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

What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    46
32416DA3-D3D6-423D-A391-024697CA3983.jpeg
This will definitely stick out like a post-apocalyptic battlefield once they start cleaning up 102nd in the spring/summer .
 
I have no problem letting this site sit empty if that means Regency and DER don’t get a chance at putting up an eyesore right smack in the centre of Edmonton.

The renders look mediocre but we all know with Regency in charge it’s gonna be cheap mullion and random rectangle extravaganza when it’s all said and done. They might even throw some stucco in for extra Edmonton flair.

Here’s hoping that Regency knows what’s good for them and sits on this until the economy is better and sells to a developer with more capital.
 
The devolution of a site - from a historic grand department store, to a bank regional office that never quite lived up to expectations, now to an empty lot owned by a company known for its empty lots.

At least this one hasn't turned into a slough for ducks and geese yet.
 
It's a block from their HQ and left in a manner barely suitable for an industrial park.

That said, Regency generally does not leave sites as empty lots.... they move.

But how this site has been handled/left is inexcusable, for shame.
 
Here's a CBC story about Regency's site on 114 Street after a resident complaint two years ago. Maybe a larger scale letter writing campaign needs to happen or an organized on-site protest to drive some attention and action to this and the 101 st sites?

I did send them a message this evening asking about their two sites.

From the story:
There's a reason for its appearance, said Regency's chief operating officer, Raj Dhunna.

"There's a lot more to the story of the way the site looks than just a simple, 'Oh, the developer left it in a mess,'" Dhunna said.


 
Last edited:
TAS said:
Here's a CBC story about Regency's site on 114 Street after a resident complaint two years ago. Maybe a larger scale letter writing campaign needs to happen or an organized on-site protest to drive some attention and action to this and the 101 st sites?

I did send them a message this evening asking about their two sites.

From the story:
There's a reason for its appearance, said Regency's chief operating officer, Raj Dhunna.

"There's a lot more to the story of the way the site looks than just a simple, 'Oh, the developer left it in a mess,'" Dhunna said.


Click to expand...

Oh, there is always a reason for things - but sometimes the "reasons" are mainly just excuses.

Perhaps once could be put down to some bad luck and lack of diligence. Did they really not know the history of the 114 Street property when they got it? These things are not big secrets and generally can be found out or figured out without too much difficulty. Twice seems to be a bad pattern repeating itself and sadly both are quite prominent locations in our city.

I suspect the real reason the developer doesn't want to talk about is they got into this without proper planning and now do not have the means to carry through on their plans. If they had been more upfront or realistic about their situation, perhaps the BMO building could have been left in place and converted to some other use for a number of years while they worked things out. This would have been better than some rubble on an empty lot in a prominent location sitting vacant for quite a while.
 
If I recall correctly there was something about the former BMO site from Raj about how the City didn't want it hoarded and hidden for safety reasons... so yes, multiple sides to a coin.
 
Perhaps, but still excuses and blame game. Not generally a big fan of the City, but they weren't the ones who demolished the building and they are not the ones doing nothing with the site. They also relied on the developers promises and intentions here.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top