Saskatoon Construction

[sharpie]

Originally Posted by madsad

Saskatoon is far too sparse to make alternative transportation as easy as it should/could be in our climate, further incentive-izing the private auto. Actions in this area include:

• moratorium on leapfrogging or new suburban development at the periphery of the city
• forcing surburban developers to pay for lot servicing costs and road construction
• further incentive-izing infill development
• accelerating development of City Yards and other underused spaces within the city core, to unify the city
• removing freight rail from within the city at the earliest opportunity

****

Saskatoon is the perfect-size city for driving. Fortunately, it is also the perfect size city for cycling and walking. Distance usually isn't an issue when cycling in Saskatoon. Really, the bicycle is the best match for transportation-based solutions to city-sustainability. Ironically, walking, the most basic of forms of transportation, something even the most die-hard car-loving, transit- and cyclist-hating, motorist must do at some point, is the most difficult task to accomplish in Stoon. Most of our streets lack sidewalk infrastructure on both sides, many do not have sidewalks at all. Actions here include:

• creating new road-building standards that enforce the creation of COMPLETE STREET, streets that are built for ALL road users, not just cars. All new streets must accommodate cars, cyclists, and pedestrians in dedicated rights-of-way. Older streets would be upgraded by removing traffic lanes and re-allocating them to sidewalks and cycle lanes
• accelerating development of bicycle route network
• paving and maintaining sidewalks on streets were they currently don't exists. ALL streets must be walkable and bikeable, not just drivable.
• accelerate accessibility efforts to ensure Saskatoon is fully accessible to less-abled people.

Great discussion points. Putting a moratoreum on suburban development isn't the answer though (we don't have a problem with leapfrogging here). Some people like living in the 'burbs, and they should have the freedom to do so. The way around this is making new developments pay for themselves. Single family homes in the 'burbs require way more infrastructure (more roads, longer water and sewer lines, branch libraries, schools, fire stations, etc) to serve them than higher density near urban cores. The city would have to start charging proper development impact fees to recoup all of that money, plus changes would be required to the tax code at the provincial level that recognizes the upkeep neceesary on that infrastructure. But if that could be implimented, you'd see a cost advantage inside the city rather than at the edges and where the money is, development will follow.

Saskatoon is an awesome city for biking- in the summer. I just put my bike away last week and won't be digging it out until April. Taking out travel lanes for bikes isn't a great idea unless you can utilize that space when you need it most - the winter (congestion is higher during winter because schools are in session and fewer holidays). But complete streets are a great idea and I hope the city keeps that in mind when designing 3rd Ave. BTW, has anyone heard anything about 3rd Ave lately?

I couldn't agree more about making the city more accessible to the disabled. I moved back from the US last year, and they're light years ahead of us. I did a workshop once where they put you in a wheelchair, or blindfold you, etc and tell you to find your way around. There is a lot more we can do to improve the quality of life for these folks.

[midnightrambler]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by madsad

Well, I love urban neighborhoods.

I grew up in suburban Edmonton, and developed a refined aversion for suburbia for reasons on a list as long as my arm. I'll admit that I have become a new-age, sensitive, metrosexual, creative class, socialist, urbanite yuppie scum in reaction to it. Kids, cul-de-sacs, and "sandpiper beige" cookie-cutter garage doors aren't for me.

BUT, they certainly are for 80-90 percent of Saskatonians. Suburbs, for good or bad, are where a majority of (western) Canadians live, and, like them or not, they are here to stay. Something that I'm considering studying as part of my masters in planning thesis is how to adapt suburbs so they are more livable communities that aren't reliant on the car. They would have to be more self sufficient, denser, friendlier to alternative travel, and have more integrated land use patterns.

I think the notion of suburban living as being a default "necessity" for families as largely false and misguided. I'd argue that there are increasing rates of depression, subversive and violent behaviour found in suburban youth, and it is largely attributed to the dispersed environment in which they live. They have nothing to do. They have no access to cars, there fore, their travel options are limited. Furthermore, suburban roads, designed to move cars at high speeds, are dangerous travel barriers to children, preventing them from safely accessing parks and recreational facilities because too many wide, high-speed roadways are in the way.

