Saskatoon Construction

[kgc087]

Originally Posted by Country

A great viewpoint in yesterday's S-P from Dr. Bob Patrick from the U of S. Go Bob!

Building our way out of congestion impossible task

By Robert Patrick, The StarPhoenix September 9, 2010

Following is the viewpoint of Patrick, an assistant professor in the school of environment and sustainability at the University of Saskatchewan.

- - -

Saskatoon's current roadway congestion has left many wondering when this all will end.

The recent, and indefinite, closure of the Traffic Bridge is the latest piece of bad news for area motorists. Gridlock on Broadway Avenue was something unimaginable to me as a new resident to Saskatoon just two years ago.

However, will wider roads, more connectors, and additional (modern) bridges be the cure for increasingly frustrated motorists in Saskatoon? The experience in other urban regions across North America and the world says "No."

What is well known is that the addition of road capacity with bridges, highways and the like has proven time and time again to increase our automobile dependency, a condition that leads to more road congestion, not less. So, like everywhere else, the traffic woes of Saskatoon will not go away by adding more roadways.

That said, there are many good reasons to build efficient road networks.

Emergency services need good roads, and so does public transit and taxi service. Moving hazardous goods and commercial transport, too, depend on efficient roadways. As well, the private motorists needs accommodation too, and let's not forget the increasing presence of cyclists, boarders, joggers, and pedestrians.

Accommodating these multiple road users is a huge challenge. However, the thought that more bridges and roads will decrease congestion is wholly misguided.

Cities with the greatest road infrastructure also have the highest per capita usage of cars, leading to, yes, more congestion. To make things worse, higher rates of private car usage equates to higher per capita carbon dioxide production, road accidents and fatalities and, generally, less livable cities.

Adding road capacity also encourages urban sprawl, a condition that requires more roads and encourages more car use, all counter to good urbanism principles.

In North America, Portland, Ore., long ago made the connection between road capacity, congestion and livable cities. By dismantling an inner-city highway in the 1960s and embarking on a highly efficient public transit system, it jumped to the forefront of good urbanism. San Francisco and Boston both took similar action in the 1980s. The trade off was not more traffic, but less, as alternative, and more sustainable forms of mobility took hold.

Cities such as Toronto and Sydney, Australia, today lament their construction of auto-era elevated freeways in the inner city, and are considering their demolition. Vancouver in the 1970s looked at extending a freeway into the downtown to its north shore, but cancelled those plans over public protest.

A 1990s survey of world cities by Australian transportation experts showed the direct relationship between road capacity, car usage and carbon dioxide production.

Adding road capacity may, for a short period of time, relieve road congestion. But along with that relief is enticement to get back into that single occupant vehicle. The vicious cycle resumes of congestion, followed by adding road capacity, followed by more congestion.

So what to do? First, we need to recognize these associations: Road capacity, congestion, livable cities, good urbanism. A good transportation system first moves people, not cars.

So, find ways to make public transit more viable through dedicated bus lanes, taxi lanes, and perhaps for Saskatoon, a back-to-the future downtown streetcar? Find ways to prioritize accessibility and not just provide the means for mobility.

Populate downtown areas where services already exist (the city has some good examples). Encourage alternative forms of mobility, better bike lanes and pedestrian routes. Good examples are now spreading across North America.

None of this is easy, but all of this is necessary. Attempting to build our way out of congestion will never work. It never has. The current situation in Saskatoon provides proof.

The traffic snarls in Saskatoon should motivate us all to demand a different future for this terrific city. Planning for people, not cars, is a good place to start.
© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix

Read more: http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/today...le+task/3498837/story.html#ixzz0zAQryLgp

This is almost a dumb article. The answer is obviously stop driving your vehicle and use transit. As you all know I'm a huge supporter of this. I think the city really needs to focus on transit and beef it up. They say it is efficient but in reality it should take only 15 minutes to get from Arbour Creek to Downtown, not 45. Widening roads and building more space for autos would be the HUGEST mistake Saskatoon could ever do. If downtown Toronto can function with roads that are only 2 lanes in each direction I think Saskatoon is more then capable to function with it's current infrastructure.

[Echoes]

Originally Posted by kgc087

This is almost a dumb article. The answer is obviously stop driving your vehicle and use transit. As you all know I'm a huge supporter of this. I think the city really needs to focus on transit and beef it up. They say it is efficient but in reality it should take only 15 minutes to get from Arbour Creek to Downtown, not 45. Widening roads and building more space for autos would be the HUGEST mistake Saskatoon could ever do. If downtown Toronto can function with roads that are only 2 lanes in each direction I think Saskatoon is more then capable to function with it's current infrastructure.

