Regina Construction III

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by TechnicalRecession

You think the original state was a green copper? Looks like oxidation to me, maybe a different kind of copper but I doubt it was always green.

No I mean it was never black. Obviously it started out copper coloured 100+years ago.

[SkydivePilot]

Originally Posted by one_brick_at_a_time

Has there ever been a formal application or rumblings of a proposal for the section of land that is the former Bay Parkade (now parking) off of Victoria Avenue across from Atlantis?

That parcel is begging for a 30-storey office tower. (Nothing less than that.)

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by Treesplease

Seriouslly though, I don' think it helped that the owners appeared to thumb their nose at the heritage status of the property at every step from buying without an inspection (who does that?) to basically openly stating they always intented to demolish the place. I'm somewhat sympathetic but not really. Had they approached this differently they may have been successful. Council had the choice of approving this and admitting the bylaw was meaningless or denying it. I don't think the heritage value of the property (none) had much to do with the decision.

You capture my thoughts well. I don't think Council bought their story... and they didn't approach the issue well. I question their genuine intent to restore the building to its original (questionable) heritage state. He indicted that folks at City Hall offered advice - he may have misinterpreted this, or they may legitimately have given advice on how to go through the motions. He may also have discussed Heritage Holding with a Realtor and/or lawyer & received bad advice (though, given the City's track record, I'd say a betting person would assume a wrecking ball is easily approved).

Best case, they were really, really niave &/or mislead (no home inspection? c'mon! My wife went though that place during the estate sale - it was obviously in terrible shape to the lay person). Worst case, they hoped to manipulate the system & get an amazing lot for a song.

I do think this highlights the power some organizations have in this town. Connaught was in bad shape. Very bad shape - no one debates this. I think a person could reasonably argue this house is in similar state of decay (massive amounts of mould, asbestos, crumbling foundation, probably other things - if an inspection had taken place)... but there's little debate that this house's dubious Heritage value is greater than Connaught's heritage value. Yet, Connaught was easily approved for demolition, despite a vocal outcry from the community & heritage proponents.

Heritage value should not be tied to what will/might be built on the site next - a building or property either has Heritage value, or it doesn't. I'm not arguing that the Connaught decision was wrong (it was beyond repair), simply that the rules are being applied differently. Of course, it is the political body - not the public servants - applying the rules differently between these cases, and we know that politicians have different motivations.

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

The City could levy fines well into the six figures. Trying to be head strong with a government is just asking for trouble.

Except the CoR has a weak track record on enforcement. I can't imagine the City ever levying 6-figure fines, let alone in a case like this. Even if they did levy fines, I doubt they'd enforce them.

Take a stroll around downtown & look at all the places where fines/enforcement/corrective action could take place, but never has (sidewalk outside Albert/11th building; no landscaping in front of Hamilton parking lot south of Delta; contractors not adhering to the terms of their contracts (e.g. closing sections of 13th a few years ago without required notice to businesses, nor required signage pointing customers to alternate business access); no landscaping by Police parking lot on Sask; various clean property bylaw infractions downtown; etc). If they're not taking action on these, I doubt they'd fine these homeowners... but I've been wrong many, many times before.
(e.g.: if you'd asked me 3 years ago if we'd ever see proactive parking enforcement in residential areas in the evenings & weekends, I would have said not in my lifetime... yet here we are. I see Parking Enforcement come down my south-end residential street (non-throughfare, not near a school, hospital, University, etc) virtually every weekend - and tickets are being issued).

[Dan0myte]

With all the talk about 13 Leopold, out of curiosity I pulled an image of 11 Leopold from the City's GIS to see what it used to look like before they changed College to a one-way and had to demolish it.

Funny how 11 Leopold and 13 Leopold were built at the same time with similar styles, yet 11 can be bulldozed to make a fancy Y-shape road exit and 13 is "too important to lose".

[HomeInMyShoes]

Completely agree Drofmab. The unfortunate part here is that if it were a commercial developer putting up a parking lot they wouldn't bat an eye to allowing the demolition. Council might believe that this will put them in people's good books when it comes to historic preservation, but for me it doesn't. It smacks of council taking the easy win instead of the actual harder and more important for the city wins.

