What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    53
_urbanite said:
Sorry, but why exactly should we care about the developer being able to earn holding revenue? Because they're doing all of us a favor by buying the lot?

Oookayyy...
Click to expand...
I know I get it, I really do, but they are going to have to spend a ton to get this site level again. Maybe I’m wrong here, certainly can see this from both angles.
 
Oilguy said:
I know I get it, I really do, but they are going to have to spend a ton to get this site level again. Maybe I’m wrong here, certainly can see this from both angles.
Click to expand...
Isn't that part of the due diligence in buying it, though? It's not as if having another parking lot approved is guaranteed anyway, so that should have been considered as part of their purchasing process. It would just be additional gravy for them, but surely they also considered a scenario where a parking lot is not approved.
 
Oilguy said:
I know I get it, I really do, but they are going to have to spend a ton to get this site level again. Maybe I’m wrong here, certainly can see this from both angles.
Click to expand...

Maybe that cost was worked into sale price?
 
For this proposal, it makes me think about the words of Brent Toderian (former chief city planner for Vancouver and advisor around the world) - his 5 steps cities can go through to better city building.

1. Doing the wrong thing.
Ex. Building a freeway through downtown or no bike lanes at all

2. Doing the wrong things better. If you're going to build surface parking lots, lets put trees up and art.
The idea that if you're going to do the wrong thing, you might as well do it better - but that's not success.

3. Have your cake and eat it, too. You spend on transit or bike lanes, but at the same time you add more parking or widen more roads. If youre trying to help people make other choices but at the same time making it easier to drive, and people are already used to driving, why change? And then we wonder why no mode shift.

4. Doing the right things badly. (He says this can be the most dangerous stage). Ex. Building lrt that is slower than driving or bike lanes that arent protected or well connected. So we don't get results we hoped for and naysayers say 'see, I told you lrt or bike lanes are a waste.'

5. Doing the right things well. Too many cities do the wrong things 'better' and that becomes our definition of success.

All that said, this is very unique and fairly temporary I hope and there are benefits here. But I don't love the choice.
 
Last edited:
Let’s be realistic I don’t see anyone falling over themselves trying to build an office/hotel/residential high rise in downtown Edmonton. I know I wouldn’t. Whining about the proposal submitted by Westrich will not change the demand for a high rise development
 
kcantor said:
How much did we spend on O'Daymin Park to eliminate surface parking lots at great public expense because they are detrimental to the public good?
Click to expand...

Right on.

This would be Westrich's second brand new surface parking lot downtown, with this one directly adjacent to a billion dollar brand new LRT line no less.

Important to note that every surface parking lot downtown is temporary until they're developed, yes even the ones that have been there 40+ years. How many have been developed soon after becoming a parking lot? I can't think of any. A parking lot is still a parking lot regardless of how it's decorated.
 
Last edited:
Ohman said:
Right on.

This would be Westrich's second brand new surface parking lot on 102nd avenue, both directly adjacent to a billion dollar brand new LRT line no less.

Important to note that every surface parking lot downtown is temporary until they're developed, yes even the ones that have been there 40+ years. How many have been developed soon after becoming a parking lot? I can't think of any. A parking lot is still a parking lot regardless of how it's decorated.
Click to expand...

Just a correction - the new 104st Westrich parking lot is on the corner of 103Ave, not 102.
But thanks, now I know what Ken was meaning. I can't believe how quickly I forgot about that one.
 
kcantor said:
^
"...very unique and fairly temporary..."???

Just like 104 Street and 102nd Avenue?
Or the old Baccarat site?
Or Ice District Phase 2?
Or a host of others...

The problem with very unique and fairly temporary is that on their own all of these - and others - may be individually unique and fairly temporary but collectively they are neither unique not likely to be fairly temporary. Worse than that is that it would demonstrate the city's lack of commitment and enforcement of their own planning and bylaws.

The city cannot choose to "sometimes" enforce planning and bylaws as when it strikes them without being open to the Arlington and scores of other sites making a case to the city and to SDAB that the city is being discriminatory.

How much did we spend on O'Daymin Park to eliminate surface parking lots at great public expense because they are detrimental to the public good?

If Regency or whoever does buy the site wants a surface parking lot "because they need to interim revenue to justify the acquisition", then buy it for less so the numbers work or don't buy it at all.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I do appreciate this point of view. I guess I just interact with this site so much I’m desperate for anything really. You have me thinking about it differently.

I do think it’s a great spot for the type of backyard setup over by Epcor. Bring in some positive street interaction would help clear this area up tremendously.
 
I’d be fine with this if it had a short clause for 3-4 years. But then it needs teeth to be shutdown. The challenge is that I doubt the market for a highrise dramatically shifts in 4 years.

So do we want this for 10-15 years? Or the current crap? Or hope another buyer steps up?

Westrich has numerous highrise lots in the pipeline as well, so even if conditions improve, will this go ahead before ice tower 1 & 2? Or their grandin tower?
 
So on one side we have a property that is currently completely and utterly unacceptable. On one hand we have one option of making the site unacceptable but not a hazard and not a complete eyesore. On the other hand, we currently have hopes and dreams but that's it. There is no demand for an office tower right now and obviously, regardless of what we may think, no interest in building a new hotel. Can we maybe get this tiny proposal to happen but an extremely Limited time limit to get something built as one of the requirements? At least this way the proposal actually is slightly better than leaving its status quo
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top