Saskatoon Construction II

[Treesplease]

Originally Posted by macca

Around 15 years ago I severely sprained my ankle. I was on crutches for weeks and seriously hobbled for months. I did a bit of physio but didn't really stick with it. It was years until it didn't hurt during or after exercise and even a decade later it would get sore if it was really cold outside. So eventually I made the difficult decision to amputate my foot.

Best decision I ever made. No more pain or discomfort or restless nights with a throbbing ankle.

Do you suffer from headaches at all?

[macca]

Originally Posted by Treesplease

Do you suffer from headaches at all?

Primarily when people promote demolition as urban renewal.

[nook]

Originally Posted by casper

Looking at the floor plan for phase II I am impressed. Three stores of retail in that type of layout is something your are more likely to find in Asia than North America. Clearly they are looking for Asian buyers into the project.

A food court and three stories of retail. Interesting.

If they can make it work I think it is a major step forward in making Willowgrove a livable community. What I don't know is if it will fly.

Willowgrove is pretty livable already, as someone who lives here... but regardless...

It's a nice concept. It'll be interesting to see if it flies. It looks a lot like the building that is on the other side of the square.

[EarlyByrdProductions]

http://iconosquare.com/p/941783019649914177_461738732


The Red Brick Giant on 11th Street East

Lydia’s
The home to the Broadway Beat
The Red Brick Giant
That sat on 11th Street East
She stooped on the corner
For a century’s feast
Of creativity
Conversation
Craving like minds to speak
Musicians
Poets
The students could drink cheap
Fresh pints
Open mics
Opened smiles for me
To take a stage for the first time
And feel totally free
She took every musicians virginity
On 11th Street East
Yes, you were always
Among friends
On the corner of the Broadway Beat
Every style
Came forward
And welcomed to be indiscreet
She Called hippies
And businessmen
To be who you be
It’s afterhours
At Lydia’s
In the heart of Saskatoon’s Scene
Oh the stories to hear
If only her walls could speak
But a red brick soul
Sits shattered
On 11th Street East
Her spark will still burn
Now that her spirits been freed
But remember
We love you
Now Lydia’s
Please Rest in Peace

March 15, 2015
~j.early~

http://imgur.com/BG8TaDL

[ToonTownRob]

An area housing 70,000 people is not a neighbourhood. It is a small city. Traffic between cities moved on highways, not city streets. If the idiots behind planning Saskatoon knew what they were doing, there would be a hierarchy of roads, freeway to arterial, to feeder, to residential. These nut jobs try to go from residential to freeway in the space of two blocks and can't understand why thèy have problems.

Koombuyah thoughts about walkability are delusional in a climate that is primarily winter and often so cold it isn't safe to be outdoors. And who keeps the snow and ice away from walkways? The city? No they have to fine retirees thousands of dollars to do it in front of their homes but can't clear anything else. When they do clear the streets they pile it on the sidewalks!

Railing against cars and roads while not providing reasonable alternatives is a waste of time. Designing cities such that no one can get downtown quickly and conveniently and park inexpensively where people want to go, and then claiming you want downtown alive and vibrant is foolish. People will live where they want. You make the relationship between the city and the downtown strong and people will work and shop there instead of the suburbs leaving it to die. With a strong downtown with employment opportinities some will choose to live there, and the downtown becomes what the city wants it to be.

— design of neighborhoods and traffic infrastructure kills downtowns. Not understanding why people don't use mass transit kills it in the same way. How many of the city planners live downtown, don't own cars, and only use public transit? Give me a break. If the mayor wants people living downtown, why doesn't he move there?

[North_Regina_Boy]

Originally Posted by ToonTownRob

An area housing 70,000 people is not a neighbourhood. It is a small city. Traffic between cities moved on highways, not city streets. If the idiots behind planning Saskatoon knew what they were doing, there would be a hierarchy of roads, freeway to arterial, to feeder, to residential. These nut jobs try to go from residential to freeway in the space of two blocks and can't understand why thèy have problems.

Koombuyah thoughts about walkability are delusional in a climate that is primarily winter and often so cold it isn't safe to be outdoors. And who keeps the snow and ice away from walkways? The city? No they have to fine retirees thousands of dollars to do it in front of their homes but can't clear anything else. When they do clear the streets they pile it on the sidewalks!

