Regina Construction

[Regina Boi]

Hi all,

I was wondering if anyone has any photos of the fire that happened on 2200 block Retallack Street last June that destroyed three houses??

We're building on one of the lots, and it would be great to have a some photos of the blaze, or shots shortly after.

Thanks

[MadMax]

The old Princess Auto building on Vic East didn't stay vacant very long... The Brick is expanding to a second location and will be opening in a few weeks.

http://www.leaderpost.com/Technology/Brick+open+east/1337856/story.html

[Ruckus]

Maybe I'm slow, but I don't understand the popular statement "Regina, the city that rhymes with fun".

Care to explain to a Saskatoon simpleton?

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by SASKFTW

Maybe I'm slow, but I don't understand the popular statement "Regina, the city that rhymes with fun".

Care to explain to a Saskatoon simpleton?

well, it's like "Venus, the planet that rhymes with fun".

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by Stormer

well, it's like "Venus, the planet that rhymes with fun".

Oh...that kind of takes the fun out of it.

The statement sounds like it might have been coined by an actor in a television show, or movie, or possibly thought up by a politician long forgotten.

Has that saying been around for awhile?

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by SASKFTW

Oh...that kind of takes the fun out of it.

The statement sounds like it might have been coined by an actor in a television show, or movie, or possibly thought up by a politician long forgotten.

Has that saying been around for awhile?

Not sure how long it's been around, but the Rolling Stones definitely used it at the concert I went to.

[ceedub1170]

Originally Posted by Nathan

Not sure how long it's been around, but the Rolling Stones definitely used it at the concert I went to.

The Wolf radio station has been using it for years, but I'm not sure of its origin.

[Stephen LaRose]

Originally Posted by Nathan

Not sure how long it's been around, but the Rolling Stones definitely used it at the concert I went to.

Sir Mick was the first person I've ever heard to refer to Regina that way.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by Stephen LaRose

Sir Mick was the first person I've ever heard to refer to Regina that way.

I wasn't there the first time he said it, but I was there two days later when he made a follow up crack about Regina as described in Wikipedia's Bigger Bang Tour Memorable Moments article:

October 6, 2006, while playing at Regina, Saskatchewan, Mick Jagger referred to the city as "the city that rhymes with fun." (as local radio stations had been billing the city leading up to the concerts). Two days later, on the October 8, 2006 concert, Mick Jagger promised the mayor of Regina that he wouldn't make any jokes about the fact that the name of the town rhymes with a certain part of the female anatomy. He then said that he hoped he didn't sound like a pussy (to which the crowd laughed).

[darthrider]

The first time I heard Regina referred to as "the city that ryhmes with fun" was by Mathew Good in the late 90's during his concert at Buffalo Days. He came on stage and made the comment, then played for a while before being hit in the face with a shoe (or so he claimed) this ended the concert immediately. He walked off stage and didn't return, the next day the WOLF started using the phrase as well as calling Mathew a big baby for leaving the show and dissapointing the Regina fans. The Wolf has been using the phrase ever since and every time I hear it I think of the shoe incident and Mathew Good.

[Stormer]

I have been discussing with some how we might finance a new stadium given the opposition from some quarters to taxpayers footing the entire bill and with the Province pointing to other priorities and the new reality of $40 oil.

What do you think of this:

Contributions to $350 million, 40,000 seat domed stadium:

Riders from current facility fee, etc: $10 million
City 40
Province 100
Feds 0
Naming rights 20
5000 licenses for the best seats* 15
25 year mortgage at 5% interest** 165
Boxes/corporate lounge 3
TOTAL $353 million

*$3000 per seat licence payable over 6 years at $500/year. 20 year license to have first right to buy tickets to all events in those seats.

**guaranteed by the Province to obtain low rate. Paid for with a $10/ticket facility fee. Assumes 40 events per year averaging 30,000 per event raisies $12 million per year for debt service.

The Feds have said they won't contribute to football stadiums, but they would presumably conttribute to the cost of related infastructure.

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by darthrider

The first time I heard Regina referred to as "the city that ryhmes with fun" was by Mathew Good in the late 90's during his concert at Buffalo Days. He came on stage and made the comment, then played for a while before being hit in the face with a shoe (or so he claimed) this ended the concert immediately. He walked off stage and didn't return, the next day the WOLF started using the phrase as well as calling Mathew a big baby for leaving the show and dissapointing the Regina fans. The Wolf has been using the phrase ever since and every time I hear it I think of the shoe incident and Mathew Good.

