[darwink]

I'm guessing they needed the new permit to do the second floor?

any change which is now not conforming to plans, which would be retaining the drive through in this case. (cobbled together from seeing flow from various projects, not a planner, ymmv).

 

[BKha]

The main thing is the drive through isn't new.

The franchisee said they wouldn't rebuild if not allowed to have a drive through, and they just keep the even worse current one for the foreseeable future.

I’d rather they kept the old drive-through for the foreseeable future than have a new one for another 50 years.

I have to admit, I use the drive through myself sometimes and it’s very convenient, but I would be quite happy had the city stood their ground on this one.

 

[badc0ffee]

I know it's a joke, but @haltcatchfire brings up a good point with the honking at the THANK YOU sign. Imagine the queue is full and that intersection is blocked. Exiting car can't leave unless entering car crosses the intersection, but entering car can't enter until exiting car leaves. It's old school gridlock, from before there were heavy fines for blocking intersections, and before the term took on its current meaning of general traffic congestion.

 

[choosingurban]

Hello Everyone,

Regular lurker here. I have to turn this conversation a little It’s not meant as an attack, but I hope there can be some conversation about the state of our inner city.
-----------------------

How can anyone argue that the old building was preferred to this new building? That location was among the biggest eyes sores and detractors on 17th. Are you saying because of the drive-through it should have just stayed the way it was? The old building was regularly surrounded by homeless, with washrooms being used by addicts, and the streetscape was unwelcoming and unsafe.

When I invite people from the suburbs (or worse, out of town) to see all that is great downtown, they see a global brand in a terrible state giving an impression that that is all our downtown is worth. Our buildings can win all the architectural awards and attention in the world. But if 17th is only populated by the homeless, frequently hit with graffiti, litter left to blow around, and vandalism to the public realm, then how can it be our greatest pedestrian space?

For a moment forget about the fact that this isn’t a homegrown brand or a nutritional dining choice. What this is, is private dollars being spent to improve our streetscape. Private dollars need to see a return, clearly, the drive-through is always busy, so the location is economically viable, but private investment needs a return and the needed rate of return is only going to occur with the drive-through.


Is a new building going to remove the derelicts from the area? No. But I believe if every owner, resident, and business made a 10% improvement to the area the return would be far greater.

 

[JoeUrban]

How can anyone argue that the old building was preferred to this new building?

I think the argument isn't that the old building was better, but the scenario of a retained old building might mean a more pedestrian and inner-city-friendly replacement use sooner. The complaint with the new building is it resets the longevity of a drivethru at this location.

 

[ByeByeBaby]

What this is, is private dollars being spent to improve our streetscape. Private dollars need to see a return, clearly, the drive-through is always busy, so the location is economically viable, but private investment needs a return and the needed rate of return is only going to occur with the drive-through.
Is a new building going to remove the derelicts from the area? No. But I believe if every owner, resident, and business made a 10% improvement to the area the return would be far greater.

Building a drive-through is by definition not improving a streetscape, and it is definitely not a 10% improvement on a main street.

 

[badc0ffee]

I like the new building, don't get me wrong. But I don't see how it's going to solve any problems with street people and trash. Plus, don't downtown McDonald's have these kinds of problems in every single city?

 

[YYCguy]

There doesn’t appear to be a patio area outside the building. I wonder if they would be allowed a sidewalk patio like their fellow restauranteurs on 17th avenue.

 

[Chinook Arch]

Hello Everyone,

Regular lurker here. I have to turn this conversation a little It’s not meant as an attack, but I hope there can be some conversation about the state of our inner city.
-----------------------

How can anyone argue that the old building was preferred to this new building? That location was among the biggest eyes sores and detractors on 17th. Are you saying because of the drive-through it should have just stayed the way it was? The old building was regularly surrounded by homeless, with washrooms being used by addicts, and the streetscape was unwelcoming and unsafe.

When I invite people from the suburbs (or worse, out of town) to see all that is great downtown, they see a global brand in a terrible state giving an impression that that is all our downtown is worth. Our buildings can win all the architectural awards and attention in the world. But if 17th is only populated by the homeless, frequently hit with graffiti, litter left to blow around, and vandalism to the public realm, then how can it be our greatest pedestrian space?