The lack of schools in urban areas is largely due to suburban flight of the 70s and 80s, and has the potential, given investment of families back in the urban core, of reversing. The West End neighborhood in Vancouver is a quintessential example of how urban, high-density neighborhoods can successfully support families.

Yes, it is hard in a residential high-rise to allow room for growth and play for children, but more sensitive, medium scale housing would allow for more room. There could also be an increased emphasis on urban park space for common recreation areas for kids, rather than being isolated in their own backyards.



I disagree. Saskatoon already has far too much roadway capacity. Simply said: it is too easy to drive. The South bridge is unnecessary.



I don't mean toll booths, per-say. I'm referring more to progressive auto-insurance regimes, such as per-kilometer rates for insurance, that kind of thing.

Alright. You make it sound like Saskatoon is Calgary because of it's so called sprawl...

I have posted some windows live maps images of "suburban Saskatoon" that to me make pretty good sense for people as developments. They are developments close to grocery stores, malls, civic centres etc...

Now as much as they cripple the idea of an awesome looking skyline... They still make good sense to people... and at the end of the day it may make more sense for people to live in urban centres on the outskirts of town.

Its Urban Suburbanism at its finest.

I am not against Residential towers downtown, infact I am for it. All I hope to do is illustrate a point that these developments make sense.






Lakeview South of 8th St. Also close to all the amenities.

Market mall urban.

Market mall urban.

Willows urban golf rich people... eat at the restaurant most of the time. This was take before the summer. There is a considerable amount of condo's out there.

Pinehouse, Close to Lawson..


Anyway you catch the drift....

[Wyku]

Originally Posted by kgc087
There's only one face that describes the Meewasin rendering... The front looks like a tragic 80's 2 storey office building or perhaps a jail. To me it would make sense to make the front a nice curve of glass with some stell accents and maybe horizontal wood slatting somewhere.

Lol, I said the same thing about the jail, and the heh. The actual front looks even worse than what's shown in this rendering.

[socialisthorde]

midnightrambler,

I agree that the pictures you posted represent "better" aspects of suburban deveolpment. However, I also see some serious deficiencies.

Many of the amenities in the newer neighborhoods are well placed geographically (i.e. they are central and ostensibly easily accessible), but due to the way they are built to accomodate car access, they are virtually innacessible by foot or bicycle. Often they are encircled by major thoroughfares with crosswalks only every couple of miles. Equally often these "service centres" are surrrounded by fences (or the residential parts of the neighborhood are surrounded by walls), which serve as barriers to people (cars can easily drive around to the entry points).

In addition, cul de sacs and winding roads (which are characteristic of suburban development here and elsewhere), while making for more pleasant drives and increased privacy/safety for residents who drive (this is debateable), make walking or riding a bike sometimes dangerous, and ifficult if not impossible. The situation is only exacerbated by the fact that the residents of these neighborhoods inevitably argue to close down the few pedestrian access routes between cul de sacs due to safety privacy concerns.

A final issue is that these neighborhoods are typically cut off from each other by major roads with few pedestrian/bike crossings. If I want to get anywhere in my (older) neighborhood, or between it and other older neighborhoods by foot, I can set out with my destination in mind and get there without a map and compas. I cannot do the same when I want to walk through or between most of the newer suburban neighborhoods.

If new suburbs were truly built with pedestrians and other forms of alternate transportation, in addition to rational land use, as top priorities, I would have no objection to people having their yards and garages. However, while I see more of the latter (rational land use) occuring recently, as portrayed in your photos, I see little of the former (priority to alternate transportation).

If you have ever tried to walk through the neighborhood portrayed in several of those google images (River Heights), by foot or bicycle, it is very challenging.

Saskatoon is not Calgary, but only because we are smaller. We still have time to prevent that fate, but we are on the same path. If I recall, Saskatoon population desnity is actually lower than Calgary - we just don't have a million people to accomodate.

