Yeggy
Active Member
well historically that bet would be a bad one. The DT has been under continual improvement since the depths of the 90’s. Any gen x’r here can confirm that.
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
inclusion
Active Member
No, a realist.
Ohman
New Member
Who would have believed that in 2026 we would still be building new parking lots downtown?
....ok maybe most of us. It is easy to believe that in 10 years from now we might have more new parking lots even as old ones get developed.
There is also some fun irony (cognitive dissonance?) in the same developer not putting any parking in the Lotus project, highlighting access to transit and walkability, then putting in two new surface lots downtown.
....ok maybe most of us. It is easy to believe that in 10 years from now we might have more new parking lots even as old ones get developed.
There is also some fun irony (cognitive dissonance?) in the same developer not putting any parking in the Lotus project, highlighting access to transit and walkability, then putting in two new surface lots downtown.
Wax
New Member
I cant wait to park and ride valley line…
Barnaby
Senior Member
Currently Edmonton is 3 steps forward, one step back when it comes to the surface parking battle. Westrich is helping more than they're hurting the core.
This is still the fault of the city. The site should be taxed at the same rate as when the BMO building was standing, but since this country taxes improvements, this type of action is incentivized.
We can complain about surface parking lots all day and night, but the insistence on taxing good behaviour (building valuable spaces) is the big issue here.
This is still the fault of the city. The site should be taxed at the same rate as when the BMO building was standing, but since this country taxes improvements, this type of action is incentivized.
We can complain about surface parking lots all day and night, but the insistence on taxing good behaviour (building valuable spaces) is the big issue here.
Kosy123
Senior Member
My controversial opinion is that this'll probably be a parking lot for far less time than people expect, but what do I know lol
bodsbods9090
Senior Member
The Quarters will see a few parking lots gone as well. Thanks Gene Dub and E4C project.
Yeggy
Active Member
^^^The last 30 years has seen a steady, if not slow, decrease in the amount and number of surface parking lots in the dt area.
Have there been a few back tracks sure, but that is life.
Have there been a few back tracks sure, but that is life.
David A
Senior Member
I agree the city bears responsibility here, the company is just reacting to the perverse incentives here. Until the city fixes this, others will do the same.
David A
Senior Member
Well, wouldn't that be a comparable size to the building that was torn down? Perhaps it would have saved everyone almost a decade of grief if instead of tearing it down the owners did a residential conversion or something.
kcantor
Senior Member
It was shallow enough from atrium to exterior to have made a great hotel/mixed use conversion that could well have started by now even if it took a different developer to execute. Instead we had a developer without the resources and an administration and a council that were too busy chasing the next shiny penny to properly represent the public’s interest.
inclusion
Active Member
Let’s start a pool then, because there is no way you develop a spot like this and develop it within 5 years.
David A
Senior Member
Things can get built surprisingly fast when you have competent developers and a favourable economic situation
CplKlinger
Senior Member
| Major Development Permit | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
kcantor
Senior Member
This is so wrong…
If the current potential sale doesn’t close, this is simply gifting the current owner who got us into this mess a lovely windfall after doing so.
If the current potential sale doesn’t close, this is simply gifting the current owner who got us into this mess a lovely windfall after doing so.