Regina Construction III - Page 237

BrutallyDishonest2 · #**4721** Posted **Feb 10, 2016, 11:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Festivus

All I know is that whoever is responsible for the new sets of lights at Rae/Parliament and Pasqua/Parliament deserves to be rewarded, as they work very well for the spaces they are in. The only complaint about Pasqua/Parliament is if you are going south bound on Pasqua and turning left (east)onto Parliament, you often don't get a turn arrow so a single person turning holds everyone behind them up, meaning you need to wait 2 lights to get through, occasionally. It's annoying as the light is probably a 5:1 ratio for time (with Parliament traffic getting 5x more green time).

However, overall they both work quite well, especially Rae/Parliament.

The Pasqua & Parliament light shouldn't exist. The only way to make it work is to have it be green east/west whenever Lewvan is green East/West and when there is an eastbound arrow.

And this is why it is difficult to move N/S on Pasqua now because it would be a nightmare and liability to have traffic backup there.

Festivus · #**4722** Posted **Feb 10, 2016, 11:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

The Pasqua & Parliament light shouldn't exist. The only way to make it work is to have it be green east/west whenever Lewvan is green East/West and when there is an eastbound arrow.

And this is why it is difficult to move N/S on Pasqua now because it would be a nightmare and liability to have traffic backup there.

That's actually how it seems to work now, that Pasqua is green E/W when Lewvan is E/W, and when there is an eastbound arrow for southbound traffic. It definitely prioritizes E/W traffic at that intersection.

SkydivePilot · #**4723** Posted **Feb 11, 2016, 12:02 AM**

I also live near Parliament and Pasqua. The Pasqua green light's duration is anywhere between 6-18 seconds. The Parliament Avenue light is never less than one minute and can last as long as 1:45.

(Yeah, I timed them. What else is there to do at a long red light. Lol!)

Dan0myte · #**4724** Posted **Feb 11, 2016, 2:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

That's not the person on Title right now.

Beats me. How long does a purchaser have to file their property claim with ISC after purchase? I'm sure the lawyers have it under control.

BrutallyDishonest2 · #**4725** Posted **Feb 11, 2016, 2:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan0myte

Beats me. How long does a purchaser have to file their property claim with ISC after purchase? I'm sure the lawyers have it under control.

I'm not sure the time lines, but usually if it doesn't transfer titled that means the sale is still conditional or the closing is long/paid out over time.

You see it a lot in big purchases of land. The sale will complete and the title only transfers two years later after the last payment.

No idea what's going on here. Sometimes ISC is buggy too.

Nathan · #**4726** Posted **Feb 11, 2016, 3:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

I'm not sure the time lines, but usually if it doesn't transfer titled that means the sale is still conditional or the closing is long/paid out over time.

You see it a lot in big purchases of land. The sale will complete and the title only transfers two years later after the last payment.

No idea what's going on here. Sometimes ISC is buggy too.

Putting on the hat of a hardcore Dipper... "THE EVILS OF PRIVATIZATION!!!"

(Though the fairly politically neutral person in me wasn't entirely sure about it either).

StealthGirl · #**4727** Posted **Feb 11, 2016, 3:27 AM**

Tweets from the council discussion tonight on the Leopold house.

Natascia LypnyVerified account ‏@wordpuddle 5h5 hours ago
Dodds: Watching property for some time. Estate sale. Did not sell for over 1 year. Price came down: Spent $370,000. #yqrcc

Dodds: Wanted to live in that area. Idea was to demolish and build a new house. “we have made a very sincere effort” to protect home. #yqrcc

Dodds: Est. of $1.5 million to preserve home. Est. of $600K to knock down and rebuild. #yqrcc

Spatt: Aware it was on the heritage holding bylaw list at time of purchase? > Dodds: Yes. #yqrcc

Flegel: Did you know about home’s issues when you purchased? > Dodds: Owners did not allow inspection. Looked inside. #yqrcc

In last 6 years, 3 properties removed from heritage list and demolished. #yqrcc

Commission votes in favour of admin recommendation: Allow the building to come off the heritage holding bylaw list. #yqrcc

BrutallyDishonest2 · #**4728** Posted **Feb 11, 2016, 3:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by StealthGirl

Tweets from the council discussion tonight on the Leopold house.

Natascia LypnyVerified account ‏@wordpuddle 5h5 hours ago
Dodds: Watching property for some time. Estate sale. Did not sell for over 1 year. Price came down: Spent $370,000. #yqrcc

Dodds: Wanted to live in that area. Idea was to demolish and build a new house. “we have made a very sincere effort” to protect home. #yqrcc

Dodds: Est. of $1.5 million to preserve home. Est. of $600K to knock down and rebuild. #yqrcc

Spatt: Aware it was on the heritage holding bylaw list at time of purchase? > Dodds: Yes. #yqrcc

Flegel: Did you know about home’s issues when you purchased? > Dodds: Owners did not allow inspection. Looked inside. #yqrcc

In last 6 years, 3 properties removed from heritage list and demolished. #yqrcc

Commission votes in favour of admin recommendation: Allow the building to come off the heritage holding bylaw list. #yqrcc

Common sense prevails!

