HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5241  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2009, 12:32 AM
Ruckus's Avatar
Ruckus Ruckus is offline
working stiff
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Woodlawn Cemetery
Posts: 2,583
Initially I felt the design was off-putting, but, these re-released renderings are much better. I like the mix of materials (stone, glass, wood?). The relationship with the sidewalk, street, and park is nicely done too. A huge improvement over the existing MVA centre hidden behind trees and shrubs.

The interactive presentations sound really interesting. I caught a glimpse of them on tv. It looked like they had a scaled down model of Saskatoon (with the bridges, the bess, and a bunch of other buildings, some of which you could interact with).

A welcome addition to South Downtown


Source

Digital is so much better...


Source - Friday, November 28th Star Phoenix
     
     
  #5242  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2009, 12:41 AM
socialisthorde socialisthorde is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Saskatoon
Posts: 590
not to be "nitpicky" as I have been accused of being in the past, but I find the front (the mostly concrete side) a little hostile, particulary since it butts right up on the sidewalk. Maybe a small setback or more glass at ground level would help. Otherwise, I like it.
     
     
  #5243  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2009, 12:58 AM
Ruckus's Avatar
Ruckus Ruckus is offline
working stiff
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Woodlawn Cemetery
Posts: 2,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by socialisthorde View Post
not to be "nitpicky" as I have been accused of being in the past, but I find the front (the mostly concrete side) a little hostile, particulary since it butts right up on the sidewalk. Maybe a small setback or more glass at ground level would help. Otherwise, I like it.
I considered that as well. I can't really tell from these renderings, but, from what I saw on the tv, it looked as if you could walk through the building from one side to the other (glass walls on both Spadina and 19th Street...in the rendering, it looks like there is sunlight shining through from 19th to Spadina). The 3rd Ave. stone facing with slit windows and trellises(?) is certainly hostile (as compared to a transparent glass exterior), but I'm hoping the slit windows are wider than what is portrayed in the rendering, and that the trellices could support vine growth to the second and third floors.

I prefer the abutment between the building and sidewalk. It leaves more space for activities behind the building in Friendship Park, as well, it creates a closer relationship with the pedestrian walking by who could peer into the slit windows (a storefront window shopping concept?).
     
     
  #5244  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2009, 1:27 AM
Echoes's Avatar
Echoes Echoes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Posts: 4,520
I agree that the concrete facing is a bit hostile. Though on the 3rd floor there appears to be a balcony facing 19th Street with floor to ceiling windows. It's hard to tell for sure but that's what it looks like. If so, that might soften the look of the building front.



Edit: Errr, I meant facing 3rd Avenue....
__________________
SASKATOON PHOTO TOURS
2013: [Part I] [Part II] | [2014] | [2016] | [2022-25]

Last edited by Echoes; Feb 10, 2009 at 1:45 AM.
     
     
  #5245  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2009, 2:24 AM
kgc087's Avatar
kgc087 kgc087 is offline
Urban Dreamer
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Saskatoon
Posts: 1,128
Seeing there are no windows on the ground floor, just indents with trees in them, I'm thinking the "balcony" on the roof is actually glass to create an atrium, with glass walls only on the north and south side and a glass roof.
__________________
Just be.
     
     
  #5246  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2009, 7:14 AM
kgc087's Avatar
kgc087 kgc087 is offline
Urban Dreamer
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Saskatoon
Posts: 1,128
Place Riel Construction Approved
Monday, 09 February 2009

The Place Riel expansion will be going forward at the U of S.

The project was approved at Friday's Meewasin Valley Authority meeting. Student's Union President Josie Steeves says she's excited to see the project finally moving forward.

The expansion includes a four storey addition between Marquis hall and the Murray building. The first two floors will house the Student's Union offices, some more vendor areas, and and some campus club space. The top two floors will be used by administration for student health and counseling. Renovations will also be finished on the lower floor of Place Riel.

The price tag on the expansion comes at around 30 million dollars, with the students paying for 22 million of that from a levy placed on tuition.

Construction should start in late March.
http://www.saskatoonhomepage.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16419&Itemid=374
__________________
Just be.
     
     
  #5247  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2009, 2:33 PM
sask1982's Avatar
sask1982 sask1982 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan
Posts: 916
Quote:
Originally Posted by kgc087 View Post
Place Riel Construction Approved
Monday, 09 February 2009

The Place Riel expansion will be going forward at the U of S.

The project was approved at Friday's Meewasin Valley Authority meeting. Student's Union President Josie Steeves says she's excited to see the project finally moving forward.