For a moment forget about the fact that this isn’t a homegrown brand or a nutritional dining choice. What this is, is private dollars being spent to improve our streetscape. Private dollars need to see a return, clearly, the drive-through is always busy, so the location is economically viable, but private investment needs a return and the needed rate of return is only going to occur with the drive-through.


Is a new building going to remove the derelicts from the area? No. But I believe if every owner, resident, and business made a 10% improvement to the area the return would be far greater.

On any other avenues besides 17th, 10th St. in Kensington, 4th Street in Mission, maybe 9th Avenue in Inglewood, I would say go ahead and build a drive-through.
It’s only my opinion, but the crush of cars trying to get in and out of McDonald’s for the drive-through as a real detractor for 17th Ave., and I would be okay to see it left as it was taking a chance that someone else would buy the property and do something else with it.
That said, I’m not gonna lose any sleep over it, at least the new building is fairly sharp looking, and it does come right up to the sidewalk rather than have a large setback like the usual fast food place.

 

[Mountain Man]

People are mad that there is a drive through on our main street in an area where pedestrians should be the focus. Having to dodge cars on the sidewalk says more about the city than a slightly unsightly McDonalds. Cars don't need to completely rule this city, pedestrians should have space too.

 

[CBBarnett]

How can anyone argue that the old building was preferred to this new building? That location was among the biggest eyes sores and detractors on 17th. Are you saying because of the drive-through it should have just stayed the way it was? The old building was regularly surrounded by homeless, with washrooms being used by addicts, and the streetscape was unwelcoming and unsafe.

When I invite people from the suburbs (or worse, out of town) to see all that is great downtown, they see a global brand in a terrible state giving an impression that that is all our downtown is worth.

I don't think any cared a lot about the previous building. I care because they have decided to recreate the previous building when given the opportunity to do better, and against all the policy and planning objectives that we have to build a better city.

I find it hard to believe visitors would make judgement calls about a city based on a run-down urban McDonalds and whether it has a new drive thru or not. A trip from the burbs in any direction to 17th Avenue passes at least one drive thru McDonalds on the way to this one.

Our buildings can win all the architectural awards and attention in the world. But if 17th is only populated by the homeless, frequently hit with graffiti, litter left to blow around, and vandalism to the public realm, then how can it be our greatest pedestrian space?

If those are the issues your are trying to avoid - drive thru land uses are the opposite of what you want.

Drive-thus generate the garbage, they are loud and pollute, they make ownership unclear of spaces by having all sorts of off-main street nooks and crannies for undesirable activities to occur. Had this site been a traditional urban format retail unit with a complete street wall on the main street those activities wouldn't have been able to occur there.

For a moment forget about the fact that this isn’t a homegrown brand or a nutritional dining choice. What this is, is private dollars being spent to improve our streetscape.

I don't know if anyone mentioned the food or nutritional value - those are not planning concerns. The point is that private dollars that are not improving our streetscape. Drive thrus do not improve the streetscape or address the issues you are concerned about.

Private dollars need to see a return, clearly, the drive-through is always busy, so the location is economically viable, but private investment needs a return and the needed rate of return is only going to occur with the drive-through.

This is one of those cases where planning absolutely has a role to intervene here. The negative impacts of drive thrus to the surrounding land owners and community was high with the existing drive thru and now will remain high in perpetuity into the future. This is a particular issue here because of the urban context, with so many people living and walking nearby subject to those negative impacts.

Is a new building going to remove the derelicts from the area? No.

Perhaps we should ask why a drive thru seemed to concentrate "derelicts" as you mentioned. Why would this time would be any different?

But I believe if every owner, resident, and business made a 10% improvement to the area the return would be far greater.

Agree completely - if all people tried harder to contribute positively to their main streets and be good neighbourhoods the outcomes would be greater. This owner could have done that by removing the drive thru and developing a walkable, urban format McDonalds.

 

[choosingurban]

Thanks everyone for your responses.

