What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    53
As much as I hate the Arlington owners' general attitude, I wouldn't blame them at all if they felt they had been treated unfairly. And if there absolutely had to be another surface parking lot (although god knows we have more than enough of them already), the Arlington site is far less offensive than this one. My mind continues to boggle that a. anyone would think this was a great idea and b. that the city would throw out its own rules out the window. If we do end up with a surface parking lot on this site my faith in this city will have been shaken If we accept this, we will accept anything, and shouldn't even bother.
 
Yeggy said:
The current discussion was about the lot and not “should the building of come down.”

Im reacting to what is. The perfect what if scenario would of course included not tearing down the BMO building in the first place.

Im working with the world as it is… not what we want it to be. Ultimately every development choice should ultimately result in a “better than it is now” situation. Had that mentality been applied, the BMO building would of never come down.

I stand by my “Its better than it is now” mindset and want to see it fully applied to every decisions city council makes.

Please feel free to argue the other side…
Click to expand...
I am well aware of the current discussion... :)

I was, however, specifically asked "to name one other dt site that is any way comparable" and did so.
 
ADob said:
As much as I hate the Arlington owners' general attitude, I wouldn't blame them at all if they felt they had been treated unfairly. And if there absolutely had to be another surface parking lot (although god knows we have more than enough of them already), the Arlington site is far less offensive than this one. My mind continues to boggle that a. anyone would think this was a great idea and b. that the city would throw out its own rules out the window. If we do end up with a surface parking lot on this site my faith in this city will have been shaken If we accept this, we will accept anything, and shouldn't even bother.
Click to expand...
I actually feel they would have a very good case for a lawsuit against the city if the 101 Street parking lot went ahead. I realize the Arlington owners relationship with the city is not good, so they are on the naughty list while other developers get consideration they do not.
 
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't The Arlington owners go ahead and set up a parking lot without permits or approval from the city? Westrich is doing both before going ahead. Seems to me that would make a big difference in any lawsuit.
 
SarcasticMarmot said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't The Arlington owners go ahead and set up a parking lot without permits or approval from the city? Westrich is doing both before going ahead. Seems to me that would make a big difference in any lawsuit.
Click to expand...
If Arlington or any other developer wants to pursue permitted parking lot if the second Westrich lot is approved would have argument if they were denied moving forward.
 
SarcasticMarmot said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't The Arlington owners go ahead and set up a parking lot without permits or approval from the city? Westrich is doing both before going ahead. Seems to me that would make a big difference in any lawsuit.
Click to expand...
Well are either really in compliance with existing city rules? If the city ignores its own rules to grant an approval then the Arlington could apply for permits too and if it doesn't get them, which it may not, then sue the city.
 
ChazYEG said:
Or "IanO's stoning session 101"
I read all of the last week or so of posts and damn y'all dunked on him, which I don't think is very nice or fair.
Click to expand...
Chaz, you need to separate "dunking on what he is attempting to get approved on behalf of Westrich and Regency" - which is perfectly fair whether or not it's nice - and "dunking on him" which is a totally different thing.
 
@IanO you spoke another thread about getting a fenced off basketball court on some other empty Downtown plot. Why not advocate to your employer to do it here? A little private sports amenity - could be for basketball, or you could do tennis courts, pickleball courts and/or a well maintained outdoor rink in the wintertime. Much better than a parking lot. And if you really want revenue, instead of charging for parking, make these courts/rinks private access and charge for memberships to use it (as long as it’s a good product) and rent it out to groups and tournaments. That’ll improve security at the site too. You could also have a building hosting concessions and coffee. Look to Garneau Park for inspiration 😉
 
yeggator said:
@IanO you spoke another thread about getting a fenced off basketball court on some other empty Downtown plot. Why not advocate to your employer to do it here? A little private sports amenity - could be for basketball, or you could do tennis courts, pickleball courts and/or a well maintained outdoor rink in the wintertime. Much better than a parking lot. And if you really want revenue, instead of charging for parking, make these courts/rinks private access and charge for memberships to use it (as long as it’s a good product) and rent it out to groups and tournaments. That’ll improve security at the site too. You could also have a building hosting concessions and coffee. Look to Garneau Park for inspiration 😉
Click to expand...

I'm 100% in favor of this. You can have basketball and pickleball patrons pay as you go, similar to the Arc program or one of those e-scooter companies like Bird or Lime.
 
kcantor said:
I am well aware of the current discussion... :)

I was, however, specifically asked "to name one other dt site that is any way comparable" and did so.…
Click to expand...
Fair Cantor,

How long has 107st been like that? is 107st even a legal parking lot that is licensed?

Because, from my point if view, the two properties are not that same. One will be a fully landscaped and lic’d business and, and the other will have foundation remnants, wont be paved, isnt landscaped and likely isnt a permitted business. I am sure we all agree the number of illegal parking lots is also a concern.

We are also all in agreement that the BMO building should of never been torn down and regency not being able to pay was none of councils concern because. ultimately the city could of sold it too recoup costs after seizing it for unpaid taxes.

If you had a binary choice of what currently exists on 107 or a legal, landscaped, permitted business, what would you choose? Honestly.

We are all disappointed at what has transpired.
 
kcantor said:
Chaz, you need to separate "dunking on what he is attempting to get approved on behalf of Westrich and Regency" - which is perfectly fair whether or not it's nice - and "dunking on him" which is a totally different thing.
Click to expand...
My issue with how the thread's discussions transpired is that a lot of the comments sounded very directed personally to him, which was unpleasant to read.

I'm not happy with what is being proposed either. And a few good ideas for temporary uses were suggested, which I think is perfectly good and very productive. However, reading some comments it felt like some people started mixing him, and his personal views, with those of his company and the things he has to do, and defend, as part of his job. Most of us, and I suspect him included, cannot afford to recuse themselves from doing their jobs in the grounds of not agreeing with the company's decisions.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top