I have heard the main opposition is coming from the homes directly on Sask Cres and in front of where this condo would be built. Apparently they are not thrilled with the idea of floors 2-7 looking down into their yards.

I have to say this understandable, but at the same time I fully support increasing density with infill. Not sure what the solution is....

I wonder if they ever thought that maybe the people would buy the condos for the view of the river and downtown and not their whatever. If there are a bunch of 1 story houses on the block and someone built a 2 or 3 story like they did in the 1920's etc. would they still think that? I see alot of 2 and 3 story houses in the older areas of town. No I think it is just the people who think their privileged and shouldn't have to put up with anything that doesn't fit in with their idea of how a city should look. Probably the same people that don't want the city to grow to 500,000.

could not agree more.

I can understand the objections. It's not just the loss of privacy -- it's the loss of light and 'quiet enjoyment'. It's difficult to use your yard to entertain or even relax with a large construction project going on 10 feet from your back fence, and the shadow of a 7 story tower would restrict both what you can grow and what you can do in your yard. It's easy to complain about NIMBYism but the houses on Sask Crescent and University are mostly north of a million, and the new builds are 2 to 3 million. I can understand why the people who bought them would want to keep condos off the residential street. A project that size tends to bring others along with it, and it's hard to get top dollar for a house sandwiched between 5-7 story multi-unit buildings, even if it's got a river view.

Granted, it is replacing the church, which is a large multi-use building, but I'm pretty sure the person who bought or built the large new build that backs onto that site will lose a good quarter of the value of the house if the condos are built. You can't expect people to wave and smile as they wander into bankruptcy.

It is been a number of years since I bought property in Saskatoon. Is the value of that property that high because it is a single family home in a single family neighborhood plus the general location or is the value because the area is becoming or has the potential to be built out over the next number of years.

If they have that much money the can afford a greenhouse with grow lights and hydroponics, there are always ways, and as far as I remember the urban forest provides lots of shade already. Once construction is over the quiet enjoyment will come back. As for privacy go buy an acreage out of town.

:tup: Totally agree. Hope this goes through, as presented - the design is great!

I want my mc mansion a stones through from the river and the downtown! But I don't want neighbours!!!

The houses are priced that high because they're on Sask Crescent, with a river view. At least 6 of the houses on that block of Sask Crescent are new builds, very expensive ones, which means that they're not being bought by speculators for lot value.

And there's a world of difference between living in the city and having neighbors and having a 7 story condo built next door.

It's not like the condo would be built where a house or two were. It would be replacing a church that is already a big building. And it's not like it's the only condo in the area. That spot is probably a one minute walk to the next condo or apartment.

The church is 4 stories high. And the 12 story tower at 5 corners is at the top of the bridge, right on Broadway; dense multi-family makes sense on major streets, but not in R1 and R2 residential. That's why this is contentious: it's a major zoning change.

They should be able to build, but they should keep it to 3 or 4 stories -- the same scale as the building it's replacing.

^^^ Fully agree!

I'm not dismissing those who argue for infill, but last time I checked there were plenty of vacant lots and parking lots on which to create infill... including the former Farnham Block. Besides, what about the plans to create infill along 8th and 22nd Streets? All I see are more empty lots and anything new is just another glorified strip mall.

I recognize we're NOT talking about the removal of older character homes in this specific instance, but since other posters have brought it up, given that older character homes represent barely 10% of Saskatoon's housing stock (if that, even) I'm not sure why so many are eager to see them disappear even further. If Saskatoon didn't have a plethora of empty parking lots every second block, and was truly pressed for the space, then I could understand this argument... but we all know that is not the case.

I'm in favour of this proposal, but feel it should be scaled back to five floors, more in keeping with the fact that this is right in the middle of a quieter residential area, unlike the Luxe on Broadway which is on a main thoroughfare. I just hope the builders don't surround the building with parking spots as if it were just another cheap condo in Stonebridge or University Heights.

Lots of nimby comments I see. Makes you wonder if Saskatoon will ever grow up.

Yep we want development, infill, just not in an area that is close to downtown. How about instead we build condos on the commercial strips? 8th, and 22nd?

Kind of a childish comment from someone who spouts that the city needs to grow up!

