[MattPT]

all very good points… oh shit sorry. This was about the Arlington. I guess it only applies when someone else owns the land.

Parking lot?

Better not be...

Don't get me started about this site and the COE's lack of care/attention and the owner's complete disregard.

We need density and residents and normalized activity, not another park...

It's RIPE for one of the 3 previous proposals and would really add some people to a very quiet area.

You mean like the height and density that used to be there. Please and thank you.

It's disgusting how long this site has permitted to sit in the state it was/is. It says to nearby residents, business owners and visitors that WE don't give a shit.

Better than how it looked before, but now I worry that we will see yet another off-premise surface lot for 50 yrs.
View attachment 638386

Don't forget about the humble bureaucrats

I submitted a 311 complaint about this lot on May 18. Within a few days, it got forwarded to the city's development compliance team. A few days ago, one of their staff members gave me a call, asked some context questions, and said he'd walk down there to check it out. I just got off the phone with him again, and he said the following:

-The parking company is Diamond Parking.
-Not only do they lack a permit for this parking lot, but they don't even have the correct zoning (the zoning is still the same as before the old apartment here burned down).
-He's going to send an order that they immediately remove all vehicles from this lot, and lock the gate to prevent more vehicles from parking here. By July 6, they must remove all signage and any online content advertising this as a paid parking lot.
-He is also issuing a fine, and will walk there every week - if they continue to allow vehicles to park there, or don't remove the signage by July 6, he will continue to issue more fines!

He also thanked me for submitting the report; since this was caught early, they can clearly demonstrate that rules were violated and shut it down, rather than seeing a similar situation to the other illegal lots that have been around for decades and have to be dealt with a softer approach.

I owe you a beer or 5 or 500. THANK YOU!

 

[ADob]

So is it too late to write to Anne Stevenson? The more I think about this, the more I find the idea absolutely egregious. And the whole "at least it'll be better than what's there now" doesn't hold water with me. It's the heart of downtown. A proposal for a surface parking lot should have been laughed out of the building, not been taken seriously.

 

[positive1]

I'm gonna stop following this thread It's more depressing than the actual site.

 

[kcantor]

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….

These are exactly the same arguments that left us with the exposed foundations of the previous buildings and surface parking lots on the NW corner of Jasper and 107th street.

As with the BMO site - and Westrich's other new parking lot - the buildings were demolished simply to avoid paying property taxes on them, not because they were no longer usable.

In this case, if we don’t like what it and others like it look like, there are other avenues that should be pursued just as we do with derelict housing.

This is simply a reflection of an ongoing lack of public and political will and a willingness to accept “it could be worse” or “it’s better than it is now” rather than insisting on no more crap regardless of who’s sitting on the pot .

It’s time we stop not only allowing this kind of behaviour but rewarding it with revenue.

 

[CplKlinger]

all very good points… oh shit sorry. This was about the Arlington. I guess it only applies when someone else owns the land.

lol please don't drag me into this debate, I already said I don't like this.