IanO
Superstar
Again, density... we don't have it or anything near of it.
Tower 101 | 175m | 50s | Regency Developments | DER + Associates
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
ChazYEG
Senior Member
Ian, honest question: do you genuinely believe that density is the answer for everything downtown related and that it will come, always, BEFORE anything else?
IanO
Superstar
We have the population, lack the density and seem to regularly question our desire for anything urban, walkable and not WEM.
Gronk!
Senior Member
And yet you don't want a pedestrian-only RHW that would be urban and walkable.
IanO
Superstar
When we deserve it, it will present itself. Until then, be happy with a pretty decent reincarnation.
ChazYEG
Senior Member
Did it ever cross your mind that doing this kinds of things would be one of the best ways to fill the currently vacant units in the core?
IanO
Superstar
Again, I would disagree.
Those spots are coveted and help make the area more accessible for folks unfamiliar with the Downtown, parking and the like.
Those spots are coveted and help make the area more accessible for folks unfamiliar with the Downtown, parking and the like.
ChazYEG
Senior Member
/\ I give up.
Didama
Active Member
Haha oh man Ian you crack me up sometimes. When we deserve it? As in, when we stop putting cars ahead of everything else? Or when people stop saying things like 'we need more density' (even in the most dense part of the city) as an excuse to kick the can down the road? You have to stop speaking out of both sides of your mouth, like when you say 'we seem to regularly question our desire for anything urban, walkable and not WEM' and then in the next sentence you do that exact thing. I give up as well.
IanO
Superstar
I crack myself up sometimes too.
kcantor
Senior Member
“good enough for edmonton”.
the most edmonton thing you can do (or say).
“when we deserve it, it will present itself “??
is there any statement or position you’ve ever made that you won’t die defending long after its indefensible?
opportunity presents itself all the time.
crisp
Active Member
There is a parkade at RHW, if the area became pedestrian-only there would be no access to the parkade. Can the city do that to a structure, essentially bringing the value of that building to $0?
Didama
Active Member
you can easily turn the area pedestrian but maintain access to the parkade. That shouldn't be an issue tbh.
crisp
Active Member
Hmm ok fair. Personally I never really considered the flow of vehicle traffic into RHW as that much of a concern. I'd pick my battle elsewhere.
David A
Senior Member
I don't think a major building can be built on this site without a significant amount of parking. I suppose exactly how much, where and how to access it are reasonable matters to discuss or debate.
If we wanted something smaller with little or no parking, then we really should have just stuck with what was there, but we didn't, those decisions were made some time ago. At this point we have to work with what we have.
If we wanted something smaller with little or no parking, then we really should have just stuck with what was there, but we didn't, those decisions were made some time ago. At this point we have to work with what we have.