Regina Construction

[crooked rain]

Originally Posted by Chaps

How have I not heard about this??? I work in that building.

That's pretty cool though...that intersection has two parking lots on the corners. One down, one to go.

I wouldn't expect retail at all. It will be a lifeless building if it's housing generators. But it will be better than a parking lot.

This is one of those cases in which I am not sure a building would be better than a parking lot. Those telephone technology buildings seem to be anti-social buildings that create a hostile street environment. It is too bad it will take up prime space on 11th Ave.

[crooked rain]

Originally Posted by yorktonite

$60-80 million for renovations? I'm probably part of the minority on this but if $60-80 million is being spent on renovations then they minds well go for the home run and build new. Build a 35,000 seat domed stadium that can serve it's purpose 365 days a year. This would really put Regina on the map for major concerts, conventions and events. It would be the only one of it's kind between Toronto and Vancouver. Just need $$$.

I don't know if I agree a dome is a wise investment for a small city, but I agree that the renovations are much needed. That stadium needs a lot of work to be comparable to other stadiums such as McMahon or Commonwealth.

[Moe]

Originally Posted by Migs

Did I say the city was paying the entire amount???

Did I say, you did?

[Moe]

Originally Posted by crooked rain

I don't know if I agree a dome is a wise investment for a small city, but I agree that the renovations are much needed. That stadium needs a lot of work to be comparable to other stadiums such as McMahon or Commonwealth.

Why do we need to keep up with the Jones?

[Moe]

Here's a good read.

http://www.regina.ca/pdfs/meeting_agenda/2008_DE08-17_DE08-17.pdf

[CCF]

Originally Posted by Moe

Here's a good read.

http://www.regina.ca/pdfs/meeting_agenda/2008_DE08-17_DE08-17.pdf

Thanks for that. Good read.

The CCFR sure has made some positive contributions in the past year.

[Moe]

Originally Posted by CCF

Thanks for that. Good read.

The CCFR sure has made some positive contributions in the past year.

It really outlines the fact that even though the current council derided Jim and the CCFR for their ideas, they have implemented a large part of the policies that they criticized. Even public supporters of most of the current council, like the Chamber, are on side for all of these policies. They also were critical of Jim and the other candidates.

I give council kudos for realizing that their platform were inferior and adopted the much better CCFR way. I was a major part of the CCFR and a candidate, but have since moved away. With no media coverage of the CCFR, I have not seen nor heard of their activities in the last year. Could you bring me up to speed?

[caveat.doctor]

Originally Posted by Migs

Likely a mix of some public money (given that the city owns the stadium)

Last year I mentioned the US Congress Subcommittee on Domestic Policy was studying whether government funding for professional sport stadiums was diverting funds from things like critical public infrastructure. The hearings are now online under the Waste, Fraud and Abuse section.

They already know that "academic research on the value to economic development, however, has universally concluded that sports stadiums, convention centers and hotels do not increase economic activity in downtown areas."

There's a good review article in the journal Contemporary Economic Policy last October that went over what's already proven: Stadiums and arenas: economic development or economic redistribution. Some highlights:

The broad conclusion of this literature is that stadiums and franchises are ineffective means to creating local economic development

-

The most basic question in the research about stadiums, arenas, and sports franchises is the extent to which these contribute to the vitality of the local economy. The literature on this issue is of two basic types: the ex ante economic impact study and the ex post econometric analysis. The economic impact studies invariably suggest that there are large benefits from stadium and arena construction. The consensus of the ex post studies is that there is little convincing evidence for large income and job creation benefits attributed to stadiums; rather the evidence largely points to there being none of those benefits.

-

Baade, Baumann, and Matheson (2005) used monthly sales tax data, and Lavoie and Rodriguez (2005) turned to monthly hotel occupancy rates in Canadian cities to focus on a less aggregate measure of economic activity that may be linked to sporting events. Neither study produces strong evidence for the effects of the sporting environment on its dependent variable. ...
professional sports and stadiums and arenas are unlikely to be effective economic development tools because they are tiny parts of the aggregate economy

-

Zimmerman (1997) noted that one public benefit of professional sports is the "satisfaction people get from living in a ‘big league’ town, from having another topic of conversation that is common to most citizens, from reading about its successes and failures in the newspaper, and the like." The value of these unmeasured benefits is important for judging whether subsidies for sports franchises are warranted.

Naturally, measuring the value is difficult and subject to substantial uncertainty. In this section, I discuss alternative means of measuring this value both conceptually and practically. Before turning to that discussion, I point out how much of what may be benefits of "world-class" city status may be addressed in the literature on job and income creation effects.

