HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #6381  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2009, 2:24 AM
socialisthorde socialisthorde is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Saskatoon
Posts: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by circle33 View Post
I can't simply cannot my excitement over all the impending big box developments the outer fringes of the city. Someone stick a wallet in my mouth so I don't bite my tongue.
Shh. Take the wallet out of your mouth, drink your Kool Aid and don the smilie pin. You will be an associate before you know it
     
     
  #6382  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2009, 5:44 AM
lbird lbird is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 155
Aren't the sustainability people on here in favour of Wal-Mart super centres? Instead of driving to five different places to do your shopping, now you can just drive to one. I bet the Stonegate Wal-Mart reduces more carbon than the Farmer's Market ever will.
     
     
  #6383  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2009, 2:35 PM
Jerry's Avatar
Jerry Jerry is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Saskatoon
Posts: 798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruckus View Post

Moving a house...building a parking lot!?!?

....and the winner is parking lot. The rumor is the Saskatoon Police Service have leased this property for 5yrs.


     
     
  #6384  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2009, 2:47 PM
macca's Avatar
macca macca is offline
the heat goes on
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Posts: 712
Police parking, exciting times.

Perhaps they are moving one of their current parking lots to make way for new development.
     
     
  #6385  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2009, 3:09 PM
circle33's Avatar
circle33 circle33 is offline
Has been
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Saskatoon
Posts: 4,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by lbird View Post
Aren't the sustainability people on here in favour of Wal-Mart super centres?
No.

Quote:
Instead of driving to five different places to do your shopping, now you can just drive to one. I bet the Stonegate Wal-Mart reduces more carbon than the Farmer's Market ever will.
I won't say you are wrong, given the lack of any data, but I doubt it.

What percentage of people travel to the Farmer's market by means other than the private automobile? I don't have the answer, but it is measurable. For Walmart it is close to zero. How much further does the average Walmart product travel before it hit's the shelf as compared to the wares at the farmer's market?

But screw the sustainability argument. For me it's all about aesthetics and lifestyle of which Walmart provides neither.
__________________
signature
     
     
  #6386  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2009, 3:21 PM
Jerry's Avatar
Jerry Jerry is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Saskatoon
Posts: 798
Quote:
Originally Posted by macca View Post
Police parking, exciting times.

Perhaps they are moving one of their current parking lots to make way for new development.
My thought is the Lighthouse project that was planned for their current parking lot may come to life again.

Last edited by Jerry; Aug 26, 2009 at 3:40 PM.
     
     
  #6387  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2009, 3:38 PM
drm310's Avatar
drm310 drm310 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Posts: 650
Denser suburbs recommended
City council adopts report on designing new neighbourhoods

By David Hutton, The StarPhoenix
August 26, 2009 9:01 AM


The city's plan for designing future neighbourhoods calls for denser and more populated suburbs where services are less than a five-minute walk away from as many residents as possible.

The recommendations, part of a report on new neighbourhood design that has been adopted by city council, calls for a batch of changes to the city's development standards, including increasing new neighbourhoods to a target population of more than 10,000 people, from 5,000, and upping the population density of new areas with smaller lots and more condominiums and townhouses, particularly along major roads.

While none of the recommendations are binding, they will help chart a strategy for developing Saskatoon's suburbs and guide how to design infill developments in the core neighbourhoods, said Laura Hartney, the city's manager of future growth. The challenge is ensuring the design principles are marketable and in vogue when the neighbourhoods come on stream, she said.

"We're not Hong Kong; we're not Manhattan. We need to have something that feels right for Saskatoon," Hartney said.

With Rosewood beginning to progress, plans approved for Evergreen and other yet-to-be named neighbourhoods envisioned for the west, northeast and east edges of Saskatoon after that, detailed forethought is necessary, Hartney said.

Due to a declining birth rate, new neighbourhoods should have populations of more than 10,000, at least, to support an elementary school, the report said.

The report, commissioned in 2005, recommends increasing the city's density target in new neighbourhoods from the current mark of five units per acre to at least six, with more mixed-use housing along the transit corridors and near suburban centres and schools.

