Saskatoon Construction

[dsim249]

$150-million refinery to be built near Langham


By Cassandra Kyle, The StarPhoenixNovember 3, 2009 11:46 AM



The Saskatoon region has been chosen as the preferred site of a $150-million hydrometallurgical processing facility, the company behind the plan announced Tuesday.

Fortune Minerals Ltd. says it has entered into an agreement to purchase lands near Langham on which it proposes to construct the refinery, which will process ore from its NICO gold-cobalt-bismuth-copper project in the Northwest Territories. The Ontario-based company said the refinery site includes access to the main line of the Canadian National Railway and is close to the Trans Canada Highway, along with power, natural gas and water supply.

“With a diversified economy, a highly-skilled workforce and respected post-secondary institutions, Saskatoon can accommodate everything that is required to construct and operate this refinery,” stated Robin Goad, president of Fortune Minerals.

The facility will process about 80,000 tonnes of product from NICO each year and employ 85 people in specialty jobs over a 15- to 20-year period.

The company said it had been working with the Saskatoon Regional Economic Development Authority (SREDA) for several months to identify the location for the refinery in Saskatchewan.

Ken Cheveldayoff, minister of Enterprise Saskatchewan, said the province is happy Saskatoon was chosen as the site for the state-of-the-art processing plant.

“We are very pleased that Fortune Minerals has chosen Saskatchewan over other potential locations for this new and exciting project that means jobs and investment in the Saskatoon area,” he said.

Edmonton and Winnipeg were also considered.

NICO is not yet in production, but is expected to become a significant global producer of cobalt and the world’s largest independent producer of bismuth.

Langham is located roughly 34 kilometres northwest of Saskatoon.

[molasses]

Originally Posted by midnightrambler

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying it's what people want. And I'm right.

No, actually your wrong.

I don't want that, nor do any of my friends, we are all young professionals, some with kids, some without, most owning homes in the core neighbourhoods or downtown.

You might argue that we are some 'radical' subset of society, but you'd also be wrong there.

Here is a quick overview of current residential demand in North America:
(from http://www.cooltownstudios.com/2008/02/22/gen-xers-get-credit-for-rise-of-walkable-urbanism/)

Who is sourcing the growing popularity in walkable urban areas and city downtowns?

Chris Leinberger is an industry leader in defining financial models for urban developments and the author of The Option of Urbanism: Investing in a New American Dream. He’s also a baby boomer, which is significant in his answer to the Smart City Radio interview question, “Why is there pent up demand for walkable urbanism?“

“It’s basically being driven by the Gen Xers, and I’m sure the Gen Xers will be happy to hear this, it’s finally not the baby boomers doing something. The Gen Xers were brought up on ‘Friends’, ‘Seinfeld’, and an image of urbanism that was different than their parents and grandparents and they saw walkable urbanism as a very exciting, safe way to live their lives.“

Chris also goes on to explain why real estate in walkable urban areas are so costly:

“There just isn’t enough of this stuff. The market is in front of our ability to produce this. Somewhere between 30-45% of the households want walkable urbanism (with another being 30% are urban agnostic). Most American metropolitan areas have no more than 5-10% supply. So you’ve got this pent up demand and little supply, you get those 40-200% price premiums for ‘walkable urban product’.“
_________________________________________________________________

If you want to get further into demand for walkable urbanism, this article from cnn (that bastion of progressive thought!) gives a good overview.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/06/16/suburb.city/

Otherwise, please do read some of Chris Leinberger's articles. I'm not saying everyone wants to live downtown or in core neighbourhoods, because yes, there is demand for single family, suburban living and there will be for some time. That is fine, but there is a very significant portion of society that is demanding walkable urban development.

[midnightrambler]

Originally Posted by molasses

No, actually your wrong.

I don't want that, nor do any of my friends, we are all young professionals, some with kids, some without, most owning homes in the core neighbourhoods or downtown.

You might argue that we are some 'radical' subset of society, but you'd also be wrong there.

Here is a quick overview of current residential demand in North America:
(from http://www.cooltownstudios.com/2008/02/22/gen-xers-get-credit-for-rise-of-walkable-urbanism/)

Who is sourcing the growing popularity in walkable urban areas and city downtowns?

