Regina Construction III

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by Dalreg

Who? The city, the public or you?

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

The city really need to stop asking for public comment. As far as I can tell they are always wrong.

Not that I agree public consultation should go away (it shouldn't - decision-makers shouldn't be making decisions in bubbles informed by their own circle of influencers), but the public has to accept that just because they didn't get the specific outcome they wanted, doesn't mean the City/Developer/Gov't/CommunityAssoc/etc didn't listen, didn't factor their opinion in.

I've been to open houses & public consultations - impossible to make everyone happy in most cases... and if we did find some sort of consensus, in most cases the outcome is watered-down version that really doesn't make anyone truly happy... just make everyone less unhappy.

Satisficing - "decision makers can satisfice either by finding optimum solutions for a simplified world, or by finding satisfactory solutions for a more realistic world. Neither approach, in general, dominates the other, and both have continued to co-exist in the world of management science."

[Dalreg]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

I was thinking "you" was the correct answer. But then I'm sure you'll tell me how it is.....

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by Drofmab

Not that I agree public consultation should go away (it shouldn't - decision-makers shouldn't be making decisions in bubbles informed by their own circle of influencers), but the public has to accept that just because they didn't get the specific outcome they wanted, doesn't mean the City/Developer/Gov't/CommunityAssoc/etc didn't listen, didn't factor their opinion in.

I've been to open houses & public consultations - impossible to make everyone happy in most cases... and if we did find some sort of consensus, in most cases the outcome is watered-down version that really doesn't make anyone truly happy... just make everyone less unhappy.

Satisficing - "decision makers can satisfice either by finding optimum solutions for a simplified world, or by finding satisfactory solutions for a more realistic world. Neither approach, in general, dominates the other, and both have continued to co-exist in the world of management science."

But we shouldn't have to sacrifice. The vast majority of the time the projects are fully in inline with the overall guidelines, such as the OCP and they still get shut down.

[Udon'tknow]

Here's a diagram of the new Conexus office footprint in Wascana and some of the other work being done to the university buildings. Not sure how solid this is, things may change.



credit: LP

[UPP]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

In this case, public is an adjective, describing comment. So they, a pronoun, can only be replacing City or comment. Since comment is singular and they plural, they must be replacing City (which would mean city employees).

You're welcome

[Festivus]

Originally Posted by UPP

In this case, public is an adjective, describing comment. So they, a pronoun, can only be replacing City or comment. Since comment is singular and they plural, they must be replacing City (which would mean city employees).

You're welcome

I was going to chime in as well, that the "they" in that sentence could only refer to the city, grammatically.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by UPP

In this case, public is an adjective, describing comment. So they, a pronoun, can only be replacing City or comment. Since comment is singular and they plural, they must be replacing City (which would mean city employees).

You're welcome

If only linguistics were as simple as you pretend it to be. If you deliberately remove context then of course nothing will make sense.

[ReginaGuy]

Originally Posted by Udon'tknow

Here's a diagram of the new Conexus office footprint in Wascana and some of the other work being done to the university buildings. Not sure how solid this is, things may change.



credit: LP

Obviously the architect is going to make no effort to design the building in a way that fits in with the surrounding area. Why did they have to angle the building so it doesn't match the street or any of the nearby structures? I stand by my earlier prediction that this building will have plenty of stucco and a massive parking lot in the front of the building

[StealthGirl]

As of Tuesday this week, the formal application hadn't yet been made to WCA. Odds are they want the design specs in place before they make application. The other crappy thing that will happen is the trees between the current Lorne Street extension into the park and the museum will be removed to reroute that road. I think there needs to be pressure on WCA to demand some continuity with the existing buildings and decent exterior materials.

ETA: Contact for WCA: [email protected]

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by ReginaGuy

Obviously the architect is going to make no effort to design the building in a way that fits in with the surrounding area. Why did they have to angle the building so it doesn't match the street or any of the nearby structures? I stand by my earlier prediction that this building will have plenty of stucco and a massive parking lot in the front of the building

I stand by my earlier prediction that the building & parking will fit the design standards of Wascana Centre. If for no reason than WCA has a solid track record of following/enforcing design standards.

Plenty of space behind the building for parking (as has been done for CBC & College Ave Campus to date). Matter of fact, those lots are underutilized already - might not need a lot of additional parking.

The Conexus building was angled out (rather than aligned with/attached to Darke Hall) specifically to avoid detracting/not fitting the character of Darke Hall). A reasonable question would be why the space where the Gallery Building was and behind Darke Hall wasn't selected (T or L shaped). This would hide the Conexus building better/not detract from the heritage vibe of the College Ave campus.

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by StealthGirl

As of Tuesday this week, the formal application hadn't yet been made to WCA. Odds are they want the design specs in place before they make application. The other crappy thing that will happen is the trees between the current Lorne Street extension into the park and the museum will be removed to reroute that road. I think there needs to be pressure on WCA to demand some continuity with the existing buildings and decent exterior materials.

ETA: Contact for WCA: [email protected]

Also worth noting that WCA moves trees whenever possible, and for the trees that can't be moved, they replant on (at least) a 1-for-1 basis.

The UofR/WCA are pretty serious about this: some of the largest tree spades in North American were brought in to move trees at the UofR for the first set of Residences. The spades were capable of moving large, mature trees.

Not saying they'll do that this time, but they have made significant efforts to preserve trees in the past.