One of the benefits of world-class city status is that the city is more attractive to businesses seeking to open new or expanded operations. The theoretical argument is that businesses wish to locate in places that potential or relocating employees will find attractive. An important attraction of any location, the argument continues, is the presence of major league sports. This aspect of world-class city status is, of course, evaluated in the literature that finds little evidence that stadiums and professional sports franchises generate large benefits in job and income growth. Consequently, on these grounds, there is little benefit in being a world-class city.

The second aspect of world-class city status is that the appearances on national, and even international, television are good advertising for the city. Whether spending tens or hundreds of millions of dollars for stadium construction to acquire that exposure makes sense depends on the cost of advertising time and the frequency and duration of those views of the city. A quick look at the evidence suggests, however, that there are more cost-effective ways of advertising the city. For example, Gaebler Ventures, which explains the costs of national television advertisements on its Web site (http://www.gaebler.com/Television-Advertising-Costs.htm), reports that the typical 30-sec national spot costs $350,000 to produce and more than $100,000 for the airtime. Obviously, one ad can be produced and aired dozens of times nationally for a fraction of the cost of a $200–$600 million stadium. Indeed, a city could purchase one 30-sec spot on the broadcast of the 2006 Super Bowl at a price of $2.5 million, around one-hundredth of the cost of a new stadium for its football or baseball franchise. Regardless of the cost-effectiveness of stadiums as sources of advertising, these advertising benefits are touted as a valuable means of conveying to the nation and the world that the city has a bright future with a vibrant business environment. Businesses are supposed to be attracted to this city as are conventions and conferences and tourists. Consequently, if the argument is correct, the free advertising the stadium generates should also produce job and income creation. Again, there is little evidence that stadiums and professional sports enhance job and income growth.

-

Consider the third aspect of the world-class or "big league" city argument. People find professional sports a valuable amenity in a community in the same way that clean air, good public schools, and low crime are desirable attributes of a city. Consequently, people will pay more for housing or will accept lower wages to live and work there. The greater demand for housing or supply of labor may be a consequence of the "common topic of conversation," bringing the city together, making it a community, or simply the value of reading about the team’s "successes and failures in the newspaper."

Calculations of this sort, combining the consumer surplus from attendance at professional sporting events with the public benefits from having stadiums and franchises, suggest that there are circumstances that justify public subsidies. If the attendees who obtain consumer surplus benefits are different from those who pay the taxes that support the subsidy, then despite the overall value to society of the franchise and stadium, the policy remains one of redistributing income away from taxpayers to sports fans.

-

Measures of the consumer surplus and public benefits of stadiums and franchises are often substantial. As large as these benefits are, rough calculations indicate that they are not necessarily large enough to justify subsidies of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Emphasis added - all in all, it's not to say that renovating the stadium, or building a new one, isn't a good idea (nicer and safer buildings are always good), but just that it's proven that it's a poor investment of tax money.

[caveat.doctor]

Originally Posted by Moe

Here's a good read.

http://www.regina.ca/pdfs/meeting_agenda/2008_DE08-17_DE08-17.pdf

That's an excellent read, good find. These are the sort of things that should be daily headlines in the L-P, everyone should be aware of what Regina's missing out on:

- disastrous impact of the zero increase policies in reduced capital spending and reserve depletion

- we have dramatically lower reserves than our sister cities in Western Canada

- the zero tax increase policy resulted in very low capital spending at a time when construction material and labour costs were relatively low. We are now forced to address our infrastructure deficiencies in a superheated economy where our tax dollars buy much less

- the zero-increase years are now proving very expensive. A policy of small regular tax increases would have avoided these tax shocks

- City Council has continued its peculiar policy of reducing the share of City expenses carried by business. In most Canadian cities business taxes comprise about one half (49.3%) of City revenue. In Regina, however, business now pays only about 36% of the total taxes, residential properties paying 64%. Regina could have the second-lowest municipal taxes of the 24 surveyed services if business paid its share of taxes. If Regina shared taxes equally between business and residential tax payers (as it is in most Canadian cities) the municipal taxes on an average home would drop b 24% to $961, just slightly more than Calgary, where business pays 49.5% of the taxes. Now is the time to make the shift, Saskatchewan predicted to lead the country in economic growth

- The City also needs to stop subsidizing land developers. The City faces additional costs of $1400 per house for the South West and South east Developments. l2 The City needs to recoup all the costs of new developments from the developers, who stand to profit handsomely from today's hot real estate market.

- We note with appreciation, and a little amusement, that City Council has now adopted a number of CCFR policy items which many Council members opposed or said were impossible

- The City currently subsidizes about 50% of transit costs, but effectively subsidizes 100% of private vehicle travel through street construction and maintenance and, traffic policing

- We could stop taxing home renovations as long as the home is occupied by the renovator. This part of the assessment seems to generate very little tax revenue. Encouraging renovation would improve the attractiveness of existing housing stock and encourage a more compact urban form

Would be neat to see how the Mayor/Council will respond to this - they're all like "well, duh" things that make no sense not to do. Someone please attend Mr Holmes' presentation and let us know how it goes!