I haven't seen anyone making comments that this proposal should be rejected outright. What I have seen is a healthy debate about what is the appropriate sort of development in quieter residential areas. I suggested a maximum of five floors which still provides for a heck of a lot more density on this site than what is currently there, but also might accommodate some of the concerns of neighbours who mention sightlines, blocked sunlight and potential loss of property value. Saskatoon is not Toronto or New York and most apartments and condos in residential areas of Saskatoon are currently kept to three storeys or less. Having lived in Toronto, I can tell you that a similar development in the midst of a quiet street in a residential area (outside of its downtown core) would almost certainly be kept to 5 storeys or less, in keeping with the neighbourhood, so not sure why residents of the University neighbourhood should be called nimby's for wanting a similar standard in Saskatoon.

Unfettered development without attention to what is appropriate in certain areas is not going to make Saskatoon an alpha-city, and risks leaving the city with haphazard development policies to the community's detriment. If it makes you any happier there are height restrictions in older character neighbourhoods in plenty of the bigger cities around the world like Paris and Amsterdam and Washington DC, just to name a few.

That's the thing about Saskatoon, it talks-the-talk about infill core neighbourhoods but when it comes down to it, the city can't get anything done.

It could succeed in densifying in one-fell-swoop just with a just few skyscrapers downtown and help motivate a grocery store downtown, instead of trying to turn a hundred two storey buildings into 3 storey buildings.

The city only succeeds in spending tens of millions of dollars having tunnel boring machines building sewer & water lines to Brighton suburb but it can't get any interest in a buyer to build at the top of the university bridge because with the cost of the lot being way more than any low rise development can sustain, only a mid-high rise development could possible make a go of it there. But that would be struck down in a nanosecond with all the nimbys in the area, and that is why that lot will remain undeveloped scrub land for decades to come and not gain any taxes for the city like all the other parking lots in downtown. Nimbys should have to have their city taxes quadrupled every time they interfere with infill development.

Saskatoon's tallest building was built almost half a century ago & thats the difference between Saskatoon and every other city in Canada & thats not going to change anytime soon, the city has become more & more a city of urban sprawl in the last few decades despite its call for densifying.

I completely agree with you. Too much talk and not enough action.
Look how long it took to get a condo to get going in River Landing.
In the meantime time all these crappy 3 story condos going up in the suburbs.

In my opinion we should be building 10 story mix use along 8th Street. I would love to buy a nice condo along 8th Street, but there isn't much there.
I also don't want to live in these new developments that requires driving.

Well: 1) last I checked there were multiple towers on the other side of the bridge. The units in those aren't selling particularly well, and the density in City Park and along the waterfront hasn't drawn a supermarket downtown. Density needs to be paired with walkability, and that area just doesn't have that at all.

2) The lot we're talking about isn't the lot at the top of the University bridge -- it's on a residential street of R1 and R2 character homes. As CoffeeBreak says, it should be built to blend in with that neighborhood, not to damage it.

3) the lot on the top of University Bridge SHOULD be built as a mid-height development -- but I'd say that it's not likely to be because the condo market is oversaturated, particularly for units of over 500K. Building everywhere is going to slow down, because there are more multi-family units than the market can absorb already.

4) I wouldn't worry too much about Brighton and other developments on the outskirts -- given the market, they won't be able to sell much anyway. We've had the boom, and now we're having the bust.

Just looked up this location on University Drive, what a f**king joke to the nimbys....

You might overlook me, boo hoo. It might spoil my view, boo hoo. It's out of character with the area, boo hoo.

You have a 12 storey apartment building just a few doors down from this proposal. Hopefully the city has the balls to tell these nimbys to deal with it.

I completely disagree with you on this one. As others have pointed out, there is a huge difference between a highrise at Five Corners and a seven storey condo in the middle of a residential neighbourhood comprised almost entirely of single family homes.

The area is currently zoned R2 and R2A, meaning 1 and 2 storey residential, as well as low-denisty residential infill. To change it to RM5 (High-Density Multiple Unit dwellings) is a huge change. If the area was already zoned for high-density and people simply didn't like it getting built there, that would be a different matter. But when they are sinking over a million dollars into a home on the understanding that it is in a low density neighbourhood, they have a right to be pissed if the rules are then changed after they've made that investment.

