New Harvard Office Tower in Downtown Regina! - Page 42

CCF · #**821** Posted **Apr 28, 2012, 4:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

65-70m is overly tall in Regina? Alright then...

I'm not looking for a 150m tower... I just think the aesthetics of having a stump smack dab in the middle of the cluster are terrible. Move the tower to the other side of Hamilton, or onto Rose and it would be fine (less useful for FCC though). We can wait until we have the demand to absorb a 70m tower if we need to, but building the stump there now destroys that possibility forever; I'd rather wait than settle.

No 70 metres is not overly tall - but in the sense that if we want every development to be 20 stories, development will dry up pretty quickly.

What are we waiting for exactly? The downtown is littered with parcels being used inefficiently as parking lots or furthermore, buildings that could have been demolished 10 years ago. There's absolutely no shortage of developable land within and surrounding the downtown. In no way is it a missed opportunity to develop a 10 storey building instead of 15 storeys.

Demand is set at 'X' - if you have one development that is 30 stories, whether it be residential or commercial, that development has the real possibility to eat up all that demand in the downtown. It's ability to influence positive change to the downtown is limited to a certain radius within the downtown. On the contrary if you split that 30 storey building into 3-10 storey developments dispersed amongst the downtown, you would see a greater influence of change in the downtown from these 3 developments as opposed to that one higher density development.

People seem to focus on the aesthetics of the skyline - I'd rather focus on the vibrancy, excitement and attractiveness of the downtown at street level. This is what makes downtowns exciting and attractive, not how a collection of buildings look from 2 kms away.

This is planning theory and thankfully it has been accounted for within the downtown plan.

Nathan · #**822** Posted **Apr 28, 2012, 4:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCF

No 70 metres is not overly tall - but in the sense that if we want every development to be 20 stories, development will dry up pretty quickly.

What are we waiting for exactly? The downtown is littered with parcels being used inefficiently as parking lots or furthermore, buildings that could have been demolished 10 years ago. There's absolutely no shortage of developable land within and surrounding the downtown. In no way is it a missed opportunity to develop a 10 storey building instead of 15 storeys.

Demand is set at 'X' - if you have one development that is 30 stories, whether it be residential or commercial, that development has the real possibility to eat up all that demand in the downtown. It's ability to influence positive change to the downtown is limited to a certain radius within the downtown. On the contrary if you split that 30 storey building into 3-10 storey developments dispersed amongst the downtown, you would see a greater influence of change in the downtown from these 3 developments as opposed to that one higher density development.

People seem to focus on the aesthetics of the skyline - I'd rather focus on the vibrancy, excitement and attractiveness of the downtown at street level. This is what makes downtowns exciting and attractive, not how a collection of buildings look from 2 kms away.

This is planning theory and thankfully it has been accounted for within the downtown plan.

Office buildings add nothing to the vibrancy of Downtown. We have had our current skyline since the early 90s (with the Exception of Hill III) and that is when our downtown was at its worst. More residential towers I agree would add to the vibrancy more as would mixed use, but office doesn't, other than 9-5 (which is what our downtown has been for decades).

And by your guidelines, the new tower shouldn't be built there anyway; there are already successful businesses in place there, and there are plenty of empty parking lots around downtown to stick this tower. A new tower only has the possibility to add to downtown vibrancy if it isn't displacing something that is already doing so. Hill III displaced small local businesses, and this Agro Place is doing the same. In fact, I would argue the Hills seem to have developed a habit of doing this.

And I don't know why you keep on bringing up 30 storeys. We aren't ready for a tower of that size, I don't think anyone really truly thinks we are, although that massive Rose Office building, though only 74m, is virtually triple the floor space of one of the 80m Hill Towers, so in real terms it's more like a 40 storey tower if the normal Regina floorplate size were applied.