[ReginaGuy]

I agree with most of those points, except for this one:

"The City currently subsidizes about 50% of transit costs, but effectively subsidizes 100% of private vehicle travel through street construction and maintenance and, traffic policing"

I had no idea that driving was completely free now!

[caveat.doctor]

Originally Posted by ReginaGuy

I agree with most of those points, except for this one:

"The City currently subsidizes about 50% of transit costs, but effectively subsidizes 100% of private vehicle travel through street construction and maintenance and, traffic policing"

I had no idea that driving was completely free now!

Yeah, kind of wonky phrasing - I think their point is, whereas transit is made to rely on user fees (fares), for drivers the City covers the cost of streets and traffic mgmt. Of course, bus riders and cyclists and pedestrians benefit too from infrastructure, but the City could do more (eg 1c gas tax for infrastructure, etc - like a user fee).

Originally Posted by Chaps

I wouldn't expect retail at all. It will be a lifeless building if it's housing generators.

Even if it has to be a monolithic closed block, they can put some effort into it. Quick Google Image search for similar buildings:


Dal Grauer Substation, Vancouver
(Photo: The Tyee)


Electrical substation, Innsbruck
(Photo: e-architect.co.uk)


Commonweath Edison substation, Chicago
(Photo: chicagoarchitecture.info)

Things like prefab concrete and lighting can be played around with to make it something more interesting - if Reginans were inclined to have some design standards it could be neat.


Electrabel Power Station, Drogenbos, Belgium
(Photo: Magic Monkey)


2 Columbus Circle, New York City
(Photo: Wikipedia)

[MadMax]

Originally Posted by Migs

Mayor Fiacco just mentioned on the Wolf104.9 that the Mosaic Stadium renovations will likely total $60-80 million dollars and once the renderings are released, it will look like a brand new stadium.

That said, I've always said since day 1 that the Riders should go the way of the Chicago Bears, Green Bay Packers, Harvard University, etc and expand on what we currently have for tradition, heritage, as well as overall atmosphere. Nobody can deny that the Mosaic Stadium experience far surpasses any other stadium in the CFL for atmosphere alone, so why not build on that??? Of course it won't be at the same luxury level as the new stadiums in GreenBay and Chicago, but this is a very big chunck of change and will in fact go a long ways into renovating our great stadium into the modern era. Great news for all Riders fans and citizens of Regina!!!

Chris White also asked if the rumours of a new tower for downtown are true and the answer was absolutely and went on to say numerous developers are interested and existing businesses are interested in expanding. I suppose he could be talking about FCC possibly building a second tower.

He said the population estimate for Regina is 250,000 within a decade but that could change the way things are going. In yesterday's LP it mentioned our population is expected to grow by 1.8% this year, bringing the city's population to 205,000 from 202,000 last year.

So Harvard Landing is supposed to be home to 10,000 people when completed in 7 to 10 years? At the current rate, can't see that being a problem at all.

[CCF]

Originally Posted by Moe

It really outlines the fact that even though the current council derided Jim and the CCFR for their ideas, they have implemented a large part of the policies that they criticized. Even public supporters of most of the current council, like the Chamber, are on side for all of these policies. They also were critical of Jim and the other candidates.

I give council kudos for realizing that their platform were inferior and adopted the much better CCFR way. I was a major part of the CCFR and a candidate, but have since moved away. With no media coverage of the CCFR, I have not seen nor heard of their activities in the last year. Could you bring me up to speed?

I saw a lot of promise in the CCFR's platform. I was particularly encouraged by their demand for smart growth. They still host meetings rather frequently I believe. I think they highlighted their contributions pretty well in that PDF there....can't say I have much to add.

One idea of theirs they did not mention was the free wireless. That was first introduced by the CCFR candidate for Cathedral I believe.

[CCF]

Originally Posted by MadMax

So Harvard Landing is supposed to be home to 10,000 people when completed in 7 to 10 years? At the current rate, can't see that being a problem at all.

Still though, I believe now is a better time than ever to start diversifying the types of housing we have. Plenty of space and potential in the Warehouse district. Other cities have thriving heritage districts (e.g. Vancouver's Gastown) and I'd like to see the same for Regina!

Secondly, if we are building new subdivisions, lets at least plan them appropriately and efficiently.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by Moe

Did I say, you did?

Not in so many words but you did say this.....

Moe said:
That is 1/3 of the annual expenses of the city. How much will taxpayers being paying towards this "upgrade"? It seems that the stadium gets an "upgrade" every year.

If the city covers this completely, you are looking at a 30% increase in property taxes. How many people would be willing to pay that much?