The fact that our city hasn't built a new tallest tower in quite some time is disappointing I suppose. But, I would hate to see us build for height just for the sake of height. What good is a tall empty building? Now perhaps we can change that with some incentives (or maybe limit the incentives outside the core) for business or residential to go tall sooner than later.

In a perfect world the developer would build this seven storey condo on a parking lot where nobody's feelings would get hurt. Is the sticking point with residents the fact that the building will be 3 storeys taller than what was there or the fact that a condo is considered in the first place?

I have to disagree with you as well. NOT in the middle of a neighbourhood.... Less than one block off of Broadway, a few houses down in fact. This is not going to tear apart a neighbourhood, it will help spread density and maybe actually help bring more people to the inner city.

I thought the same thing when doing a "drive-by" on Google Streetview--the big high-rise at 5-corners is just down the street. Also, the proposed building is tiered and not a giant square blob which should hopefully help cut down on the feel of its overall size and won't seem that much more intrusive then the large church that's already (was?) there.

I also agree, was looking at it from all angles, and it makes a lot of sense that in time that entire block will become much higher density because it is a very walkable location. A block to the north not so much. a zoning change will make sense here, but it's a matter of when not if. Mandating it to be 4 stories instead of 7 isn't going to stop this particular block from redevelopment. The street has a very similar feel to 4th ave where Shangi-la just got built, and a 6 story across the street.

I think that the bolded part is where the disconnect lies. I don't believe that the current residents of that neighbourhood want increased density and more people in their "inner city" neighbourhood. Contrary to the opinion of most of the participants on this site, not everyone wants a more densely populated Saskatoon. There is a reason that most of Saskatoon is comprised of single family homes - it's not due to lack of multi-family options - it's because single family detached homes are the preferred choice of most Saskatoon residents.

This is a topic that comes up repeatedly on this discussion board and opinions have not changed greatly through the years. I'm not saying that either high-density or low-density is right or wrong, simply that they are different and appeal to different people. I don't believe we are going to change each others minds through further debate about the issue and I'm OK with that. I hope you are, too.

I don't think it's because it's the preferred option, but rather that it's by far the most heavily subsidized

SFDs will always be choice number one, but the ratio is skewed due to suburban subsidy.

The density answer has always been 4-6 story buildings. Every corner in the inner city should be zoned to accommodate that.

My understanding is that the sale of lots pays for all infrastructure, streets, parks etc including a portion of interchanges. The city land branch makes money from land development so do you have more details as to how it is heavily subsidized?

Although density may be the answer I think most people in Saskatoon want a single family home with yard, garage etc.

I couldn't wait until I could afford to get out of an apartment and into a house. But I will likely move to a condo some day when I'm over 75.

But people also want transit that works, and walkable, mixed use areas with nice (successful) shops and restaurants. They also want their taxes to stay low and the city centre to be active and exciting, and sprawl to be limited (which is something many Nutana residents are particularly vocal about). They've told the city this repeatedly. So there is definitely a big disconnect, but it seems like it is more between what people say they want and what has been built in this city.

I'd suspect there are people that would happily live in townhouse or condo in a nice urban neighbourhood (i.e. Nutana), that don't purely because there are such limited options, especially with regard to townhouses.

Also, looks like this project has passed MPC.

http://thestarphoenix.com/news/local...ime=1509537761

I think you just described Willowgrove (or most of the new development for that matter). The other new sub-burbs are the same. Town square with mixed-use commercial. Dense condo/townhouse core. Small single family lots backing onto walkable linear parks and sidewalks on both sides of each street.

how tall is 7 storeys? if im looking at River Centre 1, thats 25M at 5 storeys?

i dont see this building anymore than 25metres in height seeing as its a residential building. it should be ok for that area, as mentioned theres a 12 storey one block down the street. if this was more in the "d-lish restaurant" area, then i could see this being a big issue and causing more concerns. seeing as its so close to the riverbank and the BID, i think the city will allow development to proceed.

thats just my opinion.