City planners are considering a density target as high as seven or eight units per acre with more apartment-style housing options in new areas for the expanding ends of the home-buying spectrum: Young first-time buyers and baby boomers looking to downsize in retirement, Hartney said.

That means looking back to the past to move to the future, designing neighbourhoods similar to Varsity View, Nutana and City Park, with modern appeal, she said. The back-to-the-future approach includes a recommendation to integrate elements of the old grid road system to make it easier to travel from neighbourhood to neighbourhood.

Builders are on stream with the move toward designs that encourage walking, cycling and transit-riding, said Alan Thomarat, CEO of the Saskatoon & Region Homebuilders Association. There is a dire need in the city for more entry-level housing with access to transit given the growth in the number of immigrants moving to the city, he said.

Some of those principles are already at work in Evergreen in the city's northeast, which is modelled as a "sustainable urban village" with 12,600 people, mixed housing and commercial zones and a density target of 8.6 units per acre.

The denser planning means new neighbourhoods should be more "walkable" with major amenities, including transit stops, schools, parks and stores, less than five minutes from most homes, the report recommends. The 450-metre mark is generally accepted as how far people are willing to walk before they'll drive or take transit, Hartney said.

"You shouldn't have to get in your car to get the proverbial loaf of bread or gallon of milk," Hartney said.

The city's transit planning has come in too late in the design of new neighbourhoods in the past, the report said, which has led to less-than-ideal transit stops that serve few people, in some areas.

"If (transit planning) is an afterthought, it's going to feel that way to the people that are living in the neighbourhood, so you get used to using your car or another mode of transportation," Hartney said.

The report also suggests the city should pursue dense urban housing near mass transit when it builds infill developments. As well, the city should change zoning policies to allow for granny or garage suites to create more affordable housing, the report said, something that's currently being considered at city hall.

SAMPLE OF HOUSING DENSITY BY NEIGHBOURHOOD (in units per acre):

Adelaide-Churchill: 3.5
Arbor Creek: 4.4
Briarwood: 3.0
Caswell Hill: 5.2
City Park: 8.0
College Park: 4.6
Eastview: 4.1
Erindale: 3.6
Evergreen: 8.6 (projected)
Exhibition: 4.2
Fairhaven: 6.0
Forest Grove: 5.3
Lakeview: 5.6
Lawson Heights: 5.4
Montgomery Place: 1.1
Nutana: 7.4
Pleasant Hill: 7.1
Riversdale: 3.7

Source: City of Saskatoon neighbourhood profiles

Source
     
     
  #6388  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2009, 3:42 PM
midnightrambler's Avatar
midnightrambler midnightrambler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Saskatoon
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
My thought is that the Lighthouse that was planned for their current parking lot may come to life again.
I agree, The Lighthouse project isn't dead by any means.
     
     
  #6389  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2009, 3:52 PM
Jerry's Avatar
Jerry Jerry is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Saskatoon
Posts: 798
Quote:
Originally Posted by circle33 View Post
I can't simply cannot my excitement over all the impending big box developments the outer fringes of the city. Someone stick a wallet in my mouth so I don't bite my tongue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by socialisthorde View Post
Shh. Take the wallet out of your mouth, drink your Kool Aid and don the smilie pin. You will be an associate before you know it
     
     
  #6390  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2009, 6:15 PM
gowest gowest is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 368
Suburbs

The City should start to round off it's area. Develope the west, and north areas as well as the east. Delvelopers will say no one wants to live on the west side, so let's go east. We could build houses all the way to Biggar and it would still be the west side to alot of people. The way they are going the downtown area will become lost as every thing will be east of the river. How long does this east-west attitude have to go on before we become one city.
     
     
  #6391  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2009, 6:34 PM
Morogolus Morogolus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 289
I don't understand why Lake Placid is having so much trouble getting financing. Do the Canadian banks not see a future in Saskatoon? Despite the slowdown, our real estate numbers are strong compared with the rest of North America and the overall economic output continues to do well compared to everyone else. It seems to me that downtown condominiums would see a sound return for the banks. I'm not an economist but you think the Canadian banks would want to help their own and not some Greek mafia loan shark in Cyprus.
     
