Yeggy
Active Member
Im glad to see the land being used in a sustainable way until plans and financing can be arranged for whatever may come.
Tower 101 | 175m | 50s | Regency Developments | DER + Associates
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
Gronk!
Senior Member
It's also across 101 St from the National Bank tower and the Valley Line LRT station, is across 102 Ave from ECC, and is next to Rice Howard Way.
archited
Senior Member
This is designed to be a long-term parking lot.
scyeg
Active Member
This whole thing reminds me a little of the Baccarat casino land before it became the fan park. Remember, the plan was originally for a "temporary" parking lot. I hope this gets turned down, too, and Westrich goes back to the drawing board.
Gus Haynes
Active Member
30 years minimum, would be my bet.
Airboy
Senior Member
During my life I have seen 2 buildings on this site torn down, Come on Westrich build another so I can see it torn down before my time is up. But I agree 30 years min before some of substance is built.
degrandprix
Active Member
@IanO please at least place some of these on the site:
They are already operating here, there are some at Telus world of science.
I think this would do well in this spot, there is definitely a need for secure bike parking downtown.
Last edited:
degrandprix
Active Member
Also, rice howard parkade is 75M from this site and has 440 parking stalls. Library parkade is 165M away and has 860 stalls. We don't need another 70 stalls here.
degrandprix
Active Member
That's because the site looks like trash and there's zero reason for normal people to go there currently, so it's a free space for people to do drugs and not be bothered.
If the site is cleaned up and given a new use that actually draws foot traffic, the drug users will find somewhere else to hang out.
TAS
Senior Member
In listening to the presentation to EDC, the proponents say this area and space along 102 Ave can be made to be "active" and "festive" and "bring the community together". Wow, some views of 102Ave have really changed suddenly.
When the idea to pedestrianize 102Ave was talked about, people opposed to it like @IanO said: "this is simply not needed until we have far, far more businesses fronting it and considerably more people living, working and playing Downtown."
and
"If Ottawa cannot get Sparks Street going with its more favourable width, beautiful storefronts/buildings, small-scale retail and significant daytime density... how are we expected to create a space that people want to linger, that's 'sticky' and full of activity with 102 Ave?"
But this "really nice parking lot" along 102 Ave, as one of the EDC members appropriately called the proposal, is suddenly going to "bring the community together" now because of a couple of tactical, temporary elements like a piece of public art on one corner and a coffee shack in another?
This is a new surface parking lot as it proposed now - pure and simple. How can someone point out that we don't have the businesses, the nearby infrastructure, the foot traffic and enough people living and working downtown in one breath, and then think a parking lot with coffee or ice cream can bring the community together? I appreciate the desire to do so, but you don't really believe what you're proposing will do that, do you?
As an aside, here's the most recent Westrich surface parking lot during a weekday winter afternoon. I'm not saying there was a claim this lot would bring the community together, just sharing it.
When the idea to pedestrianize 102Ave was talked about, people opposed to it like @IanO said: "this is simply not needed until we have far, far more businesses fronting it and considerably more people living, working and playing Downtown."
and
"If Ottawa cannot get Sparks Street going with its more favourable width, beautiful storefronts/buildings, small-scale retail and significant daytime density... how are we expected to create a space that people want to linger, that's 'sticky' and full of activity with 102 Ave?"
But this "really nice parking lot" along 102 Ave, as one of the EDC members appropriately called the proposal, is suddenly going to "bring the community together" now because of a couple of tactical, temporary elements like a piece of public art on one corner and a coffee shack in another?
This is a new surface parking lot as it proposed now - pure and simple. How can someone point out that we don't have the businesses, the nearby infrastructure, the foot traffic and enough people living and working downtown in one breath, and then think a parking lot with coffee or ice cream can bring the community together? I appreciate the desire to do so, but you don't really believe what you're proposing will do that, do you?
As an aside, here's the most recent Westrich surface parking lot during a weekday winter afternoon. I'm not saying there was a claim this lot would bring the community together, just sharing it.
inclusion
Active Member
“Go ahead, clap for mediocrity, that deserves applause. Why don't we find a ford focus and clap around it”
itom987
Active Member
I don't think any of this was IanO's idea, most likely it was his boss or someone from another department within the company that is pushing for parking lots downtown.
On the subject of ebike/scooter parking, they could also charge them up for a fee enabling everyone from bedroom comunities such as Devon, Spruce Grove, St. Albert and Sherwood Park the opportunity to scoot/bike to downtown and enjoy it while their equipment charges up for the ride home. There might even be some people that will use it on a daily basis to have their equipment charged while working. The idea of parking lots needs to be removed from the table. Is there any way to pressure the decision makers to change their mind? The EDC was being too kind on this. I also wonder if solar panels could be installed for shade and electrical generation.
On the subject of ebike/scooter parking, they could also charge them up for a fee enabling everyone from bedroom comunities such as Devon, Spruce Grove, St. Albert and Sherwood Park the opportunity to scoot/bike to downtown and enjoy it while their equipment charges up for the ride home. There might even be some people that will use it on a daily basis to have their equipment charged while working. The idea of parking lots needs to be removed from the table. Is there any way to pressure the decision makers to change their mind? The EDC was being too kind on this. I also wonder if solar panels could be installed for shade and electrical generation.
archited
Senior Member
^ It may not have been his idea, but he is sure rallying behind it.
Gronk!
Senior Member
What if he switches sides and rallies against it? Do you want him to lose his job?
kcantor
Senior Member
Nobody wants IanO to lose another job. I think the disappointment is more in the assumption that IanO had strong convictions and technical ability and the skill to assemble a team internally and externally that could implement those convictions.
This is/was not that, either internally or externally, and watching EDC trying to find anything truly positive other than “it’s better than what’s there now” was painful - a host of suggestions on everything from access to massing to materials to the potential for more/different/alternative issues and better integration and respect to the adjacent pedestrian realms. All because at the end of the day this is nothing more than a surface parking lot with a bit of lipstick.
And IanO committed to incorporate all of those suggestions and more even though many of them were contradictory to the proposal and to each other.
Honestly, this half baked presentation shouldn’t even have been there. By IanO’s own admission early on, it’s being there was outside normal procedures for either a consult or a full presentation. The reason for that was because Westrich “wouldn’t proceed to purchase it without approval” and “we don’t have time to more fully develop a viable presentation”. Fair enough but that is Westrich’s problem - and Regency’s - not the City of Edmonton’s problem.
I almost lost a cup of coffee when IanO introduced the proposal as presented was “inviting, inclusive, safe, active, festive and bringing community together”.
My hope is that if this is approved and Westrich does close and does proceed with this that IanO’s commitments in a host of areas to “do better” with it does come to pass. My fear is this is approved and Westrich still doesn’t close and Regency gives us the parking lot without even the lipstick shown on the current plan.
But what do I know, I’m just a dumb developer.