What an interesting story (I'll probably remember it whenever I hear "Regina, the city that rhymes with fun").

Thanks to everyone who provided a response, you have satisfied my curiosity

[Rottie]

Originally Posted by Stormer

I have been discussing with some how we might finance a new stadium given the opposition from some quarters to taxpayers footing the entire bill and with the Province pointing to other priorities and the new reality of $40 oil.

What do you think of this:

Contributions to $350 million, 40,000 seat domed stadium:

Riders from current facility fee, etc: $10 million
City 40
Province 100
Feds 0
Naming rights 20
5000 licenses for the best seats* 15
25 year mortgage at 5% interest** 165
Boxes/corporate lounge 3
TOTAL $353 million

*$3000 per seat licence payable over 6 years at $500/year. 20 year license to have first right to buy tickets to all events in those seats.

**guaranteed by the Province to obtain low rate. Paid for with a $10/ticket facility fee. Assumes 40 events per year averaging 30,000 per event raisies $12 million per year for debt service.

The Feds have said they won't contribute to football stadiums, but they would presumably conttribute to the cost of related infastructure.

I hope the idea of building a new stadium doesn't die if the province comes back after doing their "feasability study" and says it won't work. It'll be tough to get money out of the province and the feds even more so. Political suicide. I like the above idea. Creative thinking at work. How do you get the 100 mil out of the province though?

[BrannyMuffin]

Has this been posted here? I don't remember seeing it anywhere before.

http://www.regina.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=2073

From December 2008. Basically just addresses the approval of the townhouse units in Canterbury Park. 28 units total - 18 2-storey, 10 single-storey all with a double garage attached to the rear of the house backing onto a private lane.

This appears to be the only real issue that I can see:

Zoning Bylaw Compliance The exterior design of all new buildings on properties located within the DCD-9 Direct ControlDistrict is subject to compliance with architectural standards, which have been adopted inconjunction with the establishment of an overlay Architectural Control District (AC-1). Thisoverlay zone coincides with the boundaries of DCD-9. The corresponding standards establishprecedents under three historic architectural styles, including building form (elevations and roof
Page 3
types); elements such as fenestration (design and arrangement of windows and doors), porches,bays and dormers; and architectural detail (building materials and composition/combinations). The proposed development generally corresponds to the Tudor Style precedent, and incorporates exterior design elements borrowed from at least three of the original Diocese of Qu'Appelle buildings. However, some design elements are not consistent with that style precedent. Further,there are instances of non-compliance with the general codes and standards (e.g., repetition ofbuilding form, style and detailing), which must be addressed and satisfactorily resolved before any building permits will be issued for the development, assuming that the subject discretionary use application is approved.

Oops. Also this:

"While we have no general objections to the ... proposal, we have some concerns withrespect to Lot 4 which was approved as a separate parcel to preserve certain historiclandscape features associated with the Anson House and St. Chad properties. Our concernsrelate to the historic east-west tree alignment and how the trees will be affected by thecommon walking path and the side paths to the front entrances of townhouses 01 to 10. "We therefore request that the site plan be revised to indicate the location of the paths inrelation to the existing trees on Lot 4. In that regard, the path layout may need to be adjusted as necessary to minimize its impact on the trees.

[BrannyMuffin]

I was talking to a lady the other day while I waited for my sister outside her apartment. I think she was from Manitoba (she had Manitoba plates on her car) and she was searching, somewhat desperately, for an apartment. With vacancy rates at less than 1% she said she couldn't find anything so she physically went looking for places to live. She wanted to know who owned the building, if there were vacancies. My sister gave her the owner's name so she could give him a call but didn't think there were any vacancies. I felt badly for this poor lady who just needed a place to live!

