Regina Construction III

[PhotoJim]

Originally Posted by SkydivePilot

"40,000 square feet ÷ 120 retailers"???!!!!

Hahaha, that'd be a trifle crowded, lol! (333 sq feet per retailer, . . Lol!!!)

This sounds a lot like the Asian mall (Pacific Mall?) I visited in Markham, Ontario a couple of years ago. Tons of businesses, but most very small, and all Asian-owned. There were some good deals in there, actually, and some good food, but I didn't see a lot of other white customers (No one minded me being there, though!)

[thefourthtower]

Originally Posted by UPP

Yeah, 120 businesses leasing 120 spots with 120 families moving to Regina. Not a bad way to jump to the front of the immigration queue.

They say two more buildings are going up in 2018

[thefourthtower]

http://leaderpost.com/news/local-news/im-very-proud-of-our-accomplishments-mayor-looks-back-on-2017
Can projects drawn up during the boom years – the Taylor Field redesign and railyard renewal, for example – still go forward at the same rate?

The market will decide. The bulk of our public investment was in the stadium, and the private sector will drive what happens with those projects. I don’t see a slowing down of that necessarily. I see a sense of enthusiasm to move forward, not stepping back.

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by thefourthtower

http://leaderpost.com/news/local-news/im-very-proud-of-our-accomplishments-mayor-looks-back-on-2017
Can projects drawn up during the boom years – the Taylor Field redesign and railyard renewal, for example – still go forward at the same rate?

The market will decide. The bulk of our public investment was in the stadium, and the private sector will drive what happens with those projects. I don’t see a slowing down of that necessarily. I see a sense of enthusiasm to move forward, not stepping back.

I expect we'll see some opportunists seizing the downturn to essentially strong-arm the City into watering-down their vision of the Taylor Field & Railyard sites... 'we'll do you a favour by developing the site... on our terms. Don't say no - you don't have other offers.'
Just like that, the nice mixed use development becomes a big box nightmare. The affordable housing becomes cookie cutter housing that is nothing even resembling affordable. And esthetics? first thing to get tossed out the window.

[Festivus]

Originally Posted by Drofmab

I expect we'll see some opportunists seizing the downturn to essentially strong-arm the City into watering-down their vision of the Taylor Field & Railyard sites... 'we'll do you a favour by developing the site... on our terms. Don't say no - you don't have other offers.'
Just like that, the nice mixed use development becomes a big box nightmare. The affordable housing becomes cookie cutter housing that is nothing even resembling affordable. And esthetics? first thing to get tossed out the window.

This is unfortunately probably going to be the reality. Regina has a weak-willed and developer-beholden council on the best of days, and already routinely folds to their demands. If someone steps up and says they want the land for 1/2 the price and with no restrictions, the city may well take up their offer, permanently messing up the plans. I mean, look at all of East Vic for proof of that (Home Depot where interchange should have been extended to, Quance St being crappy and full of box stores, etc).

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by Festivus

This is unfortunately probably going to be the reality. Regina has a weak-willed and developer-beholden council on the best of days, and already routinely folds to their demands. If someone steps up and says they want the land for 1/2 the price and with no restrictions, the city may well take up their offer, permanently messing up the plans. I mean, look at all of East Vic for proof of that (Home Depot where interchange should have been extended to, Quance St being crappy and full of box stores, etc).

Many developers would strongly disagree with you. Many are of the view that the City is far too activist, micro-manages what owners do with their own land and imposes huge additional costs, all of which have held back development. I agree with smart land use regulation. I am just saying there is two sides to the story.

Also I do not remember the Home Depot development as being controversial at the time. In fact it was contaminated (former Husky) land that the City was glad to see had interest at a time when there was very little development occurring in the City. Maybe I have forgotten.

Finally, every City in Canada has suburban big box stores. Clearly a lot of people like them.

[jigglysquishy]

Quance was a nightmare because there was like 40 landowners

[Festivus]

Originally Posted by Stormer

Many developers would strongly disagree with you. Many are of the view that the City is far too activist, micro-manages what owners do with their own land and imposes huge additional costs, all of which have held back development. I agree with smart land use regulation. I am just saying there is two sides to the story.

Also I do not remember the Home Depot development as being controversial at the time. In fact it was contaminated (former Husky) land that the City was glad to see had interest at a time when there was very little development occurring in the City. Maybe I have forgotten.

Finally, every City in Canada has suburban big box stores. Clearly a lot of people like them.

Home Depot wasn't controversial at the time because the city only seems to perpetually plan 5 years in advance. But the site was the intended spot for expansion of the Vic-Ring Rd interchange. Now we are permanently stuck with turn lanes to get onto Ring Rd, which will only back up more and more as the city expands the East end.

[aberrant]

Originally Posted by Stormer

Many developers would strongly disagree with you. Many are of the view that the City is far too activist, micro-manages what owners do with their own land and imposes huge additional costs, all of which have held back development. I agree with smart land use regulation. I am just saying there is two sides to the story.

I believe the term I used was "depressingly reassuring," during a City-organized forum discussion with developers, landowners, and reps from the Business Improvement Districts on the topic of development and working with the City. I thought I was the only one completely frustrated...

[Rodo Regina Lover]

Isn't it a bit of a stretch to say they would need the Home Depot lands to expand the Ring Rd/ Victoria Ave. interchange??

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by Rodo Regina Lover

Isn't it a bit of a stretch to say they would need the Home Depot lands to expand the Ring Rd/ Victoria Ave. interchange??

Yes.

[Festivus]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

Yes.

