TAS
Senior Member
Westrich just had a one off. This would be a two-off. If Westrich gets a two-off, does the developer who owns Arlington site get one, too? He wants one.
Where does your one off end?
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
Westrich just had a one off. This would be a two-off. If Westrich gets a two-off, does the developer who owns Arlington site get one, too? He wants one.
Where does your one off end?
Yeggy
Active Member
kcantor
Senior Member
I think if there has been a decrease it’s related to those bought with tax dollars for O’Daymin Park and those taken up by the Winspear expansion ones you can think of others I may have missed.
I would also hazard a guess that excluding those, we’re adding more and not less surface parking to and around downtown. There’s at least one new gravel lot in the quarters, there’s all of Ice District 2, and this is the second Westrich application (the first one was approved) and there may be others I’m missing here as well.
degrandprix
Active Member
By some quick math, Westrich will be removing 5,375m2 of parking between their Lilac Park and 106 street projects, and will only be adding 3,840m2 between their 104st lot and this site. So that puts them at a net negative of about 1,500m2 at least? Not sure about downtown overall though.
TAS
Senior Member
If you're seriously asking me the aggregate number for all of dt, I don't know but a city report on downtown parking requested by Coun Salvador concluded:
"Significant Oversupply: A city study found the highest parking utilization rate in the central core was only 53.5%, far below the optimal 85-90% range."
That will increase with more people working downtown. But certainly, we have more than enough to meet the demand and then some.
My question to you is how many more should we continue to add if we already have an oversupply?
And do we really want to get into the management of parking lots by saying if you remove a parking lot with a new build, you can add another parking lot on one of your other properties?
Last edited:
Yeggy
Active Member
Depending on how far you want to go back….
There was also lot that used to be at 109/jasper that is now developed.
The Arena ate up a lot of surface parking.
The old Morgue had parking that is now developed.
The old post office had surface parking
The old Epcor grounds likely had some sort of parking prior to its existence.
The tower Day built was an empty lot I believe.
One of the twin towers along 104st was an old greyhound site, and was parking if i remember correctly.
Im also certain that the grand central towers on 109 ate up some parking. There was the old Drive in burger place but I forget what else was there.
Wasn't Encore an old lot too.
The trend is positive, by being negative.
Yeggy
Active Member
I think any proposal that puts forward a good use case, is feasible, and improves the area should be considered.
As Carney has said so eloquently “Deal with the world as is, not as we wish it to be”. The fact is A building was partially removed, and we are left with a mess. The people who removed the building clearly cant afford to do the job properly.
So now we have a site that will be extremely expensive to finish demolition on and then you also want a tower to appear… when reality is a developer can get a much easier parcel of land to develop in the same area (as per your own evidence in the form of the report)
So no Im not bent out of shape about it because a) the building came down and isnt coming back and b) the parking lot is a much needed improvement over what is there even if its doesnt meet your expectations as to what you wish it to be.
I stand by my statement about setting parking lot standards. This lot will be permitted, landscape and paved. That alone makes it one of the best parking lots in all of DT.
EtoV
Active Member
Don't accept bad just because it could be worse.
Yeggy
Active Member
It is worse friend, its currently as bad as it gets. Like burned out 1970’s NYC bad.
inclusion
Active Member
How lucky we are to gain one of the best parking lots in all of DT. I, for one, will make sure I park there instead of using the abundant underground parking lots or available cheaper street parking, because it is paved and landscaped. Will it be secure?
In a city trying to promote alternative modes of transportation, making decisions that go against policy and corporate priorities is definitely a choice. It is more likely that the parking lot will remain a parking lot for the foreseeable future, since Westrich will have to invest more capital to improve it. Making decisions in a vacuum creates precedent for similar decisions in the future; hopefully, decision makers consider the broader strategy here.
Perhaps Westrich will pivot to developing sites in poor condition into parking lots if they know they can get them approved easily.
Yeggy
Active Member
Name one other site dt that has a half buried building on it that also contains a massive vault. Name one other dt site that is any way comparable.
Ill wait….
Ill wait….
IanO
Superstar
Yeggy
Active Member
Ian with the troll post!
David A
Senior Member
Unfortunately, I feel they may have already figured this out. I don't feel this is a very good use of this site, but I would perhaps blame the city more for allowing this to happen than the company for trying to take advantage of this.
inclusion
Active Member
Anything that requires significant remediation due to dry cleaners or previous industrial use is a good comparable. Would include all of phase 2 for ID, which is why the City and province have to kick in money. There are likely other pieces of land downtown as well given our history of car dealerships and heavy rail in the area. @kcantor would know better than me, but I imagine kitty corner to Edmonton Tower and the other parking lot across may have contamination. Sure, a vault won't be cheap to dig up, but remediation is very expensive.