Gus Haynes
Active Member
Not really fair for any of us to speculate as to Ian's state of mind -- as a company man, he could never publicly criticize his employer. It's probably best to leave it at that.
Tower 101 | 175m | 50s | Regency Developments | DER + Associates
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
itom987
Active Member
The parking proposed holds 73 cars satisfying 73 people, in downtown that is nothing. You should be aiming to satisfy at least 200 people.
inclusion
Active Member
Pretty easy to infer what he thinks given his thoughts about downtown parking elsewhere. Plenty of people in the world have to do things at work even though they may not agree with their employers overall direction. But yes, given the conflict, we won’t hear from him on this one.
TAS
Senior Member
I don't begrudge Westrich for proposing this. And I'm glad there is interest in the site. But doesn't mean the proposal should proceed.
As we've all said, whoever owns this site, the expectation should be that it is cleaned up and not left as is botttomline.
Perhaps something can be negotiated to find other alternatives to a parking lot - some have already been noted here such as a food truck type lot, park space, or activity space.
As we've all said, whoever owns this site, the expectation should be that it is cleaned up and not left as is botttomline.
Perhaps something can be negotiated to find other alternatives to a parking lot - some have already been noted here such as a food truck type lot, park space, or activity space.
itom987
Active Member
Something like this would be great!
degrandprix
Active Member
I think this would be semi-ok if there was some sort of activation on the southeast corner as well. As proposed, this does nothing to activate the current dead-end of RHW.
Markyeg
Active Member
No way should the city let this be a parking lot. The seacan coffee shop is a great idea, but make the rest of the property into a green space/park until market conditions improve enough to justify building a tower on the site.
If we let Westrich put in a parking lot, saying market conditions don’t justify a tower right now, or for the foreseeable future, it could be 10+ years until we get rid of it.
If we let Westrich put in a parking lot, saying market conditions don’t justify a tower right now, or for the foreseeable future, it could be 10+ years until we get rid of it.
kcantor
Senior Member
For perspective, zoning is to be applied and enforced completely independent of who owns the land or who is proposing the project.
For additional perspective, how many of those supporting this project because it’s potentially “better than”” would still support it if Raj was proposing it rather than Ian?
And how many of those who would be happy to have this approved because Ian was proposing it only to find out the sale didn’t close and Raj was then entitled to do this would still be happy?
Zoning entitlements and approvals run with the land, not with the ownership…
For additional perspective, how many of those supporting this project because it’s potentially “better than”” would still support it if Raj was proposing it rather than Ian?
And how many of those who would be happy to have this approved because Ian was proposing it only to find out the sale didn’t close and Raj was then entitled to do this would still be happy?
Zoning entitlements and approvals run with the land, not with the ownership…
Oilguy
Active Member
Good points as always. You are right we’d probably be upset, but given what this site has become there would probably be something in me that would say do something here.
wormwood
Active Member
husky
Active Member
I don't hate the concept as a temporary use since it looks like the parking will actually be paved and have decent landscaping treatment but my fear is that since it would require a relatively high capital investment just for the interim use, that it will be a while until development actually occurs.
Could be more palatable if there were maybe a few other vendors on-site or if a portion of the parking lot after business hours could be turned into a basketball court or something.
Could be more palatable if there were maybe a few other vendors on-site or if a portion of the parking lot after business hours could be turned into a basketball court or something.
Gronk!
Senior Member
Can Westrich proceed with a new hotel/residential development on this site if they sell some of their other properties such as Ultima and G4?
David A
Senior Member
Perhaps I am not interpreting the pictures correctly, but it seems like a glorified parking lot with a couple a temporary trailers and some landscaping.
Of course unfortunately almost anything is an improvement over the current state, but I feel everyone expected something much better than this for such a high profile site.
TAS
Senior Member
Just a reminder of another Westrich site where daily and event parking (as the new sign says) was added in place of a warehouse building.
strata
Active Member
I'm not sure I understand all the hate/outrage directed at Westrich here.
The land was publicly available to purchase.
For those that sit on their keyboard and fawn over companies like Beljan (who are a great company) you should realize that they are not putting their own cash into those projects. They find an opportunity, tie up the land, put together a project to attract investors, maybe sometimes differ some of their management fees into equity, and then try to execute on all of it. If it was so easy to do that - we should all be able to do the same and build the most stunning projects without complaining that that our lack of personal financial capacity is the barrier for entry.
Totally fair game to be critical of their designs, decisions, etc. Totally fair to push for better. There are a few Westrich projects that I really have a distaste for. But, it feels like some of the comments are making this seem like a lateral move with Regency owning the property - and I could not disagree more there.
The land was publicly available to purchase.
For those that sit on their keyboard and fawn over companies like Beljan (who are a great company) you should realize that they are not putting their own cash into those projects. They find an opportunity, tie up the land, put together a project to attract investors, maybe sometimes differ some of their management fees into equity, and then try to execute on all of it. If it was so easy to do that - we should all be able to do the same and build the most stunning projects without complaining that that our lack of personal financial capacity is the barrier for entry.
Totally fair game to be critical of their designs, decisions, etc. Totally fair to push for better. There are a few Westrich projects that I really have a distaste for. But, it feels like some of the comments are making this seem like a lateral move with Regency owning the property - and I could not disagree more there.