Regina Construction III

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by Festivus

It says concrete floor, is it also concrete wall dividers?

Shame about the location though, it's really far out east with no great access to the Ring Rd or similar high-speed roads.

And are they including the deck space for their square footage?

I don't think so, because the 4th and 5th floor rounded corner units both have the same square footage, but the 4th has a massive patio.

[Davidson]

Originally Posted by Nathan

It almost looks like some sort of institutional health facility, but not in a bad way at all. I'm curious to see how the green ages; the stone I know will be perfectly fine.

I'm also curious about how long it will take the U of R to have the ability to continue their residential plan. It was around 12 years or so between the first Res towers and these... hope it doesn't take that long for them to move to the next phase. Would be great for the University to really start to have a higher on campus population.

The next capital priority for the U of R is revitalization of the College Ave campus. They have been fundraising for this for a few years and have made capital asks to the province but as far as I know, no dice on that yet. This is a project the whole city should get behind because the old campus is beautiful and badly in need of repair soon before it completely falls apart.

[Davidson]

Originally Posted by Devon

And both share equally important (Wingate even more so) corners of the core. Neither should have been approved in my opinion, no matter how much of a need there was for hotel space.

I'm curious, what type of development would you've preferred to have seen on these two corners?

[Pfeifer80]

Originally Posted by Nathan

I don't think so, because the 4th and 5th floor rounded corner units both have the same square footage, but the 4th has a massive patio.

Originally Posted by Festivus

It says concrete floor, is it also concrete wall dividers?

Shame about the location though, it's really far out east with no great access to the Ring Rd or similar high-speed roads.

And are they including the deck space for their square footage?

Floors will be concrete and walls will be steel with and air gap between the walls and floors. Square footage does not include deck space. If you have any more questions please feel free to contact me. I am working with sales and development on the project.

[thefourthtower]

Originally Posted by Nathan

It almost looks like some sort of institutional health facility, but not in a bad way at all. I'm curious to see how the green ages; the stone I know will be perfectly fine.I'm also curious about how long it will take the U of R to have the ability to continue their residential plan. It was around 12 years or so between the first Res towers and these... hope it doesn't take that long for them to move to the next phase. Would be great for the University to really start to have a higher on campus population.

I believe there are plans for six more residence towers near the same site , I love the green

[Devon]

Originally Posted by Davidson

I'm curious, what type of development would you've preferred to have seen on these two corners?

Hotels are definitely fine, just not suburban model hotels. Something URBAN, with higher quality materials and maybe a little more conducive to having an interesting and inviting urban form/streetscape as the city centre should. Broad St between Sask Dr and College Dr has really lost it in the last 10 years, I hate to see such prime real estate downtown (former superstore/hopefully not CPR) do the same.

[Devon]

Originally Posted by thefourthtower

I believe there are plans for six more residence towers near the same site , I love the green

They actually remind me a bit of the U of S residences, McEown Park. Hopefully the green weathers better than theirs (not visible in photo really).

[BrutallyDishonest]

I'm surprised to see the support for the UofR towers.

They are some of the least inspired architecture in a very, very long time. The bland shapes and color are straight out of 1995. And the fact that the glass and Tyndall stone are not cheap meant that the university had the budget for nice materials. The University should lead, not follow on architecture.

[SkydivePilot]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest

I'm surprised to see the support for the UofR towers.

They are some of the least inspired architecture in a very, very long time. The bland shapes and color are straight out of 1995. And the fact that the glass and Tyndall stone are not cheap meant that the university had the budget for nice materials. The University should lead, not follow on architecture.

I think they are alright. The U of R is an educational institution; ergo, these residential towers possess an element of utilitarianism in their appearance. So what? There's no reason to have flashy-looking, student residential towers.

[Treesplease]

Originally Posted by SkydivePilot

I think they are alright. The U of R is an educational institution; ergo, these residential towers possess an element of utilitarianism in their appearance. So what? There's no reason to have flashy-looking, student residential towers.

Its unfortunate, but its just nice to see something made with decent materials as opposed to stucco.

The cheap ass green roof and white mechanical penthouses on the two previous residence towers is the thing that pokes me in the eye every time I look at them.

