Regina Construction IV

[gecho111]

Argyle / St Pius built to be compliant with new flag law. I wonder how long that change was on the government's radar.


Erosion control boulder work going on at Pinkie Bridge. Flat dirt area is for a future multiuse path. I'm not aware of any plans to expand the city west of Pinkie so I'm not expecting a path in my lifetime.

[POinDouglasPark]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

Just the Boothill neighbourhood is over 3000 people. Al Richie neighbour hood is well over 8000 people. Ninety more units won't even be noticed. This is classic BS NIMBYism.

Also, I don't know why people always point out Josh. The Winchester Group is primarily Rob Bresciani, Lori's husband. As long as she recuses herself it is literally irrelevant who the developer is.

If Rob is involved like you say that would be a conflict of interest according to Dan LeBlanc.

[CCF]

Originally Posted by POinDouglasPark

First post here,but well versed in certain narratives.If you lived on 20th Ave you would realize there is only two ways out on a very short street.

NIMBYs is not what we intended in our so called area,as many who spoke out in last night meeting said.We are all for responsible development.This is not one of those so called responsible developments.

If the Developer (The Winchester Group)Joshua Bresciani taken from his Linkedin page.
Is allowed to have this property zoned as a High Rise it could have grave results in the near future for all of Regina neighbourhoods not just Douglas Park.

Planning a neighbourhood is not a game of monopoly where the goal is to make as much money as possible.A neighbourhood has to have a balance that is created at the start.

I am wondering as a parent with a child in Douglas Park School that was built in 2013, since then it had to add portable classroom shortly after St.Andrews was closed in 2017. I think everyone here is smart enough to google who is on the Catholic School Board. So basic math, if your want urban planning and a influx of people in a area certain needs have to be in place.Schooling be at the top of the list and proper roads and supporting info structure also in place.

It was clearly pointed out in our meeting what parties are involved and what power the city counsel has in on making that choice.I am one that after the City that Rhymes with Fun embarrassment started to be aware of how the community can rally behind and change a bad decision.Regina is too small to hide all of the dirty little secrets,the truth always comes out at some point.

A 5-storey development in a mature neighbourhood is irresponsible? Based on what exactly?

Neighbourhoods are never "finished" - they are constantly changing. This proposal represents the next wave of evolution for this site and neighbourhood. Casing neighbourhoods in amber so that they can never evolve creates a plethora of problems at both the neighbourhood and broader community scale.

You mention that a neighbourhood needs "balance." Boot Hill lacks a balance of housing types (as in its predominantly single-dreamily dwellings) which limits who can live there. I agree that the neighbourhood needs a balance - specifically more balance in the housing types it offers. We need more development like this across the city, to balance who has an opportunity to live in neighbourhoods which have been relatively exclusionary through low-density zoning.

[CattyCommittee]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

Just the Boothill neighbourhood is over 3000 people. Al Richie neighbour hood is well over 8000 people. Ninety more units won't even be noticed. This is classic BS NIMBYism.

Also, I don't know why people always point out Josh. The Winchester Group is primarily Rob Bresciani, Lori's husband. As long as she recuses herself it is literally irrelevant who the developer is.

How is it classic NIMBYISM? A site zoned for a school is subject to a subdivision, a rezoning in use to allow for residential plus a discretionary use application... thats hardly what NIMBY's get going about in major centres. This isn't the Cathedral application where there is zoning in place to allow for the height and council chickens out on taking a stand.

There is no zoning, this isn't a transit route, this isn't a major arterial, this isn't a lot of anything. There is no commercial hub that would benefit the community, this is a land play pure and simple.

[CattyCommittee]

Originally Posted by CCF

A 5-storey development in a mature neighbourhood is irresponsible? Based on what exactly?

Neighbourhoods are never "finished" - they are constantly changing. This proposal represents the next wave of evolution for this site and neighbourhood. Casing neighbourhoods in amber so that they can never evolve creates a plethora of problems at both the neighbourhood and broader community scale.

You mention that a neighbourhood needs "balance." Boot Hill lacks a balance of housing types (as in its predominantly single-dreamily dwellings) which limits who can live there. I agree that the neighbourhood needs a balance - specifically more balance in the housing types it offers. We need more development like this across the city, to balance who has an opportunity to live in neighbourhoods which have been relatively exclusionary through low-density zoning.

so balance is...take a neighborhood with nothing in it for density and plop one of the densiest buildings possible on it? I hardly think that strikes me as "balance"

The site should be rezoned for density but arguing about balance is a bit of a troubling argument. This isn't a neighborhood with a slew of 3 story walk ups that are common in Lakeview, Albert Park, Al Ritchie etc etc. This is 100% single family and plopping a 5 story building in the middle of it does not strike me as a balance OR reasonable on the neighborhood regardless of the "housing crisis" that we supposedly have in a city with vacancy everywhere you turn.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by CattyCommittee

How is it classic NIMBYISM? A site zoned for a school is subject to a subdivision, a rezoning in use to allow for residential plus a discretionary use application... thats hardly what NIMBY's get going about in major centres. This isn't the Cathedral application where there is zoning in place to allow for the height and council chickens out on taking a stand.

