Saskatoon Construction II

[gowest]

The 11th St. overpass is now open. Great veiw of how deep they went for roads and services.

[jigglysquishy]

Originally Posted by kgc087

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/City+needs+homes+2014/5804786/story.html - I'm really curious to see what these proposed changes are for infill. What is an ideal balance of infill and sprawl? To me it would be atleast 50% infill. A good approach the city should take is to identify main transit routes and really push for density along those routes. The city will be creating transit corridors which will not only spawn higher density but also more shopping and commercial activity.

Ideally? 100% infill.

Remember, Saskatoon city is 170 sq. km. Paris city is 105 sq. km.

The populations are 230,000 and 2,100,000.

We could build nothing, but infill until we hit 1,000,000 and we still wouldn't be at the ideal density level

[kgc087]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

Ideally? 100% infill.

Remember, Saskatoon city is 170 sq. km. Paris city is 105 sq. km.

The populations are 230,000 and 2,100,000.

We could build nothing, but infill until we hit 1,000,000 and we still wouldn't be at the ideal density level

OK I wanted to say 100% but I thought everyone would hassle me for it! Saskatoon's approach to entry level housing is really sad, poorly developed areas like that just turn into ghetto's b/c really not even people buying their first homes want something like that. It makes more sense to just build condos b/c they aren't really having a yard anyway. Councellors keep telling me that the market is saturated with condos and they don't want to hinder growth with condos etc and to me this is just a bunch of bull sh*t. Saskatoon hasn't had any new condos on the market in years so it cannot be saturated and well pretty much 90% of my yuppie friends have left stoon b/c they want a shiny new condo in the sky not a home with a yard overlooking a farm. It's frustrating b/c the city has had some of the most influential urban planners and architects in the world give their opinions and advice for the city and it's just disregarded. WOW I'm heated up over this, I feel like starting a density movement.

[nook]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

Ideally? 100% infill.

Remember, Saskatoon city is 170 sq. km. Paris city is 105 sq. km.

The populations are 230,000 and 2,100,000.

We could build nothing, but infill until we hit 1,000,000 and we still wouldn't be at the ideal density level

You can't really compare Paris and Saskatoon at all. Paris was built hundreds of years before Europeans even knew North America existed. Saskatoon is just barely over 100 years old. Paris is the way it is because of when it was built and the styles at the time.

I won't disagree that Saskatoon needs more people living downtown, but you also have to cater to what a larger chunk of people would like, which is living away from downtown in areas like Stonebridge, Willowgrove, Evergreen, Rosewood, etc. Put it this way, it would be incredibly crappy to raise kids on the 11th floor of a condo with no outdoor space. I would've absolutely hated that as a kid.

I understand both opinions on density v. sprawl, but you have to cater to what the majority of citizens want. At the same time, Saskatoon does need to have more people living in the downtown area. Not that there isn't the space to build, what with all the Impark lots...

So in conclusion: build both. Sitting on the fence is fun.

[gowest]

There are several old buildings from McNab park which at one time looked like a bunch of wrecks that were built as part of the Air Force base here. These buildings were extremely solid and have been moved along Circle Dr just south of 22nd. They have been redone and there is space between them. It's now a good looking complex. It's too bad some of the newer projects weren't as well build and laid out. Work is well underway on the services in McNab fot the commercial developement.

[jigglysquishy]

Originally Posted by nook

You can't really compare Paris and Saskatoon at all. Paris was built hundreds of years before Europeans even knew North America existed. Saskatoon is just barely over 100 years old. Paris is the way it is because of when it was built and the styles at the time.

I won't disagree that Saskatoon needs more people living downtown, but you also have to cater to what a larger chunk of people would like, which is living away from downtown in areas like Stonebridge, Willowgrove, Evergreen, Rosewood, etc. Put it this way, it would be incredibly crappy to raise kids on the 11th floor of a condo with no outdoor space. I would've absolutely hated that as a kid.

