[degrandprix]

I think this would be semi-ok if there was some sort of activation on the southeast corner as well. As proposed, this does nothing to activate the current dead-end of RHW.

 

[Markyeg]

No way should the city let this be a parking lot. The seacan coffee shop is a great idea, but make the rest of the property into a green space/park until market conditions improve enough to justify building a tower on the site.

If we let Westrich put in a parking lot, saying market conditions don’t justify a tower right now, or for the foreseeable future, it could be 10+ years until we get rid of it.

 

[kcantor]

For perspective, zoning is to be applied and enforced completely independent of who owns the land or who is proposing the project.

For additional perspective, how many of those supporting this project because it’s potentially “better than”” would still support it if Raj was proposing it rather than Ian?

And how many of those who would be happy to have this approved because Ian was proposing it only to find out the sale didn’t close and Raj was then entitled to do this would still be happy?

Zoning entitlements and approvals run with the land, not with the ownership…

 

[Oilguy]

For perspective, zoning is to be applied and enforced completely independent of who owns the land or who is proposing the project.

For additional perspective, how many of those supporting this project because it’s potentially “better than”” would still support it if Raj was proposing it rather than Ian?

And how many of those who would be happy to have this approved because Ian was proposing it only to find out the sale didn’t close and Raj was then entitled to do this would still be happy?

Zoning entitlements and approvals run with the land, not with the ownership…

Good points as always. You are right we’d probably be upset, but given what this site has become there would probably be something in me that would say do something here.

 

[wormwood]

Lets do away with the seacans in prominent locations like Whyte/Gateway. This is not appropriate, even temporarily for this lot. Lets stop settling for crap. @IanO, you can do better for sure.

 

[husky]

I don't hate the concept as a temporary use since it looks like the parking will actually be paved and have decent landscaping treatment but my fear is that since it would require a relatively high capital investment just for the interim use, that it will be a while until development actually occurs.

Could be more palatable if there were maybe a few other vendors on-site or if a portion of the parking lot after business hours could be turned into a basketball court or something.

 

[Gronk!]

Can Westrich proceed with a new hotel/residential development on this site if they sell some of their other properties such as Ultima and G4?

 

[David A]

Sadly it’s an improvement, would’ve loved to see a park or maybe a food truck concept, but right now anything is better than what we have.

Perhaps I am not interpreting the pictures correctly, but it seems like a glorified parking lot with a couple a temporary trailers and some landscaping.

Of course unfortunately almost anything is an improvement over the current state, but I feel everyone expected something much better than this for such a high profile site.

 

[TAS]

Just a reminder of another Westrich site where daily and event parking (as the new sign says) was added in place of a warehouse building.

 

[strata]

I'm not sure I understand all the hate/outrage directed at Westrich here.

The land was publicly available to purchase.

For those that sit on their keyboard and fawn over companies like Beljan (who are a great company) you should realize that they are not putting their own cash into those projects. They find an opportunity, tie up the land, put together a project to attract investors, maybe sometimes differ some of their management fees into equity, and then try to execute on all of it. If it was so easy to do that - we should all be able to do the same and build the most stunning projects without complaining that that our lack of personal financial capacity is the barrier for entry.


Totally fair game to be critical of their designs, decisions, etc. Totally fair to push for better. There are a few Westrich projects that I really have a distaste for. But, it feels like some of the comments are making this seem like a lateral move with Regency owning the property - and I could not disagree more there.

 

[archited]

Totally fair game to be critical of their designs, decisions, etc. Totally fair to push for better. There are a few Westrich projects that I really have a distaste for. But, it feels like some of the comments are making this seem like a lateral move with Regency owning the property - and I could not disagree more there.

They are moving closer with each new "project".

 

[kcantor]

^. ^^
Except IT’S NOT ABOUT WESTRICH. It’s about the zoning and what is/isn’t allowed under that zoning.

And if we’re prepared to support ignoring that, why have any zoning at all?

The developers could simply do whatever they choose to and the city would save a whole ton of money not having to enforce things nobody cares about.

 

[mcr]

Exactly as Ken said - it doesn't matter what developer is behind it, it's the fact we're about to allow surface parking on a prominent downtown lot, despite the zoning bylaws. This is no better, or different, than the Arlington site and should be treated the same. Parking of this nature should not be allowed, or at the VERY least it needs a strict sunset clause of, lets call it, 3yrs (arbitrary, it just needs to be short term) before active development needs to be underway or harsh fines are incurred. Understanding that that would be a bylaw change, of course.

 

[David A]

Exactly as Ken said - it doesn't matter what developer is behind it, it's the fact we're about to allow surface parking on a prominent downtown lot, despite the zoning bylaws. This is no better, or different, than the Arlington site and should be treated the same. Parking of this nature should not be allowed, or at the VERY least it needs a strict sunset clause of, lets call it, 3yrs (arbitrary, it just needs to be short term) before active development needs to be underway or harsh fines are incurred. Understanding that that would be a bylaw change, of course.

Yes, while this is dressed up behind a bit of landscaping, a few lights and a shipping container or two, it is still essentially a glorified surface parking lot.

 

[kcantor]

I think what the city needs to do - and I’ve said this before - when any demolition permit is issued (noting that they’re not supposed to be issued until after a development permit has been issued although Council waived that in this case ), the owner would be required to execute an Development Agreement that says that if a building permit hasn’t been issued and development hasn’t commenced within 12 months that there would be an annual penalty equal to the difference between what the property is taxed at vacant vs what it was taxed at prior to demolition. As this would be charged under a Development Agreement executed by both parties and not as property taxes, it wouldn’t require an amendment to the MGA although it would still be registrable on and enforceable against the title, not the owner (just as zoning applies to the land, not the owner).

This would remove the financial incentive for an owner to demolish and hold for future development or sale. This subsidy in holding costs has been “banked” by Regency for years and would continue to be “banked “ every year by Westrich should they purchase the lot. The City shouldn’t be asked to subsidize their holding costs over and above that by approving/allowing something they shouldn’t approve/allow.

If Westrich can’t afford to “carry” the site and comply with the current zoning, they either shouldn’t purchase it or they should negotiate a lower purchase price. It’s not up to the City to subsidize their business operations generally or on this site in particular.