Regina Construction III

[wacko]

Assuming CNIB owns the building while the province owns the land: does the grandfathering allow CNIB to expand the footprint of the building or make substantial alterations to it?

I don't think allowing private enterprises to set up shop on Wascana Centre Authority land really serves the public interest, even if it may be the only way for certain buildings to be maintained or replaced. How about an alternative: the government gives CNIB a favourable lease in space located elsewhere downtown, in exchange for WCA acquiring rights to the building (which they can then renovate or tear down as they see fit)?

[one_brick_at_a_time]

Apparently there is now a proposal for a Walmart Supercentre for Wascana Park...😜

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by one_brick_at_a_time

Apparently there is now a proposal for a Walmart Supercentre for Wascana Park...😜

Maybe Joni Mitchell will write a song about it.

[Drofmab]

[QUOTE=wacko;7546453]Assuming CNIB owns the building while the province owns the land: does the grandfathering allow CNIB to expand the footprint of the building or make substantial alterations to it?[QUOTE]

Anything CNIB wants to do would require WCA approval.

The current Conexus "controversy" notwithstanding, WCA has actually been quite consistent in maintaining the spirit & character of the Centre. Developments have tended to be arts/education/culture/govt, and they've typically kept with the aesthetics articulated in the Master Plans. So, I suspect WCA would approve changes/development the CNIB building, so long as they are in keeping with the Master Plan (ie: not a stuccoed monstrosity).

I think this speaks to the value of a living document like the Master Plan - it doesn't get amended on a whim, but it's also not carved in stone... it adapts gradually & thoughtfully over time. Very few examples of significant deviation from the Plan in place at the time of a given development. I know it seems boring, but give the 2016 Master Plan a read - fascinating to see how closely the Centre aligns with the original Plan, and where it deviates (and why).

If the City could hold as tightly to the principles of the OCP - and review/update it routinely - wow, I think a lot of the complaints we see in this forum would disappear. Thinking especially of patterns of "one-off" deviations for unique opportunities. Look back 50 or 100 years & contemplate how many of the unique "opportunities" City Council has approved over the years stand the test of time.

Not to say WCA is perfect... but I'd bet on their planning & development track record over the CoR's any day.

[Dan0myte]

RE: CNIB

Although it's technically true that the province owns the land CNIB sits on, CNIB was issued a 100 year Lease on that land back in the 1950's and was just recently reviewed and renewed for another 100 year term. It can assumed that the plot of land is theirs, effectively forever, unless they decide to give it up.

The non-conforming issue with the building is mainly it's road turnaround which has direct access to Broad street (a big no-no for WCA policy). The new building plans will remove that turnaround (plus other minor changes) to make the building conform.

Prior to Brandt coming on board they were planning on building a new building closer to Broad street so that they could remain in the current building while construction happened. Brandt changed those plans and proposed a new building on the footprint of the old building. So yes, they have the ability to relocate the building elsewhere on the property but they won't be.

Sean Fraser misunderstood the plans a bit during that city council meeting. Although CNIB and Brandt are partnering on the building there's no plans for it to be "an office tower". It's still going to conform to WCA's regulations of no buildings exceeding tree height and I believe it's a two storey plan, similar to the current building. It's mainly going to be for CNIB's purposes and them as the primary tenant but with a small amount of office space for Brandt.

With the building plans nearly finalized, CNIB has leased out space in the Gamma-Dynacare Medical building on Broad & 14th and are moving offices there on Oct 1st. Demolition of the old location will be starting soon after the building is cleared.

(Source: My wife works at CNIB)

[StealthGirl]

WCA has been very quiet about these building changes within their boundaries. Four years of planning Conexus and it's only coming out now. The Brandt one seems to be similarly under the radar as well. It makes me wonder what else is being planned in the park that isn't on the known plans.

