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

[kcantor]

Name one other site dt that has a half buried building on it that also contains a massive vault. Name one other dt site that is any way comparable.

Ill wait….

These are exactly the same arguments that left us with the exposed foundations of the previous buildings and surface parking lots on the NW corner of Jasper and 107th street.

As with the BMO site - and Westrich's other new parking lot - the buildings were demolished simply to avoid paying property taxes on them, not because they were no longer usable.

In this case, if we don’t like what it and others like it look like, there are other avenues that should be pursued just as we do with derelict housing.

This is simply a reflection of an ongoing lack of public and political will and a willingness to accept “it could be worse” or “it’s better than it is now” rather than insisting on no more crap regardless of who’s sitting on the pot .

It’s time we stop not only allowing this kind of behaviour but rewarding it with revenue.

 

[CplKlinger]

all very good points… oh shit sorry. This was about the Arlington. I guess it only applies when someone else owns the land.

lol please don't drag me into this debate, I already said I don't like this.

 

[Gronk!]

So is it too late to write to Anne Stevenson? The more I think about this, the more I find the idea absolutely egregious. And the whole "at least it'll be better than what's there now" doesn't hold water with me. It's the heart of downtown. A proposal for a surface parking lot should have been laughed out of the building, not been taken seriously.

You can certainly try, but I think you'll get one of her flunkies to respond to you instead of the woman herself.

 

[David A]

These are exactly the same arguments that left us with the exposed foundations of the previous buildings and surface parking lots on the NW corner of Jasper and 107th street.

As with the BMO site - and Westrich's other new parking lot - the buildings were demolished simply to avoid paying property taxes on them, not because they were no longer usable.

In this case, if we don’t like what it and others like it look like, there are other avenues that should be pursued just as we do with derelict housing.

This is simply a reflection of an ongoing lack of public and political will and a willingness to accept “it could be worse” or “it’s better than it is now” rather than insisting on no more crap regardless of who’s sitting on the pot .

It’s time we stop not only allowing this kind of behaviour but rewarding it with revenue.

It is time for our elected representatives to take control of things here and assert themselves. They do have the power to stop rewarding the kind of behavior they claim to be against.

So if we say no more derelict or surface parking lots, we need to actually mean it and put in place rules to stop it. This is the time to stop the back sliding and equivocating that somehow has happened recently.

 

[ADob]

You can certainly try, but I think you'll get one of her flunkies to respond to you instead of the woman herself.

I've had multiple responses from her people but usually also from her (after a long long wait) so I'm reasonably optimistic. Will report back if I do get a response.

 

[Yeggy]

These are exactly the same arguments that left us with the exposed foundations of the previous buildings and surface parking lots on the NW corner of Jasper and 107th street.

As with the BMO site - and Westrich's other new parking lot - the buildings were demolished simply to avoid paying property taxes on them, not because they were no longer usable.

In this case, if we don’t like what it and others like it look like, there are other avenues that should be pursued just as we do with derelict housing.

This is simply a reflection of an ongoing lack of public and political will and a willingness to accept “it could be worse” or “it’s better than it is now” rather than insisting on no more crap regardless of who’s sitting on the pot .

It’s time we stop not only allowing this kind of behaviour but rewarding it with revenue.

The current discussion was about the lot and not “should the building of come down.”

Im reacting to what is. The perfect what if scenario would of course included not tearing down the BMO building in the first place.

Im working with the world as it is… not what we want it to be. Ultimately every development choice should ultimately result in a “better than it is now” situation. Had that mentality been applied, the BMO building would of never come down.

I stand by my “Its better than it is now” mindset and want to see it fully applied to every decisions city council makes.

Please feel free to argue the other side…

 

[David A]

Yes, but if the building was still there, then we wouldn't have this unsightly mess for years and years. I realize we can't close the barn door here after the horse is out, but we also need to look at this more broadly, ie. what can we do to keep problems like this happening again and again in the future. It is clear the incentives here are perverse - save on taxes by tearing down usable buildings but that is not a good outcome in this situation and others.

 

[inclusion]

The current discussion was about the lot and not “should the building of come down.”

Im reacting to what is. The perfect what if scenario would of course included not tearing down the BMO building in the first place.

Im working with the world as it is… not what we want it to be. Ultimately every development choice should ultimately result in a “better than it is now” situation. Had that mentality been applied, the BMO building would of never come down.

I stand by my “Its better than it is now” mindset and want to see it fully applied to every decisions city council makes.

Please feel free to argue the other side…

The issue with better than it is now is that many times in this city, decisions are made that don't align with policy and often undermine it, resulting in the bare minimum (often still better than now) being built. If you're okay with the status quo and its good enough mantra, that is fine, but then why bother having a policy on a given topic at all?

 

[archited]

What happens when the owners of the Arlington site sue the City if the ill-timed, ill-thought-out thing goes ahead on 101 and 102. I'll bet there are lawyers who would love to take a crack at that case. And beyond that what happens to all the other vacant sites that want to become parking lots post the potentially dumbest decision hovering over the City for the 2026 year.

 

[ADob]

As much as I hate the Arlington owners' general attitude, I wouldn't blame them at all if they felt they had been treated unfairly. And if there absolutely had to be another surface parking lot (although god knows we have more than enough of them already), the Arlington site is far less offensive than this one. My mind continues to boggle that a. anyone would think this was a great idea and b. that the city would throw out its own rules out the window. If we do end up with a surface parking lot on this site my faith in this city will have been shaken If we accept this, we will accept anything, and shouldn't even bother.

 

[archited]

Also City council can't spare losing any more feck proving the continuation of a feckless organization from the last iteration.

 

[kcantor]

The current discussion was about the lot and not “should the building of come down.”

Im reacting to what is. The perfect what if scenario would of course included not tearing down the BMO building in the first place.

Im working with the world as it is… not what we want it to be. Ultimately every development choice should ultimately result in a “better than it is now” situation. Had that mentality been applied, the BMO building would of never come down.

I stand by my “Its better than it is now” mindset and want to see it fully applied to every decisions city council makes.

Please feel free to argue the other side…

I am well aware of the current discussion...

I was, however, specifically asked "to name one other dt site that is any way comparable" and did so.

 

[David A]

As much as I hate the Arlington owners' general attitude, I wouldn't blame them at all if they felt they had been treated unfairly. And if there absolutely had to be another surface parking lot (although god knows we have more than enough of them already), the Arlington site is far less offensive than this one. My mind continues to boggle that a. anyone would think this was a great idea and b. that the city would throw out its own rules out the window. If we do end up with a surface parking lot on this site my faith in this city will have been shaken If we accept this, we will accept anything, and shouldn't even bother.

I actually feel they would have a very good case for a lawsuit against the city if the 101 Street parking lot went ahead. I realize the Arlington owners relationship with the city is not good, so they are on the naughty list while other developers get consideration they do not.

 

[SarcasticMarmot]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't The Arlington owners go ahead and set up a parking lot without permits or approval from the city? Westrich is doing both before going ahead. Seems to me that would make a big difference in any lawsuit.

 

[TAS]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't The Arlington owners go ahead and set up a parking lot without permits or approval from the city? Westrich is doing both before going ahead. Seems to me that would make a big difference in any lawsuit.

If Arlington or any other developer wants to pursue permitted parking lot if the second Westrich lot is approved would have argument if they were denied moving forward.