What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    53
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.
 
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?
 
Oilguy said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
20260111_122928.jpg
 
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.
 
strata said:
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.
Click to expand...
They are moving closer with each new "project".
 
^. ^^
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.
 
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.
 
mcr said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I hope someone from the city reads this and they actually move forward with this. If an additional selling point is needed, the city is constantly talking about needing to find additional revenue sources, so if there were penalties this could help with that.
 
Taxing improvements on properties needs to be gradually phased out for this reason. A 10 year period would be fine.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top