Chris Leinberger is an industry leader in defining financial models for urban developments and the author of The Option of Urbanism: Investing in a New American Dream. He’s also a baby boomer, which is significant in his answer to the Smart City Radio interview question, “Why is there pent up demand for walkable urbanism?“

“It’s basically being driven by the Gen Xers, and I’m sure the Gen Xers will be happy to hear this, it’s finally not the baby boomers doing something. The Gen Xers were brought up on ‘Friends’, ‘Seinfeld’, and an image of urbanism that was different than their parents and grandparents and they saw walkable urbanism as a very exciting, safe way to live their lives.“

Chris also goes on to explain why real estate in walkable urban areas are so costly:

“There just isn’t enough of this stuff. The market is in front of our ability to produce this. Somewhere between 30-45% of the households want walkable urbanism (with another being 30% are urban agnostic). Most American metropolitan areas have no more than 5-10% supply. So you’ve got this pent up demand and little supply, you get those 40-200% price premiums for ‘walkable urban product’.“
_________________________________________________________________

If you want to get further into demand for walkable urbanism, this article from cnn (that bastion of progressive thought!) gives a good overview.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/06/16/suburb.city/

Otherwise, please do read some of Chris Leinberger's articles. I'm not saying everyone wants to live downtown or in core neighbourhoods, because yes, there is demand for single family, suburban living and there will be for some time. That is fine, but there is a very significant portion of society that is demanding walkable urban development.

Well I don't see any condo's being built downtown. But I do see a crapload of housing being built on the outskirts of the city...

[madsad]

Originally Posted by midnightrambler

Well I don't see any condo's being built downtown. But I do see a crapload of housing being built on the outskirts of the city...

Huh? The King George? 2nd Ave? Caswell Hill townhouses? Rumley? Luxe? Hello?

There are a myriad issues around why suburban developments tend to be more "popular", and certainly broader issues than personal preference, desire for space, and the misguided notion that children require a suburban environment to thrive.

Personally, I believe that the suburbs will become the scrapyards and ghettos of the post-oil future. What a great environment to raise children in! Therefore, I chose to live a less-car dependent lifestyle, live in the urban core, and patronize locally-owned, urban businesses. If you don't get why, or don't care, well, what can I do but live by example...?

[iron883]

Originally Posted by madsad

Huh? The King George? 2nd Ave? Caswell Hill townhouses? Rumley? Luxe? Hello?

There are a myriad issues around why suburban developments tend to be more "popular", and certainly broader issues than personal preference, desire for space, and the misguided notion that children require a suburban environment to thrive.

Personally, I believe that the suburbs will become the scrapyards and ghettos of the post-oil future. What a great environment to raise children in! Therefore, I chose to live a less-car dependent lifestyle, live in the urban core, and patronize locally-owned, urban businesses. If you don't get why, or don't care, well, what can I do but live by example...?

Do you work in the urban core too?

And what about if you work on 8th street or the north industrial?

And where do you get your groceries?

[madsad]

Originally Posted by iron883

Do you work in the urban core too?

Yes

Originally Posted by iron883

And what about if you work on 8th street or the north industrial?

Reverse commute

Originally Posted by iron883

And where do you get your groceries?

Ten Thousand Villages, Safeway, Steep Hill, garden

you?

[midnightrambler]

Originally Posted by madsad

Huh? The King George? 2nd Ave? Caswell Hill townhouses? Rumley? Luxe? Hello?

There are a myriad issues around why suburban developments tend to be more "popular", and certainly broader issues than personal preference, desire for space, and the misguided notion that children require a suburban environment to thrive.

Personally, I believe that the suburbs will become the scrapyards and ghettos of the post-oil future. What a great environment to raise children in! Therefore, I chose to live a less-car dependent lifestyle, live in the urban core, and patronize locally-owned, urban businesses. If you don't get why, or don't care, well, what can I do but live by example...?

Okay, there is a few low level developments/re-developments with downtown housing. But it pales in comparison to the level of housing construction on in the new Neighbourhoods (Willowgrove, Stonebridge, Hampton Village, Blairmore, Rosewood, etc..)

That was the point I was trying to make. The condo market in Saskatoon is rather so so... none of the mentioned buildings are over 5 storeys tall. The demand isn't there for anything bigger than that, mainly because it is more expensive.

Suburbs will not become the "scrapyards and ghettos." The prophecy of the "end-of-oil" will be replaced with the start of cars that don't use oil.

I understand you can live downtown in a 600 sq ft loft/condo. And you can go grocery shopping where you like and patronize stores in the downtown core. But lets say you have three kids. Where do the kids go to school? Name a school downtown within walking distance. Would you like to have those kids walk in downtown traffic? Would you be able to live in a space of 600 sq ft? Would you be able to afford the extra $400,000 for 2 extra bedrooms?

