Tower 101 | 175m | 50s | Regency Developments | DER + Associates

What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    50
^
"...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:
kcantor said:
^
"...very unique and fairly temporary..."???

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

Great points - I vote no to this proposal. Maybe they can put up some pickleball courts - I will pay to use them to help Westrich earn some revenue and buy coffee.
Regarding 104st and 102Ave, I must be having brain fog - what issue is there?
 
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TAS
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
 
Last edited:
nothing to stop them from reapplying for an extension when the temporary zoning is near its expiration date. Mostly get it too if there's nothing or no one in the pipeline to properly develop the site.
 
Westrich is moving in the right direction with regard to vacant land but there should be NO vehicle parking on site, period. The cafe is a positive step but add more seacans and offer venders from the farmers market the opportunity to sell product outside of farmers market hours. In the process, you might get a tenant for the CRUs in the new building once it is built. The whole point is to activate, and add value to the area, we all know that parking lots do neither. If you want people to park there, add bicycle/scooter parking instead.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top