Allow me to backtrack and agree that ideally, textbook, any new development should only be for continuous business frontage. When the city announced the pedestrian improvements in 2017, I poured over those documents looking at the improvements. It described eliminating sidewalk road crossing, (like the one by Liquor Depot, but that obviously didn’t happen.) I get it, I do, I want the best pedestrian experience. Close 17th to cars, block half of the connector streets, and implement all the ideas to put pedestrians first, just be deliberate and not wishy-washy.

My problem is I’m too close to the issue, I drive it every day, and walk it every other. I needed to see some improvement. Our core's in rough shape, and 17th's in rough shape.

Building a drive-through is by definition not improving a streetscape, and it is definitely not a 10% improvement on a main street.

BybByeBaby, I'd totally be interested in hearing how you think not, but I just can't agree that this isn't an improvement. Just by sheer numbers, the distance between the buildings of this new drive-through and the old is close to half, while ensuring visibility.

I find it hard to believe visitors would make judgement calls about a city based on a run-down urban McDonalds and whether it has a new drive thru or not. A trip from the burbs in any direction to 17th Avenue passes at least one drive thru McDonalds on the way to this one.

Not about going to a McDonald's, the resulting feel and safety in the area. My father-in-law sure can't understand why we choose to be anywhere near downtown. This is why I say "don't walk that way, let's go to Made By Marcus".

If those are the issues your are trying to avoid - drive thru land uses are the opposite of what you want.

Drive-thus generate the garbage, they are loud and pollute, they make ownership unclear of spaces by having all sorts of off-main street nooks and crannies for undesirable activities to occur. Had this site been a traditional urban format retail unit with a complete street wall on the main street those activities wouldn't have been able to occur there.

Sorry, just needed to see something positive happen on this end of 17th. "The Pint" closed and has been vacant for 2+ years. 1410 closed, and nothing has been there steady, as well as Morgan's.

I don't know if anyone mentioned the food or nutritional value - those are not planning concerns. The point is that private dollars that are not improving our streetscape. Drive thrus do not improve the streetscape or address the issues you are concerned about.

Sorry, supposed to lighten the mood. We're debating a McDonalds, lol. This is why I don't contribute.

 

[kora]

Our core's in rough shape, and 17th's in rough shape.

I don't think 17th Avenue has ever looked better. Ever since the pandemic created the now permanent patio program, 17th is transformed and better than ever because it's busier. While the patios have harmed pedestrian flow, they have enlivened the street like nothing before.

 

[choosingurban]

I don't think 17th Avenue has ever looked better. Ever since the pandemic created the now permanent patio program, 17th is transformed and better than ever because it's busier. While the patios have harmed pedestrian flow, they have enlivened the street like nothing before.

Hey Kora, you are absolutely right. If you're only talking about restaurants and patios, it looks and feels great.
But also walk six blocks at nine a.m. and tell me what you saw.

 

[Chinook Arch]

Thanks everyone for your responses.

Allow me to backtrack and agree that ideally, textbook, any new development should only be for continuous business frontage. When the city announced the pedestrian improvements in 2017, I poured over those documents looking at the improvements. It described eliminating sidewalk road crossing, (like the one by Liquor Depot, but that obviously didn’t happen.) I get it, I do, I want the best pedestrian experience. Close 17th to cars, block half of the connector streets, and implement all the ideas to put pedestrians first, just be deliberate and not wishy-washy.

My problem is I’m too close to the issue, I drive it every day, and walk it every other. I needed to see some improvement. Our core's in rough shape, and 17th's in rough shape.



BybByeBaby, I'd totally be interested in hearing how you think not, but I just can't agree that this isn't an improvement. Just by sheer numbers, the distance between the buildings of this new drive-through and the old is close to half, while ensuring visibility.



Not about going to a McDonald's, the resulting feel and safety in the area. My father-in-law sure can't understand why we choose to be anywhere near downtown. This is why I say "don't walk that way, let's go to Made By Marcus".



Sorry, just needed to see something positive happen on this end of 17th. "The Pint" closed and has been vacant for 2+ years. 1410 closed, and nothing has been there steady, as well as Morgan's.



Sorry, supposed to lighten the mood. We're debating a McDonalds, lol. This is why I don't contribute.

I appreciate the input. My opinions may differ, but I always like to see opposing opinions on this site.