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by Dan0myte

RE: CNIB
Although it's technically true that the province owns the land CNIB sits on, CNIB was issued a 100 year Lease on that land back in the 1950's and was just recently reviewed and renewed for another 100 year term. It can assumed that the plot of land is theirs, effectively forever, unless they decide to give it up.

The non-conforming issue with the building is mainly it's road turnaround which has direct access to Broad street (a big no-no for WCA policy). The new building plans will remove that turnaround (plus other minor changes) to make the building conform.

The non-conforming issue was deeper than just design... it was the use itself that was non-conforming (until the 2016 Master Plan, which now considers the use conforming).

From the 2006 Master Plan:

"Culliton Centre
This building houses the Saskatchewan headquarters of The Canadian National Institute for the Blind. It is a non-conforming use which pre-dates the establishment of the Centre, and is proposed to remain as long as its present use is maintained. The Plan indicates a new parking lot buffered from the surrounding park by dense tree planting, a new vehicular drop-off drive to the side of the building and a refurbished front lawn to improve the image of the Centre on Broad Street. The existing drive is proposed to be removed and replaced by a walkway."

As you said, the 2006 Plan stated that CNIB can continue to use the building (implication: if they decided to leave & sell/lease the building to anyone else, WCA would not approve a new non-conforming use).

The 2016 Plan moved CNIB into the Educational & Research group - so it now conforms. The Queen Building & Wascana Rehab Centre are the only "non-conforming use" facilities in the Centre now.

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by StealthGirl

WCA has been very quiet about these building changes within their boundaries. Four years of planning Conexus and it's only coming out now. The Brandt one seems to be similarly under the radar as well. It makes me wonder what else is being planned in the park that isn't on the known plans.

It's not particularly secretive - there's a building shown in the location of the Conexus proposal in both the 2016 Wascana Centre Master Plan; and the 2016 U of R Master Plan.

Both plans were released in March 2016, and both featured several months of public consultations during which complete drafts of the documents, and drawings of potential future development were available for review/feedback. The proposal was formally announced by the UofR & Conexus in June.

The U of R plan says:

"The south wing of the Conservatory is structurally failing and is currently being studied for potential demolition.
The expectation is that considerable redevelopment will occur. This development will primarily be organized about an axis that extends south from College Building. This pattern recognizes the heritage character of the existing buildings and protects the unique College Avenue frontage."

(there's a drawing of the College Ave Campus next to this passage)

I agree that most would've assumed the UofR to be the occupant of the redevelopment contemplated in the two Master Plans - so Conexus certainly came as a surprise to most.

It may seem boring - but reading these Master Plans & attending the consultations is a fascinating window into the past & future of Wascana Centre and the UofR.

(as an aside, I agree with your earlier point around Bob Ellard's leadership)

[StealthGirl]

Originally Posted by Drofmab

I agree that most would've assumed the UofR to be the occupant of the redevelopment contemplated in the two Master Plans - so Conexus certainly came as a surprise to most.

It may seem boring - but reading these Master Plans & attending the consultations is a fascinating window into the past & future of Wascana Centre and the UofR.

(as an aside, I agree with your earlier point around Bob Ellard's leadership)

If it was a regular bank, there would have been no discussion at all. They would not have considered letting them build there. I think it's a bad fit, but the decision has been made. I just don't think that it was really up for discussion last night. That decision had already been made long before. I don't think it mattered what arguments were made at council.

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by StealthGirl

If it was a regular bank, there would have been no discussion at all. They would not have considered letting them build there. I think it's a bad fit, but the decision has been made. I just don't think that it was really up for discussion last night. That decision had already been made long before. I don't think it mattered what arguments were made at council.

Oh, yeah - completely agree. City Council was a rubber stamp.

Gotta say, the people bellyaching about this development were pretty quiet since the announcement in June. And even quieter last night at YQRcc.

This is like voting to me - I don't have time for whining about government from people who don't vote.
Didn't vote? You have no right to complain.
Voted? Perfect - complain away.

