David A
Senior Member
It would be great if the remaining elements of the Tegler could be incorporated into whatever would be built here and some things added to replace what was lost.
Tower 101 | 175m | 50s | Regency Developments | DER + Associates
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
Edmcowboy11
Senior Member
Or again simply to a modern take on the original that could use architectural elements copied from the original building that could give a direct shoutout to the old building.
Clearshades
Senior Member
I can't see Regency being capable of executing that, so, for the sake of not destroying our city, I would do a simple clean podium in the configuration of the former structure but apply modern clear glass curtain walls. To pay homage to Tegler, apply rolling curtains for the windows where the antiquated Tegler is printed onto the rolling curtains. When all the blinds are pull down, you'll see each respective sides from where you are standing. It can be the affects of full original color, but I think it would be more dramatic if it is black and white. Then put tower on top.
David A
Senior Member
I don't see Regecy being capable of much either. I feel they are like a dog in a manger here just delaying or preventing something better from happening.
However, I don't want just another DREAM sign that many people are oblivious to and most of the rest don't care.
However, I don't want just another DREAM sign that many people are oblivious to and most of the rest don't care.
barhonda
New Member
The old Regency bait and switch. Don't expect them to come through with anything.
I remember them advertising a draw for a C-Class Mercedes if you bought a unit at the Quest back in the day. The draw never happened.
I remember them advertising a draw for a C-Class Mercedes if you bought a unit at the Quest back in the day. The draw never happened.
CaptainBL
Active Member
You didnt read the fine print properly: "You could win a C-Class Mercedes***"
***if we were to do a draw
David A
Senior Member
Land speculators disguised as developers?
Vacs
Active Member
Regency is looking for a hotel to partner with on this tower.
They had a tentative deal with the Marriott but the Marriott backed out and went to the ice district. Since then they have not been able to find a partner.
Without a partner this tower won't go
They had a tentative deal with the Marriott but the Marriott backed out and went to the ice district. Since then they have not been able to find a partner.
Without a partner this tower won't go
bodsbods9090
Senior Member
Is someone like Alt not an ideal partner for this?
Was it them or another hotel chain that wanted to build on 104 St a few years ago? Loved that proposal.
Barnaby
Senior Member
What is the opposition here to making this a market rate rental?
David A
Senior Member
So if 5 more years then, given the lengthy time this has already been sitting around, would that make it about 10 years in total?
Not great for a premier location in a major city in supposedly the most prosperous province in Canada.
Not great for a premier location in a major city in supposedly the most prosperous province in Canada.
erudyk_29
Active Member
As much as I have contempt for Regency about leaving yet another empty lot or pit in the middle of downtown where a perfectly fine building once stood, this particular project was hit with a ton of bad luck.
The demolition and pre-construction all occurred before the Valley Line started construction at 102nd ave, they were given the option to either demolish the building and then wait for the VL to finish to start construction, or to wait to do both. They opted to demolish the BMO Building before, showing that at this point they were committed to this project. Then the VL was delayed several years, and then what was probably the nail in the coffin for Tower 101 was COVID.
I still question why they didn't return to this project, surely they aren't going to make back anything (in fact they will most likely lose a lot) from selling this empty lot. Even if the land is more valuable than what the BMO building was when it was demolished (which I highly doubt in Edmonton). It seems like very poor asset management to me, though I am no developer.
The demolition and pre-construction all occurred before the Valley Line started construction at 102nd ave, they were given the option to either demolish the building and then wait for the VL to finish to start construction, or to wait to do both. They opted to demolish the BMO Building before, showing that at this point they were committed to this project. Then the VL was delayed several years, and then what was probably the nail in the coffin for Tower 101 was COVID.
I still question why they didn't return to this project, surely they aren't going to make back anything (in fact they will most likely lose a lot) from selling this empty lot. Even if the land is more valuable than what the BMO building was when it was demolished (which I highly doubt in Edmonton). It seems like very poor asset management to me, though I am no developer.
David A
Senior Member
Yes, some bad luck, but this company sure seems to have a lot of "bad luck" with more than one site. At some point bad luck becomes bad management.
So ok the Marriott deal fell through, but that would have been way over 5 years ago. IMO it probably would have been better to not demolish the existing building. All it shows they are committed to is demolition and spending money sooner than needed. Again a bad decision and also poor asset management. Lastly, if you can't make a go of it, just sell it to someone who may be able to do better, take the loss and move on.
So ok the Marriott deal fell through, but that would have been way over 5 years ago. IMO it probably would have been better to not demolish the existing building. All it shows they are committed to is demolition and spending money sooner than needed. Again a bad decision and also poor asset management. Lastly, if you can't make a go of it, just sell it to someone who may be able to do better, take the loss and move on.
Kosy123
Senior Member
Don't forget that their Holyrood site has been silent for a year now as well.
Edmcowboy11
Senior Member
To me Regency seems more of the opportunist type of developer if it will be cheapest for himself. Otherwise to keep things cheap, either move at glacial pace or agree to one thing then come back crying the blues that it is no longer viable and demand changes. With the track record of this company I think of the old saying, "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me."