Yeggy
Active Member
Ian with the troll post!
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
David A
Senior Member
Unfortunately, I feel they may have already figured this out. I don't feel this is a very good use of this site, but I would perhaps blame the city more for allowing this to happen than the company for trying to take advantage of this.
inclusion
Active Member
Anything that requires significant remediation due to dry cleaners or previous industrial use is a good comparable. Would include all of phase 2 for ID, which is why the City and province have to kick in money. There are likely other pieces of land downtown as well given our history of car dealerships and heavy rail in the area. @kcantor would know better than me, but I imagine kitty corner to Edmonton Tower and the other parking lot across may have contamination. Sure, a vault won't be cheap to dig up, but remediation is very expensive.
MattPT
Active Member
all very good points… oh shit sorry. This was about the Arlington. I guess it only applies when someone else owns the land.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.
ADob
Active Member
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
Active Member
I'm gonna stop following this thread 
It's more depressing than the actual site.
It's more depressing than the actual site.
kcantor
Senior Member
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
Senior Member
lol please don't drag me into this debate, I already said I don't like this.
Gronk!
Senior Member
You can certainly try, but I think you'll get one of her flunkies to respond to you instead of the woman herself.
David A
Senior Member
It is time for our elected representatives to take control of things here and assert themselves. They do have the power to stop rewarding the kind of behavior they claim to be against.
So if we say no more derelict or surface parking lots, we need to actually mean it and put in place rules to stop it. This is the time to stop the back sliding and equivocating that somehow has happened recently.
ADob
Active Member
I've had multiple responses from her people but usually also from her (after a long long wait) so I'm reasonably optimistic. Will report back if I do get a response.
Yeggy
Active Member
The current discussion was about the lot and not “should the building of come down.”
Im reacting to what is. The perfect what if scenario would of course included not tearing down the BMO building in the first place.
Im working with the world as it is… not what we want it to be. Ultimately every development choice should ultimately result in a “better than it is now” situation. Had that mentality been applied, the BMO building would of never come down.
I stand by my “Its better than it is now” mindset and want to see it fully applied to every decisions city council makes.
Please feel free to argue the other side…
Last edited:
David A
Senior Member
Yes, but if the building was still there, then we wouldn't have this unsightly mess for years and years. I realize we can't close the barn door here after the horse is out, but we also need to look at this more broadly, ie. what can we do to keep problems like this happening again and again in the future. It is clear the incentives here are perverse - save on taxes by tearing down usable buildings but that is not a good outcome in this situation and others.
inclusion
Active Member
The issue with better than it is now is that many times in this city, decisions are made that don't align with policy and often undermine it, resulting in the bare minimum (often still better than now) being built. If you're okay with the status quo and its good enough mantra, that is fine, but then why bother having a policy on a given topic at all?
archited
Senior Member
What happens when the owners of the Arlington site sue the City if the ill-timed, ill-thought-out thing goes ahead on 101 and 102. I'll bet there are lawyers who would love to take a crack at that case. And beyond that what happens to all the other vacant sites that want to become parking lots post the potentially dumbest decision hovering over the City for the 2026 year.