- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
johnnyboy
Active Member
I’ve already stated where I stand on this, but I'll say it again: this proposal is a terrible outcome for a key downtown site, no matter what state it's currently in.
That said, I’m not convinced dragging IanO’s past advances that argument. He works for Westrich; it’s not hard to imagine he’s constrained in what he can say publicly, whether he personally agrees with this or not. I'm sure all of us have been in some version of this position before with a boss or employer. Heck it happens with me almost every month.
We should continue to roast this proposal on its (de)merits and push Council to intervene without turning it into a proxy fight about one forum member. I don't know IanO from Adam, and I've disagreed with a few of his takes on here.
But the parking lot is the problem, not this thread turning into a character trial about a dumb decision he made years ago.
That said, I’m not convinced dragging IanO’s past advances that argument. He works for Westrich; it’s not hard to imagine he’s constrained in what he can say publicly, whether he personally agrees with this or not. I'm sure all of us have been in some version of this position before with a boss or employer. Heck it happens with me almost every month.
We should continue to roast this proposal on its (de)merits and push Council to intervene without turning it into a proxy fight about one forum member. I don't know IanO from Adam, and I've disagreed with a few of his takes on here.
But the parking lot is the problem, not this thread turning into a character trial about a dumb decision he made years ago.
Last edited:
Mesopotamia
New Member
wormwood sounds like someone shit in his cereal
wormwood
Active Member
no doubt. my bad. i was having a rough day yesterday.
archited
Senior Member
^ We all have those
Yeggy
Active Member
If this development does anything, let it set the bar for future and existing parking lots. If it does this one thing it will be a net pisitive.
Its time all out lots we paved, and included landscaping.
period.
Its time all out lots we paved, and included landscaping.
period.
TAS
Senior Member
Future? I am all for it in existing parking lots, but approving new future surface parking lots, no thanks. Doing the wrong things well is not a measure of success - which applies to adding new parking lots (specifically downtown).
Where new parking lots are required for the latest strip mall, I get your point.
Last edited:
Yeggy
Active Member
^ I find that people who paint the world in absolutes will ultimately eat their own words.
A single parking lot should not be the stand in for the aggregate.
I believe, as a total, we have seen surface parking lot spaces in the core decrease. I will GLADLY se a slight one off increase if it means higher standards for all.
Dont let perfect be the enemy of the good.
A single parking lot should not be the stand in for the aggregate.
I believe, as a total, we have seen surface parking lot spaces in the core decrease. I will GLADLY se a slight one off increase if it means higher standards for all.
Dont let perfect be the enemy of the good.
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?
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.