The expansion includes a four storey addition between Marquis hall and the Murray building. The first two floors will house the Student's Union offices, some more vendor areas, and and some campus club space. The top two floors will be used by administration for student health and counseling. Renovations will also be finished on the lower floor of Place Riel.

The price tag on the expansion comes at around 30 million dollars, with the students paying for 22 million of that from a levy placed on tuition.

Construction should start in late March.
http://www.saskatoonhomepage.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16419&Itemid=374
http://www.renewplaceriel.ca/
     
     
  #5248  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2009, 3:19 PM
kgc087's Avatar
kgc087 kgc087 is offline
Urban Dreamer
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Saskatoon
Posts: 1,128
Third Ave.

The 11-year-old debate about rebuilding Third Avenue will extend at least a few weeks after a city committee considered options ranging from approving an internal plan to rethinking downtown altogether.

City administration proposes a four-year, $7-million overhaul of Third between 19th and 23rd streets, starting with the block between 21st and 22nd this year. Third Avenue would keep its parallel parking and narrow to two lanes from three in each direction, with one lane shared by cyclists. That would accommodate left-turn bays, a raised centre median and bulbed curbs at the corners.

The proposal maintains Third Avenue as a key traffic and transit artery through downtown instead of constricting lanes to allow for angle parking spaces.

But Mayor Don Atchison said Tuesday the plan may be all wrong. Third Avenue should be a "destination" street friendly to parked cars and pedestrians like Second Avenue, while Fourth Avenue could replace it as transit gateway, he said. Making traffic the priority on First and Fourth avenues, 19th Street and 25th Street (once it extends to Idylwyld Drive) would create a traffic box around the core, he said.

"I don't know why we aren't taking a larger look," he said, during a meeting of the planning and operations committee. "I'm not convinced (by the city proposal). I need more comfort."

Coun. Bob Pringle wondered why the city can't compromise and allow angle parking on one-half of Third, with the other side sticking with parallel parking to accommodate buses. That plan would hinge on whether more buses travel in one direction than another along Third Avenue, he said.

"I think we have to go back to the drawing board," Pringle said.

Taking a broader look at downtown would delay the Third Avenue project indefinitely and force the city to reconsider other plans, like developing the 23rd Street bus terminal, said city manager Murray Totland.

Coun. Charlie Clark was the only council member present to back the proposal. The city should plan for a future where there are fewer cars clogging the streets and more people taking the bus, cycling and walking, he said.

"We're sending a lot of messages with how we do this," Clark said. " . . . Are we going to (re)design this whole thing on 100 spots of parking? I don't think that's responsible. This is a reasonable compromise."

Cars aren't likely to become more scarce anytime soon, said Terry Scaddan, executive director of The Downtown Partnership, who wants more angle spaces.

"Parking is in a crisis downtown right now."

Plans to improve Third Avenue date back to 1998. The inherent challenge is the competing interests of motorists, buses, cyclists and pedestrians, although most agree the needs of all four should be satisfied somehow.

Totland requested a second look at the proposal to answer the question of whether a mix of angle and parallel parking could work on Third Avenue. He told the committee that if the city ultimately proceeds with its proposal, the money wouldn't be wasted if it later rewrites Saskatoon's downtown plan.

That comment appeared to reassure Atchison.

"But I think we need to look further into the future as well," the mayor said.

City administration is expected to report back to the committee within weeks.

Most of city council hasn't yet entered the debate.

Three councillors -- Clark, Pringle and Coun. Gord Wyant -- out of five on the planning and operations committee attended Tuesday's meeting. Five others won't weigh in until the proposal reaches a council meeting.

[email protected]

© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix
___________________________________________________________
This is somewhat a disappointment to hear. I personally despise angle parking and dread having to drive down 2nd Ave. As well I feel for 3rd Ave. it wont make it a destination for shopping it will make it a destination for parking and most people unless they need something from those shops, will just walk right by. I really hope the city doesnt make the mistake of angle parking, its just small town, will cause major growing pains in the future and is a waste of space.
__________________
Just be.
     
     
  #5249  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2009, 3:30 PM
madsad madsad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by kgc087 View Post
The 11-year-old debate about rebuilding Third Avenue will extend at least a few weeks after a city committee considered options ranging from approving an internal plan to rethinking downtown altogether.
I agree with many of Atch’s comments on this, particularly his notion of using 25th, 19th, 1st Ave, and 4th Ave, as a traffic “box” around a more pedestrian friendly interior.

