Saskatoon Construction

[socialisthorde]

Originally Posted by gowest

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.

Well, actually, I might stab you if you are driving an SUV. I kid

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by Jerry

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

Curious.

So the Lighthouse project is moving forward (fingers crossed...as proposed).

Thanks for the info Jerry.

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by circle33

But just where exactly in Amsterdam can a man park his 3/4 ton? Did you stop for a moment to consider that?

On a related thought, the Cruise Weekend festivities that require the closure of several downtown streets is the greatest contradiction in our city. We walk around mingling with people, enjoying the weather, music, food, and lastly but not least, staring and admiring the heaps of steel we so desperately wish to rid our downtown of.

Turning the page...

The CoS will offer an incentive for those willing to relinquish their 3/4 ton. A truck for a Smart car, or lower property taxes and free public transit...along with an enforced ban of larger trucks in the downtown core (inner city?). The City would ticket those not displaying the necessary large truck permit (which is only available for businesses requiring a large truck). London implemented a similar bylaw, of course, comparing Saskatoon to London is ludicrous...or is it?

[jrochest]

Originally Posted by kgc087

Clearly you do not use the bus very often. During the school year my route (80) comes 4 times an hour. The bus is always packed and these buses are a welcomed relief! We will require less buses less often b/c more people will be transported at once.

No, I teach at the U of S and take the bus daily: I've lived here for 5 years, and got a car three months ago. I've relied on bus/taxi and walking since 2004.

If you live on a DART route, you have service every 15 minutes. If you live on any other route, you have service every half hour, and every hour in the evenings and on weekends.

Running regular buses more frequently would solve the overcrowding problems (which are minimal) and vastly increase ridership.

[kgc087]

I agree more buses should be ran every hour. Saskatoon transit really needs to focus on improving the efficiency of their service as well as ways to dramatically increase ridership. I really like the idea of jacking parking costs up downtown by say 2 dollars and then pair that with a completley revamped and highly efficient transit system! That equals instant success right there, then the city can focus more on developing density within our existing limits rather then pushing them further out.

[Wyku]

Originally Posted by Ruckus

...of course, comparing Saskatoon to London is ludicrous...or is it?

Well, we were neck and neck with London for the most dangerous city in the world according to Macleans.

[AndrewV]

Good farm land is NOT scarce.

[exploration camper]

Originally Posted by socialisthorde

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.

Not only are geology and hydrogeology important cost considerations but the existing infrastructure places limits on development. It was my understanding that development to the west was hampered more by a lack of capacity in trunk sanitary and storm sewer lines than anything else. If you build a new neighbourhood and then have to construct new and larger trunk lines all the way back to the sewage treatment plant and the river, through the existing roads and neighborhoods the cost is very high. I had been told at one point that the demolition of Micthell's on 11th would open up a significant capacity and allow for more residential development. (in saturday's paper that demolition was out for tender)

[ninipanini]

Originally Posted by circle33

But just where exactly in Amsterdam can a man park his 3/4 ton? Did you stop for a moment to consider that?

And that my friend... is what makes A'dam so wonderful

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by AndrewV

Good farm land is NOT scarce.

Can you please expand on that statement. How did you come to that conclusion?

[Temperance]

Originally Posted by circle33

But just where exactly in Amsterdam can a man park his 3/4 ton? Did you stop for a moment to consider that?

Ha...touche. Never mind parking - try even driving a truck in Amsterdam

[midnightrambler]

Originally Posted by Ruckus

Can you please expand on that statement. How did you come to that conclusion?

I can:


When it all comes down to it, we are pretty responsible as far as sprawl goes.

Now try looking at the east coast of the US

[Temperance]

But really, please no sprawl like Calgary...or suburban Toronto. Socialist Horde is right though...saskatoon isn't bad now because it is still relatively small. We have the chance to build the city right before it becomes unmanageable.

The Netherlands proves that you can focus on bicycles, pedestrians, and public transport and still have a high standard of living. But to do that in Saskatoon would require a major change in public consciousness. It would be nice to see us take some steps in that direction. The city of Ottawa has tried by freezing the city boundaries even as the city's population continues to increase.

[AndrewV]

IQuote:
Originally Posted by AndrewV
Good farm land is NOT scarce.

