Saskatoon Construction

[socialisthorde]

Great news. Interesting debate about angle parking versus a median in making the street more freindly to alternative transportation. It was my impression (and personal experience) that medians improve perceptions of pedestrian friendliness (not on 22nd of course where it seems nothing would help). I also think angle parking is perhaps a little more dangerous for cyclists than parallel parking. However, I can also see the argument for more parking helping the downtown bussiness (it might also reduce the impetus for more surface lots).

[socialisthorde]

Originally Posted by SASKFTW

Remember during the 90s, when Mayor Atchison was a city councilor he proposed a dome over downtown, or at least 2nd Avenue...I imagine he had visions similar to the following:



Now I'm not particularly found of glass enclosed indoor shopping (unless it's winter), but the above project has a welcome transparency to it, sunlight is so nice.

Good lord. How will they heat (and cool) that TD square renovation with all that horizontal glass surface ? From the looks of it, it would be kept at room temperature. Maybe it is significantly sheltered by the surrounding buildings?

[Stewie]

Originally Posted by SASKFTW

Third Avenue due for makeover

That is much needed and great news! The new streetscape will compliment the new office building on 3rd ave nicely!

[madsad]

Originally Posted by SASKFTW

Third Avenue due for makeover
City considers installing median, changing parking
Rod Nickel, The StarPhoenix
Published: Tuesday, August 19, 2008

This plan will be an interesting read! The problem with Stoon's downtown, in comparison to say...Regina's, is that the streets are so damn wide. There is no reason for these mile-wide streets in the CBD! How did they ever get 7, and even 8 (?!?!?!) lanes wide? Hopefully some streetscaping, corner bulbs, a median, and wider sidewalks, and most importantly, taking lanes from traffic, will create a more pleasant environment on Third. It may also make driving safer and faster by reducing left-turn conflicts, etc.

Angle parking may not necessarily slow down transit buses. As a compromise for angle parking, bus stops could be installed on bulb-outs, so the buses don't have to pull out of traffic, and bus stop signage and shelters/benches don't take up sidewalk space.

Bike lanes/sharrows should be considered.

Third is certainly an intriguing street, sort of "authentically old-skool", I enjoy it. I don't like the look of Second so much because 1) I prefer underdogs, and 2) Second has those ugly blue street fixtures.

[circle33]

Welcome news, this 3rd Avenue makeover. The street has a lot of character and potential that has been somewhat hindered both by the width and condition of the roadway.

Instead of a median, how about streetcar tracks?

Ok, maybe not yet, but I'm with madsad; bike lanes are a must.

It's no fun having to tote a 10- or 15-pound wedding dress three blocks because you can't find a parking spot."

If this is the business I think it is there is plenty of room for a pick up door in the back alley. Or maybe you could assist your customers with their load. Innovate dear lady. Or move to Stonebridge. This small town belief that parking in front of your destination is some sort of human right really irks me.

[Echoes]

I appreciate the feedback, SASKFTW.

Originally Posted by SASKFTW

Source

You're right, while the interior layout of this facility looks great (functional, versatile) the design is not cutting edge. A low profile, single-storey design will not do for our destination complex. The location demands something multi-storey else it be overshadowed by the Idylwyld freeway and Persephone's flytower. What we need is a building large enough to be striking to both Idylwyld bridge motorists and River Landing pedestrians without being so bulky that it crowds the space it occupies. On top of that, we need it to cover up Persephone's hideous backside.

Indeed, our destination complex's design will be just as important as its use. Both can add much to our city, so we must choose wisely.

[midnightrambler]

I'm all for improving 3rd ave. What's the deal with idywyld and the 25th St extension. I'd like to see 25th st extended before they start spending 6 mil on 3rd ave mainly to improve traffic flow on Idywyld. I'd like to see the 20th st. Intersection closed and thereafter all traffic diverted to 19th st underpass. Is that in the plans?

[kgc087]

Wow lots of stellar stuff happening! I would really prefer to see 3rd Ave with a median similar to 25th st...why? first, becuase it will add significant aesthetic value to the area, second I'm sorry but Saskatchewan drivers are AWFUL! Another street with angle parking would just spell disaster in my mind and would really hinder positive growth in the area. Third, Saskatoon prides itself on its green d/t area and environmental consciousness, third ave is a paved slab, its like a race way. I feel there is more potential on this ave then any other and building it to be similar to 25th would really create a cohesivness d/t as well as promote more pedestrian activity rather then vehicular. Remember with office development etc comes parking. There is a huge lot on the corner of 3rd and 22nd waiting to have a 30 story building built on it.

In regards to the destination complex, I feel that some sort of multi level futuristic or architectural wonder is required. If Saskatoon wants to show Canada and the world how to reclaim a riverbank it really can't afford to cheap out and have some piddly 1 story mediocre modern building. When are they calling for proposals, I know an architect from Spain that may be interested and he has done some pretty outrageous stuff. As well I know quite a few designers across the country who I could pass the word on to.