I believe the logic that a “sharrow” lane, shared with parking cars and transit buses will be safe for cyclists, is flawed. A lane where many cars are executing movements in and out of parallel parking stalls (which includes reversing against traffic flow), and where transit buses are making turning movements in and out of stops, represents a hazard for cyclists.

I also believe the analysis of transit service being moved to Fourth Ave, allowing a better “pedestrianizing” of Third Avenue is flawed. The report dismisses moving routes to Fourth Ave because transit patrons will have to walk further. This is ridiculous, as we are only talking about the width of one downtown block added to a walking journey. This distance is negligible for even those with reduced mobility, due to downtown’s inherently pedestrian-friendly nature, small blocks, high-density, and wide sidewalks.

Transit’s goal is not to provide door-to-door service. I would add that currently, the high-density corridor of Fourth Ave is not served at all by transit, and should be, rather than Third.

Furthermore, moving transit routes to Fourth Ave, may even increase the speed and reliability of transit service, as buses will be able to move through downtown making fewer turning movements. The current arrangement of routes using 19th St to switch from Third Ave to Fourth Ave and the Broadway Bridge requires excessive turning, which could be eliminated by allowing the buses to simply continue straight through on Fourth.

The operational challenge of routing buses from Fourth into the new downtown transit terminal will require some thinking, but it is not insurmountable. Buses can use 23rd St to enter the terminal as they currently do today.

I would say that the most hazardous aspect of Saskatoon’s downtown, from the point of view or cyclists and pedestrians, is our ultra-wide, six- or seven-lane streets. We need to extensively re-scale the downtown streets.
     
     
  #5250  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2009, 3:47 PM
Wyku Wyku is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Posts: 534
Re

I think I'm with Atch on this one as well; make 4th Ave the main route through downtown, not 3rd Ave. Like madsad said, the busses can't continue straight on 3rd Ave. out of downtown right now since they can't go across the Victoria Bridge (as it will forever be called to me heh). They have to go across the Broadway Bridge, so why not make that road (4th Ave) their main route? However, I also agree that making 3rd Ave. like 2nd Ave. (which I try to avoid at all costs between 20th and 22nd) could also be a mistake. Either way I'm glad they are taking a step back and looking at things in greater detail before committing to a plan. I just hope it doesn't take another 11 years to make a decision!
     
     
  #5251  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2009, 3:51 PM
kgc087's Avatar
kgc087 kgc087 is offline
Urban Dreamer
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Saskatoon
Posts: 1,128
I agree that the a transit and traffic perimeter is a good idea, but like I said, angle parking is terrible to deal with and I don't think the extra 100 stalls is worth the constant fatigue and avoidance of the area.
__________________
Just be.
     
     
  #5252  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2009, 5:12 PM
Ruckus's Avatar
Ruckus Ruckus is offline
working stiff
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Woodlawn Cemetery
Posts: 2,583
Make that another vote against the angle parking on 3rd Ave (conflicts with all modes of transportation). I do however like the concept of a 'traffic box' around a pedestrian friendly core.

So, it sounds like there is support for the proposed 3rd Ave. revamp goung ahead as planned (e.g. parallel parking, turning lanes, raised centre medians, corner bulbing, one shared bike lane). And for future consideration, redirection of transit traffic to 4th Ave. for increased efficiency via fewer turns?

Sounds good to me.
     
     
  #5253  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2009, 5:21 PM
Ruckus's Avatar
Ruckus Ruckus is offline
working stiff
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Woodlawn Cemetery
Posts: 2,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsad View Post

[...]

I believe the logic that a “sharrow” lane, shared with parking cars and transit buses will be safe for cyclists, is flawed. A lane where many cars are executing movements in and out of parallel parking stalls (which includes reversing against traffic flow), and where transit buses are making turning movements in and out of stops, represents a hazard for cyclists.

[...]
Okay, but, what is the alternative? Dedicated bike lanes?

Correct me if I am wrong, but sharrow lanes would be marked for both cyclists and traffic?

Are there precedents for "sharrow" lanes in our downtown?

I think Spadina Crescent has dedicated bicycle lanes for north moving traffic (no parallel parking), can't recall if there is for south moving traffic (parallel parking). I think thats it for downtown bike lanes.

Come to think of it, Saskatoon has very few bike lanes. Spadina has them for almost the entire stretch, in both directions of traffic. Preston has them (for both directions?).

We need more bike lanes period.
     
     
  #5254  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2009, 6:51 PM
acron acron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 50
i think everyone brings a valid point to this 3rd ave debate... and i agree with most of your views. however, here are my thoughts (which not everyone will agree with).