CCF · #**823** Posted **Apr 28, 2012, 5:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

Office buildings add nothing to the vibrancy of Downtown. We have had our current skyline since the early 90s (with the Exception of Hill III) and that is when our downtown was at its worst. More residential towers I agree would add to the vibrancy more as would mixed use, but office doesn't, other than 9-5 (which is what our downtown has been for decades).

Of course office buildings add vibrancy to the downtown. They add additional population to the area thus putting more people on the streets during business hours. Anytime you contribute more people to an area, that's adding vibrancy. Adding residential development to the core would add vibrancy that exists further into the evening. You need all types of uses that can contribute people to an area throughout the day - office being one of them.

Our downtown was at its worse during the 90s because there was an exodus of office and retail from the core. This was the era in Canadian retail trends when big box stores began to enter the market. This was an additional 'nail in the coffin' to downtown retail in addition to what the previous 40 years of mall expansion had already done. You don't think there was a decline of office use in the downtown? Then why is it that the majority of residential living in the downtown has come in the form of adaptive re-use from office to residential? The Hamilton Building, The Motherwell building, the TD bank building and Leader Building were all former office buildings left empty by an exit of office employment.

Quote:

And by your guidelines, the new tower shouldn't be built there anyway; there are already successful businesses in place there, and there are plenty of empty parking lots around downtown to stick this tower. A new tower only has the possibility to add to downtown vibrancy if it isn't displacing something that is already doing so. Hill III displaced small local businesses, and this Agro Place is doing the same. In fact, I would argue the Hills seem to have developed a habit of doing this.

I would agree - preference would be to see empty lots developed before the demolition of functioning buildings. That being said it's one thing to prescribe what can be developed in terms of form and use, but it's another to limit a property owner from demolishing what's on site. That's virtually impossible unless it has some sort of designation, such as heritage.

A new development can add to downtown vibrancy in two ways - if it's a higher density development bringing additional users to the area than what currently exists. Secondly, if it follows 'strong' urban design with facades that are welcoming and generate activity (think storefront vs blank wall). So yes, this development will in fact add vibrancy and additional critical mass to the area that I'm sure surrounding retailers will welcome (aside from complications during a construction period).

Quote:

And I don't know why you keep on bringing up 30 storeys. We aren't ready for a tower of that size, I don't think anyone really truly thinks we are, although that massive Rose Office building, though only 74m, is virtually triple the floor space of one of the 80m Hill Towers, so in real terms it's more like a 40 storey tower if the normal Regina floorplate size were applied.

Exactly what I'm saying - we aren't ready for a tower of that size, because it ultimately would soak up all demand in one development. Why do I keep bringing it up? Because others are preaching the approach that taller = better. I'm merely providing a discussion based on planning theory as to why that is not the case if we are trying to achieve a great downtown. Houston has an impressive skyline, but it won't win any awards for how it feels and functions at ground level. You won't hear anyone say downtown Houston is great, on the contrary in fact. I was using the idea of 30 storeys as an example. If it suits you better I could have said 20 - same argument.

Davidson · #**824** Posted **Apr 28, 2012, 4:04 PM**

This is becoming the FCC tower thread now....but I think what some folks are losing sight of in the debate over the size and location of FCC II is that it's being built for one specific client (FCC) for a very specific need (to consolidate their employees, who are currently dispersed throughout downtown into, into one easily-accessible location). In that context, the size and location make perfect sense from the client's point-of-view. And hopefully the downtown plan will also ensure there's continued retail activity at grade/street level.

thefourthtower · #**825** Posted **Apr 28, 2012, 5:48 PM**

A 30 story tower is not all that tall ,why think small town ,it defines a city and makes it look powerful and mighty ,it could be mixed use such as the delta , office , condo &, hotel combined 10, 10,10

CCF · #**826** Posted **Apr 28, 2012, 7:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by thefourthtower

A 30 story tower is not all that tall ,why think small town ,it defines a city and makes it look powerful and mighty ,it could be mixed use such as the delta , office , condo &, hotel combined 10, 10,10

I've expanded on the discussion previously - really don't feel like going through it all again.