There is no zoning, this isn't a transit route, this isn't a major arterial, this isn't a lot of anything. There is no commercial hub that would benefit the community, this is a land play pure and simple.

Just sound out what NIMBY means.

Your logic makes no sense. Your neighbourhood is one of the lease dense in the city. We have multifamily on narrower roads.

All you are saying is "we don't like people who live in apartments". Get wrecked.

[CCF]

Originally Posted by CattyCommittee

so balance is...take a neighborhood with nothing in it for density and plop one of the densiest buildings possible on it? I hardly think that strikes me as "balance"

The site should be rezoned for density but arguing about balance is a bit of a troubling argument. This isn't a neighborhood with a slew of 3 story walk ups that are common in Lakeview, Albert Park, Al Ritchie etc etc. This is 100% single family and plopping a 5 story building in the middle of it does not strike me as a balance OR reasonable on the neighborhood regardless of the "housing crisis" that we supposedly have in a city with vacancy everywhere you turn.

In what world is a 5-storey building "the densiest" possible building.....?

The City has goals and targets for intensification, as outlined in the OCP. This is what policy looks like on the ground.

[CattyCommittee]

Originally Posted by CCF

In what world is a 5-storey building "the densiest" possible building.....?

The City has goals and targets for intensification, as outlined in the OCP. This is what policy looks like on the ground.

I appreciate you bringing up the OCP.

A. the OCP does not target this neighborhood for meeting the intensification targets
B. the OCP highlights school properties for a different use than being proposed
C. the intensification goals are targeted to the Core Neighbourhoods
D. There is nothing about "good urban planning" about this proposal in its current form

Just we have done a horrendous job at planning neighbourhoods for the last 100 years doesn't mean we should just plop buildings down on any piece of land sitting there.

[CattyCommittee]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

Just sound out what NIMBY means.

Your logic makes no sense. Your neighbourhood is one of the lease dense in the city. We have multifamily on narrower roads.

All you are saying is "we don't like people who live in apartments". Get wrecked.

very eloquent and mature. I bring up rationale points and somehow you translate that to "we don't like people who live in apartments" get wrecked...

Neighborhoods that were PLANNED to have multi-family with OTHER services, not just plopping a residential building in the middle of a neighborhood for the sake of it because we are so scared that we won't get anymore in-fill proposals if we turn this down...the logic is flawed and reactionary, which leads to long term issues

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by gecho111

It does go to Winnipeg Street, it just happens to change names at McDonald.

I was more hinting that the area is blocked by the Ring Road and the Park. It isn't a through route to anywhere so not really useful outside of local residents.

[CCF]

Originally Posted by CattyCommittee

I appreciate you bringing up the OCP.

A. the OCP does not target this neighborhood for meeting the intensification targets
B. the OCP highlights school properties for a different use than being proposed
C. the intensification goals are targeted to the Core Neighbourhoods
D. There is nothing about "good urban planning" about this proposal in its current form

Just we have done a horrendous job at planning neighbourhoods for the last 100 years doesn't mean we should just plop buildings down on any piece of land sitting there.

Incorrect.
All of the neighbourhoods within the ring road fall within the intensification area. Don't believe me? Here you go:
https://www.reddit.com/r/regina/comm...erate_housing/

You keep repeating that this isn't "good urban planning" - based on what? Opinion? Doesn't make it so.

Building and preserving neighbourhood as low-density is what constitutes "bad urban planning" in the present era and over the last three decades.

[The mayor]

Originally Posted by CCF

Incorrect.
All of the neighbourhoods within the ring road fall within the intensification area. Don't believe me? Here you go:
https://www.reddit.com/r/regina/comm...erate_housing/

You keep repeating that this isn't "good urban planning" - based on what? Opinion? Doesn't make it so.

Building and preserving neighbourhood as low-density is what constitutes "bad urban planning" in the present era and over the last three decades.

Who are these idiots protesting this development like how dumb can they be? This is a beautiful project. Like Regina’s becoming a backwards hillbilly town.

[Dougler306]

Def NIMBYISM forsure! The renders of the building are nice and in the description they even lowered it from 7 to 5 stories which is a disappointment all in itself. Added underground parking, like what more can you ask for. Sorry ppl of Douglas Park that you csnt keep your 100ft×40ft lots all to yourself....sad and embarrassing. Apartments like this all over Calgary. Let's get more of it

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by Dougler306

Def NIMBYISM forsure! The renders of the building are nice and in the description they even lowered it from 7 to 5 stories which is a disappointment all in itself. Added underground parking, like what more can you ask for. Sorry ppl of Douglas Park that you csnt keep your 100ft×40ft lots all to yourself....sad and embarrassing. Apartments like this all over Calgary. Let's get more of it

We definitely need more. I'm hopeful for the lot across from the shops on Hill Avenue. I live within spitting distance and would love to see what was originally proposed on 13th/Elphinstone go there.

