News   Apr 03, 2020
From the Editor: A Message to Our Readers
 8.2K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Topping Off March 2020: What's Hot on SkyriseEdmonton
 9.5K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
News Roundup for April 2, 2020
 3.1K     0 

Miscellaneous

CaptainBL said:
Exactly. For what is touted as a "premier" street in Edmonton and one we should be proud of, is effectively dead and void of life between Fox 1/Bundok, and The Mercer building. There is nothing but vacant space and parking lots in that stretch and adding in another parking lot in a sea of parking space is such an ironically poor use of space (whether it is short term temporary or long term temporary is tbd) when all the talk and efforts of council is reducing parking and encouraging alternative transportation to attract people and vibrancy to the core.

One block south, the city shut down 102 ave to make it a walking street, now one block north of that we are adding EVEN MORE parking? What is it that we want?
Click to expand...
I think where our councilors get mislead or easily confused is when people complain about the lack of parking downtown. By that those complaining, do not mean parkades or lots that often charge exorbitant rates, but on street parking. So, building more parkades or surface parking lots is not going to attract people to come downtown. A lot of people coming downtown occasionally prefer to avoid that sort of thing.
 
The usage rate for 90% of most lots Downtown (pre-COVID) were something like 34-56% depending on where, with only a small percentage over 80% even at their peak demand.

There isn't a lack of parking, there is a lack of information, awareness, signage/wayfinding and desire to park out front of where they are going.
 
Greenspace said:
^To be fair the character of the street may not change a lot given the front and north portion of the building is being retained. I still think it's a bad idea though.
Click to expand...
Yeah, if they had a Development Permit application for the future tower submitted right now and under review, it would be much easier to support the partial demolition.
 
I think the surface lot next to the office building (a few blocks away from 104 st) I am in varies between 40% to 60% full, but I don't think rates ever really changed.

I don't drive regularly, but I really avoid the outdoor parking lots in particular. Parkades are a bit nicer because they are warmer in the winter, but I don't use them a lot either - mostly just park on the street when I need to go in and out/drive for errands.
 
CaptainBL said:
Westrich did not buy an expensive piece of land on 104st to invest money into a parking space to offer free parking. Their intention is to allow for parking for up to 3 years, at which point they are going to evaluate the market in hopes of building a tower. How would you suppose that they partially recoup an investment in the land and make it into a parking lot by offering free parking?
Click to expand...
So it was Westrich that bought it?
 
KreationYEG said:
So it was Westrich that bought it?
Click to expand...
If this is approved, this is where the city also needs to show some backbone and stick to the 3 year term.

So, if the development for whatever reason does not proceed at that time, the parking use ends.
 
IMG_1451.jpeg

Reno of the biulding on the corner of 109st/107 ave coming along nicely.
 
Seems like this location would have been a natural for the HBC/Zellers split between mall levels. Zellers as a discount model would have been largely unchallenged here in a mall convenience setting.
 
As the article stated, it's an opportunity to transform the HBC space into a mixed-use tower c/w smaller CRUs.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top