[Treesplease]

Originally Posted by Drofmab

(e.g.: if you'd asked me 3 years ago if we'd ever see proactive parking enforcement in residential areas in the evenings & weekends, I would have said not in my lifetime... yet here we are. I see Parking Enforcement come down my south-end residential street (non-throughfare, not near a school, hospital, University, etc) virtually every weekend - and tickets are being issued).

WHAT? First I heard of this. Best get my weekender truck off the street then.

[Dan0myte]

Originally Posted by Treesplease

WHAT? First I heard of this. Best get my weekender truck off the street then.

They come down my street all the time too (Albert park area) but from what I've observed it seems more complaint-based rather than proactive. If the City gets a phone call from a grumpy old lady they have no choice but to send someone by to investigate. Drofmab may just have a really crabby neighbour who has nothing better to do than call the City hotline all day.

[Robag]

Originally Posted by Dan0myte

They come down my street all the time too (Albert park area) but from what I've observed it seems more complaint-based rather than proactive. If the City gets a phone call from a grumpy old lady they have no choice but to send someone by to investigate. Drofmab may just have a really crabby neighbour who has nothing better to do than call the City hotline all day.

I don't think so at all. Two years ago, we moved into our new home in the Greens on Gardiner. We were the second house to be occupied on our block. About a month after we moved in, I saw a parking enforcement vehicle giving a ticket to a vehicle that was parked on the other side of the street. 1 day earlier, the city installed no parking signs for that side of the street. The street during the day had vehicles of all kinds parked on both sides of the street as most of the houses were still under construction. None of those vehicles were ever given a ticket during the construction of our block, yet this soon to be new neighbor of ours stopped in for 10 minutes to drop something and bam, she was given a ticket. The street was full of mud, so she parked on that side to drop something off, and the f@cker gave her a ticket. I doubt that any one of my two neighbors on our street gave a call to parking enforcement. I see the parking vehicle in our neighborhood on a regular basis, but I don't think they are there because of complaints.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by Dan0myte

With all the talk about 13 Leopold, out of curiosity I pulled an image of 11 Leopold from the City's GIS to see what it used to look like before they changed College to a one-way and had to demolish it.

Funny how 11 Leopold and 13 Leopold were built at the same time with similar styles, yet 11 can be bulldozed to make a fancy Y-shape road exit and 13 is "too important to lose".

I really don't see how 11 & 13 were even slightly the same style.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by Drofmab

You capture my thoughts well. I don't think Council bought their story... and they didn't approach the issue well. I question their genuine intent to restore the building to its original (questionable) heritage state. He indicted that folks at City Hall offered advice - he may have misinterpreted this, or they may legitimately have given advice on how to go through the motions. He may also have discussed Heritage Holding with a Realtor and/or lawyer & received bad advice (though, given the City's track record, I'd say a betting person would assume a wrecking ball is easily approved).

Best case, they were really, really niave &/or mislead (no home inspection? c'mon! My wife went though that place during the estate sale - it was obviously in terrible shape to the lay person). Worst case, they hoped to manipulate the system & get an amazing lot for a song.

I do think this highlights the power some organizations have in this town. Connaught was in bad shape. Very bad shape - no one debates this. I think a person could reasonably argue this house is in similar state of decay (massive amounts of mould, asbestos, crumbling foundation, probably other things - if an inspection had taken place)... but there's little debate that this house's dubious Heritage value is greater than Connaught's heritage value. Yet, Connaught was easily approved for demolition, despite a vocal outcry from the community & heritage proponents.

Heritage value should not be tied to what will/might be built on the site next - a building or property either has Heritage value, or it doesn't. I'm not arguing that the Connaught decision was wrong (it was beyond repair), simply that the rules are being applied differently. Of course, it is the political body - not the public servants - applying the rules differently between these cases, and we know that politicians have different motivations.

I pretty much agree. This is a classic example of politicians overstepping their bounds. As soon as politicians decide they know better than experts we're usually headed in the wrong direction.

I think the Dodd's had a reasonable expectation that the city wouldn't completely fuck them over. They were wrong.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by Treesplease

WHAT? First I heard of this. Best get my weekender truck off the street then.

Yes you should. One of the best occurrences of the last few years is active parking enforcement. And there's little more annoying than having a neighbour using the the street as an extension of their driveway.