Why would you imply the city would be footing the entire bill when everyone knows that wouldn't be the case?

[Migs]

Wow I wish I was able to attend the pubic forum of the downtown revitalization plan. Hopefully it becomes a reality.

http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/n...fcfd-1bd2-4e06-b938-8406ac3eff20&k=27868

Revitalization plan creates enthusiasm

Anne Kyle, Leader-Post
Published: Thursday, April 17, 2008

Regina residents were wowed by the draft plan for a revitalized downtown that would be pedestrian friendly, green, culturally and socially vibrant and a place where people can live, work and play.

"It is unbelievably fantastic. It looks like there is money to be made. There is a city to be made civilized. It's beautiful and if it doesn't happen it would be a crime against the citizens of Regina,'' said Stephen Whitworth, who lives and works downtown.

"What I liked about it (draft downtown plan) was the way all the different ideas worked together to create something that was greater than the parts. So the residential is critical, the walkability is critical, the cycling is critical.''

Created by OfficeforUrbanism, the Toronto-based consulting firm hired by the city to come up with a vision for a revitalized downtown, the project calls for the transformation of two blocks on 12th Avenue -- between Lorne and Scarth Street -- into a town square where festivals and activities can be held adjacent to Victoria Park.

The draft plan unveiled by Jennifer Keesmaat, OfficeforUrbanism's project lead, at Wednesday's public open house, would see 11th and 12th Avenue returned to two-way traffic with wider sidewalks and cycling lanes to encourage more pedestrian traffic downtown.

"We are going to narrow the lanes and make the sidewalks wider so that it is a better experience for pedestrians so that it is desirable to walk around the downtown core,'' Keesmaat said.

"This has all sorts of benefits -- this means retail is going to flourish in the downtown on a whole new scale because retail in a downtown environment thrives on pedestrian traffic,''

Victoria Park would be the jewel of the downtown redevelopment with existing and new buildings in the downtown core opening up their ground-level floors for residential and retail purposes providing a more inviting and safe walking environment.

The plan also includes residential buffer zones -- condo, loft, townhouse development -- created along Albert Street, Saskatchewan Drive and Broad Street with Victoria Avenue being redesigned into a landscaped ceremonial boulevard.

"Another significant idea we are talking about is how do you start creating a more urban downtown,'' Keesmaat said.

"We are proposing the infrastructure that is going to make it possible to make the downtown flourish in the future and create a sense of community.

"Getting a residential population living in the downtown is going to begin to make it possible to have that grocery store that everyone is asking for. It is going to bring theatres back downtown. It means arts and cultural groups are going to be able to thrive in downtown in a whole new level.''

Keesmaat also suggested that the cafeteria in city hall be moved to the front of the building and opened up so that tables spill out onto the square encouraging the area to become an all-season gathering place.

Another possibility is redeveloping the existing library space by using public and private funds to build a high-rise condo building with library facilities on the ground level with a mid-block connecting pathway between city hall and Victoria Park.

Making better use of the space at city hall, developing some of the old heritage buildings on Broad Street into residential complexes, making the downtown more pedestrian and cycle-friendly received a nod of approval from Terry Chadwick.

Chadwick said his only question is who is going to foot the bill for these proposed changes.

On Friday between 1:30 and 3 p.m. the city and OfficeforUrbanism will present its findings from its action-planning workshops and the public forum at a media event at Knox-Metropolitan Church.

[Planner2008]

Originally Posted by Chaps

Yup...that's dreaming. Considering what the building is going to house, and considering the size of the building and the size of the current parking lot...I don't anticipate this building to even make a difference on that corner. It will be set back behind a bit of parking, facing Lorne St. Quite possibly might not even have it's own entrance considering the 1855 entrance is on the north side of the existing building.

Here's to hoping I'm wrong!

Here's to hoping you're wrong too... This corner could be one of Regina;s downtown cornerstones.. Let't hope, let's dream, and lets SPEAK UP!

[BrannyMuffin]

That downtown plan sounds exciting!

[Moe]

Originally Posted by ReginaGuy

I agree with most of those points, except for this one:

"The City currently subsidizes about 50% of transit costs, but effectively subsidizes 100% of private vehicle travel through street construction and maintenance and, traffic policing"

I had no idea that driving was completely free now!

They could put up toll booths.

[Moe]

Originally Posted by CCF

I saw a lot of promise in the CCFR's platform. I was particularly encouraged by their demand for smart growth. They still host meetings rather frequently I believe. I think they highlighted their contributions pretty well in that PDF there....can't say I have much to add.

One idea of theirs they did not mention was the free wireless. That was first introduced by the CCFR candidate for Cathedral I believe.

That idea was taken by the provincial government,has it been completed yet?