Railing against cars and roads while not providing reasonable alternatives is a waste of time. Designing cities such that no one can get downtown quickly and conveniently and park inexpensively where people want to go, and then claiming you want downtown alive and vibrant is foolish. People will live where they want. You make the relationship between the city and the downtown strong and people will work and shop there instead of the suburbs leaving it to die. With a strong downtown with employment opportinities some will choose to live there, and the downtown becomes what the city wants it to be.

— design of neighborhoods and traffic infrastructure kills downtowns. Not understanding why people don't use mass transit kills it in the same way. How many of the city planners live downtown, don't own cars, and only use public transit? Give me a break. If the mayor wants people living downtown, why doesn't he move there?

+1 To the bolded parts!

[Crisis]

^^^^ Well put, Rob.

[Arts]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

Brighton will end up being the most walkable neighbourhood the city has built since World War II. Is it perfect? No, far from it, but it's still the best in 70 years.

Part of the reason the city wants to add more intersections on College is to increase the pedestrian connectivity between Holmwood and University Heights.

Pedestrians don't use roads they use walkways, so why bring traffic to a standstill just so residents in one neighborhood have to walk several kms and cross major highways to get to services in another? That is not "walkability" by my understanding. To me I always understood walkability to mean access from local residences by foot to services and retailers that are not great distances apart or span wide vehicle corridors. University Heights is a full service neighborhood and so too will Brighton be, so pedestrian access between the two neighbourhoods is not as high a priority as cyclist, vehicle and transit access.

As to making the roads more connected, that would be like adding signalized intersections all along Circle Dr because they wish to increase density in all the neighborhoods that abut it. The problem is when the city, like all other urban areas in North America, went away from grid street system they adopted a hierarchal system instead: Freeways>Expressways>Arterials>Collectors>locals... now to "save cost" they are basically eliminating the top of the ladder which breaks the entire function of a designed roadway network and is a guaranteed way to cause traffic congestion - in the long run it is going to cost the city much more to ameliorate the problem they are causing now.

[socialisthorde]

Originally Posted by Crisis

The owners are the ones who put up their money to buy the building and have the right to do with it as they please. Everyone else is just expressing an opinion and you know the old saying about opinions....

That the opinion of the majority sometimes rightfully trumps property rights? Property rights are always subject to regulation.

[Dalreg]

Originally Posted by socialisthorde

That the opinion of the majority sometimes rightfully trumps property rights? Property rights are always subject to regulation.

Um, no.

Opinions are like — holes, everyone has one....

[casper]

Originally Posted by nook

Willowgrove is pretty livable already, as someone who lives here... but regardless...

It's a nice concept. It'll be interesting to see if it flies. It looks a lot like the building that is on the other side of the square.

I use to live in Willowgrove. It is a definite improvement. When I lived there both those lots were basically vacant. Good to see it developing into the "town square".

[Crisis]

Originally Posted by socialisthorde

That the opinion of the majority sometimes rightfully trumps property rights? Property rights are always subject to regulation.

In a very few, select situations, I may agree with you. The Farnham Block certainly wouldn't be one of them. You'd be hard pressed to argue that retaining the Farnham Block was favoured by the majority of the population. A somewhat vocal minority at best. There really wan't a significant hue and cry from the population as a whole to save the building. The gathering of 500 names on a petition is pretty dismal coming from a city 250,000 people.

[miked22]

Originally Posted by Crisis

In a very few, select situations, I may agree with you. The Farnham Block certainly wouldn't be one of them. You'd be hard pressed to argue that retaining the Farnham Block was favoured by the majority of the population. A somewhat vocal minority at best. There really wan't a significant hue and cry from the population as a whole to save the building. The gathering of 500 names on a petition is pretty dismal coming from a city 250,000 people.

The thing is, most people in Saskatoon spend very little or no time in the Broadway area and so wouldn’t even notice if it were gone. So of course they are not going to care if it is gone (the owners included). Many people who live in the Broadway are, however, are going to think differently. Part of the reason they live where they do is because of features in the neighborhood that they won’t find elsewhere, including its historic buildings (as few as there are). There are many projects in other areas of the city that have little effect of me and which I may question whether the city should get involved. Do we really need all of the three or four bridges that are being planned, do I really care if an interchange of some sort is built at McOrmond and College? Any one of these projects would cost much more that what it would cost the city to help preserve a few buildings. I am not even sure that the city would have to cover that much of the cost for this, much of it may be changing some of the rules. Anyone who lives around Broadway or spends a fair bit of time there, would have recognized the Farnam Building as one of the most significant buildings on the street, probably only rivalled by the Broadway Theatre.