     
  #6392  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2009, 6:55 PM
exploration camper's Avatar
exploration camper exploration camper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Saskatoon
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by drm310 View Post
Denser suburbs recommended
City council adopts report on designing new neighbourhoods

By David Hutton, The StarPhoenix
August 26, 2009 9:01 AM



Source: City of Saskatoon neighbourhood profiles

Source
My favourite are the posted comments:


Your Comments
Marilyn
August 26, 2009 - 11:23 AM
"Ghetto" is right! A corresponding increase in crime will also be "less than a five-minute walk away" Children need room to run and play. Even rats show distinct behavioral changes the more crowded their living conditions become - and it's not for the better! This is another "brain-fart" from a city council who approved half a million dollar lights on a decrepit bridge and can't find a viable investor for River Landing!

Ken
August 26, 2009 - 11:12 AM
"seven or eight units per acre "

Ready made slums!

Disagree
August 26, 2009 - 11:08 AM
I think this is a mistake, for a number of reasons. First of all, what happens when my neighbours house catches fire. Secondly, few people like this. Personally, I like the new Calgary model, with spralling green spaces that almost all house back onto. I think maybe it's a western canadian philosophy (from our farming roots) where we all want to carve out a piece of land for ourselves, and that's what people like here. I think the truth is that the COS can buy a 1/4 section of land for x dollars, and then the more lots they can divide that into results in more $$. We're hardly land-locked here, and more green space results in a more eco-friendly community.

Ghetto!
August 26, 2009 - 9:33 AM
Well, looks like I won't be moving into one of these new neighborhoods. Everytime I drive by Stonebridge, I see a ghetto waiting to happen, due to the extremely close proximity of the houses & tiny lots. Also - I'm wondering why they are thinking that the birth rate is declining??? Accoring to my OB, there will be 800 more babies born this year than 2 years ago!
     
     
  #6393  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2009, 7:33 PM
ninipanini's Avatar
ninipanini ninipanini is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Saskatoon
Posts: 228
I'm all for increased density; I'm living in Amsterdam right now and I've never been more convinced. If you want a vibrant city with lots of street level amenities within easy walking or BIKING distance, density is the only way to go. Saskatoon would be doing itself and its residents a HUGE favour by moving towards a model of expansion that favoured denser development. Cudos, city council.

I was actually a little surprised by some of the figures that drm301 posted, particularly how "not dense" Riversdale is?!?! Is it really practically the same as Erindale? I guess the lack of condo's/apartments...

P.S. Riverlanding would be a great first step!!
     
     
  #6394  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2009, 8:44 PM
Temperance Temperance is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by ninipanini View Post
I'm all for increased density; I'm living in Amsterdam right now and I've never been more convinced. If you want a vibrant city with lots of street level amenities within easy walking or BIKING distance, density is the only way to go. Saskatoon would be doing itself and its residents a HUGE favour by moving towards a model of expansion that favoured denser development. Cudos, city council.
Yeah I totally agree. I used to live next to Amsterdam and I have to say European cities have it all over North American ones. They are dense and they are certainly not ghettos. The Dutch are masters at optimising their use of space so they have density with greenspace.
     
     
  #6395  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2009, 8:55 PM
circle33's Avatar
circle33 circle33 is offline
Has been
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Saskatoon
Posts: 4,937
But just where exactly in Amsterdam can a man park his 3/4 ton? Did you stop for a moment to consider that?
__________________
signature
     
     
  #6396  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2009, 9:13 PM
Morogolus Morogolus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 289



Quote:
Originally Posted by exploration camper View Post
My favourite are the posted comments:


Your Comments
Marilyn
August 26, 2009 - 11:23 AM
"Ghetto" is right! A corresponding increase in crime will also be "less than a five-minute walk away" Children need room to run and play. Even rats show distinct behavioral changes the more crowded their living conditions become - and it's not for the better! This is another "brain-fart" from a city council who approved half a million dollar lights on a decrepit bridge and can't find a viable investor for River Landing!

Ken
August 26, 2009 - 11:12 AM
"seven or eight units per acre "

Ready made slums!

