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

[archited]

^ It may not have been his idea, but he is sure rallying behind it.

 

[Gronk!]

What if he switches sides and rallies against it? Do you want him to lose his job?

 

[kcantor]

What if he switches sides and rallies against it? Do you want him to lose his job?

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.

 

[Avenuer]

My hope is that once Westrich is done building their 6-storey projects around O-daymin Park (Lotus Park, Lilac Park and Vantage Park), they will then turn to their 'Downtown parking lot' sites to develop towers on. Who knows, though...

 

[yeggator]

Lets keep in mind this is the dude that said #alllivesmatter. When people show you who they are, believe them.

Let’s not use personal slander. Ian’s a pretty cool guy if you meet him in person, but this whole parking lot proposal is questionable.

 

[archited]

There is a famous quote by former U.S. President Lyndon Johnson that kind of applies here...
"A president's hardest task is not to do what is right,
but to know what is right.”
Ian seems to have lost track of what he knows to be right -- it has nothing to do with keeping or losing a job; although when it becomes known how malleable one's principles are it has been my experience that it is difficult to become a trusted employee.

 

[yeggator]

How is this slander if its factual? If you're not aware of what slander is. Please don't use it @yeggator. Stop slandering me.

Sorry, I should correct myself. Let’s not use STRAWMAN arguments.

 

[Gus Haynes]

I almost lost a cup of coffee when IanO introduced the proposal as presented was “inviting, inclusive, safe, active, festive and bringing community together”.

 

[johnnyboy]

I’ve already stated where I stand on this, but I'll say it again: this proposal is a terrible outcome for a key downtown site, no matter what state it's currently in.

That said, I’m not convinced dragging IanO’s past advances that argument. He works for Westrich; it’s not hard to imagine he’s constrained in what he can say publicly, whether he personally agrees with this or not. I'm sure all of us have been in some version of this position before with a boss or employer. Heck it happens with me almost every month.

We should continue to roast this proposal on its (de)merits and push Council to intervene without turning it into a proxy fight about one forum member. I don't know IanO from Adam, and I've disagreed with a few of his takes on here.
But the parking lot is the problem, not this thread turning into a character trial about a dumb decision he made years ago.

 

[Mesopotamia]

wormwood sounds like someone shit in his cereal

 

[wormwood]

wormwood sounds like someone shit in his cereal

no doubt. my bad. i was having a rough day yesterday.

 

[archited]

^ We all have those

 

[Yeggy]

If this development does anything, let it set the bar for future and existing parking lots. If it does this one thing it will be a net pisitive.

Its time all out lots we paved, and included landscaping.

period.

 

[TAS]

If this development does anything, let it set the bar for future and existing parking lots. If it does this one thing it will be a net pisitive.

Its time all out lots we paved, and included landscaping.

period.

Future? I am all for it in existing parking lots, but approving new future surface parking lots, no thanks. Doing the wrong things well is not a measure of success - which applies to adding new parking lots (specifically downtown).

Where new parking lots are required for the latest strip mall, I get your point.

 

[Yeggy]

^ I find that people who paint the world in absolutes will ultimately eat their own words.

A single parking lot should not be the stand in for the aggregate.

I believe, as a total, we have seen surface parking lot spaces in the core decrease. I will GLADLY se a slight one off increase if it means higher standards for all.

Dont let perfect be the enemy of the good.