They would really need the YMCA area, and to get pretty close to Home Depot. But turning that whole area into a commercial development prevents a larger interchange with no at-grade crossings.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by Festivus

They would really need the YMCA area, and to get pretty close to Home Depot. But turning that whole area into a commercial development prevents a larger interchange with no at-grade crossings.

The fact that the City allowed those duplexes to be built in the NW quadrant about 15 years ago and that they spent a fortune widening the underpass to create more left hand turn lanes tells me they were never really interested in a full interchange there. The construction of the stormwater detention pond in the SE quadrant cemented that.

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by aberrant

I believe the term I used was "depressingly reassuring," during a City-organized forum discussion with developers, landowners, and reps from the Business Improvement Districts on the topic of development and working with the City. I thought I was the only one completely frustrated...

I think the issue is more that particular developers/developments seem to get handled differently. Day-to-day development? Yep - I've heard this too... way too much involvement/red tape (I believe a certain business near Dewdney/Broad went through a painfully bureaucratic process to simply get landscaping approved... [the status quo 'landscaping' was decades of tire-rutted dirt & weeds]).

But bigger, flashier, higher-profile developments seem to get pulled aside & handled differently. I don't recall Home Depot itself being an issue... but the early developments in that area (specifically, Boston Pizza & Price Club), certainly had a disproportionately strong influence on urban planning. Proper longer-term planning was tossed out the window in favour of the flavour of the day. If we hadn't bent over backwards for Price Club, does anyone honestly believe Regina would have been blacklisted? Of course not, we'd have a Price Club.

We continue to suffer through the Quance nightmare because City Hall's spine melted at the prospect of a a big retailer giving Regina a glance ("OMG! OMG!" OMG! Price Club likes me! How does my hair look? OMG!"). Set a unfortunate precedent for other developments along Quance (Home Depot, Walmart, Sears Home, Loblaws, etc).

Perhaps I'm being overly pessimistic, but an economic downturn shifts the power dynamic away from the City... developers offering an opportunity for economic development, jobs, etc, will once again be sparkly, distracting objects for City Council (and, I think it's important to note, that local politicians are usually the ones who pull developments aside & push for them to be handled differently). During a boom, the City has a better ability to dictate terms to businesses who want to enter our market/expand, than it does during a downturn.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by Drofmab

I think the issue is more that particular developers/developments seem to get handled differently. Day-to-day development? Yep - I've heard this too... way too much involvement/red tape (I believe a certain business near Dewdney/Broad went through a painfully bureaucratic process to simply get landscaping approved... [the status quo 'landscaping' was decades of tire-rutted dirt & weeds]).

But bigger, flashier, higher-profile developments seem to get pulled aside & handled differently. I don't recall Home Depot itself being an issue... but the early developments in that area (specifically, Boston Pizza & Price Club), certainly had a disproportionately strong influence on urban planning. Proper longer-term planning was tossed out the window in favour of the flavour of the day. If we hadn't bent over backwards for Price Club, does anyone honestly believe Regina would have been blacklisted? Of course not, we'd have a Price Club.

We continue to suffer through the Quance nightmare because City Hall's spine melted at the prospect of a a big retailer giving Regina a glance ("OMG! OMG!" OMG! Price Club likes me! How does my hair look? OMG!"). Set a unfortunate precedent for other developments along Quance (Home Depot, Walmart, Sears Home, Loblaws, etc).

Perhaps I'm being overly pessimistic, but an economic downturn shifts the power dynamic away from the City... developers offering an opportunity for economic development, jobs, etc, will once again be sparkly, distracting objects for City Council (and, I think it's important to note, that local politicians are usually the ones who pull developments aside & push for them to be handled differently). During a boom, the City has a better ability to dictate terms to businesses who want to enter our market/expand, than it does during a downturn.

I fail to see the issue with any of the stores you mention being where they are. Sure it is congested at Christmas and on Saturdays but so what? Don't go there on those days. Also I noticed you did not mention Co-op aren't they as equally guilty as the big corporations?

[brithgob]

The issue wasn't Home Depot interfering with an upgraded Vic/Ring Road interchange (rumour I heard was that a systems interchange was rejected there because it was thought to be too complicated for Regina drivers). It was more about plans for interchanges at Fleet and Prince of Wales, which went out the window because THAT land was sold off.

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by brithgob

The issue wasn't Home Depot interfering with an upgraded Vic/Ring Road interchange (rumour I heard was that a systems interchange was rejected there because it was thought to be too complicated for Regina drivers). It was more about plans for interchanges at Fleet and Prince of Wales, which went out the window because THAT land was sold off.

This aligns better with the frustration I recall when the area between Fleet/UPD and Prince of Wales was being developed.

[aberrant]

The Quance debacle was many years ago. There has been a lot of turnover at the City since then.

City Square Plaza wouldnt have been a disaster had they actually stuck to the downtown plan it was based on.

[Stormer]

New WBM "campus" in HL:



http://www.wbm.ca/wbm-announces-construc...test-state-of-the-art-technology-campus/

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by aberrant

The Quance debacle was many years ago. There has been a lot of turnover at the City since then.

Agreed.

City Square Plaza wouldnt have been a disaster had they actually stuck to the downtown plan it was based on.

I agree - and this actually points to one of the big issues I see... the City (admin) develops a plan in good faith, consults, Council reviews/modifies/endorses it. Then someone complains about something, and Council (twitchy about votes?) wades into operations & waters down the plan.

I keep saying it, Regina is a medium sized city that continues to govern as if it's a small city/big town. Guess what, Councillors? You'll be able to count on one hand the number of decisions that you make that don't ruffle a single feather - governing by consensus is a recipe for mediocrity. Be ready to course-correct, if you've made a mistake... but don't take a few voices whining to mean that you're off-course.