Saskatoon Construction III

[prairieguy]

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....

[The Bess]

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.

[YXE]

Originally Posted by The Bess

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.

[jrochest]

Originally Posted by The Bess

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.

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.

[casper]

Originally Posted by jrochest

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.

[The Bess]

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.

[Jimmy James]

Originally Posted by The Bess

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.

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

[Dalreg]

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

[jrochest]

Originally Posted by casper

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.

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.

[The S'toon Goon]

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.

[jrochest]

Originally Posted by The S'toon Goon

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.

[CoffeeBreak]

^^^ 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.

[Dalreg]

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?

[CoffeeBreak]

Originally Posted by Dalreg

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.

[SaskScraper]

Originally Posted by Dalreg

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

Ye
p 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?

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.

[GTR200]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

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.

[jrochest]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

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.

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.

[Dalreg]

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.

[Crisis]

Originally Posted by Dalreg

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 S'toon Goon]

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?