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

[Edmontonian]

Fence wrapping appears to be outside the realm of Regency's capabilities.

 

[quit]

Can't believe they were allowed to tear it down for this - those lobby meetings with the mayor/chief of staff must give them a lot of pull. Wonder what the public response from Regency for this decrepit site will be. My respect for them as a company is essentially now nil. They had some credibility from the Pearl, but have seemingly seen it diminish with these sites. Does the DO have any recourse?

 

[Daveography]

@westcoastjos Council is not involved in approving demolitions.

At this point it's on bylaw to enforce any safety measures and such, though Council might be able to give them a push if enough people complain (hint hint).

 

[Edmcowboy11]

So has this project stalled, been paused, or it's a post modern art installation about crumbling society.

 

[.crystalised.]

Fence wrapping appears to be outside the realm of Regency's capabilities.

"Capability" was a one-hit-wonder for Regency. It's a miracle Pearl came out looking and functioning as it does. Seriously.

 

[IanO]

I was told that they were still finalizing shoring/tie-back agreements, but then was told that it was being delayed a year to focus on Holyrood.

 

[kcantor]

yup... had to have a demolition permit without a development development or a building permit so the lrt closing 102 avenue wouldn’t hold them up.

 

[Edmcowboy11]

Well LRT is getting closer to completion so I'll like to see what other excuses will be brought up.

 

[Clearshades]

I knew something was not right when they cancelled Emerald. I'm really concerned with this site.

 

[Avenuer]

I knew something was not right when they cancelled Emerald. I'm really concerned with this site.

The fact that they spent millions to purchase this site would be reason enough to move on it over the short term (in my eyes).

 

[kcantor]

The fact that they spent millions to purchase this site would be reason enough to move on it over the short term (in my eyes).

if only it worked that way... it will take multi-millions more to move on it over the short term (or the long term for that matter) and if the end result is product that is worth less than those additional multi-millions regardless of how well done the project is, nothing will be moved on for a very long time.

 

[Edmcowboy11]

Which makes me wonder if there is anyone else interested in that land that is willing to build sooner than later.

 

[kcantor]

Which makes me wonder if there is anyone else interested in that land that is willing to build sooner than later.

there is probably always interest but even though different parties may have different objectives and/or other resources, at the end of the day most of the math is going to be pretty much the same regardless of who the owner is.

 

[Clearshades]

Add in uncertainties in the global economics...
We can all prayed though.

That said, going forward, any developer desiring teardowns and not build up should pay double the taxes its predecessor was. This is just nasty of a view then add in Emerald and we have WW3 WARM UP.

 

[kcantor]

^
you don’t need to double anything, you just need to keep the taxes at the same level for anyone that demolished an existing building until such time as something else is constructed. that means there is no financial windfall from demolition resulting in property taxes based on land value alone, not land and building. you would have thought we would have learned that from the’80’s and previous eras where we lost much of our stock of historic buildings not to rebuild but to avoid the property taxes. that’s why when you look at so many of our vacant lots you’ll see they’re parking on building slabs rather than asphalt and you can still make out some of the foundations that were never removed.