Regina Construction III

[one_brick_at_a_time]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

OMG When the hell is the city going to fix Victoria Ave between Albert and Broad? This has been long overdue.

I’ll post some pics later on today from my walk along Scarth to Victoria and Albert. Literally so ashamed of the City.

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by one_brick_at_a_time

I’ll post some pics later on today from my walk along Scarth to Victoria and Albert. Literally so ashamed of the City.

I suspect in terms of priorities, there are more urgent locations... but, a city's downtown sends a message. Downtowns are typically the areas where vistors spend a significant portion of their time. They form first (and lasting) impressions.

I clearly remember being in Edmonton & Winnipeg 15-20 years ago - their downtown cores felt a lot like Regina's does today: crumbling sidewalks, rusting lights & meters; rare pieces of public infrastructure like benches, tables, bike racks, art, etc. Overall - just not an inviting place to be.

Been to both Winnipeg & Edmonton more recently, and both have put a big focus on the downtown. Renewed infrastructure, nice amenities, making the areas more pedestrian-friendly, etc. I even saw both Cities in the spring out powerwashing planters, statues, sidewalks, benches, tables, chairs, etc... not just a street sweep, but a solid spring cleaning. And it made a big difference.

Regina's made some strides, especially along Hamilton & 12th (and, to a lesser degree, 11th)... but, other than the Plaza, most of the strides were made by businesses, not the City. A program to repair/replace the sidewalks & medians would be a positive start.

This is as much - or more - a tourism/marketing/branding play as it is an issue of public infrastructure maintenance and renewal.

[aberrant]

http://leaderpost.com/news/local-news/city-falls-far-short-of-target-meant-to-prevent-urban-sprawl

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by aberrant

http://leaderpost.com/news/local-news/city-falls-far-short-of-target-meant-to-prevent-urban-sprawl

"“We can’t control the market,” Bzdel added. “It really does come down to the private market to determine what is attractive for those consumers and then build it.”"

If only the City had some sort of say in approving zoning and development.
If only.


"She expects to see a study on underused land come out this year. It should lay out strategies for how to promote development on surface parking lots, old institutional buildings and other underused areas. She’s also looking forward to upcoming zoning bylaw changes."

Never fear - the City's on the case... as with everything else, they're going to study the issue. Gotta study things to figure out the issue so that City admin & Council can properly ignore the issue & recommendations... until a decade or two later, when they haven't implemented recommendations/ met targets.
Don't worry, at that point they'll get a consultant in to help them figure out what the issue is.
[and repeat]

I suspect this issue is completely unique to Regina, and requires a solution uniquely designed for Regina. No chance we could look to other cities to help us crack this nut, right? (see: parking enforcement; smoking bylaws; snow routes; recycling; etc... all unique flowers created just for Regina, because Regina is special & no other city faces the unique issues that we do).

[HomeInMyShoes]

^

Agreed entirely.

They could have improved their numbers by quashing the Cathedral residents lamenting the loss of a single house for a development that would have prevented a Vape Shop from appearing right across the street from their new school.

Indeed. Council is powerless.

[StealthGirl]

Interesting to see the comment in the article that the new areas don't have enough trees. I've never heard any commitment to planting.

But really, what has the city done to discourage sprawl and encourage infill? They get report after report and study after study, but don't actually enforce the rules or show any leadership. Builders can do whatever they like.

[PhotoJim]

This probably won't fly well here, but ... there is a simplish answer to this.

Instead of raising the taxes for existing housing, increase taxes for new neighbourhoods. Make their taxes higher than are paid for similar lots in existing neighbourhoods.

The city argues that sprawl increases infrastructure costs. If that's the case, this tax policy would be completely defensible.

It might take some tax policy change. Perhaps it's not even legal as provincial tax law is concerned right now. But if it is, it's the answer.

[one_brick_at_a_time]

I absolutely think higher taxes on new and lower taxes on older areas. Also, I would take older areas with the amount of trees existing over new areas with no trees. And if I needed a new home, then I would build a new home in an older area.

The City Of Regina is useless. They absolutely have control. But they want to spend another $200,000 on another study when they would allocate that money to when they lower taxes and make incentives to areas they want developed for office, retail and residential downtown.

[aberrant]

This article makes my heart sink. The City is basically throwing its hands up. No plan. No action. No anything. Just a bunch of excuses.

Councillor Stevens published a link on his social media a few weeks back to a formula for calculating the cost of sprawl. We absolutely need to ensure we have a cost recovery model for sprawl. And yet the City does nothing of the sort... just crosses fingers and adjusts mill rate for everyone.

I was talking to an urban planner from Toronto. They instituted a 25% infill rate and enforced it. It took a couple years for developers to adjust. He then said infill has shot up organically to 60-75%. Amazing how if you implement policies to shape the city you want, the market will adjust.

You need a multi-pronged approach. Ensure you are collecting the right amount of fees for the cost of sprawl, do not approve additional sprawl until infill catches up, and also ensure you have a proper infill policy that encourages development as opposed to the current system which makes infill development a living hell, with a ridiculous amount of risk related to cost, timelines, and bureaucratic approvals.

[blacktrojan3921]

Well, in fairness to the city and developers, suburban areas are what the consumers want.

Saskatchewan is a very conservative area, and I can't help but notice a bit of a correlation between conservative regions and suburban sprawls.

[pappcam]

Originally Posted by blacktrojan3921

Well, in fairness to the city and developers, suburban areas are what the consumers want.