Disagree
August 26, 2009 - 11:08 AM
I think this is a mistake, for a number of reasons. First of all, what happens when my neighbours house catches fire. Secondly, few people like this. Personally, I like the new Calgary model, with spralling green spaces that almost all house back onto. I think maybe it's a western canadian philosophy (from our farming roots) where we all want to carve out a piece of land for ourselves, and that's what people like here. I think the truth is that the COS can buy a 1/4 section of land for x dollars, and then the more lots they can divide that into results in more $$. We're hardly land-locked here, and more green space results in a more eco-friendly community.

Ghetto!
August 26, 2009 - 9:33 AM
Well, looks like I won't be moving into one of these new neighborhoods. Everytime I drive by Stonebridge, I see a ghetto waiting to happen, due to the extremely close proximity of the houses & tiny lots. Also - I'm wondering why they are thinking that the birth rate is declining??? Accoring to my OB, there will be 800 more babies born this year than 2 years ago!
     
     
  #6397  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2009, 10:14 PM
midnightrambler's Avatar
midnightrambler midnightrambler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Saskatoon
Posts: 264
I must say I do not like the idea of denser suburbs. It is not as if land is a scarce resource in Saskatchewan. I am not sure what the purpose is with regards to cramming 25,000 people in the southeast corner of the city when most people work in the northwest area of the city or downtown. Would this not just increase commuter traffic within the city.

I agree with previous comments about the east vs west side. I currently live in Hampton Village (west side?), I have a 3 minute drive to work, and I feel guilty for driving, but I love where I live, we have awesome sunsets, I have never had a problem with crime or what have you. There is plenty of park space where I am and it is fairly close to amenities.

There is absolutely no reason that Stonebridge or Willowgrove should be a more sought after neighbourhood. I will take some pictures to illustrate one day.

As for making units denser in, Rosewood I think they're calling it, why?

Why not make that neighbourhood half the size and grow towards the west?

I think the original reason why the city is lobsided with more development on the west side than the east side is because of the University. But most of the Commerce and Industry in the city is on the west side of the river, and the commute times will just keep getting longer.

Most people I work with that live in Martensville and Warman have a much shorter and enjoyable commute to work than people living in Briarwood or Lakeview.

Why not try and grow into martensville and Warman with a brand new 25,000 people neighbouhood above the north industrial?

There are so many options, I just think it is pretty sill to keep growing east.
     
     
  #6398  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2009, 10:47 PM
gowest gowest is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 368
Hampton

I totally agree with you about Hampton Village. I haven't seen a new area on the east side that have parks to match those in and being build in Hampton. It's one of those well kept secrets and is enjoyed because of that. Drive thru some day and see what's happening in the north and west ends of the city, you may be surprised and don't worry you won't get stabbed of anything like that.
     
     
  #6399  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2009, 11:09 PM
socialisthorde socialisthorde is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Saskatoon
Posts: 590
WRT placement of new neighborhoods. It is actually a very complex decision related more to geology than to demographics. If you read the city master plan, there is recognition that development should be balanced East West as much as possible, but the actual building of neighborhoods must take into acount water tables, subsoils, viability of the land for farming, cost of running services etc. This is what they base the decisions on.

WRT Saskatoon not needing to think about density, sprawl generally looks ok when the city is relatively small. Unfortunately. like cancer causing agents, the problems sprawl causes don't often become aparent until it is already far gone. Has anyone noticed all the soul searching in the Calgary planning community about how they might salvage a liveable city from the mess created by sprawl. Even the most hardcore, "I want my piece of land, even rats go crazy if they are crowded" ranters there are starting to talk about the need for density in order to manage traffic problems and reign in ballooning infrastructure costs. Of course many of the calls for density still resound with NIMBYism.
     
     
  #6400  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2009, 11:13 PM
socialisthorde socialisthorde is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Saskatoon
Posts: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightrambler View Post
I must say I do not like the idea of denser suburbs. It is not as if land is a scarce resource in Saskatchewan.
Actually good farm land is reasonably scarce, and that is often what we are building on. Even if it is not critically scarce now, once you pave land there is no going back and it does not grow or multiply itself, so it seems foolish to use it needlessly.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:18 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.