What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    52
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.
 
^ Well said. It seems like it should be a real dilemma for 'O. It kind of cuts off a large portion of his critiques at the pass. There is a credibility void building here.
 
Guaranteed Ian has feelings about this that are different than his employer based on the precedent of his posts all over this forum. However, we’re not going to hear that perspective while he works for Westrich. Anyone expecting that needs to get their head out of the sand. He is not going to put himself into a position where he is in a conflict of interest on this. I’ve been put in difficult positions with my own employer to make decisions and implement things I don’t agree with as I’m sure many have here. At the end of the day, you have to weigh your personal convictions of what you’re doing against your other needs of supporting yourself, your family etc and make a call of whether to continue with your current employer or seek new employment. He will have to do the same as many others have in the past; no need for the rest of us to dwell on that. I don’t think implementing a parking lot makes you a bad person in the grand scheme of what is happening in the world right now.

All that said, it’s perfectly reasonable to criticize Westrich’ approach to this issue.
 
inclusion said:
Guaranteed Ian has feelings about this that are different than his employer based on the precedent of his posts all over this forum. However, we’re not going to hear that perspective while he works for Westrich. Anyone expecting that needs to get their head out of the sand. He is not going to put himself into a position where he is in a conflict of interest on this. I’ve been put in difficult positions with my own employer to make decisions and implement things I don’t agree with as I’m sure many have here. At the end of the day, you have to weigh your personal convictions of what you’re doing against your other needs of supporting yourself, your family etc and make a call of whether to continue with your current employer or seek new employment. He will have to do the same as many others have in the past; no need for the rest of us to dwell on that. I don’t think implementing a parking lot makes you a bad person in the grand scheme of what is happening in the world right now.

All that said, it’s perfectly reasonable to criticize Westrich’ approach to this issue.
Click to expand...

This, 100%.

As it is in any job, you can voice your opinion on an issue, project, task, whatever it may be, and then if your boss says "too bad we're doing it anyway" you just have to live with it and do your job. You said your peace, but in the end you answer to someone else the majority of the time. This is a crappy project and I don't like it, but it also wouldn't be one that is worth leaving a job over or anything crazy like that either.
 
So I dumped all of the posts from this thread into Chatgp and it came back telling me that IanO works for Westrich.
Seriously though, I don’t know IanO, but sounds like he only works for Westrich and being a developer their decisions are business based. It might not always work out for what we want, but we work within a free market economy.
 
AntonK said:
So I dumped all of the posts from this thread into Chatgp and it came back telling me that IanO works for Westrich.
Seriously though, I don’t know IanO, but sounds like he only works for Westrich and being a developer their decisions are business based. It might not always work out for what we want, but we work within a free market economy.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely correct - their decisions are business based just like any other developer, contractor, architect, restaurant, grocer, shoe retailer or toy stores etc.

All businesses make business based decisions. That doesn't mean that it's up to the city to subsidize their decisions in order to make them economically viable. We don't do that for contractors, architects, restaurants, grocers, shoe retailers or toy stores etc. and we shouldn't do that for developers either.

If Westrich can't afford to buy the site at the price they negotiated, they have options other than a subsidy from the city. They can negotiate a lower price or they can pass and let someone else buy the site or let Regency continue to own it.

As for the condition of the site, that absolutely needs to be addressed by the city, starting by not permitting the circumstances that led to it being abandoned like this repeat themselves in the future). But subsidizing Westrich like this on order to achieve that oh so Edmonton solution of "oh well, it could be worse" is not how to do that.

And if it is somehow okay for Westrich to get concessions from the city so they can afford to purchase this site, what about giving the same concessions to purchase the Arlington site? the Dueck Sites? the city's Kinistinaw site in the Quarters? Alldritt's sites?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top