I feel for the owners, but I also understand that planning, zoning, transportation, and so many other things have changed a lot in the past sixty (?) years since the DQ first opened. What worked then doesn't work now, and that's not Drug Farrell's fault.
But I can also see how no/limited parking and no drive through would make a DQ less viable there. Maybe a compromise could be reached by having a higher density development (like the city wants) but also incorporating a drive through, underground parking, etc. Corbella, of course, skipped any reference to any sort of compromise.
And it might sound harsh, but maybe the owners should leverage their asset (the land) and get maximum value for it and give up on the DQ dream. Just because the city doesn't want 1960s planning in their 2020s vision, doesn't mean that you aren't sitting on a valuable asset.
That being said, I would rather see a compromise. There are some great higher-density developments that incorporate creative ways for parking (not that underground is that creative) and incorporate other features that might make it work.
Corbella is entitled to her opinions, but she lays it on pretty thick here and personally tried to pin decades of change on one councillor that she doesn't favour.
|