[swilley]

The Fall 08 edition of Populace is out, some interesting stuff related to current discussion....

http://www.saskatoon.ca/org/city_plannin...ewsletter/Populace%20Fall%202008_web.pdf

[socialisthorde]

Originally Posted by swilley

The Fall 08 edition of Populace is out, some interesting stuff related to current discussion....

http://www.saskatoon.ca/org/city_plannin...ewsletter/Populace%20Fall%202008_web.pdf

Thanks Swilly. It appears that the Future Frowth Strategy Group will be answering some the questions we have been debating here i.e. the relative financial cost to the city of various forms of development. Unfortunately, although they call it "wholistic", it doesn't sound like it will take issues like environmental and social cost into consideration which are also relevant.

[Echoes]

Originally Posted by swilley

The Fall 08 edition of Populace is out, some interesting stuff related to current discussion....

http://www.saskatoon.ca/org/city_plannin...ewsletter/Populace%20Fall%202008_web.pdf

Hey, thanks alot! There are some statistics in here relevant to my essay that I'm writing for GEOG 240 that's been discussed here.

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by Country

Hey, thanks alot! There are some statistics in here relevant to my essay that I'm writing for GEOG 240 that's been discussed here.

haha, we must be in the same class, sounds like kgc087 might be taking Geog 240 as well.

Good to know we have a few urban planning students here.

[Echoes]

Originally Posted by SASKFTW

haha, we must be in the same class, sounds like kgc087 might be taking Geog 240 as well.

Good to know we have a few urban planning students here.

[kgc087]

A bit off topic but I'm actually in Agriculture, Plant Development and Biotechnolgoy but I'm VERY interested in the growth of the community I live in and I feel that it is integral to building a sustainable, positive community. I'm just writing an essay for a competition, as well my summer project is going to be developing a presentation for council to showcase how Saskatoon has the opportunity to bypass all the growing pains of other cities through smart city planning.

[socialisthorde]

Originally Posted by kgc087

A bit off topic but I'm actually in Agriculture, Plant Development and Biotechnolgoy but I'm VERY interested in the growth of the community I live in and I feel that it is integral to building a sustainable, positive community. I'm just writing an essay for a competition, as well my summer project is going to be developing a presentation for council to showcase how Saskatoon has the opportunity to bypass all the growing pains of other cities through smart city planning.

This is all great to hear kgc. I am eager to hear more as you proceed toward your presentation.

Something interesting from the Edmonton thread below (credit to Shodan), which I find interesting and I think is relevant to your topic (not so much the specific issue of rec centres, but the idea of "soul" in a city, and how it is acheived). In all of our discussion of alternative transportation and density, I always feel there is some important aspect missing and I think this writer hits it on the head. I lived in both Edmonton and Calgary, and found both to be somewhat "souless". Having been back to both cities more recently, I see them trying (and to some degree succeeding) in trying to rectify that (i.e. trying to densify and restore or create ¨character¨ neighborhoods). Saskatoon is still relatively small and only beggining to form an identity as a city, and sometimes I fear that we are moving along the same path Clagary and Edmonton took and are now trying to get off of. Anyway, here is the article:


The feeling of soul doesn't abide in multiplex rec centres
City planning should try to preserve and nurture experiences that bring people together in their immediate neighbourhoods

Scott McKeen
The Edmonton Journal

Friday, November 28, 2008

If I describe something as soulful, do you get what I mean?

Soul is nearly impossible to define. Why does one song -- or place, or moment in time -- feel soulful, while others do not?

I think there are gobs of soul in Chinatown and along Alberta Avenue. I feel the same way about parts of downtown and Old Strathcona.

My favourite downtown coffee shop, the 112th Street Bistro, has soul. The greasy-spoon Commodore on Jasper

Avenue has soul. Franchise coffee or burger joints? Nuh-uh.

The Italian Centre shop has soul. The Princess and Garneau theatres have soul. The grocery giants and cineplexes feel soulless to me.

Soul is more of a feeling-sense -- a good vibration, if you will. I'm fumbling for words here. I might talk about warmth, or spirit, about authenticity, or being touched in some way. But words fail.

Guitar players know about soul. They've coined a term for a type of soulful guitar tone: Brown sound. Brown sound is warm and a bit tortured, not pitch perfect or pure. But we can't even describe the colour brown, let alone its sound.

