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

What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    46
Clearshades said:
The problem here goes beyond just setting up regulations or what not. We have city councis that dont necessarily understand economics, and, in turn, make decisions that are beyond their comprehension.
I get that circumstance may change, but , in this case, I think Regenct was over zealous with their drive without thoughts of economics or the downturn We know our city's fortune was based on the oilsands, and 2015 came crashing down on us; so what made them think that they were somehow insulated from their competitions that took a more prudent route? That is what really has me perturbed. We now have two nasty looking parcels deconstructed at the same time by one developer; both of which came well after 2015... it wasnt like the economy was red hot as they were in their processes when the crash came to Alberta.
Click to expand...

It's not that the city doesn't understand economics, but that they don't factor into land use changes (rezonings), nor for development permits (which include demolitions). Proponents seeking rezoning aren't required to provide pro formas. There's some debate about whether or not they should at least at the rezoning stage; other cities do (I believe Vancouver is among them), but I think that again any change of that nature would need to happen through an update to the provincial MGA.

As for Regency, lets just say they really played up an image of themselves with The Pearl that never really existed, and have since frankly exhausted.
 
Daveography said:
It's not that the city doesn't understand economics, but that they don't factor into land use changes (rezonings), nor for development permits (which include demolitions). Proponents seeking rezoning aren't required to provide pro formas. There's some debate about whether or not they should at least at the rezoning stage; other cities do (I believe Vancouver is among them), but I think that again any change of that nature would need to happen through an update to the provincial MGA.

As for Regency, lets just say they really played up an image of themselves with The Pearl that never really existed, and have since frankly exhausted.
Click to expand...

...and the Pearl isn't even that nice of a building, imo. It is just tall (was the tallest residential building at the time of completion).
 
Daveography said:
It's not that the city doesn't understand economics, but that they don't factor into land use changes (rezonings), nor for development permits (which include demolitions). Proponents seeking rezoning aren't required to provide pro formas. There's some debate about whether or not they should at least at the rezoning stage; other cities do (I believe Vancouver is among them), but I think that again any change of that nature would need to happen through an update to the provincial MGA.

As for Regency, lets just say they really played up an image of themselves with The Pearl that never really existed, and have since frankly exhausted.
Click to expand...
I mean, look at their website; it does not exude confidence.
 
Edmcowboy11 said:
I don't want this to go off the rails but I don't really think who we've voted in for council is far worse than anyone that didn't get in. And this upcoming election cycle so far doesn't show much new promise.
Click to expand...

I had the impression that much of the challenge here was in connection with the limitations imposed under the MGA and the prohibition on differential rates of taxation for things like developed structures vs. parking lots. It is easy to simply criticize Council, but if there was an easy solution to this problem I would expect someone would have suggested it already. My guess is there are a range of things that are needed and it will be an ongoing process to fix the issue of derelict properties in the downtown.
 
tkoe_ said:
I had the impression that much of the challenge here was in connection with the limitations imposed under the MGA and the prohibition on differential rates of taxation for things like developed structures vs. parking lots. It is easy to simply criticize Council, but if there was an easy solution to this problem I would expect someone would have suggested it already. My guess is there are a range of things that are needed and it will be an ongoing process to fix the issue of derelict properties in the downtown.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It's easy to criticize council in these situations (and in some instances it is certainly justified), but they have all this responsibility of administering the land development and taxation process with a pretty limited set of tools. It may seem like the city could've just amended the MGA rules through the City Charter to deal with issues like this, but the way those two documents interact with each other is backwards and (imo) doesn't make a lot of sense. And I'm sure (like you said), if it was that simple somebody would've done it already. I don't think it's as simple a problem as city-level leadership, though I wish it was.

What we really need is an entire rethink and overhaul of the taxation and lawmaking abilities of the different orders of government - but that is a virtual impossibility.
 
The BMO building wasn't derelict, it was vacant. However, I do think there does need to be something in place to keep building owners doing demolition by stealth, which has happened with some historical properties that were let to run down by disinterested owners until demolition seemed the most viable option. Unfortunately, our current city council isn't the swiftest in catching on to such schemes. I am not sure they really care much about this anyways, except for not getting blamed when it does happen. I think an administration and council that did care, could probably come up with some rules and enforcement mechanisms within their powers that could improve the situation. For instance, required periodic city inspections of buildings that were vacant for more than a certain period of time.

In the case of demolition for future development, perhaps tying the demolition to future construction where relevant and requiring some financial deposit that would be forfeited if agreed timelines and conditions were not met might be an idea.
 
I never stated the city does not understand commerce. The problem with our society is the whole political system that we currently have whether it's civics, provincial or federal.
Lets bring this closer to our city level. Councilors have a time span of 4 years for each term. If you win one term and not the next, someone else has to come in and relearn the basics of a councilor's job. When one has to constantly replace deccession makers with differential thoughts and ideals, we continue to dance in circles like a mad dog.
On top of this, politicians constantly work on networking by what ever means to maintaining their positions. Sometimes, those compromises come back to real haunt us all.
Our system don't really foster true politicians. It is not the respective ward representatives that I think lacks abilities; it is the system that inhibits their abilities to be thd best politicians.
 
^. ^^
or maybe we should insist that anyone demolishing a significant building should have to locate their offices on the site until such time as redevelopment actually starts? it would be good business for atco structures and it would make sure what they did and how they did it would be front and centre for that owner and their investors and clients. right now this owners offices are at 11189 ellerslie road and what’s front and centre for us is out of sight/out of mind for them.
 
Whats so sad is that all they have to do is clean up the site to make it presentable. They could even just make two or three gravel pathways with a couple gravel areas with a picnic table at each location, a few planters with flowers or small trees (if they dont want to plant trees), and then lay some sod, just enough to dress it up a bit.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top