Saskatoon Construction II

[Irvin]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

North Prairie is a plague to this city.

I find it so surprising the criticism that this forum delivers to anybody building suburban office space. I wonder how many of you own a small business - and if you do - it sounds to me that you better open your office downtown. I have total respect for your contributions to this forum over the years Echoes - but where my disappointment lies with you is if the project isn't downtown or on Broadway - you seem to have a problem with it - are you not a cheerleader for the entire city.

I want the highrises proposed for dt to go ahead as much as anybody - but the fact remains development occurs where there is a demand. I sometimes get the feeling some contributers on here talk as if Stonebridge is 20 miles from downtown. It takes 5 minutes to get downtown from Stonebridge to me that makes it a very convenient place to live. And do we not want employment to be close to where people live to reduce commuting.

Hats off to North Prairie on this development -those who disagree don't seem to understand the basis of supply and demand.

The city is merely letting development occur where demand is, we need more office space east of the river where people are settling in - it decreases the demand on the bridges.

[Echoes]

I'll make no bones about it, my personal interest in development in Saskatoon is geographically limited to the downtown and inner city. I rarely (but sometimes) care who the next tenant at Preston Crossing is.

I have ideas, like we all do, about what I think is good for Saskatoon. I reject the argument that unless we have million dollars of capital to put up for our own project, we're disbarred from discussing development in this city. This is a discussion forum, and we're allowed to talk about why we think "A" is not so great for Saskatoon, and why we think "B" might be better.

I have no criticism for North Prairie themselves. Actually, of all the large suburban developers, they've made an admirable attempt to invest in our downtown - Discovery Plaza, Shangri-La, City Centre - with mixed results. My criticism lies with the existing public policy that allows developments like Cornerstone Commons to continue unchecked. Do we need suburban office space? Absolutely. I'm not that naive. But when you see that there's, oh, five major office developments proposed in our downtown - many of the proposals years old - and that there's been no real movement, we're allowed to say: something is wrong here.

Even the undertone from The StarPhoenix's article about North Prairie's development seemed to be one of bewilderment. You know they point blank asked the Mayor: is this good for the city? And his answer made their headline. They've been writing about River Landing for nearly 10 years with barely a shovel of dirt being moved, and right now all we've got to talk about is an office park that the Mayor is trumpeting as the next greatest thing ever.

Maybe we've lost another opportunity here. Maybe we're just shooting for the middle (or even lower than that), rather than the top.

(PS - Irvin, I hadn't vocalized my criticism of this project earlier (other than a facepalm), so I'm not sure why you singled me out specifically. You may have just been misquoting. Either way, no hard feelings.)

[jigglysquishy]

Originally Posted by Crisis

On what do you base that comment?

Tax deferral for a set period of time? The same type of tax break that most new developments receive? The same type of tax relief that most businesses opening up in a new city will receive?

If North Prairie is receiving some preferential treatment regarding tax breaks, please share.

By the City's own documents, we know employment sprawl is taxpayer subsidized. Stonebridge didn't pay for itself and required muncipal tax dollars to be built. While there's talk of changing that for future suburbs, as it stands now every new suburb requires subsidy.

In addition, the employment sprawl will have a higher percentage of people driving than a similar sized development downtown. We know the tax dollars required for one driver is higher than for one bus rider which is higher than for one cyclists which is higher than one pedestrian.

We desperately need to be getting people out of cars as it is bleeding us dry. A development like this will increase the percentage of people driving and will require more government money than if built downtown.

There's also the issue that it will struggle to attract business from outside Saskatchewan. Large firms almost always relocate downtown and not in the suburbs. While this is nice for local demand, it fails to make Saskatoon an attractive market for new business.

For those in Stonebridge it is close, but it's naive to think any substantial percentage of the employees will be from Stonebridge. If you live in Evergreen or Lawson Heights or City Park it's an absolute nightmare to get to. And adequate transit to Stonebridge from other neighbourhoods is non-existent.

It furthers sprawls, furthers dependence on the automobile, and does it all at greater taxpayer expense than a similar development downtown.

I understand its what "the market wants", but when the market isn't paying the true cost they'll always gravitate towards what is cheapest. Regina requires 80% of its office development to be downtown. Most major metropolitan areas have a percentage requirement downtown. And it's because they all know the massive cost of suburban development that is picked up by taxpayers.

[Stormer]

Coincidently, in today's news....

Living in car-dependent suburbs can make you fat and sick, study finds
http://www.vancouversun.com/health/l...301/story.html

[dac717]

Originally Posted by scrolling

This worship of sprawl is brought to you by Mayor Don Atchison, head minion for land developers.

Merry Christmas Saskatoon!