Saskatchewan is a very conservative area, and I can't help but notice a bit of a correlation between conservative regions and suburban sprawls.

Yep. It's not like Regina is nestled into a valley or coastal area. There's nothing surrounding the city except for flat empty space. You can't compare Regina to a lot of places that are either much larger or have no more area to grow. The developers are going to give people what they want and I guess it's mostly a place outside of the core of the city.

[aberrant]

They can sprawl all they fricken want, as long as they are the ones paying for it. The City still has a role to play as an Urban Planner, otherwise why have a City? Freedom isn't free.

[aberrant]

Amazingly, Saskatoon is expanding, but they also have a well laid out, well serviced, walkable downtown, and exciting districts just off the downtown.

It isnt a one or the other proposition. Or some nonsense that we are just too backwards to bother with infill. Thats just lazy and irresponsible.

[one_brick_at_a_time]

Originally Posted by aberrant

Amazingly, Saskatoon is expanding, but they also have a well laid out, well serviced, walkable downtown, and exciting districts just off the downtown.

It isnt a one or the other proposition. Or some nonsense that we are just too backwards to bother with infill. Thats just lazy and irresponsible.

Agreed!

[J-Walker]

Just some of my thoughts on City's excuses in the leader post article.

We can’t control the market,” Bzdel added. “It really does come down to the private market to determine what is attractive for those consumers and then build it.

The sad part is that most downtowns generate on average 5 to 10 times the tax revenue per area then suburban developments do. This tax revenue is diverted to fund the infrastructure upgrades and maintenance required to support suburban development, which cannot support itself because of a limited tax base (low residential mill rate) and high ratio of infrastructure to assessed property value.

The reality is that Council completely controls the direction of the market. City tax policies have created a scenario where new suburban development is favoured because it is under-priced.

Planning director Shauna Bzdel noted the city still has years to meet the target, which is part of the decades-long Official Community Plan.

If you give yourself the leniency of hitting a target within a few decades or so, its not really a target, its a just a wish. And realistically, for every year you only have 5% infill – you need a year with 55% infill to offset the low number if you want to be fair about maintaining a 30% average over time.

That wasn’t the only development target the city missed. Regina’s Official Community Plan also calls for 10,000 more residents in the city centre. In 2017, only 84 additional residences went up in the city centre.

At this rate the City should hit its target sometime after the year 2100 –no joke.

New neighbourhoods are also sorely lacking in trees, the report suggests. The city is falling further behind on a target meant to preserve Regina’s forest canopy.
The goal is one tree for every person. In 2016, there were 0.81 trees for each Regina resident. This year, there were 0.76.

Trees--- really? Couldn’t even hit that target. You just plant them or require the developers to plant them in new developments – that’s it. How hard is this! Require new developments to have at minimum one street tree per x square feet of new frontage and problem solved. Oh ya, you can’t because there is no room for trees along the street when you let developers build this type of generic suburbia: https://www.google.ca/maps/@50.5081677,-...vCs64BeDKGDvHrPu4uA6g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 or this
https://www.google.ca/maps/@50.4198149,-...5H3J8KOhLvtb0JiGkl9qA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[mitchellk12]

Originally Posted by aberrant

Amazingly, Saskatoon is expanding, but they also have a well laid out, well serviced, walkable downtown, and exciting districts just off the downtown.

It isnt a one or the other proposition. Or some nonsense that we are just too backwards to bother with infill. Thats just lazy and irresponsible.

I was always under the impression Reginas downtown was far better than saskatoons in terms of services, things to do, image, etc... Ive also never been in reginas DT except for a quick event at a hotel or something. I find our DT here gloomy and dirty to be honest...were slowly getting there, but so much work to do still. but ill take your comment

[Festivus]

Originally Posted by mitchellk12

I was always under the impression Reginas downtown was far better than saskatoons in terms of services, things to do, image, etc... Ive also never been in reginas DT except for a quick event at a hotel or something. I find our DT here gloomy and dirty to be honest...were slowly getting there, but so much work to do still. but ill take your comment

Regina's DT definitely is more compact, and so can feel like a big city, but there are more things to do in Saskatoon's DT area. Regina's has improved in the last 10 years, but it's nowhere near Saskatoon's.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by mitchellk12

I was always under the impression Reginas downtown was far better than saskatoons in terms of services, things to do, image, etc... Ive also never been in reginas DT except for a quick event at a hotel or something. I find our DT here gloomy and dirty to be honest...were slowly getting there, but so much work to do still. but ill take your comment

I just spent the weekend in Saskatoon's DT and my observations of the differences are:

Saskatoon advantages:

1. Way more street parking (especially angle) and way more store front business (those two are related).
2. More people living in and around DT.
3. The River!
4. Major Gallery, performance centres and theatres all downtown.

Regina advantages:

1. More modern office towers (also means less people off hours).
2. More compact.
3. Victoria Park.
4. More significant heritage buildings and better looking buildings overall.

All in all I give Saskatoon the edge, mostly due to more storefront businesses.

[aberrant]

Regina downtown may appear to be more "compact" in terms of office towers, but the streetscape and walkability are brutal. Good urban design doesn't have blocks and blocks of office windows and concrete at street grade.

[Festivus]

Other advantage for Regina's DT: Caraway Grill. However, Saskatoon's DT has Bon Temps. Hmm, we'll call it a draw.