Same deal here... plenty of people "lighting up" Sheila Coles' Twitter feed this morning - she said it was the biggest reaction she's every received to a story. Where were these people over the past couple of months? Where were they last night? They missed their opportunity to let their Councillors know how they felt in the weeks following the announcement, and they missed another opportunity at Council last night.

[HomeInMyShoes]

They can also vote out all of the existing councilors as well. I hope that happens. None of them should be around anymore as far as I'm concerned. I voted last time.

[Festivus]

Do we have any idea what the proposed Conexus building will look like? Is it truly a stucco building? I would hope they would use a stone or brick design to fit in.

[HomerSPC]

Originally Posted by Festivus

Do we have any idea what the proposed Conexus building will look like? Is it truly a stucco building? I would hope they would use a stone or brick design to fit in.

Originally Posted by ReginaGuy

I wouldn't be surprised if Connexus builds some stucco monstrosity with a huge parking lot in the front.

Ah, the classic game of telephone. No one ever confirmed it would be any material.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by Drofmab

Oh, yeah - completely agree. City Council was a rubber stamp.

Gotta say, the people bellyaching about this development were pretty quiet since the announcement in June. And even quieter last night at YQRcc.

This is like voting to me - I don't have time for whining about government from people who don't vote.
Didn't vote? You have no right to complain.
Voted? Perfect - complain away.

Same deal here... plenty of people "lighting up" Sheila Coles' Twitter feed this morning - she said it was the biggest reaction she's every received to a story. Where were these people over the past couple of months? Where were they last night? They missed their opportunity to let their Councillors know how they felt in the weeks following the announcement, and they missed another opportunity at Council last night.

There is a reason there were less people out against this project and that reason is that the media took no interest in it.

Additionally, people like me assumed that the proposal would get shot down due to obvious non-conformity and developer opposition. But as soon as I saw that two of downtown's largest landlords were supporting it, I knew it was over.

But it's a fucking joke.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by UPP

I'm glad it went through. It'll help the U of R with some much needed revenue, it's still close to the downtown, I mean really, it's 3 blocks from Vic. Besides, for a while, the complaint was that there wasn't any or enough class A office space. With it being adjacent/in the park, maybe it'll encourage workers to bike to work and become more active during work.

Fun Fact: the current building that Conexus uses downtown basically has enough space to house Conexus' office requirements, and it's a Class A building! All they had to do was sign a lease.

But this is what happens when you let corporations run wild with their vanity projects.

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

Additionally, people like me assumed that the proposal would get shot down due to obvious non-conformity and developer opposition.

You didn't honestly think it would get shot down, did you?

Short of a massive, unprecedented public outcry (and I mean massive), there was zero chance of this not passing.

Frankly, it's not ideal, but even if the City said no to the land transfer, it would've gone through with a rejigged building/location. There's plenty of room to build completely on UofR's land; YQRcc would have no say; and WCA would be a rubber stamp (UofR's 3 votes + the Prov's 5 votes is enough to trump the City's votes [assuming they were concerned about the non-conformity]... no doubt the Prov would vote for something like this - keeps the UofR away from their door cap-in-hand).

(I agree that the media taking no interest hindered public discussion/debate)

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by Drofmab

You didn't honestly think it would get shot down, did you?

Yes because I assumed Harvard would be against it, which is enough of a reason for anything to fail.

[UrbanClimate]

Looks like "Market Under the Stars" is drawing good crowds to the downtown plaza. This photo from last Thursday.


Source: https://twitter.com/MarketRegina/status/768846241878814720

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

Yes because I assumed Harvard would be against it, which is enough of a reason for anything to fail.

Fair point.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by Drofmab

Fair point.

Yeah that was literally what I was basing it on. I have no faith in council in and of themselves. I thought the business opposition would start their behind-the-scenes influencing.

Now something else is going on. So I expect a Havard proposal for the park within the decade.