I understand both opinions on density v. sprawl, but you have to cater to what the majority of citizens want. At the same time, Saskatoon does need to have more people living in the downtown area. Not that there isn't the space to build, what with all the Impark lots...

So in conclusion: build both. Sitting on the fence is fun.

I'm advocating Parisian density, not New Yorker density.





Consistent 5-6 story buildings that come right to the sidewalk and have ground-floor retail. Wide sidewalks and consistent streetwalls.

Couple this with lots of parks and you'd have:

• Density approaches 20,000 people per sq. km (compared to the 1000 now)
• Housing costs that remain affordable and consistent
• Huge change in the vibrancy of the city
• Removal of the necessity of cars
• Increased quality of life for everyone in the "Parisian" district

[Brutopian]

Originally Posted by kgc087

OK I wanted to say 100% but I thought everyone would hassle me for it! Saskatoon's approach to entry level housing is really sad, poorly developed areas like that just turn into ghetto's b/c really not even people buying their first homes want something like that. It makes more sense to just build condos b/c they aren't really having a yard anyway. Councellors keep telling me that the market is saturated with condos and they don't want to hinder growth with condos etc and to me this is just a bunch of bull sh*t. Saskatoon hasn't had any new condos on the market in years so it cannot be saturated and well pretty much 90% of my yuppie friends have left stoon b/c they want a shiny new condo in the sky not a home with a yard overlooking a farm. It's frustrating b/c the city has had some of the most influential urban planners and architects in the world give their opinions and advice for the city and it's just disregarded. WOW I'm heated up over this, I feel like starting a density movement.

When I attended the River Landing Village Open House this past September, I spoke with a proponent of Nasser's condo tower-office building-hotel project (Parcel Y). If I remember my conversation with that person correctly, the aim of Nasser's group is for the 27-storey condo tower to include approx 150 condo units. Another of the group's objectives, as I recall, is to position the condo tower on Parcel Y in such a way that every condo unit has a view of the river. Pretty cool. I suspect demand for these condo units will be brisk. If the condo units sell quickly, hopefully this will send a message to other developers that there is a demand for more condo towers to be built in Saskatoon (say, anywhere from 8 to 30 storey structures). Once construction starts on Parcel Y, there could be a domino effect where more and more developers come on the scene to take advantage of the economic momentum of Saskatoon's downtown. I suspect that 2012 will be a very, very important year in Saskatoon's history.

The parcel of land around the current Ukrainian Museum of Canada site on Spadina Ave would be a stellar site for a condo tower. Also, the parking lot across from the Bessborough would be an ideal site for such a development. I think increased density downtown will come. I believe that development of Parcel Y will be a game changer for Saskatoon's downtown.

On a suburban note....
I was told by one of Saskatoon's urban planners (at an East Sector Open House that I attended a few weeks ago) that a new suburban neighbourhood east of Briarwood/East College Park will become a reality in 2013. The land will be readied for development in 2013, with the first houses constructed in 2014. The development of Kensington (on the westside) starts next year, I believe. It is amazing how fast this city is growing.

[Echoes]

Originally Posted by RyanNS

What direction does everyone see the Pleasant Hill area headed in the coming years?

I've just purchased a residence near the Meadow Green/Pleasant Hill border quite a few blocks south of 20th Street. Don't plan on raising my kids here but I'll call it home for a few years and I'd love to see the neighbourhood grow and see more pride in the area. I have a steady job with an income far exceeding the median Pleasant Hill income but want to do my part to be a good neighbour and do whatever I can to help turn the area around.

I've considered a lot of other areas of the city but based on the current housing market and what I wanted to spend Pleasant Hill was a good fit. That being said I'm an urban guy and could never live in any of the cookie cutter developments of the Eastside. No offence if thats your thing, but I like character and lots of multiculturalism.

For Pleasant Hill, it's hard to say. No doubt there are some deeply embedded problems in the area, but I also think that there's a strong community there that's committed to making things better. Glad to hear you're one of those committed/good neighbour residents. I used to have a job in Pleasant Hill that had me walking the neighbourhood a lot, and while I did see some less than favourable activity, I also met a lot of friendly, good-hearted people that are committed to their community. Negative perceptions and stigma towards the area are as damaging as any real crime or social problems present there.

