Regina Construction III

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by Nathan

^^ Agreed... That's why I said if the wanted to spend the money... Probably could have bolded the if.

Likely plenty of water damage as well since the windows have been open for years.

Amazingly, there is very little water damage in the building. But there definitely is inches and inches of pigeon 🞵🞵🞵🞵.

The only heritage that can be saved from the building would be front facade.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by bugsey

Bank of Nova Scotia Main Branch at 11th and Hamilton has been telling employees that they will be relocating one block south on Hamilton. At one point in time, there were 50 employees in Main Branch. Now they are down to less than two dozen.

Is there enough space for a relocated and downsized Scotiabank Main Branch?

As I said, a financial tenant. There's definitely more than enough space for them.

Originally Posted by Stormer

I believe this one. There is a lot of space when you add in the vacant space to the south. https://www.google.ca/maps/@50.4485644,-...5.89935%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

It is a bit sad to see how the banking presence downtown has faded over the last 20 years. It used to be that the big 5 banks all had a tower in which the occupied virtually the whole main floor for their main branch plus 3 or 4 more floors for regional offices. Now they have maybe one or no upper floors.

RBC and TD have cannibalized main floor branch space for offices so they can give up more upper floors space.

Some of the banks still have a bit more office space than you'd think, but yes they've downsized. TD is in Tower 3 and CIBC is in Conexus Plaza, for example.

[GeneTheMachine]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

While a SaskTel store might not be unreasonable there, I don't think SaskTel would take that much space. The user is taking a bunch of office space.

Additionally, SaskTel is contracting at this moment. See: SaskTel International at the airport.

Actually SaskTel International is no longer at the airport.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by GeneTheMachine

Actually SaskTel International is no longer at the airport.

That's what I was saying...

Maybe it could have been clearer but saying that SaskTel is contracting, as in their airport location which they left.

[CCF]

Originally Posted by DandyUnderworld

Some pushback on the proposed mixed use building at the corner of 13th and Elphinstone in Cathedral:
http://leaderpost.com/news/local-news/a-collection-of-thoughts-about-proposed-cathedral-development

Link to the proposal:
http://www.regina.ca/opencms/export/site...-z-15-proposal-details-december-2015.pdf

I have no problem with redeveloping that corner, but the design is a bland eye-gouging suburban nightmare plucked straight out of the Harbour Landing playbook. Yuck.

Thanks for posting.

The surface parking is awful. That should be reworked so it doesn't dominate the streetscape as proposed.

Some of the other concerns I can't rationalize. Concern over a four story building along what is one of Regina's few 'main streets'? It would be advantageous if more of the avenues within the inner-city neighbourhoods had this level of intensification.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

As I said, a financial tenant. There's definitely more than enough space for them.
Some of the banks still have a bit more office space than you'd think, but yes they've downsized. TD is in Tower 3 and CIBC is in Conexus Plaza, for example.

I believe you are referring to TDWaterhouse and CIBC Wood Gundy which are not really part of the banking operations.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by Stormer

I believe you are referring to TDWaterhouse and CIBC Wood Gundy which are not really part of the banking operations.

That's exactly what I'm talking to and they are divisions of the banks so of course they count.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by CCF

Thanks for posting.

The surface parking is awful. That should be reworked so it doesn't dominate the streetscape as proposed.

Some of the other concerns I can't rationalize. Concern over a four story building along what is one of Regina's few 'main streets'? It would be advantageous if more of the avenues within the inner-city neighbourhoods had this level of intensification.

Honestly the parking is almost the best can be done on a site like this without going underground (as originally planned).

The real issue that the city requires any parking which ruins everything.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by DandyUnderworld

Some pushback on the proposed mixed use building at the corner of 13th and Elphinstone in Cathedral:
http://leaderpost.com/news/local-news/a-collection-of-thoughts-about-proposed-cathedral-development

Link to the proposal:
http://www.regina.ca/opencms/export/site...-z-15-proposal-details-december-2015.pdf

I have no problem with redeveloping that corner, but the design is a bland eye-gouging suburban nightmare plucked straight out of the Harbour Landing playbook. Yuck.

Does anyone know how this development would effect the value of the adjacent homes?

[CCF]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

Honestly the parking is almost the best can be done on a site like this without going underground (as originally planned).

The real issue that the city requires any parking which ruins everything.

It's unfortunate that they aren't doing underground parking - but I realize that changes the economics of it all. It doesn't look as bad at first look as the plans (if I am reading them correctly) show an extension of the building over the driveway crossing.

I agree, the on-site parking requirements make intensification that much more difficult to pull off. It's overdue to reconsider parking minimums.

[HomeInMyShoes]

^The only thing that not having the parking will do is push it onto the street making the residents of the building fight with the school in the area for spots. Until North American society changes with respect to car ownership, transit, development planning, decades old zoning strategies, and the list continues we will need to have the parking. We are at least three generations away from there being any meaningful change on that and now that we have cheap gas again that's probably put the timeline back a few years again.

Anyone thinking otherwise can look at Harbour Landing and the number of cars on the streets by the multi-family dwellings there. I'm not a fan of parkades and parking. This development does a pretty reasonable job. I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a more friendly to the current environment plan that isn't a lot taller to compensate for the economics.

I'm not sure what the impact on values would be. I wouldn't imagine much of a blip given the current state of the commercial there.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by CCF

It's unfortunate that they aren't doing underground parking - but I realize that changes the economics of it all. It doesn't look as bad at first look as the plans (if I am reading them correctly) show an extension of the building over the driveway crossing.

