Regina Construction

[CCF]

More in regards to the plan:

http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=41813499-8058-4991-aa94-037151618bda

Proposal includes advocate for area
Pamela Cowan, Leader-Post
Published: Saturday, April 19, 2008

The creation of a downtown advocate is one of the ideas that are "hot off the press" from this week's consultations with Reginans about revitalizing the downtown.

"We heard that when a non-profit group goes to host a festival in the downtown, they get money from the Regina Arts Council, who distributes the funding from the city, and then they will go to the city in order to get the permits that they require and all of the money they just received will end up going to parks and to roads and to permits -- they really need an advocate," said Jennifer Keesmaat, the project lead for OfficeforUrbanism, the Toronto-based consulting firm hired by the city to renew downtown Regina.

"One of the things that we'll also be proposing is the waiving of fees for not-for-profit organizations that want to do any kind of event in the downtown. That's a great thing the city can do to support arts organizations undertaking initiatives in the downtown."
Email to a friendEmail to a friendPrinter friendlyPrinter friendly
Font:

* *
* *
* *
* *

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

She believes a downtown advocate could liaise between community groups, businesses and city hall bureaucracy.

Another proposal she presented at Forum 2 on Friday afternoon is to create an urban forest downtown, which would create interest in the landscape and cut down on wind.

"One of the reasons that the winds are so bad downtown is because you really don't have any tree cover," Keesmaat said.

Mayor Pat Fiacco expects Reginans will share his excitement about the proposals -- work he said should have been done 30 years ago.

He likens the prospective transformation to that in Montreal.

"Old Montreal was abandoned, it was vacant and the urban planners did a tremendous job of converting a number of the vacant commercial properties to residential, keeping the main floor commercial entities," he said.

"There's a tremendous number of art galleries, places for arts and culture and outdoor patios. Their town square is absolutely incredible. It's a people place and that's what this plan speaks to. Making it a bit more pedestrian friendly is important and something I'm all for is making it cyclist friendly."

Participation from the private sector is vital to ensure the plan's success, he said.

"We're going to be asking them to do things differently with their design and how they do business," he said. "We're talking about wider sidewalks -- that's a winner for everybody but that means that they're going to have to look at their development and do things differently."

Keesmaat said many changes would be low cost.

City council has committed $5 million over the next five years for basic infrastructure improvements.

"We will always balance our decisions based on what the taxpayers can afford," Fiacco said.

"I think that we demonstrated that with this last budget. It's all based on priorities as we move forward. I think our council has made the determination that our downtown is a priority for us and the budget will reflect that."

He liked the concept of a downtown advocate because it fits with city council's vision of customer service.

"We want a one-stop shop so with downtown activity it makes absolute sense that we have that," he said.

OfficeforUrbanism will further refine the key ideas for the third and final forum, which is to be held in June. The final Downtown Plan is to be presented to city council later this summer.

[Migs]

I'm loving the Mayors enthusiasm with this plan and the overall direction of the downtown area. And I agree with Keesmaat when she says we should create an urban forest. (plants tree's all over the freakin place, especially on Sask Drive, Broad Street, and Albert)

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by Migs

I'm loving the Mayors enthusiasm with this plan and the overall direction of the downtown area. And I agree with Keesmaat when she says we should create an urban forest. (plants tree's all over the freakin place, especially on Sask Drive, Broad Street, and Albert)

I cannot agree more. The advantages of trees are too numerous to mention. It drives me crazy when I see stretches of sidewalk downtown that have paving stone sections for tree planting but no trees. Think Hill Twins - no trees. FCC 11th Ave - no trees. New Federal building - supposedly LEEDs compliant - no trees....

[caveat.doctor]

Originally Posted by someguy

In order to look towards the future, we need to look at where we were in the past....look at how great Downtown Regina was 40 years ago...prior to post modernist architecture taking over....we HAD a great little city.

I don't think "post modernist architecture taking over" is to blame for Downtown becoming less important over the past 40 years, but rather the shifts away from Downtown as Regina's centre for retail, work, entertainment, etc. Generally, Regina's Downtown buildings are good quality examples of the styles popular when they were built, everything from the old Post Office to the Reed-Stenhouse to the Dominion Govt Bldg to the Central Library to SaskPower to the Avord Tower to the McCallum-Hill towers. The new bus depot also looks like some thought went into it. Whether one likes their respective styles or not is a matter of taste; but they are at least representative of their times. Too bad we lost the old City Hall, and the neon-lit storefronts of the 30s-50s.