Can you please expand on that statement. How did you come to that conclusion?

I come from a farming backround and have met farmers from all over the prairies and even outside North America. Dont believe everything David Suzuki and the newspapers tell you. By no means if eveything perfect but its not bad either.

[macca]

Many farmers are happy to sell their land to you develop the wonderful open spaces of suburbia.

Perhaps this, along with ecological/farming concerns, influence their opinion on the matter.

[lbird]

Originally Posted by ninipanini

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!!

I think the city's current direction is a good one. People want SFH and they want cars, and both make sense in this city with lots of land and a bad climate. However, we also don't want too much sprawl so the idea of higher density suburbs is a good one. Erindale has relatively small lots and no back alleys, so the houses seem squished together, especially at the back. However, trees are growing in and trellises are getting built to provide privacy, and the neighbourhood is very desirable for a lot of people. I believe it's a reasonable tradeoff and one people will accept in this city.

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by midnightrambler

I can:


When it all comes down to it, we are pretty responsible as far as sprawl goes.

Now try looking at the east coast of the US

Originally Posted by AndrewV

I come from a farming backround and have met farmers from all over the prairies and even outside North America. Dont believe everything David Suzuki and the newspapers tell you. By no means if eveything perfect but its not bad either.

Do either of you have readily available, verifiable data to support your casual observations? How scarce is arable land in Saskatchewan, Canada, the world?

From another perspective, productive arable land sold and developed into lower density urban land is an absurd waste of resources on two fronts. Not only do we lose the ability to grow food or fuel, we are also ensuring higher infrastructure and operating costs for governments, businesses, and individuals.

The scarce resources we depend on for living does not solely refer to oil, or water, arable land is also a scarce resource which must be carefully managed. The value of arable land is expected to increase due to an increase in demand for agricultural commodities. As the world population increases from the current estimated 6.78 billion to nearly 9 billion in 2050, the challenge to produce enough food for those additional people becomes all the more difficult if we choose to convert a precious resource (e.g. arable land) into a liability (lower density urban land) that restricts our ability to produce agricultural commodities. The additional cost of servicing low density development is an added bonus.

With the assertions "When it all comes down to it, we are pretty responsible as far as sprawl goes. Now try looking at the east coast of the US", and "By no means is everything perfect but its not bad either.", both of you are supporting the status quo (e.g. anywhere North America).

I may be mistaken, but I get the feeling some of you have no objections to a minimum 5 unit per acre target, and are against increasing that value because there is enough arable land in Saskatchewan to satisfy our desire for wide open spaces...which of course, there will be fewer of with a lower unit per acre target.

[newflyer]

Originally Posted by midnightrambler

I can:


When it all comes down to it, we are pretty responsible as far as sprawl goes.

Now try looking at the east coast of the US

Please don't tell me you are trying to compare the development paterns of the relatively dispersed population of Saskatchewan with the highly populated east coast of the US. Obviously having 80+ million (my round guess-tament) would require much more development to support the population, but also keep in mind that many cities on the east coast have significant amounts of high density development. Saskatchewan's low population density results little to no necessity for high density development from a logistical point of view.



I wouldn't call this sprawl ... (funny thing is this isn't even downtown)

[socialisthorde]

Originally Posted by AndrewV

IQuote:
Originally Posted by AndrewV
Good farm land is NOT scarce.

Can you please expand on that statement. How did you come to that conclusion?

I come from a farming backround and have met farmers from all over the prairies and even outside North America. Dont believe everything David Suzuki and the newspapers tell you. By no means if eveything perfect but its not bad either.

So I should believe unamed farmers instead? I wouldn't ask a South African Diamond miner about the world supply of diamonds. Anyway, I don't think anyone is convincing anyone on this thread. Density will come and people will learn to adapt to it. Most will recognize the advantages, some will continue to argue against it. Change always occurs this way, unfortunatley here it occurs about ten years behind everywhere else.

[AndrewV]

Everyone can believe what they want. However, I am involved in agriculture, have hands on experience by farming and working with farmers for my whole life. I believe what I do because of my hands on experiece in agriculture. Anyways we should not all get into this cause this is not what this thread is about. We could go on for pages discussing this.