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

[goodcitywhenfinished]

Well, if the people who build the building are still Regency then no, because doing something like that would require an ounce of creativity and respect for the city you develop in.

If the site is sold, maybe it could happen

In a perfect world regency would not be allowed to build in such a prominent location.

They can't even maintain an empty lot properly.

I really hope they flip this site and focus on emerald.

 

[David A]

In a perfect world regency would not be allowed to build in such a prominent location.

They can't even maintain an empty lot properly.

I really hope they flip this site and focus on emerald.

Yeah, this is probably the best bet. It seems like Regency doesn't have the motivation, the resources or maybe both to do something spectacular with this which is in such a prominent location.

Hopefully they will eventually realize this and just sell it off and take the money and go. As for Emerald, not quite as prominent a failure, but probably it would be best they just sold off the duck pond too.

 

[kcantor]

Haven't heard anything about this project - the last post on this was Oct 9.
Would it be too much to hope that the podium of the new tower can resemble the late lamented Tegler?

i’m starting to think the answer to your question might be yes except it’s already done and going to continue to resemble the late lamented tegler but post demolition.

 

[KreationYEG]

Now with fencing wrap.

 

[Gronk!]

What's that saying again about pigs and lipstick?

 

[archited]

^^^^ The saying is, "If you are a pig, you should invest in lipstick stocks."

 

[Gronk!]

Puneeta McBryan likes it, Mack Male hates it

https://twitter.com/x/status/1517293014716018688

 

[The_Cat]

At least it's better than looking at the desolate lot.

 

[northlands]

At least it's better than looking at the desolate lot.

Amen. What did Mack Male have to say about it?

 

[Gronk!]

Amen. What did Mack Male have to say about it?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1517344098310574081

 

[Edmcowboy11]

Well he's not wrong, but I do agree that it's at least covered up.

 

[archited]

Mack -- another over-rated opinionator.

 

[Stevey_G]

Mack -- another over-rated opinionator.

You’re right but he’s not wrong.

 

[kcantor]

while i appreciate puneeta's optimism and gratitude for anything that's an improvement over what was there previously, i'm probably more with mack on this one.

firstly, while it is an improvement over what was there previously (for way too many years) i can already see what this is going to look like sun-faded and wind tattered, postered and graffitied.

secondly, while it screens the mess behind it from the sidewalk, it doesn't screen it from the second floor up for enbridge centre or scotia place or manulife or td tower or hsbc place or city centre...

 

[BASE]

Also, while ugly, it is kind of nice to have it in people's faces in order to shame the developer (not that history has shown that to be very successful)