Where Regina architecture dropped the ball is with the Wingate and Broad St Crossing - generic, clone buildings, with no particular architectural effort to them at all. It's buildings like that don't contribute to the richness of the skyline - they just take up space (and critical street corners, at that) that could've been used for good design.

Originally Posted by someguy

I don't think it helps at all that the chair of Regina Planning Commission is also a Regina City Councilor, is also the president of the Saskatchewan Construction Association, is also on the board of directors of Enterprise Saskatchewan...he wears too many hats, and the interests of each party he represents potentially contradicts the interests of the other. I have a feeling that the president of the SCA is going to be very pro-development, no matter what the cost of the development is. He is also a very convincing man, and has a way about him to influence some of the weaker councilors.

Interesting. If that's the case, then perhaps that explains a lot... though I can't blame him for representing his constitutents' interests (unrestricted, unfettered construction), that's his job as a politician. Rather, it's the fault of other councillors for not keeping on the ball with best practices in other cities.

Maybe it's time Regina had civic political parties like Canada's major cities, so that there were clear platforms and expectations of councillors when they're elected. That could reduce the "influence" one person could have on the rest, if councillors could be held accountable to policies they promise beforehand to advance.

Originally Posted by Migs

I'm loving the Mayors enthusiasm with this plan

It's nice to see, I agree; but it's also important to see it in the context of the lost opportunities Downtown during his administration. As mentioned in the L-P article, this is "work he said should have been done 30 years ago": work that's all the more difficult given the residential, retail and entertainment shifts away from Downtown, particularly over the 8 years since he became Mayor.

I don't mean to minimise the importance or value of this plan, or of the Mayor/Council's support - just a reminder that these are all things that could have been done years earlier, and would have been easier to implement, had the City been more responsible with controlling development. This is not so much visionary, but rather damage control, trying to overcome the losses over the past decade.

Part of developing a culture of responsibility in government is holding politicians accountable; if the Mayor/Council receive nothing but praise for the Downtown Plan, without considering their role in allowing Downtown to decline in the first place - and this during an economic boom, of all times - Regina will be all the weaker to detect and prevent bad decision-making in future, and hold itself to higher standards.

[CCF]

Aegean Coast Coffee is for sale.

[Planner2008]

Originally Posted by caveat.doctor

This was extensively discussed earlier in this forum when the idea of switching from one-way to two-ways came up. The reasons you bring up aren't necessarily as absolute as they sound - sometimes they would help, sometimes not. I mention some research on my posts there, but if you have anything else to back up what you're suggesting, please share.

(Incidentally, as you know Victoria is mostly one-way within the Downtown (Gov't St, Pandora St, Yates St, Fort St etc)


(Photo: me)

with two-ways at the periphery (Wharf St, Quadra St, Blanshard St etc). As are most Downtowns in Canada - a mix.)



By small alleys you mean like Fan Tan Alley? I get my haircuts at the Chinese barber shop in there - great place to watch the passing parades:








(Photos: me)

Might be hard to replicate that as many businesses would demand front parking access... or even if they didn't, developers would just build that way anyway (eg Broad St Crossing). Are there any buildings in Regina with an alley that could do this?



Yes, definitely more paths - in and of themselves they become attractions no matter where they lead. Eg Victoria Galloping Goose Trail (my commute to/from work):










(Photos: me)

Rooftop patios could work too - would go along nicely with green roofs, eg Victoria Douglas St:


(Photo: me)

Even if not patios, just having restaurants setting up tables right on the sidewalk would do - no need for separated patios. Eg Victoria Chinatown:






(Photos: me)

That Tim Hortons in Broad St Crossing could've been set up like this, for example. Just a bylaw saying "No surface parking Downtown" and "Build to the corner" would've done it.

And simple things like banners: simple, because it's the colour and motion of the banners that makes the ambience, not what the banners actually say. Eg, instead of those "shop/dine/etc Downtown", just plaster the streets with colour and patterns that will mean Downtown, rather than just state obvious advertising messages. Like






(Photos: me)

Similarly, large green fluttering victorious banners would've been more appropriate for Albert St than small motionless "The Green Mile" signs in a dull staid serif font.