1. reverse angle parking on 3rd avenue would bankrupt SGI in a month. honestly, can you imagine people trying to back into parking stalls backwards? that is one of the most absurd ideas since putting saskplace in a field... luckly this proposal will not be moving forward.

2. moving bus routes to 4th avenue is a great idea and makes perfect sense as the busses would head straight out on broadway bridge. this will be agreat imporvement to downtown traffic flow.

3. sharrow lanes sounds to me like fancy political windowdressing for essentially doing nothing for the bike lanes lol.. isn't that what all shoulder traffic lanes are? bikes and cars inevitably share the lanes at the side of a street! maybe i'm wrong, and you guys can enlighten me.

4. now back to the big picture. i love Dunkin Don's vision for the future... that big things will be built in our downtown. i agree that this will be an eventuality. however, doesn't it make sense to build the biggest buildings in the city on third avenue? i think i posted somethign on here to that effect before.. since most people probably want a cascading skyline from the river, wouldnt' it make sense to have third avenue as the street to build 30+ story sky scrapers? i think the city should be looking to decomission those 100 yearold buildings on third avenue and get that street ready time for BIG development, instead of pandering to small outlet shops who shouldn't even be operating on third avenue. if big development will go ahead i think 3rd avenue should remain as a six lane street! i think we should be looking at eliminating parking on that street altogether! that maybe an extreme suggestion.. but think about it, all the big cities have a "traffic only" street in their downtown core, don't they? our downtown is so congested for how small it is... i seriously think 2nd avenue is the worst street in canada. i feel like i'm in bangalore evertytime i'm forced to drive through it. i would hate for any street to suffer the fate of 2nd ave. this will hamper any major development in the downtown core. although many will disagree, but i want this city to grow like a modern metropolis, not aim at staying the size of north battleford. finally, i liek the idea of a pedestrian friendly street, and we have that - 21st street. i think 21st street is one of the nicest streets that define saskatoon. but i think too many pedestrian friendly streets will keep our downtown core limited to 4 story buildings.

5. as a start to renovating third avenue, i suggest we begin by changing the street lights... lol, we have street lights hanging off wood posts! what other city has wood posts in their downtown?... honestly what century are we living in? lol i hope the city spends some money to address that issue.


p.s. the street lights at riverlanding look great!

Last edited by acron; Feb 11, 2009 at 8:16 PM.
     
     
  #5255  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2009, 7:04 PM
ninipanini's Avatar
ninipanini ninipanini is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Saskatoon
Posts: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by SASKFTW View Post

We need more bike lanes period.
Do we ever! More bike lanes downtown are essential; with the enforcement of bylaws prohibiting bikes from riding on the sidewalks (which seems reasonable) I believe the city has an obligation to provide a SAFE alternative. As a cyclist who follows traffic rules, I can say that there are enough motorists who don't seem to understand/take bikes seriously that cycling can be really hazardous.

With bicycle commuting on the rise (even in winter) we need more awareness about the rights/responsibilities of cyclists. Increasing the extent of bicycle lanes and other facilities needs to be near the top of the priority list for the city and given the relatively low cost of bike infrastructure this shouldn't be too difficult to achieve.
     
     
  #5256  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2009, 7:34 PM
swilley's Avatar
swilley swilley is offline
Saskatchewan's Largest
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Saskatoon
Posts: 1,007
Update from Stoneset on the Lighthouse....
Source
Quote:
Saskatoon Project – Saskatoon, SK
• As previously reported, Saskatoon City Council recently approved Stoneset’s proposal for the (temporarilynamed)
“Lighthouse Project” in Saskatoon. This mixed-use, high-rise development combines approximately 120
affordable housing and 120 market condominiums units with street level retail.
• Stoneset’s proposal has been selected by The Saskatchewan Housing Corporation to provide the affordable
housing units. Stoneset continues to negotiate the final terms of the contract with Saskatchewan Housing.
• Current and recent work includes preliminary drawings for the concept, which are being completed by ONPA, a
major architectural firm in Edmonton.
• ONPA is working with Stoneset to provide preliminary costing estimates for the project which will allow for
contract completion with the City of Saskatoon and Saskatchewan Housing Corporation.
• Management is currently working on an investment vehicle for this project, which will be launched when the
contract has been signed and costing is complete.
     
     
  #5257  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2009, 8:18 PM
acron acron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by swilley View Post
Update from Stoneset on the Lighthouse....
Source
nice!
     