As Saskatoon grows it is becoming more diverse, which means some parts of the population are going to have different interests and needs than other parts. We can’t just make every decision based on what the majority of the population thinks. There will always be some issues that are important to a minority, but not important to everyone and I don’t think preserving a relatively small number of buildings is going to create any great hardship for anyone.

[miked22]

Anyways, I probably shouldn't be directing my reply at your comment, Crisis. I know you were just responding to another comment on the majority being in favour of saving the Farnam building (which may or may not be the case, my feeling is that the majority simply don't care). The gist of my argument still stands, though.

[drm310]

I'd be interested in seeing the reaction from the public if someone bought the Bessborough Hotel, proclaimed it to be too run down to fix and move to demolish it. It has no heritage designation of any kind, so the owner would have the unfettered right to raze it to the ground.

[Echoes]

Originally Posted by drm310

I'd be interested in seeing the reaction from the public if someone bought the Bessborough Hotel, proclaimed it to be too run down to fix and move to demolish it. It has no heritage designation of any kind, so the owner would have the unfettered right to raze it to the ground.

Terrifying to think of, right?

But, the Bessborough is one building that I think City Council would consider moving to unilaterally designate as a heritage property before it met the wrecking ball.

[scotty c]

Originally Posted by drm310

I'd be interested in seeing the reaction from the public if someone bought the Bessborough Hotel, proclaimed it to be too run down to fix and move to demolish it. It has no heritage designation of any kind, so the owner would have the unfettered right to raze it to the ground.

That's a pretty tough comparison as the Bess has been kept up and renovations have been ongoing as it's a viable business. If it was run down and structurally shot where it wasn't useable and was boarded up I'm guessing people would be happy to have something nice and usable in that prime location. It all comes down to upkeep, it's easier to let something slip rather than keep it up when it's at a prime location like Broadway because the owner can do a cost/benefit and realize that they don't have to do the upkeep because the land it's sitting on is so valuable. Milk the building for all its worth and then throw a for sale sign in the window. If the city really wants to keep these heritage properties the way to do so is to not allow them to be torn down and that will ensure that upkeep is continued as a small amount every year is a lot easier to swallow than a huge amount once you've let something go to the point of no return.

[Arts]

Originally Posted by Echoes

Terrifying to think of, right?

But, the Bessborough is one building that I think City Council would consider moving to unilaterally designate as a heritage property before it met the wrecking ball.

To me the Bess could represent a perfect case for the heritage society to reform their policies and find a way to approach private property owners, along with the city, in a way that genuinely is mutually beneficial to designate such properties as heritage ones. Figure out a way, right now, for them to have the Bess assigned a heritage property, which would prevent it from ever being removed from public view, that appeases the interests of current owners. And then once they have a working model, proactively reach out to all other potential heritage properties and their owners and negotiate the designation and recognize the value, worth as well as liabilities to owners and do something to actually HELP them rather than limit them.

[Morogolus]

Word on the street is that the Faram Block is becoming a McDonald's. Not a terrible idea if they can incorporate some of the areas architecture into the building.

[Echoes]

Originally Posted by Arts

To me the Bess could represent a perfect case for the heritage society to reform their policies and find a way to approach private property owners, along with the city, in a way that genuinely is mutually beneficial to designate such properties as heritage ones. Figure out a way, right now, for them to have the Bess assigned a heritage property, which would prevent it from ever being removed from public view, that appeases the interests of current owners. And then once they have a working model, proactively reach out to all other potential heritage properties and their owners and negotiate the designation and recognize the value, worth as well as liabilities to owners and do something to actually HELP them rather than limit them.

I like that. A proactive and collaborative approach to getting buildings that may not be under imminent threat of demolition designated as heritage properties before such a threat becomes real.

I also like the comments in the media from the frontman of the group who tried to buy the Farnam last minute, who said that their group wants to set their sights on other old buildings whose future may be in question, but where it's not already too late to save it. We need more development companies in town that are obviously profit-driven, but pursue projects with the objective of a social/community net benefit (we have a couple). Their development cooperative will be interesting to see evolve.