[socialisthorde]

Originally Posted by midnightrambler

I'm all for improving 3rd ave. What's the deal with idywyld and the 25th St extension. I'd like to see 25th st extended before they start spending 6 mil on 3rd ave mainly to improve traffic flow on Idywyld. I'd like to see the 20th st. Intersection closed and thereafter all traffic diverted to 19th st underpass. Is that in the plans?

Interesting ideas, but If you take out the crosswalk (lights) at the firehall and the intersection at 20th, you would make it very difficult for pedestrians to get back and forth between downtown and 20th. It is already an unpleasant and onerous task, and I think the hoped for development of 20th will require a pedestrian conection to downtown. Also, I don't think 19th is designed to handle that kind of traffic, and I don't think the people choosing to live in the ecovillage should be subjected to living on a traffic artery.

[kgc087]

I know someone who works at midtown and they told me that the midtown is planning on improving the west entrance but they weren't ready to make it a main one b/c they needed to improve the interiors of the mall first. I'm thinking that when this happens maybe this will increase pedestrians in this area and maybe the city or midtown will even construct some sort of pedestrian bridge over idylwyld to help with the flow.

[socialisthorde]

Originally Posted by kgc087

I know someone who works at midtown and they told me that the midtown is planning on improving the west entrance but they weren't ready to make it a main one b/c they needed to improve the interiors of the mall first. I'm thinking that when this happens maybe this will increase pedestrians in this area and maybe the city or midtown will even construct some sort of pedestrian bridge over idylwyld to help with the flow.

Not to be a grump, but pedestrian overpassess are not great, particularly in this climate (it is very cold and windy up there!) and I think they would discourage pedestrian travel.

I don't think that any changes need to be made with regard to increased traffic flow in that area. Many cities have multiple traffic lights and some have several pedestrian controlled lights on major arteries (for example Cambie and Oak streets in Vancouver), and they seem to function. I have driven and walked in the area of 20th and Idlwyld and I would have to say that the driving even with the long waits at lights is not as unpleasant as being a pedestrian there (slow light changes, eratic turning practices, exhaust and noise). I believe there are studies indicating that when you improve traffic flow, traffic volume increases to the point that the original delays are soon back. That is, any benefits to drivers are only temporary and come at the cost of alternative transportation use. I am open to being corrected on this.

If we are going toward increasing use of alternative transportation, there will be some cost in terms of car travel efficiency. We can't have our cake and eat it too. My vote would be for giving priority to feet and bikes over cars, because cars carry other significant costs to society, but that is just my opinion.

[midnightrambler]

Originally Posted by socialisthorde

My vote would be for giving priority to feet and bikes over cars, because cars carry other significant costs to society, but that is just my opinion.

Cars get priority because cars pay taxes... Now I agree that people walking will reduce greenhouse gases and whatnot, but that is not the issue I want to discuss here. The issue is Saskatoon's main roadway's and the traffic light redundancy that plagues Idywyld (mainly downtown, between the intersections of 20th and 22nd st. ) Now I realize that a south Bridge is designed to solve this problem partially. Which it will unload the traffic load on Idywyld.

The same problem currently exists on Circle Dr (especially because semi's frequent that roadway and it's a lot more difficult to stop and start semi's than cars). The answer is less traffic lights and have a smoother longer flow of traffic. 8th St. has U-turn lanes that, in my opinion work great for traffic flow.

So 19th St isn't designed for traffic, but there is immediate freeway access going to be available when it is finished. Now I think I'll probably use that roadway. Furthermore riverlanding doesn't look like it is going to be an "eco-village" It looks like a place that will need immediate access to a freeway, which it will.

Traffic-flow needs to improve on Idywyld, that is for certain, as far as pedestrian traffic goes from 20th st. to the mall, I'm sure something can be figured out... Say maybe a covered, lighted, heated skywalk that hooks the mall up to say another future development on the corner of 20th and Idywyld... Or Pedestrians can use the underpass that will exist at 19th St. Or the Lights on 22nd. 50 Times more cars pass through that intersection daily than people.... nuff said

And the 25th St extension should be done ASAP. I don't care if the City goes in to debt to do it. Just get it done!

[madsad]

Sure, [people who drive] cars pay taxes, but car travel is still heavily subsidized by other taxpayers and consumers. Free parking isn't free, someone has to pay... Furthermore, I pay taxes, but rarely drive. I'd much rather taxes be spent on alternative transportation infrastructure.