I am just making a point that for most people it isn't finnancially viable, or make a great deal of sense if they have children.

[iron883]

Originally Posted by madsad

Yes


Reverse commute


Ten Thousand Villages, Safeway, Steep Hill, garden

you?

Yeah, Garden too. And Safeway, Stupidstore (shudder), Slowbeys.

Reverse commute? Does that mean you advocate commuting to work from urban core, but not from suburbs? I'm not sure I follow.

I definitely dig living downtown, just not in this city. Its not that its bad, just a little lacking when you've lived in the core of million plus cities. And its so quick to get to from most areas anyway, if only the taxi situation didn't suck so hard.

That being said, I don't think I could stand living with strangers on the other side of the wall again. Condos suck (for me, at least).

That report is interesting, I would've expected more Gen-Y than Gen-X in the downtown. Gen X'ers are 30 to late 40's now. I guess it's not just 'downtown' though, is it?

I'm happy there are lots of people wanting to live central, keeps it lively for the rest of us when we visit!

[Morogolus]

Originally Posted by iron883

, if only the taxi situation didn't suck so hard.

What's up with that anyways? I have a hard time accepting us as a major center when it's an hour long wait for a taxi on a Friday or Saturday night and as soon as they pull up someone takes it from you. They've had 160 licenses for the past 20 years and they haven't increased that amount whatsoever. People hate flying into this city because you can never get a taxi. Also they're ridiculously expensive, it's pretty easy get behind the wheel after having a few when it's going to cost you 40 dollars to get home from downtown to the east side.

This is one area the government needs to keep their noses out of, I don't see why they need to control the taxis. Whatever happened to free market enterprise?

I've lived overseas and there were fleets of taxis waiting outside anything that had a lot of people at it and it cost 20 dollars for a 45 minute taxi ride.

[circle33]

The conspiracy theorist in me figures there's some sort of Tony Soprano like involvement in the taxi industry which is preventing the issuance of additional permits. As you infer there is no logical explanation as to why a city can add some 70,000 residents and yet zero taxi licenses. It simply defies logic.

[midnightrambler]

Originally Posted by Morogolus

What's up with that anyways? I have a hard time accepting us as a major center when it's an hour long wait for a taxi on a Friday or Saturday night and as soon as they pull up someone takes it from you. They've had 160 licenses for the past 20 years and they haven't increased that amount whatsoever. People hate flying into this city because you can never get a taxi. Also they're ridiculously expensive, it's pretty easy get behind the wheel after having a few when it's going to cost you 40 dollars to get home from downtown to the east side.

This is one area the government needs to keep their noses out of, I don't see why they need to control the taxis. Whatever happened to free market enterprise?

I've lived overseas and there were fleets of taxis waiting outside anything that had a lot of people at it and it cost 20 dollars for a 45 minute taxi ride.

I completely agree. Taxi's should be allowed to have as many cars and drivers as they want. The government should stay out. The government should also stay out of liquor sales, bus transportation, telephone and television, cell phones, insurance, power generation, and natural gas delivery/production to name a few....

I have always tended to think that there would be more benefit for the province and the people economically if the government did get out of these areas. We are the only place left in North America that has government companies to this extent. And in my opinion the so called "public companies" Sasktel, SaskEnergy, SaskPower etc.. are more private than companies that are listed on the TSX. I have shares in Telus... I profit when they profit. When Sasktel makes a profit, where does it go? The GRF? My taxes don't go down when Sasktel makes a buck. I have always wanted to have a different insurance company for my car as well. I don't care if it costs more, I just absolutely hate SGI and would like another option. I want a different option for my power generation as well. I want to pay for power that isn't generated in Estevan. I don't care if it costs more...
I want the private sector to take over. I am actually quite fed up with the appalling state of the Sask Party and the way they have bended over to accomodate the NDP. Sell the crowns already. That's why I voted for you. Even if it isn't the main 4 crowns... at least get liquor sales and STC bus done in your first term... They are so scared to make a move and do something in case it might cost them governing power... The government here is slow to react, slow to develop, and by the time they do, it's too late.

All it took for that rant was an hour wait for a taxi in -25 degrees, out side because the bars have to kick people outside... you can't wait inside.... It's a sick joke the amount of control that the government has here. It makes me absolutely sick...

Maybe we need Liberalization

The NDP is very conservative in their approach to certain things as well as the Sask Party. Hell I would vote Liberal if it meant that this backwards town would have Strip Bars again. The Saskatchewan government has been to intrusive and controlling of people's lives. Taxi's is just the tip of the ice berg.