If anything, the city could probably do with a couple more parking enforcement officers and to focus on things like parking too close the corner, or parking during Rider games.

[Treesplease]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

Yes you should. One of the best occurrences of the last few years is active parking enforcement. And there's little more annoying than having a neighbour using the the street as an extension of their driveway.

If anything, the city could probably do with a couple more parking enforcement officers and to focus on things like parking too close the corner, or parking during Rider games.

I don't think they have made it down to my south end neighborhood (not saying where). I have driveway space for my vehicles and they are in the driiveway most of the time except when I'm using one frequently (like a truck) but my neighbors do not. Of my four neighbors, three have at least double the number of cars to driveway spots with the various family members and kids all having cars. The fourth will have too many cars in a year or two when their girls are old enough to drive. Its a sad fact of life that there is at least one car per person. Do you need a permit to park in front of your own house? do they even issue those or do you just need to move your vehicles a few times a week? Is there a time frame for maximum parking?

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by Treesplease

I don't think they have made it down to my south end neighborhood (not saying where). I have driveway space for my vehicles and they are in the driiveway most of the time except when I'm using one frequently (like a truck) but my neighbors do not. Of my four neighbors, three have at least double the number of cars to driveway spots with the various family members and kids all having cars. The fourth will have too many cars in a year or two when their girls are old enough to drive. Its a sad fact of life that there is at least one car per person. Do you need a permit to park in front of your own house? do they even issue those or do you just need to move your vehicles a few times a week? Is there a time frame for maximum parking?

Parking in the street is fine. Leaving your vehicle for days on end isn't.

Regular vehicles are allowed to park on the street for 24 hours the must be moved. The 24h rule does not apply weekends and holidays. (Unattached trailers are only allowed 2 hrs) So if you're using the cars it's a non issue. But if you leave your truck on the street from Monday to Friday without moving it you are in violation of the bylaws.

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

Parking in the street is fine. Leaving your vehicle for days on end isn't.

Regular vehicles are allowed to park on the street for 24 hours the must be moved. The 24h rule does not apply weekends and holidays. (Unattached trailers are only allowed 2 hrs) So if you're using the cars it's a non issue. But if you leave your truck on the street from Monday to Friday without moving it you are in violation of the bylaws.

Which seems counter-intuitive to getting more people to ride transit to work.

[Dan0myte]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

I really don't see how 11 & 13 were even slightly the same style.

"Same style" as in 1940's style. They were built at the same time and one can assume they both had unique features and custom architecture as those were premium lots to build on.

When 11 was demolished it would have only been about 30 years old. I can't see anyone making a case that it was 'beyond repair' in that amount of time.

[jigglysquishy]

Looks like 13th and Elphinstone is slated to see the RPC in April. Not sure why it took so long to get there, but with any luck it'll be approved.

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

Looks like 13th and Elphinstone is slated to see the RPC in April. Not sure why it took so long to get there, but with any luck it'll be approved.

Maybe they'll want to protect the home that is to be demolished to really flex their muscles.

[jigglysquishy]

Originally Posted by Nathan

Maybe they'll want to protect the home that is to be demolished to really flex their muscles.

It's not on the holding list so there's zero chance of that happening.

I'm not sure why people are so pissed at the 13 Leopold decision. The owner knew what he was getting in to, turned down money from the city, and arrogantly thought council would defer to him.

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

Yes you should. One of the best occurrences of the last few years is active parking enforcement. And there's little more annoying than having a neighbour using the the street as an extension of their driveway.

If anything, the city could probably do with a couple more parking enforcement officers and to focus on things like parking too close the corner, or parking during Rider games.

Agree with Robag - it's definitely active enforcement, not complaint-based (though, I'm sure they'll respond to complaints... a change from a few years ago when even complaint-based enforcement was like pulling teeth [outside of downtown, near hospitals & near the UofR]).

I see a Parking Enforcement vehicle roaming our neighbourhood every couple of days - and it's clear he's patrolling. I've seen several tickets issued for parking on the wrong side of the street (I've also seen him seek out the car's owner & warn them, rather than ticket... so that's good).

They really haven't started enforcing parking too close to corners - there are at least two locations in my neighbourhood where residents regularly park their cars too close to the corners, or on the corner itself (like, at a 45degree angle to both streets)... so, they still have room to boost their enforcement