[BrutallyDishonest]

Originally Posted by SkydivePilot

I think they are alright. The U of R is an educational institution; ergo, these residential towers possess an element of utilitarianism in their appearance. So what? There's no reason to have flashy-looking, student residential towers.

Yes, but if you're already spending the money, why not go for something slightly interesting. Being an educational institution actually asks for better architecture. It's that type of attitude that leads to bad architecture in the first place. No government building/church/school needs to be interesting, but it might as well be.

Pattison MGM clearly isn't up to the task.

[BrutallyDishonest]

Originally Posted by Treesplease

The cheap ass green roof and white mechanical penthouses on the two previous residence towers is the thing that pokes me in the eye every time I look at them.

The new towers have the same thing. A big white/grey box on top. I'd say the new ones are arguably worse.

[blacktrojan3921]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest

Yes, but if you're already spending the money, why not go for something slightly interesting. Being an educational institution actually asks for better architecture. It's that type of attitude that leads to bad architecture in the first place. No government building/church/school needs to be interesting, but it might as well be.

Pattison MGM clearly isn't up to the task.

I thought it was the result of cutting corners and trying to save as much money as humanly possible while not breaking any safety regulations

[StealthGirl]

Originally Posted by Devon

Hotels are definitely fine, just not suburban model hotels. Something URBAN, with higher quality materials and maybe a little more conducive to having an interesting and inviting urban form/streetscape as the city centre should. Broad St between Sask Dr and College Dr has really lost it in the last 10 years, I hate to see such prime real estate downtown (former superstore/hopefully not CPR) do the same.

The Wingate looks more bland as well by the simple fact is in near the Casino and the Bus Depot, both of which are more detailed architecture.

[Stormer]

If they do reno the house on Leopold and Albert, I hope they get rid of the abomination that this the Spanish style roof and restore period-correct, original flat roof.


http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Home+demolition+decision+deferred/10960024/story.html

[Arts]

Originally Posted by Stormer

If they do reno the house on Leopold and Albert, I hope they get rid of the abomination that this the Spanish style roof and restore period-correct, original flat roof.


http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Home+demolition+decision+deferred/10960024/story.html

I'm a little confused between reading your comment and the linked article...

"It represents a style of architecture that's not wellrepresented ... in the city," said Schmidt. "It's a part of the heritage of the community, and it's a part of the fabric of Cathedral."

According to the article "it stands out for its Mediterranean Italianate and Art Moderne styles, with a curved glass block window that is unique in Regina." I guess I am wondering if it is currently representative of it's original design - if so, why would you change it? and if not, why is it being valued by Regina Heritage for it's unique style?

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by Arts

I'm a little confused between reading your comment and the linked article...


According to the article "it stands out for its Mediterranean Italianate and Art Moderne styles, with a curved glass block window that is unique in Regina." I guess I am wondering if it is currently representative of it's original design - if so, why would you change it? and if not, why is it being valued by Regina Heritage for it's unique style?

The "Mediterranean Italianate" tile roof was added in the 1970s. It is completely out of place with the Art Moderne style.

[dsmmace]

They achieved their goal of having these towers 'match' existing/similar buildings, in my opinion this build was very successful. Did you know some of the same people that built the first towers, were a part of these new residences as well?

But you wouldn't understand that Chad or 'brutallydishonest', you feel it's necessary to 'buck the trend' and create attention/conflict.

[drm310]

I've seen that done with some Streamline Moderne houses in Saskatoon. The original flat roofs were either replaced or had a pitched roof added on top. I can't think of a good reason why, other than perhaps the flat roofs had a problem with drainage/leaks.

Originally Posted by Stormer

The "Mediterranean Italianate" tile roof was added in the 1970s. It is completely out of place with the Art Moderne style.

[Dan0myte]

Originally Posted by Arts

According to the article "it stands out for its Mediterranean Italianate and Art Moderne styles, with a curved glass block window that is unique in Regina." I guess I am wondering if it is currently representative of it's original design - if so, why would you change it? and if not, why is it being valued by Regina Heritage for it's unique style?

All StealthGirl is stating is that it would be nice to see it returned to the way the architect drew it up in 1944. Architecture is an art form, just as any other, and the Cathedral community's heart and soul is in the arts.