What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    53
Stevey_G said:
What a strawman argument to make eh. The exhibition lands and blatchford are nowhere near as unsightly as his property. Nor do they sit on the city’s potentially top premiere downtown corner.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that Blatchford is an active development area, and the Exhibition Lands are still useful. Regency's site is neither of those. It's just a decrepit eyesore
 
Agard said:
View attachment 694114
Am I misreading this?? This makes zero sense: "How can you call me out for NOT developing vacant unsightly land when you ARE developing vacant unsightly land!"
Click to expand...
Gotta love the ol' whataboutism approach. Just because you built some credibility in the past doesn't mean you automatically get a free pass now - it has to be earned back. From where I sit, he hasn't earned anything lately. The Bonnie Doon redevelopment is a mess of a construction site. Perhaps try cleaning that up a bit along with the other vacant sites you have.
 
Gronk! said:
The fact that other towers such as The Falcon and The Parks have been successfully completed just shows how incompetent Regency is.
Click to expand...
Hey another word that starts with d is deflection. They could have titled this article "Downtown (non) developer deflects blame", or at least tries to.

However, this is what happens when you tear down a nice building, leaving an empty lot in a prominent location downtown and you do not make enough effort to keep it up. Your reputation turns to sh*t.
 
The_Cat said:
edmontonjournal.com

'Irresponsible': Downtown developer feels unfairly targeted by city's 'problem property' survey

Site of the old Bank of Montreal building is the subject of a "problem properties" survey issued by the City of Edmonton
edmontonjournal.com edmontonjournal.com
Click to expand...
Love how they mention "the 25-storey Holyrood Gardens transit-oriented development" as a transformative project, being one of the ugliest developments in the city. 🤮😒
They have cut all the possible corners to "make it profitable", and we ended up with an eyesore either they develop something or not
 
_urbanite said:
Not to mention that Blatchford is an active development area, and the Exhibition Lands are still useful. Regency's site is neither of those. It's just a decrepit eyesore
Click to expand...
To be fair there are some parallels between them. For instance, homeless people often squat in the basement of that old BMO building, and people often rent basement suites in Blatchford. But beyond that he's out to lunch.
 
fromyeg said:
podcasts.apple.com

Return of the Knack

Podcast Episode · Speaking Municipally · November 7, 2025 · 1h 3m
podcasts.apple.com podcasts.apple.com

Knack calls the site an “embarrassment.”

Talks about expanding the derelict property subclass to include non residential properties.
Click to expand...

Expanding the derelict property subclass to include non residential properties should have been done a couple of years ago. Lord knows there are other properties such as The Emerald and The Arlington.
 
archited said:
^ What I mean is "stop whining and get behind a solution!"
Click to expand...

Gronk! said:
Expanding the derelict property subclass to include non residential properties should have been done a couple of years ago. Lord knows there are other properties such as The Emerald and The Arlington.
Click to expand...

He said expansion of the derelict property subclass to include non residential properties is scheduled to pass through council next year and take effect for the 2027 tax season, although if there was any way they could have it ready for the 2026 tax season he would push for it.
 
How I feel whenever I hear Raj Dhunna whine about anything:

1762580333326.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top