Should the city be building buildings like this? Of course not. Why would they take that risk? Makes sense. It begs the question however, why is the city the largest land developer in the city? Why do they pour MILLIONS of dollars every year into suburban development?

I'm going to be forthright here. Large cities should not be involved in land development. Many start out in the business because they need to ensure lots are available for newcomers....like most small towns. They want the growth, the tax income, the critical mass for services, etc. When a community becomes large enough to have several private developers active, why on earth would the city stay as a land developer and gamble tax payers money in the investment? How about conflict of interest? The applicant and approver are under the same roof. Ridiculous.

I am aware that the city's land branch invests a portion of their profits into core neighbourhoods, and I think that is great. We shouldn't have to depend on that though for revitalization efforts. What are other cities doing...cities that aren't developers?

I think the city should bundle their land development profits, and concentrate on the downtown. First on the list - create incentives for residential development. Guess why there's no grocery store downtown...critical mass isn't there. Let's get some more residential going!

I believe a city should invest in projects that are essential to the city, but the private sector hasn't expressed interest in. The city shouldn't just be into it to make money. That doesn't seem right to me.

[saskatoonborn]

I think there are some good points.

Irving is right, to get mad at Northern Prairie is wrong. NPD has been developing in all parts of the city for some time and this new investment is still 75 million invested into the city. Further because we at this forum are so interested in downtown we do forget about the benifit these other developments around the city.

That being said, like Echos I am also unimpresses with most developments happening outside of the downtown core, often they are unexciting and perpetuate the status quo we seem to have in this city. It is very frustrating.

Jigglysquishy I agree with what you have posted entirely. I believe I have made similar satetements before on this forum. Over 40 percent of all office development in this city is in the suburbs. I believe they city should take a hard like and get that down to 30 percent. This should allow us to maintain ample variety in the market as well as start combating sprawl.

Dac717 the reason there isn't a big drive to live down town is preportionally speaking no one works down town. I think for most people wasting a huge portion of your day in transit to and from work is a major factor in moving down town, we dont have that. Business first then people. I understand there are people who really do just enjoy the lifestyle or living downtown but there are not enough people like that here, i think, to drive a market.

[Crisis]

I'm not disagreeing with the opinion that the city should be promoting / mandating office development downtown, but until they do so, don't expect developers to willingly build downtown if they can earn greater profits building elsewhere.

Many of the developers in this city are generous contributors to many local charities, but don't expect them to extend that charity to business decisions that are not in their best financial interest.

Again, I have no problem with a debate regarding downtown vs. suburban development. I do have a problem with a business following the existing development guidelines being referred to as a plague on Saskatoon.

[CCF]

Can't necessarily 'blame' NPD for pursuing such a project - they are in the business of making money and this type of project represents the path of least resistance.

It's the role of the City to set the framework to begin with - allowing for this much office space at the periphery of the city is bad from a planning perspective for a number of reasons. For all that the City of Saskatoon talks about further downtown revitalization, they should be directing this growth towards the downtown. For all the discussion about trying to have more people taking transit. For building liveable and vibrant communities - all these considerations are undermined by allowing more auto-dependent development. So this form of development can be minimized by the City implementing land use planning regulations that follow the goals they set! Of course, that's much easier said than done. There are a lot of political actors pulling at the City in all directions.

As well, I disagree with the sentiment that the City (or the public sector in general) should have a reduced role in development. I advocate that they should have an increased role. Look at what the City of Calgary is doing through CMLC - transforming their East Village from an area of decline into what is quickly become 'the' neighbourhood to be in. All the while their initial investment of $300 million will generate $700 million over 20 years, plus the substantial increase in tax revenue to be generated through much intenser form of development taking shape. Moreover, look at the results Canada Lands Company (CLC) has produced. The quality of development from CLC is not something the private sector has been quick to embrace.

[Temperance]

The urban sprawl in Saskatoon is growing at an incredible rate. We need to be smarter about how we build our city.

[casper]

Originally Posted by CCF

Can't necessarily 'blame' NPD for pursuing such a project - they are in the business of making money and this type of project represents the path of least resistance.

.....
As well, I disagree with the sentiment that the City (or the public sector in general) should have a reduced role in development. I advocate that they should have an increased role. Look at what the City of Calgary is doing through CMLC - transforming their East Village from an area of decline into what is quickly become 'the' neighbourhood to be in. All the while their initial investment of $300 million will generate $700 million over 20 years, plus the substantial increase in tax revenue to be generated through much intenser form of development taking shape. Moreover, look at the results Canada Lands Company (CLC) has produced. The quality of development from CLC is not something the private sector has been quick to embrace.

Calgary has no shortage of these types of buildings all over the city. Strip malls with retial on the bottom floor and offices on the second and third floor. Or even a full four story office building. They are all over the place.