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

But we shouldn't have to sacrifice. The vast majority of the time the projects are fully in inline with the overall guidelines, such as the OCP and they still get shut down.

That was my point.

Seems more & more people view 'public consultation' as successful only if the public's opinion (each & every varied opinion) are reflected in the ultimate decision. If one person's opinion isn't reflected, the media seems more than happy to give them air time to rant about how they weren't heard (and if the media won't, social media tends to oblige).

My point is that if we try to include everyone's opinion into the final design/decision, it will likely make no one happy... most likely leaving everyone slightly irritated, and resulting in a crappier end product/policy.

But public consultation still has a place - there are factors that decision-makers simply can't be aware of: I certainly wouldn't let a Kindergartener have full design reign on a school, nor would I let their parents... architects, engineers, educators should lead the design. The users of the facility offer valuable input that may influence the professionals' designs - but if water fountains remain in the final design, despite kids recommending soda pop fountains, I wouldn't say their opinion wasn't heard. I bet it was - but it's nonsense, so it was dismissed. Another student might come forward with an excellent idea that none of the professionals thought of, and is completely do-able Same goes for roadway design; zoning; building permits; public policy; etc. We have professionals who should lead the charge, but they should also be open to hearing ideas from the public. Doesn't mean they have to incorporate every idea (they'll likely dismiss most, in fact), but they should be open to innovation coming from the public.

[Drofmab]

I didn't realize the City denied the 3-year extension for the parking lot on Hamilton (south of the Delta). I just assumed it had been approved when the zoning sign came down. Friday is the parking lot's last day.

I would've lost a bet on the outcome of that application.

[UPP]

Originally Posted by Drofmab

That was my point.

Seems more & more people view 'public consultation' as successful only if the public's opinion (each & every varied opinion) are reflected in the ultimate decision. If one person's opinion isn't reflected, the media seems more than happy to give them air time to rant about how they weren't heard (and if the media won't, social media tends to oblige).

My point is that if we try to include everyone's opinion into the final design/decision, it will likely make no one happy... most likely leaving everyone slightly irritated, and resulting in a crappier end product/policy.

But public consultation still has a place - there are factors that decision-makers simply can't be aware of: I certainly wouldn't let a Kindergartener have full design reign on a school, nor would I let their parents... architects, engineers, educators should lead the design. The users of the facility offer valuable input that may influence the professionals' designs - but if water fountains remain in the final design, despite kids recommending soda pop fountains, I wouldn't say their opinion wasn't heard. I bet it was - but it's nonsense, so it was dismissed. Another student might come forward with an excellent idea that none of the professionals thought of, and is completely do-able Same goes for roadway design; zoning; building permits; public policy; etc. We have professionals who should lead the charge, but they should also be open to hearing ideas from the public. Doesn't mean they have to incorporate every idea (they'll likely dismiss most, in fact), but they should be open to innovation coming from the public.

Funny thing is, that's sort of what they did with the Arcola/Douglas Park designs and the new joint P3 designs. Now that Arcola and Douglas Park Schools are above capacity, they've had to close off some of the open design concepts because they were wasting valuable space.

I fear this may have happened with the new Children's Hospital. A lot was made of how they asked for so much input from kids. I'd think nurses, the ones who work there day in and day out, should be the ones with the greatest input.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by Drofmab

I didn't realize the City denied the 3-year extension for the parking lot on Hamilton (south of the Delta). I just assumed it had been approved when the zoning sign came down. Friday is the parking lot's last day.

I would've lost a bet on the outcome of that application.

It seemed like a no-brainer to deny, but I am still relieved.

[StealthGirl]

Originally Posted by Drofmab

I didn't realize the City denied the 3-year extension for the parking lot on Hamilton (south of the Delta). I just assumed it had been approved when the zoning sign came down. Friday is the parking lot's last day.

I would've lost a bet on the outcome of that application.

Is that the lot that was supposed to be for Mosaic 3 workers? I figured that was written in as a permanent parking lot.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by StealthGirl

Is that the lot that was supposed to be for Mosaic 3 workers? I figured that was written in as a permanent parking lot.

No Ag Place/FCC construction workers. It was a 2 (or 3?) year permit I believe.

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by Stormer

No Ag Place/FCC construction workers. It was a 2 (or 3?) year permit I believe.

Correct. They were going for a 3 year extension to the "temporary" lot, after showing no goodwill to meet the terms of the initial zoning approval (e.g. how do the trees/shrubs that they planted along Hamilton look? oh, wait - they didn't plant any, despite being required to do so). Glad the City called their BS.

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by UPP

Funny thing is, that's sort of what they did with the Arcola/Douglas Park designs and the new joint P3 designs. Now that Arcola and Douglas Park Schools are above capacity, they've had to close off some of the open design concepts because they were wasting valuable space.

I fear this may have happened with the new Children's Hospital. A lot was made of how they asked for so much input from kids. I'd think nurses, the ones who work there day in and day out, should be the ones with the greatest input.

And having users like schoolchildren, parents, patients involved in the planning/design is good... but I get the impression that people seem to think that "public consultation" means "do everything the public says you should, or the consultation was a sham."
(I realize I'm focusing on squeaky wheels & many people understand that they won't necessarily see their ideas/input in the final policy/plan/design)

To use the schoolchildren example - they had influence/input, but it was within reason... there are no soda pop fountains in these schools, as I expect some kids may have suggested. Doesn't mean their input wasn't valued - just that the professional architects, engineers, educators know that soda pop fountains aren't a good idea