People are more likely to remember how the downtown feels at the pedestrian scale. That's why Moose Jaw is considered to have one of the better downtowns within Saskatchewan. There's a sense of vibrancy and life in downtown Moose Jaw and none of that has to do with a plethora of skyscrapers.

There's a reason downtown Victoria is better than downtown Regina - and again it has nothing to do with an abundance of tall buildings.

If we are trying to create a vibrant downtown - then give me this:

over this:

thefourthtower · #**827** Posted **Apr 28, 2012, 7:53 PM**

That is the lamest excuse ever ,high rises can look amazing if they are done right ,mixed use following the downtown plan will make the city look what
Is going on now and it's working ,we were held back long enough with and where did it get us no where thousands left , but now there coming back ,we want a nice planned city ,those photos are the worst possible situation

Stormer · #**828** Posted **Apr 28, 2012, 8:48 PM**

Gotta agree with 4thT on this one. Skyscrapers can be pedestrian friendly and frankly are full of potential pedestrians.

Vancouver proposal:

http://www.silverliving.ca/

Chadillaccc · #**829** Posted **Apr 28, 2012, 11:42 PM**

That's actually a Burnaby proposal. They are completely redeveloping the area south of Metrotown Mall (2nd largest mall in Canada) with massive (120 meter+) residential towers with extremely pedestrian friendly podiums.

CCF · #**830** Posted **Apr 28, 2012, 11:44 PM**

You're absolutely correct, because of course they can - I'm not suggesting they can't. The Vancouver model has demonstrated that skyscrapers can contribute to pedestrianism. And because of that Vancouver has one of the best and most liveable downtowns in NA.

What I am suggesting, and what I've said a number of times, is that there's only so much demand for new downtown developments within Regina. This is not Vancouver where demand is so strong that they have had to look at ways to limit residential as it is taking precedence over employment lands, such as office.

The two pictures I show are there to express the difference in development. I would prefer the medium density built continuously along the street as this would have a greater influence on more of the downtown. On the contrary, the influence of a higher density development is limited in how far it's impact will reach. This is what I am emphasizing. We are trying to build a great downtown - and thus we need to direct investments strategically across the downtown. Not focus all development within two blocks. Unlike Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal where the demand for development in inner-city locations seems infinite, we are limited in the amount.

This is planning theory, based off the research of professional planners and academics who have committed their lives to the discipline. I am not just making these thoughts up - I've studied Planning at the university level, so I like to think I have a grasp on the field. Furthermore, these thoughts are clearly relevant as these very principles are visible in Regina's downtown plan.

I am not arguing that the City of Regina go in and tell Harvard to lower the density. Obviously that's not realistic. What I'm discussing here is that there seems to be a thought that taller = better. My interest, as I'm sure many of yours are, is to see a vibrant, attractive downtown. Will this type of development help? Of course, but the impact of a new 20 or 30 storey tower could be more effective to the area if done differently.

Anyways - just providing discussion to the topic. It's not a forum rule that you have to listen to me!

macblaze · #**831** Posted **May 3, 2012, 6:34 AM**

...

SkydivePilot · #**832** Posted **May 8, 2012, 5:32 AM**

Hey, I was wondering if anyone could post some (more) recent pics of Harvard III. She must be damn near finished!

Ahem: Spongebob!!!

Thanks!!!

UrbanClimate · #**833** Posted **May 8, 2012, 5:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkydivePilot

Hey, I was wondering if anyone could post some (more) recent pics of Harvard III. She must be damn near finished!

Ahem: Spongebob!!!

Thanks!!!

Here's a couple photos taken in mid-April....not sure if much has changed since then.

SkydivePilot · #**834** Posted **May 8, 2012, 8:57 PM**

That looks great!!! Thank you!!!

youngregina · #**835** Posted **May 9, 2012, 12:44 AM**

From the south I was able to see that they are starting to cover the parapet in blue cladding? Is it just insulation? Or is this something that will cover up the the unsightly concrete box that sits atop the tower?