROPERTY OWNERS)

None Limited Some Substantial

15 WHAT IS THE MOST PRESSING RENOVATION NEEDED FOR YOUR PROPERTY OR BUSINESS?

16 WHAT RENOVATION WILL YOU MOST LIKELY UNDERTAKE NEXT? (IF DIFFERENT THAN Q.15)

48

17 HAVE YOU CONSIDERED CHANGING PROPERTY USE? WOULD YOU IN THE FUTURE?

Have considered Would consider Would not consider

7B. WHAT ARE REASONS WHY YOU HAVE NOT OR WOULD NOT CONVERT PROPERTY USE?

18 WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD OF YOU SELLING THE PROPERTY?

Will not sell under any circumstances.

Not Likely Likely Very Likely

19 WOULD YOU CONSIDER COLLABORATING WITH OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS ON PROJECTS AS PART OF

THE CIP?

Yes No

20 WOULD DECREASING THE MINIMUM FUNDING FOR PROGRAM APPLICATIONS TO COMPLETE SMALL

PROJECTS, SUCH AS PAINTING, FENCE WORK OR PLACEMENT OF PERMANENT PLANTING INCREASE THE

LIKELIHOOD OF YOU USING A HEART OF THE CITY PROGRAM?

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

21 IN WHICH MUNICIPALITY IS YOUR PERMANENT RESIDENCE?

22 IN THE PAST YEAR HAS YOUR BUSINESS EXPERIENCED, (RENTERS ONLY)

Decline Growth Remained Constant

23 DO YOU OWN MULTIPLE PROPERTIES?

Yes No

If yes, how many?

Additional general comments on the survey topic:

Yes No

49

APPENDIX G: INTERVIEW FORM FOR CIP RECIPIENTS (FRENCH)

Introduction

Cette interview est fait pour l'Initiative Heart of the City. L'interview est un effort pour déterminer comment

les programmes d'amélioration communautaire de Heart of the City pourrait être mieux utilisé dans Le

Village de stimuler la régénération. Pour atteindre cet objectif, l'interview qui suit a été créé pour

comprendre la connaissance et l'intérêt dans les programmes par des propriétaires terriens et les

locataires. L'interview cherche seulement à comprendre le sentiment général parmi la communauté de Le

Village.

Informations sur la Proprièté

L'utilisation des terrains

Résidentiel Détail Bureaux Hospitalité

L'état de la propriété

Rénovation ne sont pas nécessaires

Renovation mineure requise

Renovation requise Renovation majeure requise

Vacant?

Non Oui

Assessment Values:

Date:

Address (Optional):

Questions de l’entrevue:

1 EST-CE QUE VOUS ÊTES ACTUELLEMENT PROPRIÉTAIRE OU LOCATAIRE?

Propriétaire Locataire

2 COMBIEN DE TEMPS AVEZ-VOUS POSSEDE OU LOUE VOTRE PROPRIETE?

50

3 QUEL PROGRAMME AVEZ-VOUS OBTENU?

4 QUEL TRAVAIL AVEZ-VOUS UTILISÉ LE FINANCEMENT POUR?

5 COMBIEN DE TEMPS ETAIT-IL ENTRE VOUS RENSEIGNER SUR LES PROGRAMMES ET RECEVOIR DU

FINANCEMENT ?

5B SI OUI, AVEZ-VOUS TROUVÉ VOTRE INTERACTION AVEC LA VILLE COMME INFORMATIVE,

UTILE OU AGRÉABLE?

Moins que prévu Comme prévu Plus que prévu Beaucoup plus que prévu

COMMENTAIRES SUPPLÉMENTAIRES :

6 COMMENT AVEZ-VOUS ENTENDU DES PROGRAMMES D'AMELIORATION COMMUNAUTAIRE DE

HEART OF THE CITY?

6A. QUELS PROGRAMMES ÊTES-VOUS AU COURANT?

Programme de subvention pour rénovations (fondée sur les taxes)







Subvention d'amélioration de façade résidentiel dans Le Village

51


7 SI UN NOUVEAU PROPRIETAIRE OU LOCATAIRE: LES PROGRAMMES TOUCH-T-ELLE VOTRE DECISION

DE SE DEPLACER OU VOUS AVEZ?

7A. QUELS SONT LES FACTEURS QUI ON TOUCHÉS VOTRE DÉCISION?

8 LES PROGRAMMES ONT ÉTÉ UTILE POUR VOUS? COMMENT?

9 AVEZ-VOUS REMARQUE UN CHANGEMENT DANS LES AFFAIRES OU L'INTERET DE LOCATION DANS

VOTRE PROPRIETE DEPUIS L'ACCES AU FINANCEMENT ?

9A. AVEZ-VOUS REMARQUE UN CHANGEMENT DANS LES ENVIRONS?