The new plan for the 25th Street extension is in the latest full council agenda, under the item regarding the new police station location. They have changed some details regarding the road geometry. 25 St East won't actually intersect with 25 St West. 25 St West will be right-on-right-off only onto Idylwyld. 25 St East will intersect Idylwyld just south of the rail crossing. They probably re-jigged the plan in an attempt to appease the railway (who wanted a full city-funded grade separation). North of 25th, Pacific does not turn west and meet up with Idylwyld, it heads straight north.

[socialisthorde]

The Eco Village is part of River Landing and has been much discussed here.

My car doesn't pay taxes. I do, and I don't care to spend more of my taxes on expediting traffic flow. Obviously, this is a democracy and the majority decides priorities, but I do what I can to change those priorities.


I am not saying you are wrong Rambler, just that I disagree with the premise of your argument in addition to some aspects of the implementation. I think this is a valuable discussion to have and I think it is development related. I also feel strongly that improving traffic flow encourages more driving, so environmental and other car related issues are relevant.

Your proposal affects many aspects of city life beyond traffic and those all need to be considered. I disagree that traffic flow is a big problem in Saskatoon, based on having lived, driven, walked and cycled in Calgary, Vancouver, Edmonton and Saskatoon.
BTW, I agree on the 25th Street extension. Likely for different reasons, but no need to get into that

[Ruckus]

After reviewing the August 11, 2008 full council agenda, I would like to share a few excerpts and images relating to downtown development issues.

Originally Posted by Reports of Committees and City Manager:
a) Report No. 7-2008 of the Municipal Planning Commission;

A5) Enquiry - Councillor C. Clark (December 17,2007)
Architectural and Land Use Guidelines - Spadina Crescent
File No.: CK. 4110-1, PL. 4110-1
RECOMMENDATION: that the following report be received as information.

BACKGROUND
The following inquiry was made by Councillor Clark at the meeting of City
Council held on December 17,2007:

"Could the Administration please report on the process required for establishing architectural guidelines andlor land use guidelines for Spadina Crescent between the Broadway Bridge and University Bridge, such that the skyline of Spadina retains its character and beauty while also achieving goals of density as outlined in the Downtown Housing Plan."

REPORT

1. Introduction

One of the principal objectives of Saskatoon's Development Plan is, "To ensure that the
Downtown remains as the centre and heart of the financial, administrative, cultural, and
commercial activities of the City and region." The Downtown is also intended to attract a
significant share of the City's overall housing development. The zoning controls in the
Downtown help to facilitate these objectives by providing for a wide variety of potential
uses in a medium and high-density format, with few limits on building design options. This
creates a flexible and attractive regulatory environment for prospective developers and helps
to achieve the higher densities envisaged for the Downtown. Financial incentives are also
available for downtown housing development.

At the same time, there may be areas within the Downtown where a higher level of design
control is desirable, as a means to enhance or preserve the character of a given area. River
Landing is an example of an area in the Downtown where City Council has applied a design
review process in accordance with a specific set of architectural guidelines.

2. Option of Design Review for the Spadina Crescent Area

The Planning and Development Act, 2007, and the City's Development Plan facilitate the application of architectural controls in a specific area. And while a design review process takes extra time and resources to administer, the basic principle is that the public interest may be served by enhanced design review objectives being applied to developments in
certain areas of the City.

In order to implement a design review process in a given area, such as along Spadina Crescent in the Downtown, the following process would be undertaken:

a) A Terms of Reference and/or Request for Proposals for a design study would be
prepared by the City Administration, including items such as:

- the overall study area;
- sub-areas or character zones within the overall study area;
- design themes or general design objectives for the overall study area and
sub-areas (e.g. what is being preserved, or what is being encouraged?);
- borrowing from the "River Landing, Local Area Design Plan," more specific
design policies and/or guidelines would also be addressed, including issues
such as:

- building height, proportion, scale, and massing;
- walls, roofs, windows, and glazing;
- style, colour, and variety;
- relationship to streetscape;
- signs, parking, loading, vehicular access, and senice areas; and
- landscaping, lighting, accessibility, and pedestrian spaces.

b) A Design Consultant could then be retained to complete the noted study. While the
exact nature and cost of the study is hard to predict, an order of magnitude estimate
may be in the area of $30,000 to $50,000 and one year to complete, given that
extensive consultation would be required with property owners, local residents, and
the community at large.