Hopefully Pleasant Hill Village with the new community school, park space, and housing will help rejuvenate things a bit.

[Yeff]

I know this has been beaten to death already, but I truly believe that one or two major downtown grocery stores with competitive pricing and a full complement of products, among other amenities, needs to be established downtown in order to have any real hope of an urban downtown lifestyle being embraced by enough people to keep is sustainable.

You have Sobeys, Save-On-Foods, and Safeway among others in downtown Edmonton all within walking distance for most residents. Who wants to ditch their cars in Saskatoon and take taxis everywhere, or our transit system, in order to get their groceries? Fresh fruit or vegetables? Forget it. Those need to be purchased every other day practically. One of the "express" models like you see in Edmonton, Toronto, or other large urban centres could work very well here.

I've lived and worked downtown now for the last three years and love it, as I can walk to work. But as much as I'd love to not need my vehicle, that's simply not a viable option.

[kgc087]

I absolutley agree that downtown needs amenities, I can't figure out why no major grocer will go downtown. It doesn't have to be a superstore it can just be a smaller scaled one that offers all the basic items a person needs. Rather than opening an independent chain someone should look at investing in a no frills.

Paris looks the way it does not b/c of thousands of years of design but b/c of the bourgeois movement. Basically in the 1800's complete neighbourhoods were leveled to make the grand boulevards and the housing we see today was built. It's even called bourgeois style housing. SO Canada was already happening when that happened so it's not unrealist to say that this could be a reality for Saskatoon. In fact I think most citizens of the city would prefer that type of density over the forest of scrapers.

I don't get why people keep thinking houses are a good thing. It would be great to see an external company actually calculate all of the costs involved with new suburbs vs infill just to scare people financially into promoting infill.

[Dougler306]

So to all the problems mentioned on this page about how saskatoon needs more infill instead of suburbs. Then "Brutopains" post about how there starting another suburb in 2013,lol, dont you guys have how many on the go already?. I love citys growing, wish regina could grow as fast as stoon but maybe in way we are with condos going up and a major infill of land which is cantbury grandens. Spreading citys out lead to more maintance costs in the end

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by kgc087

I absolutley agree that downtown needs amenities, I can't figure out why no major grocer will go downtown. It doesn't have to be a superstore it can just be a smaller scaled one that offers all the basic items a person needs. Rather than opening an independent chain someone should look at investing in a no frills.

From what I recall, the each market that used to be in the downtown area was profitable, but they weren't profitable enough. Perhaps someone with a better memory/knowledge of how grocery store chains operate could elaborate on this.

I don't get why people keep thinking houses are a good thing. It would be great to see an external company actually calculate all of the costs involved with new suburbs vs infill just to scare people financially into promoting infill.

It's not an entirely rational thing. Some of the Star Phoenix comments on a recent article literally call a University professor a communist because he claims once you add in roads, pipes, new schools, and fire and police coverage the new suburban neighborhoods don't pay for themselves. I wish people understood that smart urban development saves money, promotes business, AND creates a wonderful urban lifestyle to those who want it. I know urban living isn't for everybody, but neither is suburban living. And at the rate we're going, there won't be any urban options for those that want them.

[micheal]

what's saskatoons infill policy?

[Jerry]

Originally Posted by micheal

what's saskatoons infill policy?

Here you go

Vacant Lot & Adaptive Re-Use Program

[Echoes]

Originally Posted by Cicero

It's not an entirely rational thing. Some of the Star Phoenix comments on a recent article literally call a University professor a communist because he claims once you add in roads, pipes, new schools, and fire and police coverage the new suburban neighborhoods don't pay for themselves. I wish people understood that smart urban development saves money, promotes business, AND creates a wonderful urban lifestyle to those who want it. I know urban living isn't for everybody, but neither is suburban living. And at the rate we're going, there won't be any urban options for those that want them.