     
  #5258  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2009, 9:07 PM
Wyku Wyku is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Posts: 534
Quote:
Originally Posted by acron View Post

4. now back to the big picture. i love Dunkin Don's vision for the future... that big things will be built in our downtown. i agree that this will be an eventuality. however, doesn't it make sense to build the biggest buildings in the city on third avenue? i think i posted somethign on here to that effect before.. since most people probably want a cascading skyline from the river, wouldnt' it make sense to have third avenue as the street to build 30+ story sky scrapers? i think the city should be looking to decomission those 100 yearold buildings on third avenue and get that street ready time for BIG development, instead of pandering to small outlet shops who shouldn't even be operating on third avenue. if big development will go ahead i think 3rd avenue should remain as a six lane street! i think we should be looking at eliminating parking on that street altogether! that maybe an extreme suggestion.. but think about it, all the big cities have a "traffic only" street in their downtown core, don't they? our downtown is so congested for how small it is... i seriously think 2nd avenue is the worst street in canada. i feel like i'm in bangalore evertytime i'm forced to drive through it. i would hate for any street to suffer the fate of 2nd ave. this will hamper any major development in the downtown core. although many will disagree, but i want this city to grow like a modern metropolis, not aim at staying the size of north battleford. finally, i liek the idea of a pedestrian friendly street, and we have that - 21st street. i think 21st street is one of the nicest streets that define saskatoon. but i think too many pedestrian friendly streets will keep our downtown core limited to 4 story buildings.

I like this idea in regards to making it the mecca of big development in Saskatoon
     
     
  #5259  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2009, 10:09 PM
kgc087's Avatar
kgc087 kgc087 is offline
Urban Dreamer
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Saskatoon
Posts: 1,128
I like the idea of placing larger buildings along third avenue, but having them strictly offices will leave this a desolate street. I believe a beautiful median, like 25th street, could be constructed in the middle with the parallel parking for now and bike lanes and as larger buildings are constructed and densification happens, the parking can be removed to accomodate the increase in transit and the bike lane can be moved over. I do not think one of the old buildings should be removed, that is what gives our city its charm. They should be forced to be completley revamped and retrofitted so large 30 story buildings can be built on top of them! No one likes walking around desolate glass lobby entrances but everyone loves the feeling of character buildings and quaint shops.
__________________
Just be.
     
     
  #5260  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2009, 10:11 PM
jrochest jrochest is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by acron View Post
now back to the big picture. i love Dunkin Don's vision for the future... that big things will be built in our downtown. i agree that this will be an eventuality. however, doesn't it make sense to build the biggest buildings in the city on third avenue? i think i posted somethign on here to that effect before.. since most people probably want a cascading skyline from the river, wouldnt' it make sense to have third avenue as the street to build 30+ story sky scrapers? i think the city should be looking to decomission those 100 yearold buildings on third avenue and get that street ready time for BIG development, instead of pandering to small outlet shops who shouldn't even be operating on third avenue. if big development will go ahead i think 3rd avenue should remain as a six lane street! i think we should be looking at eliminating parking on that street altogether! that maybe an extreme suggestion.. but think about it, all the big cities have a "traffic only" street in their downtown core, don't they? our downtown is so congested for how small it is... i seriously think 2nd avenue is the worst street in canada. i feel like i'm in bangalore evertytime i'm forced to drive through it. i would hate for any street to suffer the fate of 2nd ave. this will hamper any major development in the downtown core. although many will disagree, but i want this city to grow like a modern metropolis, not aim at staying the size of north battleford. finally, i liek the idea of a pedestrian friendly street, and we have that - 21st street. i think 21st street is one of the nicest streets that define saskatoon. but i think too many pedestrian friendly streets will keep our downtown core limited to 4 story buildings.
Moving bus routes to 4th makes perfect sense if the point is improving traffic flow and making it easier to move more cars, traffic and heavy trucks through the downtown core. If the point is improving transit service, though, then I'd leave them on 3rd. Seriously: if I've bought a large, awkward object at Midtown plaza, do I really want to walk to 4th to catch the bus, putting it down every half-block? Transit should be located close to the area served: door-to-door is the ideal.

But eliminating parking on 3rd is a very good idea; build one high-traffic route through downtown (which would carry everything including buses) and then pedestrianize the other streets.

Most major shopping districts look like 2nd and 21st, not like 3rd: Yorkville, Queen West in TO, Robson, 4th and Granville Island in Vancouver, St. Mich and the Main in Montreal are all marked by small one-or-two story retail buildings with small shops. Huge, cold canyons with chain stores in the basement are the urban equivalent of big box malls: much less inviting.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:42 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.