[jas321]

Originally Posted by macca

Since there's no development to discuss, I'm going to keep ranting about this.

Space DOES NOT trump amenities. For anybody. Perhaps 99% of people living in the city, and in rural areas in SK for that matter, require the 'amenities' of basic services. Even those on acreages require services provided by their municipality. There are some individuals who may choose to live a more "off the grid" lifestyle, no running water or electricity for example. Perhaps they hunt their own game.

Your suburban soccer mom is not choosing space over amenities. She is choosing based on perceptions. She has all the amenities she wants in Hampton Village. The problem is they are a car ride away. Her perception is that downtown is not a place for children. It's dirty, noisy, dangerous, etc. Hampton Village is quiet and safe and she can bubble wrap her child and put them in the fenced backyard and sleep soundly at night.

I'm sure I don't have to waste virtual ink on why each household making multiple car trips per day is bad for the environment, or why it might be better to have a main street that looks like Broadway or 2nd Ave rather than 8th Street or 22nd.

I agree with these statements and, like you, am in favour of higher-density, multi-use development. However, the market reflects people's tastes. Unfortunately, there will need to be a great rumble in people's attitudes to turn them away from suburban lifestyle. You can plan and promote for new urbanist communities all you want, but a market must also exist for it. Until something persuades families to move downtown (ie. high transportation costs, high land-rent in suburbia, etc), they will be inclined to purchase houses in Briarwood.

[midnightrambler]

Originally Posted by jas321

I agree with these statements and, like you, am in favour of higher-density, multi-use development. However, the market reflects people's tastes. Unfortunately, there will need to be a great rumble in people's attitudes to turn them away from suburban lifestyle. You can plan and promote for new urbanist communities all you want, but a market must also exist for it. Until something persuades families to move downtown (ie. high transportation costs, high land-rent in suburbia, etc), they will be inclined to purchase houses in Briarwood.

I'd love to live downtown, I just can't afford it. It's not people's attitudes. It's $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[socialisthorde]

Originally Posted by midnightrambler

I completely agree. Taxi's should be allowed to have as many cars and drivers as they want. The government should stay out. The government should also stay out of liquor sales, bus transportation, telephone and television, cell phones, insurance, power generation, and natural gas delivery/production to name a few....

John Gormley, is that you?

You might want to speak to someone (other than a card carrying Conservative) in Alberta about how energy privatization is going. Although they rid themselves of one layer of government bureaucracy, they now require extra layers to regulate and police the free market providers who, by the way, have not brought lower prices or better service. I personally know someone who works in a department of govt employees whose sole task is to clean up customer serrvice messes made by free market providers.

Anyway, with regard to development issues, +1 for urban living (2 kids, walk to work, bus to school, small local store blocks away, pissed at paying taxes for new bridge while my sidewalks crumble). Most people who I talk to that say they couldn't or don't want to live centrally (with or without kids) have never tried (but maybe you folks have?). I have lived in the burbs and now that I don't, I go there as rarely as possible. Seem barren and soulless to me. I could have had more space in the suburbs, but I'm happier here[/I]

[RougeDude]

$150-million refinery to be built near Langham .. this is GREAT news for many reasons!! Way to go SK!

[Kruzat]

refinery = awesome.

In other news, are they filming a movie or tv show downtown? there are a bunch of film and movie trailers and trucks there. Been there since this morning. Interesting.

Also,

I'm gonna be straight up here, the family downtown thing, not really the greatest idea. It's just not a place for kids. Closer to the river, yes. But not in the downtown core. There isn't a single family with children that I know of living in the 2nd ave lofts, but that might be because it's a loft and there aren't any enclosed rooms. The KG might be a different story I suppose, as well a the Luxe (not downtown though so...doesn't really count)

The truth of the matter is that if your gonna have kids, you need a few bedrooms and the condos downtown just don't offer that for the same price as in sub-urban areas. You pay for the awesomeness of living downtown, not the space.

Also, I don't think downtown is a place for kids to play cops and robbers until 10:30 at night haha...

[kgc087]

So I stopped reading all the posts regarding urban vs. suburban living about half way through but would like to put in my opinion. Right now in Canada suburban living seems to be the more desirable thing to do. I think suburban sprawl is a very short sited plan for population growth and really just leads to unnecessary costs, wasted resources, an overall displaced sense of community and a major dependency on machinery which removes us from our natural state.

By desiging walkable urban areas, or eco cities people are reengaged and rediscover community. Cities could be built in such a way to allow for all people to have access to green spaces and be within walking distance to work, recreation etc. This obviously does not fit with current city models but can be worked towards for all future planning.