I agree, the on-site parking requirements make intensification that much more difficult to pull off. It's overdue to reconsider parking minimums.

Reducing the parking minimum would greatly increase local opposition due to anticipated neighborhood parking problems.

[Festivus]

No parking can only come if fantastic transit comes first. You can't have the former before the latter in a place like Regina where cars are king.

[CCF]

Many cities, which aren't so dissimilar from Regina, are rethinking parking requirements. In fact, many cities are moving towards parking maximums. There's enough research out there that concludes that parking minimums only work to enforce the car culture and induce traffic demand.

Of course, I understand that said changes would also need to work in conjunction with greater investment into alternative modes of transportation including investing in transit, and bicycle lanes.

With that being said, projects under the umbrella of 'intensification' will continue to struggle as long as parking minimums are enforced. When developers are require to dedicate a significant proportion of developable land towards accommodating on-site parking, there it reduces the economic feasibility of development.

Calgarians too balked at the idea of development without parking, and then came along N3 by Knightsbridge and they sold 80% of their units in a single weekend.

Reconsideration of parking minimums needs to happen - but it needs to happen as a larger discussion of how Regina wants to grow and develop.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by CCF

Many cities, which aren't so dissimilar from Regina, are rethinking parking requirements. In fact, many cities are moving towards parking maximums. There's enough research out there that concludes that parking minimums only work to enforce the car culture and induce traffic demand.

Of course, I understand that said changes would also need to work in conjunction with greater investment into alternative modes of transportation including investing in transit, and bicycle lanes.

With that being said, projects under the umbrella of 'intensification' will continue to struggle as long as parking minimums are enforced. When developers are require to dedicate a significant proportion of developable land towards accommodating on-site parking, there it reduces the economic feasibility of development.

Calgarians too balked at the idea of development without parking, and then came along N3 by Knightsbridge and they sold 80% of their units in a single weekend.

Reconsideration of parking minimums needs to happen - but it needs to happen as a larger discussion of how Regina wants to grow and develop.

Well N3 is next to an LRT station, which Regina will not have for 20 years, if ever. In 20 years, new LRT construction in a City like Regina will likely be obsolete with the advent of autonomous cars.

[CCF]

Originally Posted by Stormer

Well N3 is next to an LRT station, which Regina will not have for 20 years, if ever. In 20 years, new LRT construction in a City like Regina will likely be obsolete with the advent of autonomous cars.

Proximity to the LRT factors into the development - but it's not the reason that they have elected to develop no on-site parking.

I agree that the City of Calgary has a wider array of transportation options - but my point being is that the status-quo in Regina needs to be reconsidered. Kitchener-Waterloo, a city that is within a similar population range of Regina, has an LRT system under construction. They have been more ambitious in planning and transportation than a number of much larger cities in Canada.

Within the realm of planning, Regina is very much committed to maintaining 'what we've always done.' I think this city could do better.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by CCF

Proximity to the LRT factors into the development - but it's not the reason that they have elected to develop no on-site parking.

I agree that the City of Calgary has a wider array of transportation options - but my point being is that the status-quo in Regina needs to be reconsidered. Kitchener-Waterloo, a city that is within a similar population range of Regina, has an LRT system under construction. They have been more ambitious in planning and transportation than a number of much larger cities in Canada.

Within the realm of planning, Regina is very much committed to maintaining 'what we've always done.' I think this city could do better.

I agree that Regina can do better on transit, but I would point out that K-W has a CMA about twice that of Regina. An LRT is not even on the horizon here.

[Festivus]

Originally Posted by Stormer

I agree that Regina can do better on transit, but I would point out that K-W has a CMA about twice that of Regina. An LRT is not even on the horizon here.

Additionally, there is a big difference between no parking for business locations and no parking for residential. Recent apartment constructions in Regina have been a disaster, parking-wise. 1.5 stalls per unit (or less) have caused nearby streets to clog with the 2-3 vehicles per apartment unit that have become the norm. I only own 1 car and live by myself, but I simply can't have friends over in the winter because of where I live (altern units on lewvan/parliament). There is no visitor parking available, and they have even removed all handicap parking. There is only 1 street within walking distance where someone can park, and it only holds ~20-30 vehicles, all of which are filled immediately after school/work. The city has banned on-street parking on Harbour Landing Dr on both sides (I agree one side, but not both), and the city does not clear the streets of snow well here. In addition, Altern does not clear their city sidewalks in a timely manner, and they NEVER clear their private sidewalks, instead choosing to put up signs that say "sidewalk closed for safety of pedestrians," which means all pedestrians in the complex must walk in the middle of the parking lot roadways.

It's a disaster and I will never live in another altern unit again because of it, and I put some of the blame on the city as well.

[CCF]

Originally Posted by Stormer

I agree that Regina can do better on transit, but I would point out that K-W has a CMA about twice that of Regina. An LRT is not even on the horizon here.

And Winnipeg, Hamilton, and Quebec City are all larger cities than KW yet lag behind in development of an LRT system.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by CCF

And Winnipeg, Hamilton, and Quebec City are all larger cities than KW yet lag behind in development of an LRT system.

I just Googled it and K-W is spending $1.7 Billion on rapid transit. Wow! It is a pretty spread out metropolitan area though. The single LRT line will be 19km.

What is Regina Transit's annual capital budget? I am sure it is less than $10 million.