Nathan · #**4729** Posted **Feb 11, 2016, 3:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

Common sense prevails!

I'm actually quite excited to see what will end up going up in that spot... I'm optimistic that it will be deserving of its prominent location.

BrutallyDishonest2 · #**4730** Posted **Feb 11, 2016, 4:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

I'm actually quite excited to see what will end up going up in that spot... I'm optimistic that it will be deserving of its prominent location.

Yeah. The existing home had very little historical or architectural merit, but the site is fantastic, minus the traffic.

Honestly as long as this doesn't turn out like this abortion it should be fine. But the buyers appear to have the money so they should also have the money to hire a proper architect.

I know that people will disagree because they love neo-historical backward-looking architecture, but I hope the new house is given a quality, contemporary flair. It would be nice to have something making a statement reflecting 2016 rather than being forced to supposedly blend into the older neighbours.

W.W. La Chance · #**4731** Posted **Feb 11, 2016, 4:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

Yeah. The existing home had very little historical or architectural merit, but the site is fantastic, minus the traffic.

Honestly as long as this doesn't turn out like this abortion it should be fine. But the buyers appear to have the money so they should also have the money to hire a proper architect.

I know that people will disagree because they love neo-historical backward-looking architecture, but I hope the new house is given a quality, contemporary flair. It would be nice to have something making a statement reflecting 2016 rather than being forced to supposedly blend into the older neighbours.

Holy crap, that orb! And those pillars. And everything else about it, oh my.

BrutallyDishonest2 · #**4732** Posted **Feb 11, 2016, 4:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.W. La Chance

Holy crap, that orb! And those pillars. And everything else about it, oh my.

No, no, it's cool. They added the Regina skyline to the side!

Nathan · #**4733** Posted **Feb 11, 2016, 4:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

No, no, it's cool. They added the Regina skyline to the side!

Those golden railings/bannisters though...

Stormer · #**4734** Posted **Feb 11, 2016, 2:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

No, no, it's cool. They added the Regina skyline to the side!

It actually looks worse in real life when you can get a good looks at the tiles that cover it. I am sure it would look wonderful in Pakistan or wherever the people are from. Should we be more accepting of other cultures when it comes to architecture? I guess there is a limit.

StealthGirl · #**4735** Posted **Feb 11, 2016, 2:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stormer

It actually looks worse in real life when you can get a good looks at the tiles that cover it. I am sure it would look wonderful in Pakistan or wherever the people are from. Should we be more accepting of other cultures when it comes to architecture? I guess there is a limit.

I think they are from the UAE so you aren't far off. It's a multi-generational home. It's huge though.

I think there needs to be a limit on size so we don't end up with neighbourhoods where one house dwarfs everything else around it.

Festivus · #**4736** Posted **Feb 11, 2016, 3:05 PM**

Wow that's one ugly house. There are some beautiful houses on south Albert St, I hope the new one on this lot meets or exceeds what we have already (but hopefully with an eye to the future as well, not just retreading old designs). That said, I also hope it's not just another Usonia mansion.

Dan0myte · #**4737** Posted **Feb 11, 2016, 3:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by StealthGirl

Dodds: Est. of $1.5 million to preserve home.

Wow, that's surprising. It feels like that number may have been embellished a bit. Or it's a representation of a museum-quality restoration by hand by skilled restoration artists which is not needed or required in the case of this home.

Festivus · #**4738** Posted **Feb 11, 2016, 4:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan0myte

Wow, that's surprising. It feels like that number may have been embellished a bit. Or it's a representation of a museum-quality restoration by hand by skilled restoration artists which is not needed or required in the case of this home.

Realistically it' probably just a number that is high enough to warrant the city giving them permission to demolish, and there might not be any solid reason behind it.

Stormer · #**4739** Posted **Feb 11, 2016, 5:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Festivus

Realistically it' probably just a number that is high enough to warrant the city giving them permission to demolish, and there might not be any solid reason behind it.

Same with the new build estimate. I can't imagine they would only spend $600k on demo and new construction after all this.

BrutallyDishonest2 · #**4740** Posted **Feb 12, 2016, 1:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by StealthGirl

I think they are from the UAE so you aren't far off. It's a multi-generational home. It's huge though.

I think there needs to be a limit on size so we don't end up with neighbourhoods where one house dwarfs everything else around it.

I don't think there needs to be a limit on size as the houses surrounding the park are all above average. This one just happens to be really massive. Plus I don't think we want to start a precedent where large houses are forced to be built only in the RMs.

And I don't think we should be able to ban ugly houses like this per se, just socially shame them.

That said, you can blame Lorne Yagelniski for letting this past the architectural guidelines. They had the power to reject that mess. But when a wealthy doctor tries to buy three lots you probably aren't going to reject it.

But I can say with honestly that if I somehow found a couple million to build a house in Regina I wouldn't build anywhere where that thing is visible.