Saskatoon Construction II

[jigglysquishy]

Originally Posted by Jezza

I've read the plans too and attended the open houses, including the 500,000 plan. The plans are great, and I'm excited for them - if they get implemented as shown. They are set up by a consultant (500,000 plan is Urban Systems IIRC) and have to be accepted and approved by the city.

There's no leadership or actual push to enforce progress towards the plans - the plan comes out, everyone oohs and ahhs, then it's business as usual. Infill is 15% right now and the infill plan that will help change this is being held up at council and committee. The mayor right now is opposing anything that will remove parking from the downtown and yet wants 10,000 people to live there without any changes.

Evergreen is projected to have a density of 8.6 units per acre. Truly sustainable development is at 12 or above. I sure hope the leadership to come in the next years has the guts to make meaningful change otherwise we're in trouble.

That's more due to politics than planning. The planning team has done their duty, but council (Atchinson in particular) have prevented a lot of the urban principles being adopted.

50% infill is their target, but there needs to be some serious tax incentives to urban living for it to take off. It doesn't help that a large portion of their infill will take place in University lands, but the University is broke right now and won't develop.

Units per acre isn't as important as people per acre. 5000 people per square kilometre is the baseline for sustainable suburbs. Evergreen gets the closest any neighbourhood in Saskatchewan has. It's bizarre that our new suburbs are substantially denser than our city core.

[North_Regina_Boy]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

That's more due to politics than planning. The planning team has done their duty, but council (Atchinson in particular) have prevented a lot of the urban principles being adopted.

50% infill is their target, but there needs to be some serious tax incentives to urban living for it to take off. It doesn't help that a large portion of their infill will take place in University lands, but the University is broke right now and won't develop.

Units per acre isn't as important as people per acre. 5000 people per square kilometre is the baseline for sustainable suburbs. Evergreen gets the closest any neighbourhood in Saskatchewan has. It's bizarre that our new suburbs are substantially denser than our city core.

I think that goes to speak to the last voting chart. Wolf vs Atchinson. Most inside of Circle Drive voted Wolf whilst outside was for Atch. If he adopted more Urban Policies and less suburban ones than it would be interesting to see where the voting map might end up.

[Morogolus]

Is there anything to stop these guys from turning the Faram block into a parking lot? I have a bad feeling that's what's gonna happen. It's just two chiropractors who bought the thing. It's not even a developer.

[drm310]

When the property developers have the mayor in their back pocket, of course he's going to advance their interests. Just follow the money.

https://www.saskatoon.ca/sites/default/f...campaigncontributionsandexpensesfull.pdf

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

That's more due to politics than planning. The planning team has done their duty, but council (Atchinson in particular) have prevented a lot of the urban principles being adopted.

50% infill is their target, but there needs to be some serious tax incentives to urban living for it to take off. It doesn't help that a large portion of their infill will take place in University lands, but the University is broke right now and won't develop.

Units per acre isn't as important as people per acre. 5000 people per square kilometre is the baseline for sustainable suburbs. Evergreen gets the closest any neighbourhood in Saskatchewan has. It's bizarre that our new suburbs are substantially denser than our city core.

[drm310]

Look at what happened with the Barry Hotel (not that there was any heritage left to save). A veterinarian bought it just to tear it down. Gravel parking lot ever since.

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/technology/Barry+Hotel+There+good+ugly+true/8947783/story.html

Originally Posted by Morogolus

Is there anything to stop these guys from turning the Faram block into a parking lot? I have a bad feeling that's what's gonna happen. It's just two chiropractors who bought the thing. It's not even a developer.

[miked22]

Originally Posted by Morogolus

Is there anything to stop these guys from turning the Faram block into a parking lot? I have a bad feeling that's what's gonna happen. It's just two chiropractors who bought the thing. It's not even a developer.

I think there is a pretty high probability that this is what will happen. I am pretty sure that I read somewhere that the owners are even saying it could be a parking lot for a while before anything is built.