What we need are apartment complexes in the downtown area. Looking at apartment rentals downtown the few I could find were condos that were renting for $1000/month up with some close to $3000/month. If there were dedicated apartment buildings downtown renting for $1000/month or less I can see young families, students, young people on their own for the first time, etc. living downtown. I'm not necessarily talking low-income, but affordable housing downtown. Maybe even a condo building selling small one- and two-bedroom units for less than $200,000. These types of dwellings would appeal to the young people we need living downtown. Having these people downtown would lead to a more vibrant, dynamic downtown area. A young family living downtown would choose to shop there if the option were available - it would be cheaper and easier for them. It would lead to more well-rounded shopping (grocery stores perhaps??), more entertainment options, busier and therefore safer streets....

I realize that this might not be hugely profitable for developers, certainly not as profitable as selling tiny condos for half a million dollars...but I'm wondering if the city/province/feds could offer some sort of incentives (they're already preaching about affordable housing anyway) to build these types of high density apartments/condos downtown? Something that would make it more attractive to developers?

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by BrannyMuffin

I was talking to a lady the other day while I waited for my sister outside her apartment. I think she was from Manitoba (she had Manitoba plates on her car) and she was searching, somewhat desperately, for an apartment. With vacancy rates at less than 1% she said she couldn't find anything so she physically went looking for places to live. She wanted to know who owned the building, if there were vacancies. My sister gave her the owner's name so she could give him a call but didn't think there were any vacancies. I felt badly for this poor lady who just needed a place to live!

What we need are apartment complexes in the downtown area. Looking at apartment rentals downtown the few I could find were condos that were renting for $1000/month up with some close to $3000/month. If there were dedicated apartment buildings downtown renting for $1000/month or less I can see young families, students, young people on their own for the first time, etc. living downtown. I'm not necessarily talking low-income, but affordable housing downtown. Maybe even a condo building selling small one- and two-bedroom units for less than $200,000. These types of dwellings would appeal to the young people we need living downtown. Having these people downtown would lead to a more vibrant, dynamic downtown area. A young family living downtown would choose to shop there if the option were available - it would be cheaper and easier for them. It would lead to more well-rounded shopping (grocery stores perhaps??), more entertainment options, busier and therefore safer streets....

I realize that this might not be hugely profitable for developers, certainly not as profitable as selling tiny condos for half a million dollars...but I'm wondering if the city/province/feds could offer some sort of incentives (they're already preaching about affordable housing anyway) to build these types of high density apartments/condos downtown? Something that would make it more attractive to developers?

I wanna live downtown so bad... but yes... as you point out, there are no options for younger people... I'd expect the condo prices we have in a larger city like Calgary or Toronto... but it just doesn't suit the market here.

[thegreattait]

I understand the difficulties in finding an apartment in Regina. I did an online search and found 18 units, that same search in Winnipeg found 120 units. (Adjusted that number for size and Regina still has a very small number of vacancies)
I finally just started to gather a list of the different buildings downtown and then started calling even though they weren't advertising.

In the end I found a unit that doesn't become available until April first. It’s a nice 1 bedroom unit right downtown for $815 a month. The unit was never listed I just called to see if there would be any vacancies in the next few months and this one was a suite that still had a tenant and was scheduled for a reno and would then be available for me.

Thankfully the company I work for was very flexible and pushed off my transfer to Regina until April 1st.

In the end I hope my decision to move to the downtown pays off, but I think Regina will be a great city with a nice urban atmosphere especially in the summer. I'm only a block from Victoria Park so I'm looking forward to the summer festivals and outdoor music I've been hearing so much about.


PS. Does anyone know why the Superstore closed up, on the other side of the tracks on Albert and 9th I think? That would have been a great place to go shopping and having it so close to downtown would have been very convenient.

[karch314]

Originally Posted by Stormer

I have been discussing with some how we might finance a new stadium given the opposition from some quarters to taxpayers footing the entire bill and with the Province pointing to other priorities and the new reality of $40 oil.

What do you think of this:

Contributions to $350 million, 40,000 seat domed stadium:

Riders from current facility fee, etc: $10 million
City 40
Province 100
Feds 0
Naming rights 20
5000 licenses for the best seats* 15
25 year mortgage at 5% interest** 165
Boxes/corporate lounge 3
TOTAL $353 million

*$3000 per seat licence payable over 6 years at $500/year. 20 year license to have first right to buy tickets to all events in those seats.

**guaranteed by the Province to obtain low rate. Paid for with a $10/ticket facility fee. Assumes 40 events per year averaging 30,000 per event raisies $12 million per year for debt service.