And instead of back alley graffiti, poetry:


(Photo: me)

And instead of cracked concrete, paving stones and art:


(Photo: me)

And on transformer boxes and storage containers, more art:


(Photo: me)

One thing Victoria does too is design guidelines. (Anyone who has read my posts before I'm sure saw this coming.) More than just guidelines for the city in general, there are even specific rules for almost every neighbourhood in town ("Designated Development Permit Areas"). It's a way to ensure subdivisions do not become generic cookie cutter copies of one another. (Maybe having a Mayor who is an architect is helpful too.)

I really like this one though:



That's right, the entire City for increased density, and rules about density that prevail over all other guidelines... and rules about heritage preservation that prevail over that. Not to say that modern buildings can't go up, eg smack in the middle of the remaining original industrial inner harbour boat yard:



Even in new construction suburbs (the Victoria-area version of South Albert St) you see the density at work:








(Photos: me)

The point: I can't help but keep asking the rhetorical question - why does Regina not have design guidelines? The outcomes are so much better when you have them - and it's not like the City doesn't know they could do this. Just a matter of Googling around and seeing what the rest of the country's cities are doing.

I have to say in general what I said was my opinion.. The two advantages Victoria has with their downtown is 1) wider streets, though alot are 1 ways, eg. 5 lanes wide with parking lanes, still boasting wider sidewalks than Regina! 2) The situation of downtown, most suburb areas, and connecting communites are situated To the East, North East, North, North West, and very little other than that. It's not as central as Regina's downtown. Being central like in Regina should've made for wider arteries, whether one or twoway, Victoria has an advantage here!!

Other than that I miss one of my other homes, sucks you guys got snow in the last 24 hrs, must of made for some real fun, as usually these incidents do in Victoria and the lower mainland

[A4Regina]

Here's a video i just found on BNN (from the saskaboom series) , it talks about the boom here in regina & saskatoon. Also, Mayor Pat and Don is interviewed.

Quite a few eye catching shots of Regina also .

Click here for the vid.

[babo]

Off topic:

Originally Posted by A4Regina

Here's a video i just found on BNN (from the saskaboom series) , it talks about the boom here in regina & saskatoon. Also, Mayor Pat and Don is interviewed.

Quite a few eye catching shots of Regina also.

Click here for the vid.

Sorry, your OS is not supported! Excellent! What sort of proprietary video format are they using that they don't think the twelve of us who don't use Microsoft/Apple operating systems can't handle? I suppose I could muck about with the useragent override setting as I think that's how they are sniffing the dozen ne're-do-wells out.

[cityboy]

First off I'd like to point out that I agree with everyone else in that I think Broad Street Crossing looks like suburban crap. But in regards to it being set back from the street, lets not forget they reused the newer portion of the Army and Navy. I'm not sure they could have brought it up to the street and still reused the orginal building, without making it twice as big and leaving new room at all for surface parking. In the event that they couldn't, which is preferable: Good , urban sreetscapes or adaptive reuse? ...Don't eve nget me started on the bland stucco. Hell, even Co Op on Albert is using some brick.

[cityboy]

make that "no" room

[yorktonite]

Originally Posted by babo

Off topic:

Sorry, your OS is not supported! Excellent! What sort of proprietary video format are they using that they don't think the twelve of us who don't use Microsoft/Apple operating systems can't handle? I suppose I could muck about with the useragent override setting as I think that's how they are sniffing the dozen ne're-do-wells out.

I thought I was the only one...

[CCF]

Originally Posted by cityboy

First off I'd like to point out that I agree with everyone else in that I think Broad Street Crossing looks like suburban crap. But in regards to it being set back from the street, lets not forget they reused the newer portion of the Army and Navy. I'm not sure they could have brought it up to the street and still reused the orginal building, without making it twice as big and leaving new room at all for surface parking. In the event that they couldn't, which is preferable: Good , urban sreetscapes or adaptive reuse? ...Don't eve nget me started on the bland stucco. Hell, even Co Op on Albert is using some brick.

They could have re-used the existing structure and foundation but also built a new structure where the current parking lot is. If Saskatchewan is "booming" then it really shouldn't have been too difficult to fill newly constructed retail/office on one of the city's busiest streets.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by CCF

They could have re-used the existing structure and foundation but also built a new structure where the current parking lot is. If Saskatchewan is "booming" then it really shouldn't have been too difficult to fill newly constructed retail/office on one of the city's busiest streets.