How is it dumb? Are you sure you understand Patrick's points correctly? He's saying that we can't build our way out of traffic congestion with more roads and bridges. It is precisely the expansion of public transit that he's advocating here. Of course, he's not naive and concedes that an efficient road system is still necessary.

These are opinions that are clearly shared by many here on SSP, including yourself. But Patrick has managed to present this perspective in a way that can reach and "speak to" the general public (I hope). And most people DO think that more roads is the answer - Patrick is trying to counter that. It is a good article, and well-timed considering the current Traffic Bridge woes and upcoming Community Visioning process.

[kgc087]

Originally Posted by Country

How is it dumb? Are you sure you understand Patrick's points correctly? He's saying that we can't build our way out of traffic congestion with more roads and bridges. It is precisely the expansion of public transit that he's advocating here. Of course, he's not naive and concedes that an efficient road system is still necessary.

These are opinions that are clearly shared by many here on SSP, including yourself. But Patrick has managed to present this perspective in a way that can reach and "speak to" the general public (I hope). And most people DO think that more roads is the answer - Patrick is trying to counter that. It is a good article, and well-timed considering the current Traffic Bridge woes and upcoming Community Visioning process.

I failed to read the last two paragraphs, I completley retract my statement! It's been a long week in Architecture, or as the upper years like to call it Architorture. I'm very impressed that this has been done. Really the public needs to be educated about urban planning. People need to understand that if they utilize transit they will be funding better additions and routes which will improve it's efficiency eventually making it more efficient then a vehicle. The big problem for Saskatoon though is the winter season. Some how the city needs to make it comfortable for people to ride, perhaps heated bus stops?

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by kgc087

I failed to read the last two paragraphs, I completley retract my statement! It's been a long week in Architecture, or as the upper years like to call it Architorture. I'm very impressed that this has been done. Really the public needs to be educated about urban planning. People need to understand that if they utilize transit they will be funding better additions and routes which will improve it's efficiency eventually making it more efficient then a vehicle. The big problem for Saskatoon though is the winter season. Some how the city needs to make it comfortable for people to ride, perhaps heated bus stops?

Regina is currently testing out GPS on some city buses (linked to a map online) to let you know where the bus on your route is. This I think is something that can be useful for cold cities like ours. That way people can check if the bus is on time and can plan to be at the bus stop at a time closer to and not have to worry about freezing outside.

It might be cheaper than heating... and if you heat bus stops you will run into the problem of people who live on the streets turning them into shelters. Plus... there are way too many stops/heating the stops would be way too inefficient to make it work.

[WoodlandCritter]

kgc087 how are you enjoying toronto and the architecture school atmosphere? I just got back to Cambridge this week and am getting settled for the beginning of classes. All the best to you this year.

also i haven't posted much lately, but while i was home for the summer i began doing some urban exploring and photo documentation of abandoned places and empty urban sites in Saskatoon and around Saskatchewan. I am in the works of making a website to post some of the images. I was able to gain access to the John Deere building in the warehouse district and took many photos of the interior and some from the roof of the surrounding urban space. If your interested i'll try getting those up sooner.
Little off topic but interesting stuff none the less.

[socialisthorde]

Originally Posted by Country

Go Meridian! They're going to do a fine job with this I'm sure. Good luck to them in their fight against the NIMBYs who will decry this increase in density.

I think it is a little premature to start throwing around the term "NIMBY" when no-one has even seen the proposal. It may be a Not In Anyone's Backyard proposal. I live in City Park and I think density is great, but if they propose a suburban style complex, or one that is particularly ugly or unfriendly to the neighborhood, I will "decry" it. I have great faith in Meridian, but am not naive enough to trust a developer based on faith. We have our fair share of denisty in the form of ugly two story brick boxes and sprawling stucco (or vinyl sided) and parking lot developments. BTW, City Park is one of the densist neighborhoods in the city (it includes some of the highrises on the edge of downtown) and many multi-unit houses.

[kgc087]

WoodlandCritter, Toronto is outstanding! The architecture in this city is UNREAL. I'm going to a lecture by Frank Gehry on Monday and will be meeting some heavy weights at our schools accreditation party. The atmosphere is amazing, I was afraid that being older would be a problem, but everyone is so serious about becoming an architect! I'm really excited to contribute my thoughts to the Speak Saskatoon program and the SP blog that will be going up. The city has HUGE potential and if the city and people can get over the hurdle of super highways and the auto it will have a very unique characteristic of being sustainable. Here's to our fare city (I am very proud to tell everyone I am a Saskatonian)!