I was keenly aware of how words fail this week, when I sweated blood over my Wednesday column. If you missed it, I argued against city hall's plans to invest $500 million in four multiplex recreation centres. I'm not typically in opposition to civic investments. I truly want Edmonton to be a more prosperous, healthy and vibrant city. Over the years I've argued for everything from a major winter festival to LRT expansion and whimsical ice-crystal entrance markers. Why not multiplexes? Well, it's all about soul.

Multiplex recreation centres are monuments to a corporate and car-oriented-planning philosophy that places grandiosity over community and efficiency over humanity. Multiplexes are effective and efficient, due to economies of scale, a critical mass of recreation opportunities, abundant free parking and access to and from major transportation routes. In other words, they're completely lacking in soul.

I opened this column with an attempt to get at the meaning of soul because I realized my argument depends on it. If you don't have a feeling-sense of soul, you'll think me mad.

Maybe I am. But walk around your neighbourhood, especially if you live in a suburban one. Are there walking destinations? Does anyone even walk the community? Are there places to meet neighbours? Are there kids playing outside?

Years ago, my family and I moved from the suburbs to downtown, into a place on 104th Street. I wrote back then about how I'd discovered the ambience -- or, the soul -- of the old hometown mainstreet; how I got to know restaurateurs and shop owners by name and was always running into neighbours on the street.

Partly, it's because 104th Street and its environs were chockablock with destinations -- cafes, restaurants, galleries and bookstores -- operated by men and women who learned your name, then introduced you to other regulars. About a month after moving downtown, I felt part of a community.

The suburbs didn't feel that way. Not because the people were different, or anti-social. It's because the opportunities for easy or spontaneous connection were almost nil, outside of meeting people over the fence or at your child's soccer game.

So that's why I hate multiplexes. They take investment out of neighbourhoods -- trust me, community pools and arenas will close as a result -- and sterilize them further.

Maybe I'm mad, but I think that with some creative thinking we could use all or part of the multiplex money to create humble, warm, human-scale recreation places inside neighbourhoods.

My colleague Gary Lamphier talked Thursday about less-costly outdoor rinks with artificial ice. The advantage to outdoor artificial ice is it could be used all winter, even in the most mild conditions.

I love the idea. Outdoor rinks cast a spell over a neighbourhood, with bright light, piped music and the joyful sound of people skating, shooting pucks and scraping the ice.

We are naturally drawn to such things. Put a decent indoor concession and games room next to the rink, with windows overlooking it, and watch what happens.

People will come. They will find warmth and connection over a cup of coffee or a card game. They will walk home with their spirits lifted.

They will know the meaning of soul.

[email protected]
© The Edmonton Journal 2008

Copyright © 2008 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

http://www.canada.com/components/pri...dcf73&sponsor=

[Morogolus]

I find walking around in Suburban Saskatoon rather boring. It takes forever to get anywhere and there's nothing really interesting, just the same looking houses over and over and a park here and there. I mean just look at those photos, definitely not the most exciting landscape. I'm all for creating more densely populated neighbourhoods. It's definitely the way to go and gives a city more character. Although I think the city is starting to get the right idea with Stone Bridge and Rosewood.

I used to live overseas in Asia and I loved walking and would do it for hours. There was always something interesting and visually exciting to see. It was never more than a 5 minute walk to grab a cup of coffee or a beer, here I gotta get in my car to do anything or walk go for a 45 minute walk down Acadia (I live in Lakeview) which is not the most pleasant street to walk down.

No wonder we're the like 3rd fattest city in Canada, the infrastructure of our suburban neighborhoods lack any incentive to make me get off my lazy ass and go for a walk.