Remember this was all planned about 2 years ago arguably before the boom. No one would touch the place for years. There was so little interest it went back to the city for delinquint taxes at one point. I recall that the back portion was newer and in better structural condition than the rest of the old building.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

You're right. I think we should stop complaining about where this building was put up and focus on getting them to put some landscaping in. After driving by it a few times, I couldn't see any place where they could even put trees or shrubs in. Could they not have allocated a couple feet along the sidewalks to do this? Ridiculous...

Yes it looks terrible. I think the underground parking goes right to the sidewalk so they were limited. Their may still be opportunity for a few trees in the City sidewalk.

[caveat.doctor]

Originally Posted by Planner2008

The two advantages Victoria has with their downtown is ... 2) The situation of downtown, most suburb areas, and connecting communites are situated To the East, North East, North, North West, and very little other than that. It's not as central as Regina's downtown.

Actually I would say this is where Regina has the advantage. Victoria's Downtown is at the bottom of the island, so many residents have very long commutes to get in. The Downtown is not central, so competing suburban commercial development is inevitable - otherwise, much of the city would have unreasonable travel times/distances to get shopping/entertainment/work.

Regina's Downtown, however, is central to everything - there's no reason for major commercial/entertainment development to exist anywhere else, because everyone can get to Downtown equally easily. Moreover, the grid road system (which Victoria doesn't have, because of topography) should make it easy for Regina to have an efficient transit system to get to it, from any part of town.

You could say it's a wonder that Victoria's Downtown manages to do so well given its non-central disadvantage - and vice-versa for Regina, how it managed to decline, given its central advantage. Again, just a matter of making reasonable bylaws and decisions and following guidelines.

Originally Posted by Planner2008

Other than that I miss one of my other homes, sucks you guys got snow in the last 24 hrs, must of made for some real fun, as usually these incidents do in Victoria and the lower mainland

Heh... actually I'm away in Ottawa (sunny and 25!) and missed it this time. But even under snow Victoria's still nice:














(Photos: me)

A lot of people avoid the hilly, narrow Malahat highway when it snows/ices over, but it's worth the drive just to have a look:




(Photos: me)

Originally Posted by cityboy

which is preferable: Good , urban sreetscapes or adaptive reuse?

I wouldn't call this adaptive reuse - the design didn't adapt creatively to the existing structure, as is the case in good examples of adaptive reuse (eg infill housing, turning old churches/schools/factories into retail/offices/apartments, etc). Broad St Crossing is blatant indifference to design, with obvious cost- and corner-cutting just to save the developer money in reusing the foundation. Especially in Downtown, on a major street the priorities should've been otherwise.

Originally Posted by Stormer

Remember this was all planned about 2 years ago arguably before the boom. No one would touch the place for years.

That's true - again it goes back to the sad idea of "any development is good development." Yes, A&N was an abandoned eyesore for years... but a better way to look at it, was that this corner was part of a "land bank", something to be kept in savings until something worth "spending it on" comes along. (Eg the proposed new office tower that's been mentioned - now that would've been more appropriate.)

Economies go up and down all the time... why was there a rush to spend such a valuable part of our land bank on something so mediocre? Just wait it out, use some less-desirable parts of our land savings for those make-work buildings like the Broad St Crossing design (eg the western parts of Downtown that are less trafficked), so that when the economy comes back (and it does) and Mr Hill or whoever says it's time for a new 20-storey, we'll have land worthy of it.

Again, something that responsible design/planning guidelines would've prevented.

[Jon]

The Tim Hortons is now open on Broad Street.

They have started some sort of work on the church at the corner of 15th and St.Johns. Any idea what the plans for the church are?

[cutterp]

Originally Posted by Jon

The Tim Hortons is now open on Broad Street.

My nightmare begins.

Watching people line up for their "Timmy Ho's" is like watching mindless cattle follow the farmers half ton truck across the pasture.

If it's lined up around the block. GET A LIFE and continue on to the next place instead of creating massive traffic jams.

end rant

[ReginaGirl]

I agree. I for one will NOT be supporting the new Tim Hortons. If Tim Hortons wants to be a forward thinking company, they should have influenced that design to be more urban and exciting.

I unfortunately have to drive down Broad and Sask every morning on my way to work and it always makes me sad that those buildings were given approval. Even my mom has mentioned how out of place and cheap looking they are (minus the bus depot which may or may not be nice when it is done)

[Jon]

Please don't take my information as an endorsement to their weird coffee like drink, corporate structure, or assinine building design.

[ReginaGuy]

as ugly as broad street crossing is, I hope Tim Hortons does very well at that location. Like it or not, I think this could be a gateway for other businesses to open downtown locations