How I think Saskatoon should develop is that it should really focus on shifting suburban development to urban redevelopment. What I mean by this is to focus say 70% of our effort on urban redevelopment then the remaining 30% on suburban development. New parks connecting the meewasin trail along could 'vein' through the city with medium to high density developments around them. All of this could be mixed development to promote retail, commercial and residential together. This would form a more well rounded city that is bustling at all hours. By having available green space and civic recreation available the city will be much more family friendly but at the same time significantly more urban. Once a more major transit system is established density will flourish continuing th reassurance of a positive urban environment.

[shmakim]

I'm not going to post the whole article here, just the parts worth commenting on:

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Futur...ides+city+councillors/2175402/story.html

"Put a for sale sign up," said Coun. Maurice Neault. "It's no different than selling your house. The buyer didn't qualify, that's all that's happened."

Wasn't this the same guy who also said "put it on stilts, paint it blue and let's go" ? Hahaa, classic.

But the critical thing now, argue at least five councillors, is to engage the public in the decision-making process, however long that takes.

Ugh.... sounds gross and convoluted. To be honest, I don't think I could improve on what LP was already offering. It was the ultimate mixed-use facility: lots of condos appealing to a range of residents, from the financially comfortable through to the filthy rich, who inevitably are going to spend their money nearby, it had a hotel to pull visitors directly to the River Landing site, complete with theatre, future destination site, farmers market, paths, parks, the splendour of the building they're staying in.... it had retail, restaurant(s), and a public plaza of unique design. What could possibly be improved upon? I know I know... the financing.

Regardless, the city needs to hire a consultant and look around North America to see what other cities are doing with their riverfronts, she said.

That was Pat Lorje, above. I'd be curious to see what such a consultant would come up with. Anyone here have any suggestions? You'd want something that appeals to a range of city residents, something with landmark, elegant architecture, preferably something high end to be a jewel in the middle of the whole RL project. Affordable housing - I gotta take a pass on this one. I'll point them to the Lighthouse, but not right on the riverfront.

I'm still hoping against hope that Lobsinger will come back to council soon, yelling that he's secured a line of credit and the project can proceed RIGHT AWAY, with no further delays. It's likely to happen sooner than Atch and council can come up with alternate proposals....

[kgc087]

Originally Posted by shmakim

I'm not going to post the whole article here, just the parts worth commenting on:

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Futur...ides+city+councillors/2175402/story.html

"Put a for sale sign up," said Coun. Maurice Neault. "It's no different than selling your house. The buyer didn't qualify, that's all that's happened."

Wasn't this the same guy who also said "put it on stilts, paint it blue and let's go" ? Hahaa, classic.

But the critical thing now, argue at least five councillors, is to engage the public in the decision-making process, however long that takes.

Ugh.... sounds gross and convoluted. To be honest, I don't think I could improve on what LP was already offering. It was the ultimate mixed-use facility: lots of condos appealing to a range of residents, from the financially comfortable through to the filthy rich, who inevitably are going to spend their money nearby, it had a hotel to pull visitors directly to the River Landing site, complete with theatre, future destination site, farmers market, paths, parks, the splendour of the building they're staying in.... it had retail, restaurant(s), and a public plaza of unique design. What could possibly be improved upon? I know I know... the financing.

Regardless, the city needs to hire a consultant and look around North America to see what other cities are doing with their riverfronts, she said.

That was Pat Lorje, above. I'd be curious to see what such a consultant would come up with. Anyone here have any suggestions? You'd want something that appeals to a range of city residents, something with landmark, elegant architecture, preferably something high end to be a jewel in the middle of the whole RL project. Affordable housing - I gotta take a pass on this one. I'll point them to the Lighthouse, but not right on the riverfront.

I'm still hoping against hope that Lobsinger will come back to council soon, yelling that he's secured a line of credit and the project can proceed RIGHT AWAY, with no further delays. It's likely to happen sooner than Atch and council can come up with alternate proposals....

The idea of more public input terrifies me! People have no idea what makes something work in the long run or what makes it just work! This would be the hugest waste of money and time for this. Rather then spending thousands of dollars on this why not hire a world renowned developer with that money to make the spot the 'jewel' of riverlanding. I think if the city decides to put affordable housing up in this area I will just give up on them or at least vote for them to be the stupidest council in Canada. HAHA!

[Wyku]

String out the process even longer by looking for public input eh? Maybe we'll get to vote on it during the next civic election...