Lets look at the alternatives in Saskatoon.

Preston crossing. You can't do much with the Big Box building. However the strip mall building that house the smaller stores, why don't they have two-three stories of office space above the retail? That would provide more density and help reduce urban sprawl.

University heights is another example. No shortage of 1 story strip malls. The strip malls that are behind co-op should have had two-three stories of office space above them.

University Heights square (one of the bests salutes to strip malls in Saskatoon) has only one building with three stories. Why don't the other strips have two or three stores of office or a hotel above them. The medical clinic next to shoppers should have been above shoppers. Host of other dental clinics and financial planners that don't have to be on ground floor and could be up one level freeing up more retail space on the group floor.

Dollarama should have had two or three stores of something above it.

North Prairie is doing the right thing. They are not building more single story strip malls put putting stuff above the retail. If you restrict office space from going into the sub-burbs I don't think you stop the buildings from going in or sprawl it is just become less dense sprawl or more retail space gets used as office space.

In the north end of the city take a look at the types of building Ariva or Cameco use. A good bit of it is space that should be warehouse or retail instead they are using it as office space.

I don't think it is as simple as the city saying all office space will be downtown.

[mitchellk12]

Originally Posted by Temperance

The urban sprawl in Saskatoon is growing at an incredible rate. We need to be smarter about how we build our city.

i agree as well.

[Echoes]

Local artists' group to make pitch for bus barn redevelopment

Alex MacPherson, Saskatoon StarPhoenix
Published on: December 1, 2015 | Last Updated: December 1, 2015 6:49 AM CST

A group of Saskatoon artists is preparing a bid to transform the city’s bus barns into a creative workspace in the heart of Caswell Hill.

The bus barn property, which is scheduled to become available in 2017 after Saskatoon Transit moves to a new facility on Valley Road, is a good fit for the project, said artSpace Saskatoon president Betty Gibbon.

“It is a project that would encompass painters as well as three-dimensional artists such as sculptors, blacksmiths, glass people, clay people, and the performing arts,” Gibbon said. “So we’re looking at theatre space, dance space, rehearsal room for indie bands, small theatre groups, as well as a whole bunch of offices.”

Founded in 2014, artSpace Saskatoon is a non-profit dedicated to creating a multi-faceted arts community near the downtown core. The organization is working with other interested groups to develop a proposal in response to a request for expressions of interest (EOI) issued by the city in October.

The bus barn complex — which extends one block north and south of 24th Street West between Avenues D and C — has been occupied by Saskatoon Transit since 1913, and contains buildings constructed between 1948 and 1984.

The city’s EOI is designed to gauge interest in the five-acre property. Following evaluation by stakeholders and municipal staff, it could lead to a formal request for proposals or direct negotiations with a consortium or developer, according to the city’s director of planning and development.

“We’ve laid out for the proponents what we require,” Alan Wallace said. “It’s not a wide-open thing … But there’s still plenty of room within those parameters to give us a pretty creative proposal.”

The EOI closes Dec. 18 and the city hopes to have the rezoning and land sale completed by early 2017, Wallace said.

Depending on the proposal, the bus barns could require up to $2.5 million in additional investment: $1.5 million to demolish the buildings and up to $1 million to clean up oil, gas, lead-based paint and “minimal” asbestos contaminating portions of the site, according to the EOI.

[....]

http://thestarphoenix.com/business/l...-redevelopment

[Crisis]

Depending on what all is retained and what is demolished, the City's #s for the bus barns of $2.5M for demo and $1M for site remediation seem off. Building demolition is relatively cheap. Hazardous material abatement and removal, as well as contaminated site remediation is expensive. $1M for a 5 acre parcel seems light to me.

[dac717]

Originally Posted by saskatoonborn

I think there are some good points.

Irving is right, to get mad at Northern Prairie is wrong. NPD has been developing in all parts of the city for some time and this new investment is still 75 million invested into the city. Further because we at this forum are so interested in downtown we do forget about the benifit these other developments around the city.

That being said, like Echos I am also unimpresses with most developments happening outside of the downtown core, often they are unexciting and perpetuate the status quo we seem to have in this city. It is very frustrating.

Jigglysquishy I agree with what you have posted entirely. I believe I have made similar satetements before on this forum. Over 40 percent of all office development in this city is in the suburbs. I believe they city should take a hard like and get that down to 30 percent. This should allow us to maintain ample variety in the market as well as start combating sprawl.

Dac717 the reason there isn't a big drive to live down town is preportionally speaking no one works down town. I think for most people wasting a huge portion of your day in transit to and from work is a major factor in moving down town, we dont have that. Business first then people. I understand there are people who really do just enjoy the lifestyle or living downtown but there are not enough people like that here, i think, to drive a market.