[prairieguy]

Very interesting article on the 'soul' of neighborhoods/cities. I have to concur with Morogolus on the 'boring' nature of many of Saskatoon's neighborhoods. It is quite ironic that both my wife and I prefer hopping in a car to drive down to the river so that we can go for an enjoyable run. Something seems wrong with this habit Yes, we have some lovely neighborhood green space, but come the winter season, you certainly see a decrease in the number of people enjoying their neighborhoods and I believe that is a direct reflection on both lack of 'green' and also lack of purpose. I think if there was a neighborhood cafe for hot chocolate or pub for a pint, it might encourage some of us to take back walking the streets in the winter months. Or maybe some x-country ski trails in our neighborhood parks. We are fortunate in Saskatoon to have a large number of outdoor rinks to enjoy, but it would be nice to see more effort to create environments that encourage the 'use' of a neighborhood year round.

I guess that is why after years of living in the burbs, my wife and I have actively been looking and pursuing moving to downtown or broadway area as they provide the kind of amenities that would get us back out exploring and ejoying where we live.

On another topic, I saw in the recent real estate guide the King George condo's encouraging people to buy now before the new year when "pricing will increase". This surprises me, as I thought we may actually see prices flatten out our drop given the economic climate facing our country right now. I really anticipated many of the condo projects announced to be delayed (or pulled) and ones currently under construction and selling to drop their prices. It will be interesting to monitor how sales of units go in the next few months.

[madsad]

Originally Posted by prairieguy

Very interesting article on the 'soul' of neighborhoods/cities. I have to concur with Morogolus on the 'boring' nature of many of Saskatoon's neighborhoods. It is quite ironic that both my wife and I prefer hopping in a car to drive down to the river so that we can go for an enjoyable run. Something seems wrong with this habit Yes, we have some lovely neighborhood green space, but come the winter season, you certainly see a decrease in the number of people enjoying their neighborhoods and I believe that is a direct reflection on both lack of 'green' and also lack of purpose. I think if there was a neighborhood cafe for hot chocolate or pub for a pint, it might encourage some of us to take back walking the streets in the winter months. Or maybe some x-country ski trails in our neighborhood parks. We are fortunate in Saskatoon to have a large number of outdoor rinks to enjoy, but it would be nice to see more effort to create environments that encourage the 'use' of a neighborhood year round.

I guess that is why after years of living in the burbs, my wife and I have actively been looking and pursuing moving to downtown or broadway area as they provide the kind of amenities that would get us back out exploring and ejoying where we live.

On another topic, I saw in the recent real estate guide the King George condo's encouraging people to buy now before the new year when "pricing will increase". This surprises me, as I thought we may actually see prices flatten out our drop given the economic climate facing our country right now. I really anticipated many of the condo projects announced to be delayed (or pulled) and ones currently under construction and selling to drop their prices. It will be interesting to monitor how sales of units go in the next few months.

Ever since I moved from City Park to Brevoort, I can't just hop out the door and run through the nicest urban park in the city (the river valley), I have to run in circles around a school yard with manufactured hills and pre-fab planters. I refuse to drive to run, but, I notice the many folks who roll in to the Brainsport runs in cars, because there probably isn't nice places to run where they live.

Suburban areas just do not have a sense of place. City Park is City Park, it has that feel, the houses look a certain way, there are "certain" types of people around, the geography of the neighbourhood is unique. But one burb is just like the next... I mean, what is a defining characteristic of 8th Street that sets it apart from Victoria Ave East in Regina, or South Edmonton Common in Edmonton?...nothing. They are all the same old blech. It is pretty discouraging to see cities made up of this stuff.

I think that its great that you are considering moving into a more urban area. I think you are one of many who are doing/pondering the same thing. Yes, there are issues with living in urban areas, but IMO, the benefits outweigh. You just sort of adapt to it.

I should qualify this, though...I'm not saying that I'm "holier than than all the suburbanite pleebs". If someone looks at their lot in life, their family and work, etc, and decides living in a suburban single-family is what is right for them, then fine, go for it. It is a free country. What I'm saying is that I think this social conditioning, that people are encouraged to default to the single-family home and driving everywhere, has to stop; suburban residents should pay the full price for their size-XL footprint in resources and land-use, and not be subsidized; and that cities should be built for people, not cars.