[Echoes]

Originally Posted by socialisthorde

I think it is a little premature to start throwing around the term "NIMBY" when no-one has even seen the proposal. It may be a Not In Anyone's Backyard proposal. I live in City Park and I think density is great, but if they propose a suburban style complex, or one that is particularly ugly or unfriendly to the neighborhood, I will "decry" it. I have great faith in Meridian, but am not naive enough to trust a developer based on faith. We have our fair share of denisty in the form of ugly two story brick boxes and sprawling stucco (or vinyl sided) and parking lot developments. BTW, City Park is one of the densist neighborhoods in the city (it includes some of the highrises on the edge of downtown) and many multi-unit houses.

I would certainly not wish any more inappropriate or suburban-style infill upon City Park or any other core neighbourhood. So you make a good point, it is too early to laud or object to a proposal we haven't even seen yet. That being said, Meridian has likely one of the best track records in the city for sensitive infill.

My reference to NIMBYism was more in regard to the re-zoning application itself than what might actually be proposed there. The terms "density" or "higher density" can incite the alarm of those who oppose it unconditionally in any way, shape, or form. Yes, density is not necessarily "good" in and of itself - and City Park is already the densest in the city (with some poor examples of density), that I'm aware of. But unfortunately, there are those that just plain fail to understand that density can be done right. And it can be done right in City Park, Adelaide/Churchill, Evergreen, wherever.

So, I am not blindly rah-rah for Meridian's project, whatever form it might take; but I am rah-rah for increasing density in our established neighbourhoods, and doing it right. The community should absolutely scrutinize the design of whatever Meridian comes up with.

There will be some, however, who will be against this no matter what. Stay tuned, it's going to be an interesting debate.

[blueboots]

If any of you want to speak about the new program the city is talking about Saskatoon Speaks, I started a new thread just for that topic.
I look forward to hearing all the ideas on have to better Saskatoon.

[Measuring Stick]

Developer must fill Beltline condo pit


By Jason Markusoff, Calgary Herald; with a file by Deborah Tetley, September 11, 2010 Comments (2)

CALGARY -- Uncertain about the safety of shoring walls around a large Beltline construction hole, the city has ordered a condo developer to fill the excavation pit by November.

Work has long been delayed on Lake Placid Development's nearly three-year-old Centuria on the Park project. The building inspection department's order Friday follows another order this summer urging the company to build the site up to ground level.

But now, more urgent action is needed, building regulation manager Kevin Griffiths said.

"The site itself is creating endangerment to the public as well as potentially damaging properties adjacent to it."

Griffiths would not say whether concerns about the site at 13th Avenue and 2nd Street S.W. had anything to do with the sinkholes that have occurred beneath the east portion of the condo building next door.

That building, Central Park Manor, has been vacant since mid-June after the city issued its second do-not-inhabit order in as many years.

Resident Tony Dossett has been living in "hotel limbo" ever since. All of his belongings, including special mementoes, remain inside.

"We've been told that the building could rapidly collapse at any moment, so we haven't been allowed to get our stuff," said Dossett, who is hopeful this latest move by the city will help him and the other owners get on with their lives.

"I'm happy something positive is happening, but I am not going to get up and dance until that hole is filled and we find out what will happen to our home."

A company spokesperson could not be reached Friday for comment.

Companies typically put up temporary shoring as they dig multi-storey foundations or parkades for highrises. With several stalled projects in the city, inspectors have been monitoring the safety of several sites. This is the first time in recent years it's ordered a firm to plug its hole like this.

"The shoring . . . is in a state where it needs to be addressed, basically with haste and an urgency," Griffiths said.

The city has given Lake Placid two weeks to start the backfilling and until Nov. 15 to finish.

[email protected]

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/Developer+must+fill+Beltline+condo/3510950/story.html#ixzz0zK3xQkI7

[kgc087]

I had a thought while walking around Toronto that is VERY relevant for Saskatoon! The city is building centre medians to narrow roads etc, this is mistake. What the city should be doing is widening sidewalks and building the planters in them. This increases pedestrian space, space for businesses, the plants now become interactive b/c people can sit near them. Then parking or a bike lane then the regular traffic flow of 2 lanes. To me this is much more well utilized piece of space. The centre median is essentially dead b/c people cannot interact with it. Thoughts? I think I found my first blog topic!