It seems like the StarPhoenix comment sections have been getting steadily worse for completely boneheaded, foaming-at-the-mouth ignorance and narrow mindedness. They make my blood pressure spike, yet I keep going back to read...

Originally Posted by Jerry

Here you go

Vacant Lot & Adaptive Re-Use Program

I think the vacant lot program is a good incentive, but just a piece of the puzzle. I can't recall where I read it, but I believe that in 2012 the City will be bringing forward a more comprehensive infill strategy.

Infill definitely needs to be more aggressively pursued in the city. But there are some signs of progress.... the North Downtown/City Yards development moving ahead with the 25th St extension and a master planning process underway to put thousands of residents in the area, the South Caswell development awaits the departure of the Transit facilities, College Quarter, River Landing, etc.... baby steps.

[kgc087]

Can someone post thes comments? I would certainly like to take these people on and educate them about proper urban planning, OR launch a full on assault from Toronto saying there is a reason people are trained as urban planners and architects and why are a trucker. HAHA I've already taken some abuse from people about my published views so why not keep it interesting.

[sleye]

Originally Posted by kgc087

Can someone post thes comments? I would certainly like to take these people on and educate them about proper urban planning, OR launch a full on assault from Toronto saying there is a reason people are trained as urban planners and architects and why are a trucker. HAHA I've already taken some abuse from people about my published views so why not keep it interesting.

It'd be a full time job to educate them on proper literacy and logic skills first I'm afraid.

[socialisthorde]

Originally Posted by kgc087

Can someone post thes comments? I would certainly like to take these people on and educate them about proper urban planning, OR launch a full on assault from Toronto saying there is a reason people are trained as urban planners and architects and why are a trucker. HAHA I've already taken some abuse from people about my published views so why not keep it interesting.

You big city, ivory tower, liberal, namby pamby, soft on crime, logic touting elites are all the same. You gotta have calluses on your hands, pigshit on your boots, and disdain for logic and education to have a say around here boy!

[Echoes]

No federal funding a setback for new University of Saskatchewan rink

By Darren Zary, The StarPhoenix December 6, 2011

Building a new rink for the University of Saskatchewan recently suffered another setbackPhotograph by: Greg Pender, The StarPhoenixBuilding a new rink for the University of Saskatchewan may still be a priority, but federal funding isn’t in the cards at the moment.

The university’s application for a P3-Canada grant has been denied, which is a setback for both the U of S and Huskie Athletics.

“It’s extremely disappointing, no question,” athletic director Basil Hughton said Tuesday.

“It was an opportunity for us, I think, to kick-start the project. Having said that, I’m still optimistic that there’s lots of conversation and momentum out there. The university is dedicated to finding a way through this. We’ll continue to keep positive and look forward. We have no other route to take, really.”

The U of S received the news in a letter from the federal government, U of S spokesperson Mark Ferguson confirmed to The StarPhoenix while answering to repeated inquires on the matter.

“It’s not really a surprise, I guess, given that they’re not really doing that for sports facilities right now. We do not have many details other than the letter says we do meet all of the criteria, so we obviously won’t be moving forward with federal funding for the rink at this stage, in this time,” said Ferguson.

The U of S had applied for an infrastructure grant which would have funded 25 per cent of the total project, estimated to be in the range of $25 million to $35 million.

“Obviously, whenever you don’t get to proceed in a process, it’s disappointing,” said James Cook, U of S manager of business opportunities.

“However, this was one of the options we were looking at for funding. We’re still working on other options, as well. It hasn’t meant that we’re back at square one, because we have more (irons in the fire) and we know it’s an important project for the community as well as us.

[....]

Read more: http://www.thestarphoenix.com/sports/fed...an+rink/5819526/story.html#ixzz1fnPoG1RV

[Treesplease]

Originally Posted by Jerry

I just called the city and Doug Drever the Circle Drive South Project Manager will be calling me next week to let me know when they will be back up.

Has dude from the city called you back yet to give information on the circle drive cameras? I miss not being able to check on progress.