Tower 101 | 175m | 50s | Regency Developments | DER + Associates
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
Oilguy
Active Member
Sadly it’s an improvement, would’ve loved to see a park or maybe a food truck concept, but right now anything is better than what we have.
EtoV
Active Member
Demolish a perfectly good building, leave the site in disrepair for years so that it becomes such an eyesore that people will be excited for a parking lot.
We wouldn't have accepted this if it was proposed right after demolition, and we shouldn't accept it now
We wouldn't have accepted this if it was proposed right after demolition, and we shouldn't accept it now
Oilguy
Active Member
Don’t think anyone is happy about that full circle, but we have to deal with where we are at right this moment in time.
_urbanite
Senior Member
I don't think we should be ok with this being converted to a parking lot. We should be striving for a better use, even if the lot is an eyesore and the city desperate to see something happen here. Why can't this be a temporary park with some space set aside for food trucks and buskers?
Give your heads a shake
Give your heads a shake
Oilguy
Active Member
I think because the property is changing hands away from the offending party that created this mess I’m a bit willing to see them get to earn some revenue if that’s what it takes. I’m torn, I don’t love it but this site has to change. Be too restrictive in what can happen and it stays a crater.
_urbanite
Senior Member
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...
johnnyboy
Active Member
No parking. No exceptions.
Oilguy
Active Member
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.
inclusion
Active Member
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.
TAS
Senior Member
Maybe that cost was worked into sale price?
Oilguy
Active Member
Gus Haynes
Active Member
Boy. I don't know what to say. This essentially turns a 0/10 into a 3/10 that hopefully someday will turn into 8+. This isn't half a loaf. This isn't even a slice. But I guess I'll accept a few crumbs.
TAS
Senior Member
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.
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:
kcantor
Senior Member
^
"...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.
"...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.
Last edited: