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

What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    53
If Tower 101 will be value-engineered to the same atrocity as the Holyrood tower then I'll pass, thanks. I want Regency to flip this land (plus the Emerald) to reputable developers who can build highrise towers with more creativity, inspiration and imagination.
 
My take and what I have heard. Regency is actively looking for investors to partner with them on this project as they realize it is too much project for them alone but want to be part of it.

Also demo happen pre maturely due to the LRT construction and IF they did happen to find investors there wouldn't be demo issues. However that does not excuse leaving it in shambles. It could be up kept better.

I don't for see Regency out right selling this property but I don't think it will go without investors
 
Vacs said:
My take and what I have heard. Regency is actively looking for investors to partner with them on this project as they realize it is too much project for them alone but want to be part of it.

Also demo happen pre maturely due to the LRT construction and IF they did happen to find investors there wouldn't be demo issues. However that does not excuse leaving it in shambles. It could be up kept better.

I don't for see Regency out right selling this property but I don't think it will go without investors
Click to expand...
If they do get a partner, hopefully it is the adult supervision needed and they are relegated to the junior role they deserve for blowing it on this particularly high profile site and other recent projects.

Too many excuses for this company, it is not just this project where they have failed to properly plan.
 
City needs to really start putting conditions into their demo permits for all developers with DC2 zoning. “Demo your building and build within 5 years or your land gets auctioned off.” There could be some arbitrary program in place for extensions if the area is kept exceptionally clean and provides some social or economic benefit to the community. Something like a park or a well manicured parking lot at the least.

What this is is completely unacceptable for a major Canadian city and if I owned surrounding properties I’d be livid.
 
20220824_182527.jpg
 
occidentalcapital said:
3-storey podium is simply too short for this site. Consider the Tegler building which formerly stood on this site. We do need something with a bit of presence here.
Click to expand...
The number of floors for podiums are irrelevant as a floor on a podium could be constructed for 40' high as an example. The ideal situation is to understand scale and proportion in respect to designing irregardless of whatever discipline of art's.

A 6' tall girl will not have a small feet size as 5'3" is the best way to analyze that; otherwise, she'll look deformed and awkward.
 
Stevey_G said:
City needs to really start putting conditions into their demo permits for all developers with DC2 zoning. “Demo your building and build within 5 years or your land gets auctioned off.” There could be some arbitrary program in place for extensions if the area is kept exceptionally clean and provides some social or economic benefit to the community. Something like a park or a well manicured parking lot at the least.

What this is is completely unacceptable for a major Canadian city and if I owned surrounding properties I’d be livid.
Click to expand...
there’s a better solution, at least imho…

don’t allow owners to reduce their property tax obligations through demolition.

make it a condition of demolition that the owner agrees to pay the city the equivalent amount that property taxes would have been if demolition had not taken place.

this could be done contractually without having to amend the mga.

you might even want to include a nominal annual reduction for every year the site is maintained the way alldrit has been doing recently instead of the way this site has been.

if we had done that 50 years ago there wouldn’t be any vacant land in the warehouse district or the quarters or the north edge and we would probably have seen some really innovative building activation in those areas…
 
Last edited:
kcantor said:
there’s a better solution, at least imho…

don’t allow owners to reduce their property tax obligations through demolition.

make it a condition of demolition that the owner agrees to pay the city the equivalent amount that property taxes would have been if demolition had not taken place.

this could be done contractually without having to amend the mga.

you might even want to include a nominal annual reduction for every year the site is maintained the way alldrit has been doing recently instead of the way this site has been.

if we had done that 50 years ago there wouldn’t be any vacant land in the warehouse district or the quarters or the north edge and we would probably have seen some really innovative building activation in those areas…
Click to expand...
That’s a good suggestion. There’d be less incentive to demolish as a developer because at least a vacant building has value on the books. If the tax incentives of demolition aren’t there this situation wouldn’t have happened.
 
Last edited:
occidentalcapital said:
3-storey podium is simply too short for this site. Consider the Tegler building which formerly stood on this site. We do need something with a bit of presence here.
Click to expand...
Something that would bring back some of much of the facade of the Tegler building would be a great idea. So far we seem to have settled for somewhat mediocre on this site and even that is not going anywhere.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top