To a degree yeah, and that is the thing that is funny with comments about people wanting to live in single family houses. In new neighbourhoods the housing mix is often around 50% single family, 50% multifamily, despite the fact that they are new neighbourhoods with less amenities than the neighbourhoods bordering downtown.

So obviously there is demand for multifamily residential options in Saskatoon, but those options are mostly in the suburbs. Imagine if there were the same options (i.e. more townhouses) in more urban areas that have existing nearby commercial and other amenities. I'd imagine there would be a significant amount of people who would find those options more attractive than the same housing format in the suburbs.

Will nobody think of the children skyline!!! :haha:

Here's an article from last April on new areas paying for themselves, by the way thanks for all the different views, makes you look at issues from different angles.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskat...port-1.3041439

I believe the funds raised by selling the lots covers the capital costs to acquire the land, develop it and service it with infrastructure, however it does not cover the ongoing maintenance costs. The cost to maintain SFD neighborhood (clear snow, sweep streets, collect trash, build and staff fire stations, mow lawns in parks and municipal buffers, repair broken water mains and fix aging roads) exceeds the amount collected from taxes in those neighborhoods... ie they are subsidized.

Yes, I have heard many people I know that live in Nutana say exactly this - that they hate urban sprawl and love Nutana because of it's location and proximity to Broadway, downtown and 8th st. Then when change happens which is in harmony with their ideas they become resistant and vocal. NIMBY (even my girlfriend who lives in Nutana is prone to nimbyism).

It only covers a portion of the costs. New schools, police, fire, parks, and transit come out of general revenue. New interchanges are only partially covered by lot sales.

Your making my point for me, only better!

Also, I measured in google maps and from the corner of University & 13th to the heart of downtown (somewhere around 3rd ave and 21st st) is only 800m as the crow flies. I find it bizarre that we'd consider a few large detached houses more important that having high density (or even medium density) in the very center of the city. I'd think zoning changes to accommodate density in the urban core would be considered the sign of a healthy city?

edit

I'm not crisis but here you go on finacing new growth report

https://www.saskatoon.ca/sites/defau...ate_report.pdf

Here is full report if your interested

https://www.saskatoon.ca/sites/defau...april_2015.pdf

Nope. Specific to Saskatoon, that is only my opinion based on years of observation and interaction with people. You may have different experiences, but most people I know prefer single family homes if they can afford them.

I'm not aware of any surveys of single family home preference focused on Saskatoon, though your question did get me to search for information on the subject. While I was not able to find any data relating to Saskatoon, googling "single family home preference" did reveal a couple of results indicating a surprising (to me, at least) preference among millennials for single family homes:

http://www.qualifiedremodeler.com/10...s-generations/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/willi..._10354666.html

https://www.housingwire.com/articles...e-family-homes

I think the reason some people buy condos or townhomes is they don't have the time, skill or physical ability to do building maintenance.

The biggest reason is they can't afford single family homes.

Far from the biggest reason. I bought a condo years back, for the sole reason of location. Plus being higher up I had an awesome view. As for skills to do maintenance, I'm "very" handy with my tools :haha:

As for affordability, I paid more for my condo than a lot of the homes at the time. Granted it wasn't in Saskatoon though.

I agree, I came from a large farm growing up with no neighbors and I live downtown Saskatoon because I don’t like spending my life in a car commuting to work, and stay more sane by being able to walk home for lunch and get a break. Plus I can go party at any bar I want and walk home or taking a $5 cab. I definitely feel less clostraphobic living on the 20th floor with slick sunset views every evening after work versus in a box around my neighbors in a suburb. My labradors love it because they’re next to a river that’s surrounded by ducks and jack rabbits. My condo is a lot smaller than the shack I grew up on on my family farm, so having kids would not be a problem. Anyone who looks down upon living downtown is so oblivious, and it’s so sad it’s taking so long for this city to realize how much more awesome it is to live downtown versus in the burbs. Right now the per square foot cost is equivalent to most condos in the burbs and downtown. The sad thing is that there’s minimal selection downtown. Yes I spend more money, only because I’m having so much more fun than people living in the burbs surrounded by the same 3 restaurants. I feel like I’m on vacation every day downtown Saskatoon. Love it