[Crisis]

Originally Posted by Morogolus

Is there anything to stop these guys from turning the Faram block into a parking lot? I have a bad feeling that's what's gonna happen. It's just two chiropractors who bought the thing. It's not even a developer.

Originally Posted by drm310

Look at what happened with the Barry Hotel (not that there was any heritage left to save). A veterinarian bought it just to tear it down. Gravel parking lot ever since.

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/technology/Barry+Hotel+There+good+ugly+true/8947783/story.html

There are lots of people in the city who undertake realty development as a "sideline" and not as their primary source of income. I would wager that the majority of devleopments in this city are executed by people who fall into that category. Like it or not, they are huge drivers of our economy.

The veterinarian who purchased the Barry and turned it into a parking lot is also the same guy who has redeveloped almost all of the north side of 20th between Idylwyld and Avenue B. The chiropractors were developers of their own clinic as well as the Autism Society office building on that same site.

I would expect both of these sites to sit as parking lots until the right deal can be put together. As with all developers, they've invested a lot of money into these ventures and typically aren't just going to build something on spec because people are whining about there being a parking lot at the former site of a favourite derelict old building. Look at the new Holiday Inn on 22nd & Pacific. That was a parking lot for a few years until the hotel project came along. Regardless of your opinion of the aesthetics of the building, there is no doubt that it was good for Saskatoon. I'd give these guys the same benefit of the doubt and wait to see what arises.

[socialisthorde]

Originally Posted by miked22

I think there is a pretty high probability that this is what will happen. I am pretty sure that I read somewhere that the owners are even saying it could be a parking lot for a while before anything is built.

If you check their website, looks like chiropractors can fix almost everything, so it is surprising they can't save this building. I imagine that they have no intent of actually building anything, but are simply speculating on the property. Hope they prove me wrong.

Remember the fiasco over the big old brick building on queen street (can't recall exactly what it was), where the developer indicated the structure had to come down quickly, so building could commence? It is still a parking lot three years later. The owner gets a tax break on the property by removing the structure, and a bit of cash from the parking revenue while speculating on the value of the property increasing. The city and neighborhood gets an eyesore.

My understanding is that some cities deal with this "speculation by parking lot" strategy by taxing lots used in this manner at the same rate as if they had a building on them. Maybe that would help the situation?

[Temperance]

These guys bought the building to knock it down and build something else on the property. Remember when their representative was saying this only a couple of weeks ago?
___________
Gaby Aki, the real estate agent who represents the owners, says that preserving the Farnam Block's heritage is of the highest priority for his clients.

“Absolutely the top priority, but it also has to be put in perspective,” said Aki. “The restoration of the structure is a very, very costly one. The building has some major structural issues apart from the look on the outside.”

Aki says that among the possibilities for the site is a full restoration, a partial restoration keeping the building's facade, and a total demolition of the building.
________________

Saskatoon is crazy to knock down our few heritage buildings. Unfortunately these "developers" are not very community-minded. Brace yourself for a parking lot. They will demolish the building before opposition builds momentum.

[Measuring Stick]

Originally Posted by socialisthorde

If you check their website, looks like chiropractors can fix almost everything, so it is surprising they can't save this building. I imagine that they have no intent of actually building anything, but are simply speculating on the property. Hope they prove me wrong.

Remember the fiasco over the big old brick building on queen street (can't recall exactly what it was), where the developer indicated the structure had to come down quickly, so building could commence? It is still a parking lot three years later. The owner gets a tax break on the property by removing the structure, and a bit of cash from the parking revenue while speculating on the value of the property increasing. The city and neighborhood gets an eyesore.

My understanding is that some cities deal with this "speculation by parking lot" strategy by taxing lots used in this manner at the same rate as if they had a building on them. Maybe that would help the situation?

The demolition of a building only occurs when the land value approaches or exceeds the value of the existing building; the property has a change in highest and best use. So taxing a property as if a building is there would not result in any change or incentive to keep it. The purchase and subsequent demolition of the Farnham block tells us that the land value is approximately equal to or exceeds the value of the site as improved (land plus buildings in their current state).