The Feds have said they won't contribute to football stadiums, but they would presumably conttribute to the cost of related infastructure.

Great thinking, I like the path you are on. It definitely is doable.

I did some math of my own though.
Roughly a thousand bucks a year for my wife and I to go to the Rider Games. Total cost is around $6000 for 6 years. ($100/ game +/-, ten games per year).

With the plan above I see the increased costs for myself to be:
-330 more per year on my Property Tax. (Assume a 0.8% tax increase across the board to raise the City's $10 mil.)
-200 more per year on the facility fee (10 games X $10 x two tix)
-1000 per year for the seat license (My seats would be in the top 5000).
The new cost would be around $15,000 for six years. ($250/game +/-, ten games per year).

Even for a die-hard Rider fan like myself, unfortunately it would be a hard sell.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by karch314

Great thinking, I like the path you are on. It definitely is doable.

I did some math of my own though.
Roughly a thousand bucks a year for my wife and I to go to the Rider Games. Total cost is around $6000 for 6 years. ($100/ game +/-, ten games per year).

With the plan above I see the increased costs for myself to be:
-330 more per year on my Property Tax. (Assume a 0.8% tax increase across the board to raise the City's $10 mil.)
-200 more per year on the facility fee (10 games X $10 x two tix)
-1000 per year for the seat license (My seats would be in the top 5000).
The new cost would be around $15,000 for six years. ($250/game +/-, ten games per year).

Even for a die-hard Rider fan like myself, unfortunately it would be a hard sell.

Yes it will cost more but perhaps not as much as you think.

Property tax: I had suggested $40 million from the City. The City would borrow this money just as they did for the $50 million for the inter-modal facility infastructure. It would be paid off over 20 years, not in one year through a tax increase. That would cost about $3.5 million/yr at 6% interest. Plus a .8% tax increase would only cost you $33/year - assuming you pay $4100 now. $3.5 million is probalbly a bit more than 1% of the City's capital and operating budgets.

Seat Licence: this is being used on most new stadiums. Clearly many people will not be able to afford this and many of these seats will end up being owned by businesses, but that is the price of a new stadium. Fans such as yourself will have first crack at the very good seats outside the seat licence zone. YOu may find these seats are better (or at least more comfortable than what you have now) Also the seat licence gets you first crack at special events tickets - like the concert tickets that people pay 3 times face value for on Stub Hub. So there is some additional value there, even if you don't use those tickets yourself.

Someone else suggested that $100 million from the Province would also be a tough sell. I don't necessarily agree. I believe they gave about $20 million to Moose Jaw toward the new multiplex which would be a proportionately similar amount. Plus that was a local facility while a new domed stadium would really be a provincial venue.

Of course it will cost more for a Rider ticket in a new stadium, but I beleive tha is to be expected as the "user" should be paying some of the cost IMHO.

[karch314]

Originally Posted by Stormer

Yes it will cost more but perhaps not as much as you think.

Property tax: I had suggested $40 million from the City. The City would borrow this money just as they did for the $50 million for the inter-modal facility infastructure. It would be paid off over 20 years, not in one year through a tax increase. That would cost about $3.5 million/yr at 6% interest. Plus a .8% tax increase would only cost you $33/year - assuming you pay $4100 now. $3.5 million is probalbly a bit more than 1% of the City's capital and operating budgets.

Seat Licence: this is being used on most new stadiums. Clearly many people will not be able to afford this and many of these seats will end up being owned by businesses, but that is the price of a new stadium. Fans such as yourself will have first crack at the very good seats outside the seat licence zone. YOu may find these seats are better (or at least more comfortable than what you have now) Also the seat licence gets you first crack at special events tickets - like the concert tickets that people pay 3 times face value for on Stub Hub. So there is some additional value there, even if you don't use those tickets yourself.

Someone else suggested that $100 million from the Province would also be a tough sell. I don't necessarily agree. I believe they gave about $20 million to Moose Jaw toward the new multiplex which would be a proportionately similar amount. Plus that was a local facility while a new domed stadium would really be a provincial venue.

Of course it will cost more for a Rider ticket in a new stadium, but I beleive tha is to be expected as the "user" should be paying some of the cost IMHO.

Makes sense, I don't necessarily disagree. (Thanks for correcting my math btw).

Here's hoping we can get r done!