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

[inclusion]

Guaranteed Ian has feelings about this that are different than his employer based on the precedent of his posts all over this forum. However, we’re not going to hear that perspective while he works for Westrich. Anyone expecting that needs to get their head out of the sand. He is not going to put himself into a position where he is in a conflict of interest on this. I’ve been put in difficult positions with my own employer to make decisions and implement things I don’t agree with as I’m sure many have here. At the end of the day, you have to weigh your personal convictions of what you’re doing against your other needs of supporting yourself, your family etc and make a call of whether to continue with your current employer or seek new employment. He will have to do the same as many others have in the past; no need for the rest of us to dwell on that. I don’t think implementing a parking lot makes you a bad person in the grand scheme of what is happening in the world right now.

All that said, it’s perfectly reasonable to criticize Westrich’ approach to this issue.

 

[mcr]

Guaranteed Ian has feelings about this that are different than his employer based on the precedent of his posts all over this forum. However, we’re not going to hear that perspective while he works for Westrich. Anyone expecting that needs to get their head out of the sand. He is not going to put himself into a position where he is in a conflict of interest on this. I’ve been put in difficult positions with my own employer to make decisions and implement things I don’t agree with as I’m sure many have here. At the end of the day, you have to weigh your personal convictions of what you’re doing against your other needs of supporting yourself, your family etc and make a call of whether to continue with your current employer or seek new employment. He will have to do the same as many others have in the past; no need for the rest of us to dwell on that. I don’t think implementing a parking lot makes you a bad person in the grand scheme of what is happening in the world right now.

All that said, it’s perfectly reasonable to criticize Westrich’ approach to this issue.

This, 100%.

As it is in any job, you can voice your opinion on an issue, project, task, whatever it may be, and then if your boss says "too bad we're doing it anyway" you just have to live with it and do your job. You said your peace, but in the end you answer to someone else the majority of the time. This is a crappy project and I don't like it, but it also wouldn't be one that is worth leaving a job over or anything crazy like that either.

 

[AntonK]

So I dumped all of the posts from this thread into Chatgp and it came back telling me that IanO works for Westrich.
Seriously though, I don’t know IanO, but sounds like he only works for Westrich and being a developer their decisions are business based. It might not always work out for what we want, but we work within a free market economy.

 

[IanO]

Forest from the trees folks, forest from the trees.

 

[kcantor]

So I dumped all of the posts from this thread into Chatgp and it came back telling me that IanO works for Westrich.
Seriously though, I don’t know IanO, but sounds like he only works for Westrich and being a developer their decisions are business based. It might not always work out for what we want, but we work within a free market economy.

You are absolutely correct - their decisions are business based just like any other developer, contractor, architect, restaurant, grocer, shoe retailer or toy stores etc.

All businesses make business based decisions. That doesn't mean that it's up to the city to subsidize their decisions in order to make them economically viable. We don't do that for contractors, architects, restaurants, grocers, shoe retailers or toy stores etc. and we shouldn't do that for developers either.

If Westrich can't afford to buy the site at the price they negotiated, they have options other than a subsidy from the city. They can negotiate a lower price or they can pass and let someone else buy the site or let Regency continue to own it.

As for the condition of the site, that absolutely needs to be addressed by the city, starting by not permitting the circumstances that led to it being abandoned like this repeat themselves in the future). But subsidizing Westrich like this on order to achieve that oh so Edmonton solution of "oh well, it could be worse" is not how to do that.

And if it is somehow okay for Westrich to get concessions from the city so they can afford to purchase this site, what about giving the same concessions to purchase the Arlington site? the Dueck Sites? the city's Kinistinaw site in the Quarters? Alldritt's sites?

 

[kcantor]

Forest from the trees folks, forest from the trees.

I have no idea what you mean by this in the context of this thread IanO.

Are you hinting that this site and your plans are the forest or a tree? Because the forest, per the above post, is a lot larger than this site.

 

[Platinum107]

While it is suuuuper disappointing to see another parking lot be created, it's obvious that Westrich is playing the long game, guys. Edmonton's market for downtown construction has literally been at rock, and I mean ROCK bottom for the past 6 years. There has been so little capacity for new construction downtown post-covid that it took a whole tax incentive program to get a decent amount of projects going at one time. Westrich, along with other companies like Maclab and Autograph, are most likely waiting for the market to improve in order to make their projects pencil out, then we'll see some renderings and shovels in the ground.

Developers really have one goal in the end: generate profit. Unfortunately, its kinda hard to do that in downtown Edmonton right now for various reasons. I have faith that Westrich will deliver a tower here in due time.

With that said, the subsidy discussion is an important one to have. I'm personally more on the side of no subsidy as it would likely open up a violent can of worms *cough* Arlington *cough*

 

[Gus Haynes]

Forest from the trees folks, forest from the trees.

You are in an awkward spot because no one expects you to criticize your employer, but I would humbly submit that saying nothing at all might be preferable to whatever you are trying to convey here.

 

[IanO]

 

[archited]

What are you trying to imply with your photo montage 'O? -- that the City is moving backward at lightning speed and you are here to help it achieve that goal.

 

[JNO1]

^
^^^
Or maybe some foreshadowing/hinting?

 

[Glenco]

I really loved the old Eatons store. To me that is a greater loss.

 

[Airboy]

That shot of the blast aftermath. I am in the picture. I was standing half a block back getting my shots.

 

[David A]

^
^^^
Or maybe some foreshadowing/hinting?

Well, it would be really nice for a replica of the Tegler to somehow come back, heck there is even an empty lot now where it could go.

 

[Gronk!]

The Pulse: Feb. 12, 2026

In this edition: Housing advocates on both sides unhappy with proposed infill changes; executive committee backs 'Happy Beer Street' entertainment district proposal; and more headlines and happenings

edmonton.taproot.news

• In an online post, architect Josh Kjenner raised concerns over a proposal from Westrich Pacific for an interim parking lot at the vacant downtown Edmonton site of the former Bank of Montreal main branch, located at 101 Street NW and 102 Avenue NW. The site, empty since its 2017 demolition, was listed for sale in November 2025. Westrich Pacific presented its temporary plan to the Edmonton Design Committee on Jan. 20. Kjenner argues for the City of Edmonton to design development conditions through land acquisition and targeted subsidies to achieve desirable, high-quality buildings, rather than accepting stopgap measures that delay meaningful development.