That being said if someone with deep pockets can account for the "societal value" of a property in addition to its real estate value and pay above market value for it and renovate it hats off to them. The problem is the last minute is not when we should be rallying to do this. The Charter House building on 1st Ave North and other like it that are currently for sale should be the target of the heritage society in my mind.

[Dino35]

Scotia Bank in the Midtown will be "relocating" to the main branch on 2nd Ave in July 2015. Another opportunity to bring in a new retailer for the mall.

[socialisthorde]

Temperance, I will believe it when I see shovels in the ground. There are many lots around town which have sat vacant for years after an existing structure was demolished with a promise to build something "high end", (e.g. the Patricia Hotel, the above mentioned building on Queen Street). I am pretty confident that the rush to demolish in this case is simply to quiet the controversy and prevent any action by anyone to stop it, rather than to actually get started on building.

Thanks for the explanation on the property taxes MS. I agree with your point about too late etc, and I realize it is well within the rights of the current owners to do as they wish with the property, but it does seem to me that they are rushing to demolish simply to quiet the controversy, which prevents any other solution (e.g. the group who is negotiating to buy and restore it). I don't necessarily believe that developers/builders/speculators should be expected to behave in a "socially" responsible manner. They will and probably should prioritize self interest, market demands and legal requirements. It is the city's job to decide on and enforce the latter and I am arguing that should be done in a more proactive manner. Lets not forget the heritage society is a nonprofit with minimal budget, so expecting them to police such things in a proactive manner is not reasonable, but surely the city can do more through registries, zoning and building requirements etc.

What if say, the owner of such a property was required to turn it into park space until they built? i.e. just plant grass. There is no reason that the city has to allow parking as an acceptable use for such properties is there? A solution like that would also drastically improve the look of River Landing while we wait for the grand structure.

[North_Regina_Boy]

Originally Posted by socialisthorde

Temperance, I will believe it when I see shovels in the ground. There are many lots around town which have sat vacant for years after an existing structure was demolished with a promise to build something "high end", (e.g. the Patricia Hotel, the above mentioned building on Queen Street). I am pretty confident that the rush to demolish in this case is simply to quiet the controversy and prevent any action by anyone to stop it, rather than to actually get started on building.

Thanks for the explanation on the property taxes MS. I agree with your point about too late etc, and I realize it is well within the rights of the current owners to do as they wish with the property, but it does seem to me that they are rushing to demolish simply to quiet the controversy, which prevents any other solution (e.g. the group who is negotiating to buy and restore it). I don't necessarily believe that developers/builders/speculators should be expected to behave in a "socially" responsible manner. They will and probably should prioritize self interest, market demands and legal requirements. It is the city's job to decide on and enforce the latter and I am arguing that should be done in a more proactive manner. Lets not forget the heritage society is a nonprofit with minimal budget, so expecting them to police such things in a proactive manner is not reasonable, but surely the city can do more through registries, zoning and building requirements etc.

What if say, the owner of such a property was required to turn it into park space until they built? i.e. just plant grass. There is no reason that the city has to allow parking as an acceptable use for such properties is there? A solution like that would also drastically improve the look of River Landing while we wait for the grand structure.

Would LOVE to see this done! Especially with Parcel Y!

[Dougie]

Originally Posted by socialisthorde

Temperance, I will believe it when I see shovels in the ground. There are many lots around town which have sat vacant for years after an existing structure was demolished with a promise to build something "high end", (e.g. the Patricia Hotel, the above mentioned building on Queen Street). I am pretty confident that the rush to demolish in this case is simply to quiet the controversy and prevent any action by anyone to stop it, rather than to actually get started on building.

Thanks for the explanation on the property taxes MS. I agree with your point about too late etc, and I realize it is well within the rights of the current owners to do as they wish with the property, but it does seem to me that they are rushing to demolish simply to quiet the controversy, which prevents any other solution (e.g. the group who is negotiating to buy and restore it). I don't necessarily believe that developers/builders/speculators should be expected to behave in a "socially" responsible manner. They will and probably should prioritize self interest, market demands and legal requirements. It is the city's job to decide on and enforce the latter and I am arguing that should be done in a more proactive manner. Lets not forget the heritage society is a nonprofit with minimal budget, so expecting them to police such things in a proactive manner is not reasonable, but surely the city can do more through registries, zoning and building requirements etc.