Do you have some stats on your comment about no one working downtown, proportionally speaking? I think we have a healthy amount of people working downtown. And also, S'toon's population is heaviest in the 20-24 and 25-29 cohorts. These are primarily the folks that seek out the downtown lifestyle. There is a need for a reasonably priced condo market. King George and Rumley are not reasonable. What else has come on the market in the last 10 years? What I'm saying is if the city can help create incentive to build affordable condo's downtown, the gen y's and others will chase it, and help create the critical mass of people living downtown, not just visiting/working.

[gowest]

One of the biggest problems with more office space in areas such as Stonebridge is access. It makes sense to build three or four story buildings but the city doesn't have the foresight to build proper access to these areas. Stonebridge is s prime example. There are basically two roads into that area. But then we have to remember the flyover on Highway 11. The different services in this area are for the rural area as well but there is limited access in or out onto Highway 11. In a few years if demand increases they will ad to it. As demand goes up so does costs. Look to Edmonton along Highway 16 and see how roads should be build. Saskatoon is always playing catchup with themselves.

[dac717]

Originally Posted by CCF

Can't necessarily 'blame' NPD for pursuing such a project - they are in the business of making money and this type of project represents the path of least resistance.

It's the role of the City to set the framework to begin with - allowing for this much office space at the periphery of the city is bad from a planning perspective for a number of reasons. For all that the City of Saskatoon talks about further downtown revitalization, they should be directing this growth towards the downtown. For all the discussion about trying to have more people taking transit. For building liveable and vibrant communities - all these considerations are undermined by allowing more auto-dependent development. So this form of development can be minimized by the City implementing land use planning regulations that follow the goals they set! Of course, that's much easier said than done. There are a lot of political actors pulling at the City in all directions.

As well, I disagree with the sentiment that the City (or the public sector in general) should have a reduced role in development. I advocate that they should have an increased role. Look at what the City of Calgary is doing through CMLC - transforming their East Village from an area of decline into what is quickly become 'the' neighbourhood to be in. All the while their initial investment of $300 million will generate $700 million over 20 years, plus the substantial increase in tax revenue to be generated through much intenser form of development taking shape. Moreover, look at the results Canada Lands Company (CLC) has produced. The quality of development from CLC is not something the private sector has been quick to embrace.

As I mentioned, the COS is the biggest suburban developer here. They are attempting to create better planning policy through initiatives such as the City Centre Plan, Nodes and Corridors study, etc. to promote infill growth, meanwhile they are pumping out more suburban lots than anyone. 'Blowing and sucking' as Ken Greenberg stated in an article back in 2012.

[Echoes]

Happening now: City unveiling more details about Traffic Bridge at open house

SASKATOON STARPHOENIX
Published on: December 2, 2015 | Last Updated: December 2, 2015 6:26 PM CST







^ I know it's just one traffic lane in each direction and that traffic will be fairly slow but, come on, why not put in a dedicated bike lane from the beginning instead of these useless sharrows?

Victoria Ave could become a fantastic corridor for cyclists into/out of downtown. It has less traffic than Broadway and is plenty wide to accommodate cycling infrastructure.

One of many, many missed opportunities with this bridge.

It's encouraging that the renderings suggest that the bridge will be "event-ready" so that it can be closed for special occasions. It would be great if it was closed every Saturday and Sunday all summer, or something.

[North_Regina_Boy]

Seeing as there is a sidewalk on each side they should dedicate one for pied and one for cyclists. THAT would be the best solution IMO.

[Measuring Stick]

I have to agree those "Sharrows" are the stupidest thing I have ever seen. Any cyclist biking up the Broadway Bridge or on this future Bridge is seriously putting their life in the hands of drivers. I don't cycle as much as I used to, but the usefulness of these Sharrows imho is zero. Either make the roadways bike friendly with separated lanes or decide not to care but don't half as* the solution. As a biker the least safe place for me was always a bridge and driving along driver side doors of parked cars. In this City's view these are great way to encourage cycling. The fact we spend $200k a year painting these sharrows is ridiculous.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by North_Regina_Boy

Seeing as there is a sidewalk on each side they should dedicate one for pied and one for cyclists. THAT would be the best solution IMO.

Why would they think two pedestrian sidewalks are needed. Very odd.

Sharrows
A "shared lane bicycle pavement marking" used primarily used on roads with moderate to high cyclist volumes where bicycle lanes cannot be provided due to space constraints. Sharrows are intended to indicate the appropriate cyclist position within a shared lane, to alert drivers to the presence of cyclists and to encourage drivers to share the road with cyclists.