What's worse is in my neighbourhood, lots have been aggregated into gigantic single family homes. The one on South Kinsmen should definitely have at least been row houses.

[LuluBobo]

If you took this building, or the one by the Hospital, and just duplicated it like 20 or like 30 times we would be a much better city.

Vic Ave and Edgar
13th Ave and Halifax
13th Ave and Angus
14th Ave and Lorne
711 on Hill Avenue

Add some shops too

[gecho111]

The secluded nature of Douglas Park makes it ideal for higher density. Since it is tucked away all traffic is local traffic, which makes traffic volume much lower than most neighborhoods which also have to deal with through traffic.


Some most pics of the art installation in Eastbrook from today. The trunk didn't have wood on it last week. https://imgur.com/a/Xm4S72e

[CattyCommittee]

Originally Posted by CCF

Incorrect.
All of the neighbourhoods within the ring road fall within the intensification area. Don't believe me? Here you go:
https://www.reddit.com/r/regina/comm...erate_housing/

You keep repeating that this isn't "good urban planning" - based on what? Opinion? Doesn't make it so.

Building and preserving neighbourhood as low-density is what constitutes "bad urban planning" in the present era and over the last three decades.

yes. I generally use Reddit a source of information...NOT...Read the City of Regina ZONING BYLAWS and OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN.

If we want to discuss the motion, I applaud it, its about time. However it has NO bearing on this application in its current form, or frankly in a future form if this MOTION was created and turned into a Zoning Amendment to the Zoning Bylaws.

A. This is NOT within 400m of main transit route.
B. This is not within 800m of any conceivable future rapid transit service.
C. The motion that is currently going before council for Vote, keep in mind this is a motion to DIRECT STAFF NOT Zoning BYLAWS.
D. IF this site for some odd reason fell within the direction of this MOTION it would be limited to 4 Stories, NOT 5 as proposed.
E. I'd refer you to the City of Regina OCP of which this neighborhood is not noted as a core urban neighborhood highlighted for densification.
F. 5 Story luxury condos are NOT the definition of Missing Middle Housing
G. IF this application was submitted on the knowledge of this motion going forward and somehow providing the ability to mass approve projects like this that would only add fuel to the rumor fire.

[CCF]

Originally Posted by CattyCommittee

yes. I generally use Reddit a source of information...NOT...Read the City of Regina ZONING BYLAWS and OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN.

If we want to discuss the motion, I applaud it, its about time. However it has NO bearing on this application in its current form, or frankly in a future form if this MOTION was created and turned into a Zoning Amendment to the Zoning Bylaws.

A. This is NOT within 400m of main transit route.
B. This is not within 800m of any conceivable future rapid transit service.
C. The motion that is currently going before council for Vote, keep in mind this is a motion to DIRECT STAFF NOT Zoning BYLAWS.
D. IF this site for some odd reason fell within the direction of this MOTION it would be limited to 4 Stories, NOT 5 as proposed.
E. I'd refer you to the City of Regina OCP of which this neighborhood is not noted as a core urban neighborhood highlighted for densification.
F. 5 Story luxury condos are NOT the definition of Missing Middle Housing
G. IF this application was submitted on the knowledge of this motion going forward and somehow providing the ability to mass approve projects like this that would only add fuel to the rumor fire.

There is a lot of very incorrect information in this post.

If you clicked the Reddit link - which if you're concerned about credibility, was posted by Paul Dechene who has as much if not more credibility on this topic than anyone, you would see that the map he posted is from the City of Regina. If you were to look at the map, you would see see that this neighbourhood and site is very clearly within the intensification boundary (i.e., where intensification is to occur)

You are misinformed about the intensification targets and areas, which are:
- 10,000 new residents in the city centre (5,000 downtown; 5,000 in 'The Yards' and 'Taylor Field' neighbourhoods; 5,000 elsewhere in the city centre)
- 10,000 new residents across the remainder of the intensification area, which basically includes all neighbourhoods.

The City Centre is to absorb 50% of intensification, with 50% going to other mature neighbourhoods.

Don't believe me? Here you go:
https://reginask.iqm2.com/Citizens/D...ass=&Print=Yes

[cityboy]

Originally Posted by gecho111

The secluded nature of Douglas Park makes it ideal for higher density. Since it is tucked away all traffic is local traffic, which makes traffic volume much lower than most neighborhoods which also have to deal with through traffic.


Some most pics of the art installation in Eastbrook from today. The trunk didn't have wood on it last week. https://imgur.com/a/Xm4S72e

Thanks for the pics! It's 5 minutes from my house, I should take a walk over. I haven't had a look since the day of the park opening. That must be Corten steel as it looks to have oxidized already from your last pic.

[The mayor]

https://www.620ckrm.com/2023/11/07/c...ew-facilities/
Co-Op Offering Open House on New Facilities
Federated Co-Op is holding an open house today, to talk about their proposed renewable diesel plant, and a canola crusher in partnership with AGT Foods.

Is any one going to this $2 billion proposal