10 COMMENT PENSEZ-VOUS QUE LES PROGRAMMES POURRAIENT ÊTRE AMÉLIORÉS?

11 DANS QUELLE MESURE SERAIT-IL PROBABLE QUE VOUS UTILISIEZ CHACUN DES PROGRAMMES SUR

UNE ÉCHELLE DE 1 À 5?

Programme de subvention pour rénovations (fondée sur les taxes):

Programme de restauration et d'amélioration d'immeuble:

Subvention d'études de faisabilité de projets:

Subvention d'amélioration de façade et de panneau d'affichage patrimonial:

Subvention pour frais d'aménagement et de planification municipale:

Subvention discrétionnaire pour redevance de déversement municipale:


Subvention d'amélioration de façade résidentiel dans Le Village:

52

12 QUELS SONT VOS PLANS FUTURS POUR LA PROPRIETE ?

13 ÊTES-VOUS INTÉRESSÉ A ACHETER UNE PROPRIÉTÉ ADJACENTE? (LA PROPRIÉTÉ, POUR

LOCATAIRES)

Oui Non


14 SI VACANCE EXISTE. IF VACANCY EXISTS. HOW LONG HAS THE UNIT BEEN VACANT?

14A. ENVISAGERIEZ-VOUS D'UTILISER VOTRE PROPRIETE POUR DES UTILISATIONS TEMPORAIRES

TELS QUE DES EVENEMENTS, DES BOUTIQUES POP-UP, L'ESPACE DE TRAVAIL TEMPORAIRE OU DES

EXPOSITIONS D'ART?

Oui Non


14B. COMMENT DECRIRIEZ-VOUS L'INTERET DE LOCATION DANS L'ESPACE?

Aucun Limité Certains Substantiel

15 QUEL EST LE PLUS URGENT RENOVATION NECESSAIRE A VOTRE PROPRIETE OU VOTRE ENTREPRISE?

16 QUEL EST VOTRE PROCHAIN RENOVATION LA PLUS PROBABLE? (SI DIFFERENT DE Q.7)

17 QUEL EST LE BESOIN LE PLUS PRESSANT POUR L'AMELIORATION PHYSIQUE DANS LE VILLAGE?

18 AVEZ-VOUS ENVISAGE DE CHANGER L'UTILISATION DE LA PROPRIETE? CONSIDÉRERIEZ-VOUS A

L'AVENIR?

Je l'ai considéré Je voudrais considérer Je ne voudrais pas considérer

53

7B. QUELLES SONT LES RAISONS POUR LESQUELLES VOUS AVEZ PAS OU NE SOUHAITEZ PAS

CONVERTIR L'UTILISATION DE LA PROPRIETE?

19 QUELLE EST LA PROBABILITE DE VOUS VENDRE LA PROPRIETE?

Je ne vais pas vendre en toutes circonstances

Pas probable Probable Très probable

20 CONSIDÉRERIEZ-VOUS À COLLABORER AVEC D'AUTRES PROPRIÉTAIRES DE PROPRIÉTÉ SUR DES

PROJETS DANS LE CADRE DES PROGRAMMES D'AMÉLIORATION COMMUNAUTAIRE.

Oui Non

21 SERAIT DIMINUER LE FINANCEMENT MINIMUM POUR LES APPLICATIONS DE PROGRAMME POUR

COMPLÉTER DE PETITS PROJETS, TELS QUE LA PEINTURE, LES TRAVAUX DE CLÔTURE OU LE

PLACEMENT DE LA PLANTATION PERMANENTE AUGMENTENT LA PROBABILITÉ DE VOUS EN UTILISANT

UN PROGRAMME DE HEART OF THE CITY?


22 Y AT-IL D'AUTRES FACTEURS, CE QUI AUGMENTERAIT LA PROBABILITE DE VOUS EN UTILISANT UN

PROGRAMME HEART OF THE CITY?

23 DANS QUELLE MUNICIPALITE EST VOTRE RESIDENCE PERMANENTE?

24 VOTRE ENTREPRISE A-T-ELLE CONNU UN CROISSANCE, DIMINUÉ OU RESTE CONSTANT DANS LA

DERNIERE ANNEE ?

Diminué Croissance Resté Constant

Oui Non

54

25 ÊTES-VOUS PROPRIETAIRE DE PLUSIEURS PROPRIETES COMMERCIALE?

Oui Non

Si oui, combien?

Observations générales sur le sujet de l'enquête

58

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Both the authors are currently Master’s students at the School of Urban and Regional Planning at

Queen’s

Ben Goodge: My life revolves around my spatial orientation. It has led to me to my

study of urban planning and to my frequent active exploration. Within planning, I am

most passionate about the creation of places for informal socialization.

Ben Segal –Daly: I completed my Undergraduate Degree from Western University with

a Double Major in Geography and Music; two passions of mine. I was pulled towards a

Master’s Degree in Urban Planning by a developing interest in community engagement

and urban development. In my spare time I enjoy cycling, and enjoying the ballet of

the sidewalk.

Date post:	12-Apr-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ben-goodge
View:	87 times
Download:	0 times

Le Village Report

Documents