[kgc087]

If you look at this link, then zoom into Dundas Street or drop the person on it you can see what I mean. http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&q=toron...result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ8gEwAA

[Kinguni]

Originally Posted by kgc087

What the city should be doing is widening sidewalks and building the planters in them. This increases pedestrian space, space for businesses, the plants now become interactive b/c people can sit near them.

I would argue this hasn't helped on Portage Ave. in downtown Winnipeg (yet the City continues to do it). All it's done is increase traffic congestion at rush hour (including adding major delays for buses). Yes, there are places for people to sit (including panhandlers), but it hasn't done anything promised such as encouraging businesses to have outdoor patios, nor I would argue has it encouraged any new businesses. It has added the benefit of being able to park on the major through route during rush hour though!

[jrm857]

Originally Posted by kgc087

I had a thought while walking around Toronto that is VERY relevant for Saskatoon! The city is building centre medians to narrow roads etc, this is mistake. What the city should be doing is widening sidewalks and building the planters in them. This increases pedestrian space, space for businesses, the plants now become interactive b/c people can sit near them. Then parking or a bike lane then the regular traffic flow of 2 lanes. To me this is much more well utilized piece of space. The centre median is essentially dead b/c people cannot interact with it. Thoughts? I think I found my first blog topic!

while i do agree with you that widening sidewalks is a much better idea, the general idea behind the adding of a median is to calm traffic, forcing it to be somewhat slower by decreasing lanes, and separating the flows of traffic and the median serves as some protection for pedestrians at crosswalks, as a mid point for those that cant make it etc.

[kgc087]

Originally Posted by jrm857

while i do agree with you that widening sidewalks is a much better idea, the general idea behind the adding of a median is to calm traffic, forcing it to be somewhat slower by decreasing lanes, and separating the flows of traffic and the median serves as some protection for pedestrians at crosswalks, as a mid point for those that cant make it etc.

Widened sidewalks would narrow it and the roads in Saskatoon are not wide enough for people to be caught in the middle lol! But Saskatoon's drivers are suicidal so I understand the concern.

[prairieguy]

I tend to agree with you kgc087, with respect to the median and sidewalk. I also believe that when the city met with the Dutch urban planner (sorry, his name completey escapes me at the moment), it was also his suggestion to widen sidewalk, create a bike lane, then on street parking and traffic lanes in the middle. What I really liked about this proposal, was that the parked vehicles provided a 'protective' between bikers and traffic.

totally unrelated...As the only real centre of construction currently seems to be on campus, I was wondering if anyone can do a quick campus tour and post some photo updates?

[drm310]

So, in a 6-5 decision, city council voted tonight to only consider options for the Traffic Bridge that include motor vehicles. This effectively kills any options for the Traffic Bridge that would make it a bridge for pedestrians and cyclists only.

This completely subverts the public consultation process that was set up. I am really angry that some councillors (and the mayor) feel that they know better than the public which options are best. To limit the options before the public even has their say shows a lack of integrity. At least councillors Paulsen, Dubois, Hill, Pringle and Clark got it right and voted against the motion.

Here are the original ten bridge options. Now the only ones that remain are 1, 4, 5 and 6.

[dsim249]

^ Didn't they scrap number 6 also? I thought I remembered reading that.

Anyway, I understand where you're coming from, but I'm happy with the decision. Just as long as they don't end up with number 4.

[jrm857]

Originally Posted by kgc087

Widened sidewalks would narrow it and the roads in Saskatoon are not wide enough for people to be caught in the middle lol! But Saskatoon's drivers are suicidal so I understand the concern.

3rd ave is quite wide, and again its to divide the traffic, it slows it differently for turning and narrowing, where as the sidewalks only narrow. and agreed drivers here are suicidal, i just find the median to even help in an accident. We all know what happens when the uni bridge has an accident and traffic cant go anywhere either direction b/c cars have smashed in the middle.

[gowest]

Council got it right this time on bridge options. Well some of you think that cars should not be allowed on the bridge, I don't agree. Certainly there are many people who use the bridge to walk/cycle to and from work, I don't think many of them use it in the winter months, they drive or take a bus instead. Those who walk up the Broadway bridge are not going to take the traffic bridge unless they live west of Broadway, so the numbers who walk to work will not greatly increase if there are no vehicles. It would be great to have a ped/bike bridge, but when you take the volume of cars, the weather and the important location, the city must build a bridge that will meet all the requirements needed to move people in all manners in an efficient way. As far a design, keep it close to what it is as it is an important part of our history.