What if say, the owner of such a property was required to turn it into park space until they built? i.e. just plant grass. There is no reason that the city has to allow parking as an acceptable use for such properties is there? A solution like that would also drastically improve the look of River Landing while we wait for the grand structure.

I believe leaving it as a parking space is the only way to generate revenue in order to build funds to develop a new property? Especially if that new property requires any below grade parking. There is an extreme capital cost that needs to be made up-front in order to develop a below grade parkade, and the developer must sit on that cost entirely until the structure is erected and functioning. Just planting grass would cost money to plant, cost money to mow and maintain, and make zero money. Yes I agree it would look better, but there are zero financial upsides to creating a temporary/makeshift park.

[Brutopian]

Originally Posted by North_Regina_Boy

Would LOVE to see this done! Especially with Parcel Y!

Speaking of Parcel Y, I happened to drive by there a couple of days ago and thought I noticed some folks drilling on the property. Soil testing perhaps? Did anyone else see a crew working out there?

[macca]

Originally Posted by Dino35

Scotia Bank in the Midtown will be "relocating" to the main branch on 2nd Ave in July 2015. Another opportunity to bring in a new retailer for the mall.

Anyone have the scoop on what's happening at Midtown? Lots of hoarding up, lots of store moving, lots of empty spaces....

[Arts]

Originally Posted by Dougie

I believe leaving it as a parking space is the only way to generate revenue in order to build funds to develop a new property? Especially if that new property requires any below grade parking. There is an extreme capital cost that needs to be made up-front in order to develop a below grade parkade, and the developer must sit on that cost entirely until the structure is erected and functioning. Just planting grass would cost money to plant, cost money to mow and maintain, and make zero money. Yes I agree it would look better, but there are zero financial upsides to creating a temporary/makeshift park.

Unless of course the "developers" happen to have capital and financing in place and do not need to sit and wait on parking revenue to fund the construction.

Considering that these two owners put up 2 new commercial buildings in very little time on the site where their practice is, I suspect they are eager to actually have something built - the sooner the occupancy the more profitable for them. In fact I have talked with one of the owners who said they have architectural plans in place. It likely will be a nice building with very good retail and office amenities, of which a second location for their practice is included. But I don't suspect it will be a landmark building, and I'm doubtful it will have underground parking, which I'm sure will be disappointing to some.

And even if they do build a parking lot, I don't see how that is any worse than an empty and unused building.

[Temperance]

Originally Posted by socialisthorde

Temperance, I will believe it when I see shovels in the ground. There are many lots around town which have sat vacant for years after an existing structure was demolished with a promise to build something "high end", (e.g. the Patricia Hotel, the above mentioned building on Queen Street). I am pretty confident that the rush to demolish in this case is simply to quiet the controversy and prevent any action by anyone to stop it, rather than to actually get started on building.

I actually do agree with you. I just meant that they never really considered keeping the existing buildings. It was bought with an eventual new development in mind.

[Crisis]

The new owners of the Farnham building actually did evaluate the cost of renovating the building to make it viable as a location for retail tenants. Beyond the cost of providing the required structural remediation work required for the basic structure, the cost of altering the first floor elevation to provide grade level access to the building is what moved the decision to demolition rather than restoration.

[3minutes]

Originally Posted by macca

Anyone have the scoop on what's happening at Midtown? Lots of hoarding up, lots of store moving, lots of empty spaces....

The mall is trying to secure long-term leases for high sales per unit area locations. They are trying to focus on higher end fashion, lifestyle and electronic retailers that drive foot traffic. This is why Pearl Vision closed their store and maybe it is why Scotiabank is closing. Primaris probably feels that they can net more sales from other retailers.

We are seeing growing tenants shuffle to take advantage of this (for example, Telus is relocating to a larger retail space, where Pearl Vision previously resided).