What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    53
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.
 
Yeggy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
^ 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.
 
Yeggy said:
^ 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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
TAS said:
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?
Click to expand...
What is the aggregate number for all of dt?

Are the number of surface lot spots going up or down as a whole? Thats the most important number not any one specific site.

Just like any investor you need to embrace the volatility.
 
Yeggy said:
^ 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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Yeggy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Yeggy said:
What is the aggregate number for all of dt?

Are the number of surface lot spots going up or down as a whole? Thats the most important number not any one specific site.

Just like any investor you need to embrace the volatility.
Click to expand...

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:
kcantor said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
TAS said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Yeggy said:
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.
Click to expand...
How lucky we are to gain one of the best parking lots in all of DT. I, for one, will make sure I park there instead of using the abundant underground parking lots or available cheaper street parking, because it is paved and landscaped. Will it be secure?

In a city trying to promote alternative modes of transportation, making decisions that go against policy and corporate priorities is definitely a choice. It is more likely that the parking lot will remain a parking lot for the foreseeable future, since Westrich will have to invest more capital to improve it. Making decisions in a vacuum creates precedent for similar decisions in the future; hopefully, decision makers consider the broader strategy here.

Perhaps Westrich will pivot to developing sites in poor condition into parking lots if they know they can get them approved easily.
 
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….
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top