My building is the exact opposite of people living with mobility issues. I’d say the people living in my building downtown are more active than most people living in the burbs. Living downtown creates more active lifestyles when you can walk everywhere. Anyone who says that living downtown is just for retirees is a silly goof.

i side with you on some things with the downtown,

why so much highrises throughout the 70's-80's when the population was half of what it is now, and then nothing for 30+ years? ( if anyone can answer that im curious to know why )

the fact that theres walking distance to everything, and great energy with the new restaurants.

being close to the river is a plus. along with the events during the summer no worrying about parking.

whats keeping me from moving downtown is the fact that there is no grocery store, thats really it. i can deal with parking because i love to walk and exercise, but id like to do that from my condo/apt to the store to get my milk etc... once some grocery retailer or the city plans right so someone could build a store, then id consider living downtown.

I'm always a little curious why the lack of grocery store is such a major reason for people either not wanting to live downtown or developer's not thinking people want to live downtown--does everyone walk to the grocery store that doesn't live downtown now? It's not like our downtown is so huge that it's an hour drive to a grocery store, there are multiple options within around a 5km radius depending on where you are. Obviously it would be nice to be able to walk to a grocery store, but having to drive 10 minutes to do a big grocery store trip doesn't seem that unreasonable and like it should be THE reason for avoiding wanting to live somewhere.

There are in fact two small grocers downtown on 5th and 6th that sell fresh fruit and vegetables and all of your basic amenities. I have never before been closer to my local pharmacy for prescriptions and I've lived in 4 different areas of Saskatoon in the last 7 years before settling downtown. I don't know many people would take a shopping cart to get a full load of groceries that's walking distance. The grocery store is a terribly weak excuse which makes going to Sobeys or Walmart 7 minutes away in Preston Crossing a small problem. I personally like going to the grocers out in the burbs because they have everything I need thanks to their size - that isn't something any downtown anywhere really has.

Most people who want to move downtown want to go car free

As someone who has moved in the last 5 months from the burbs to a more "core neighborhood" for the specific reason of location and walkability, I would like to add my personal opinion and experience on this discussion.

I now live in Varsity View area....5 minute walk to commercial area of Broadway and 15 minute walk to downtown core. We moved to this area because we wanted to be close to Broadway, River and Downtown. Had been looking for many years for right place for us. We had to pay more to live in Varsity View (asking price and taxes) versus what we received for home in Nutana Park.

Yes, our objective (like many looking to move downtown...which likely will be our next move down the road to a condo/apartment style unit downtown) was to walk/bike more and be less reliant on our car. We have been very successful in that and have found especially in the spring/summer/fall seasons we have walked a lot more and drove a lot less. The reality is we still drive for our groceries, even though there are grocery store options relatively close to us on 8th and Broadway....but we still do the once a week stock up type shopping as this would be more then we could carry on foot or on our bike. This is not an issue for us....if we can maximize our daily living on foot or active transport and have to hop in a car every 7 to 10 days for groceries, we think that is a great compromise!

All this to say, is that I have to now agree that the "excuse" of the lack of a grocery store downtown being the root cause of lack of development and densification may be just an easy excuse. Yes....there are some who want to be 'totally' non dependent on the car, but I believe there are a LOT of people like us, who realize that we still need a car for some things in Saskatoon but can consciously choose to walk and bike more, given our proximity to amenities (pubs, restaurants, shops, parks, river, etc.).

The biggest obstacle for us when looking to move closer to downtown/broadway was the absolute lack of new inventory to pick from. Our budget was not huge, but as stated, we were prepared to "pay more" then the value of our 2 story burb house to downsize to the right area/property. We ended up just north of the $500,000 mark but are super happy with our choice. It would have been nice to have some decent inventory downtown in that price range.

This was a VERY long post, but I have often been one of the ones whining about the lack of a grocery store downtown and that if we had one it would change everything! But our new reality that we are living is that we probably would still drive to a grocery store, but choose active transportation for as many other activities as possible. So, put a nice little boutique food market downtown to make people feel better, but realize that most will choose to drive to "stock up" at the big grocers.

I am hoping that No1 Riverlanding will spur some much needed condo development downtown and that it will not be dependent on a grocery store "first", as that is unlikely to happen.