[333fun555]

[QUOTE=madsad;3944730]Ever since I moved from City Park to Brevoort, I can't just hop out the door and run through the nicest urban park in the city (the river valley), I have to run in circles around a school yard with manufactured hills and pre-fab planters. I refuse to drive to run, but, I notice the many folks who roll in to the Brainsport runs in cars, because there probably isn't nice places to run where they live.

I agree, living downtown by the river must be the best location in Saskatoon

[drm310]

I think that suburbs can be successful if they're designed better. The more reading I do about the fused grid design, the more I'm convinced that any new neighbourhood should be built like it. Less dependency on vehicles, closer access to commercial centres and civic amenities, easy navigation for pedestrians and cyclists, more efficient use of buildable space, mixed land usage...

Here's a model I found of a such a neighbourhood with four residential "quadrants" with high-density mixed residential/commercial in between:

[rrskylar]

What's the status of the Circle Drive South River Crossing Project? Thought I had heard funding was already in place.

[socialisthorde]

Originally Posted by drm310

I think that suburbs can be successful if they're designed better. The more reading I do about the fused grid design, the more I'm convinced that any new neighbourhood should be built like it. Less dependency on vehicles, closer access to commercial centres and civic amenities, easy navigation for pedestrians and cyclists, more efficient use of buildable space, mixed land usage...

Here's a model I found of a such a neighbourhood with four residential "quadrants" with high-density mixed residential/commercial in between:

That does look much better, and realistically, I recognize that we are going to have suburbs, as infill has limits.

[lbird]

I admit, I read through all 245 pages of this thread. Very interesting to see the progress (and sometimes lack of) that's been made since 2006. I live in City Park and work downtown so the core areas are very familiar and very dear to me.

When I first moved to the downtown area in the mid 90's, the core was desolate. I would often walk home from the Broadway area and the only activity for blocks was at the porno shop across from City Hall, and the area around the bus mall looked like West Baltimore.

Three bits of information and a commentary at the end:

i) The Jazz Society is supposed to start work on the new Bassment location in Vecima Centre this week. Unfortunately, it looks like they aren't going to open a cafeteria or similar, so the area will be closed to the public during the day. Also, the work is apparently being done by volunteers, so I would not expect a speedy opening.

ii) I don't believe anyone has mentioned the three rundown houses offered in a package sale on the corner of 4th and Queen in City Park. The sellers are asking far too much, so don't expect to see condos there any time soon, although it's a nice location.

iii) For those who read the Norm Fisher blog, there is a lot of talk about a huge glut of condos, both currently listed, and to come available in the spring. This isn't great news for the downtown condo developers, but will drive down rents if they can't be sold and the owners have to generate some revenue.

As for my comment, I think the city is doing a good job in its planning. The new suburbs are denser and better designed and they are supporting downtown development well. Cars and houses with backyards are considered positive lifestyle elements by 90% of the population, me included, and the city is doing a good job of balancing sustainability versus the needs and desires of most people that live here. To be honest, if you really believe peak oil is here, you shouldn't be living downtown, you should be living in an acreage near Osler with a well, septic system and a large garden.

I think the city could support infill in existing semi-core areas a bit better, but look at the NIMBY movements against the Church condos on Ruth and the condo project on Broadway. It's hard to expend political capital forcing high density projects on neighbourhoods that don't want them.

Anyways, I look forward to following Saskatoon's development here.

[socialisthorde]

Welcome to the forum lbird, and thanks for sharing the info. and your opinions. Always good to get new viewpoints and broaden the debate.

I agree with your premises that cars and houses with backyards are valued by the majority of the current population, and that suburban developmment is getting somewhat better (in my opinion only marginally) however, I am not sure I agree with your conclusions. I have a couple of questions so that I might address your argument in an informed manner. I don't mean these as rhetorical and ask them simply to better understand your perspective (maybe I will agree with you after all?).

1) What do you mean by "political capital"? are you meaning that our representatives should concede on this issue to preserve public support for other issues, or something else? If so, what issues do you think the political capital should be spent on (i.e. what issues that are politically hard to sell, are more important than sustainable development)?

2) With regard to the idea of peak oil, how does that relate to the point you are making? I see that and environmental and social sustainability as entirely separate from the issue of peak oil.