3. The Larger Picture

In addition to the question of design review along Spadina Crescent, there are a variety of
other issues related to downtown development that may warrant examination. Examples
include building heights, retail at grade level, temporary parking lots, and the larger issue of
design review for all major buildings in the Downtown.

a) Building Height Limits

The current building height limit for much of the downtown area is 76 metres, or
about 25 storeys. A number of prospective developments have been brought
forward over the last few years for buildings that would surpass this limit. Given
that the height limit has been in place for several decades, and that expectations for
development in the City have increased significantly over that time, it is
recommended that a more flexible height limit be applied in the Downtown. This
could be accommodated by replacing the current fixed-height limit with a more
flexible arrangement such as a modified "floor area ratio" where height is related to
the scale of the building and the size of the site.

b) Retail at Grade Level

Current development policies call for retail andlor service-oriented uses to be located
at grade level in the main retail core area of the Downtown. This is intended to
provide a vibrant pedestrian environment and to cluster retail and service-oriented
activities in one concentrated area. The enforcement of this policy has proven
challenging at times, and it is recommended that both the size of the retail core area
be reduced and that the policy become "form-based" rather that "use-based". In
other words, the objective would be to encourage the construction of buildings,
streetscapes, and other physical elements that support pedestrian activity, rather than
just permitting a limited number of land uses.

c) Temporary Parking Lots

Vacant properties in the Downtown often become commercial parking lots as a
temporary source of cash flow, pending future development decisions. This practice
becomes challenging when the parking lots remain in place too long and/or when
they are located on key sites within the main retail core area of the Downtown. It is
recommended that a time limit be placed on commercial parking lots in the main
retail core area of the Downtown, perhaps up to two years.

d) Design Review for All Major Buildings in the Downtown

Many of the larger Canadian cities have some form of design review process for all
new buildings in their downtowns. At some point, Saskatoon's entire Downtown
may also benefit from such a process. In order to be successful, the regulations must
be very clear and the process very time efficient. A first step may be limited to
encouraging a sympathetic interface between new buildings and the public
environment, particularly where public streetscape and other major infrastructure
investments have been completed.

4. Conclusion

The implementation of a design review processes for the Spadina Crescent area in the
Downtown is possible, given the time and resources to complete the necessary studies.
However, limiting the process to this one area in the Downtown is not recommended at this
time. A more comprehensive look at design review for the Downtown is contemplated as
part of the overall Development Plan/Zoning Bylaw review.
In the meantime, the Administration is considering a short-term package of Zoning Bylaw
amendments aimed at some of the more pressing Downtown development issues, including
building heights, temporary parking lots, and retail at grade policies. These issues have
consistently been brought to our attention as needing review. It is hoped that this package
could be brought forward in early 2009, subject to stakeholder consultation.

Source - August 11, 2008 - Full Agenda - Page 116


Source - August 11, 2008 - Full Agenda - Page 378


Source- August 11, 2008 - Full Agenda - Page 549

I also want to share some images of New York City streetscapes and neighborhoods, as reference points for how Saskatoon should plan for a dense downtown core, as well as the surrounding inner city neighborhoods.

There are 16 photos, resized smaller than the originals. They can be found in the My City Photos - U.S.A. & Canada - New York City Megathread--a walk through some parks and squares in Manhattan, photographer is SSP member TinChelseaNYC.

Captions are provided by TinChelseaNYC.

Washington Square


Fifth Ave from Washington


5th Ave Apartment Houses


Approaching Washington Square


Fifth Avenue churches Greenwich Village


Jackson Square


Looking East on Washington PL.


Looking South on 6th Ave


Madison Square


NYC streetscape from 19th


NYUs new and to me hideous student center on Wash. Sq. Street


Stuyvesant Square a lovely, peaceful, little place


Union Square West


12th st Greenwich Village


Washington Square Arch


Washington mews Greenwich


In conclusion, we need more greenery, more parks to accompany the increased downtown population. Although not shown in the above photos, I think the Public and Catholic school boards should look at constructing elementary schools downtown, worth consideration if families are to be included in our urban environment.

Another recent NYC thread from TinChelseaNYC, highlights the vibrant urban environment through an engaging perspective. An urban environment Saskatoon could easily develop into, although on a smaller scale.

Check it out: A walk up and down and around the Bowery (and environs), NYC, you won't be disappointed!

Just a few from the above thread...

















^^^ Puts our firehalls to shame

[socialisthorde]

Wow, great informative post. Thank you. What do you suppose the problem with the street level retail requirement is. The report is very sketchy, simply saying it was hard to enforce. It seems to me that the rental rates of comercial downtown are skyrocketing. Increasing the supply would ensure the prices stay lower so that the small shops stay, which in turn goes a long way to making the area pedestrian freindly. The of allowing buildings without retail, is that the space can never be converted to retail if a demand arises, since it will already be parking or residential. Walking down first avenue from 21 to 22 street indicates what can happen with no street level amenities. The block is quite barren.

[newflyer]

SASKFTW .. great post.

I also love south Manhattan .. its a great area and should be used as an inner city model. The only problem with that is much the buildings in the area are heritage and would not be constructed using today's methods.

South Manhattan is also a very densely populated district which allows for greater variety of street retail, as a means to fill local demands for products, goods and services.

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by newflyer

SASKFTW .. great post.

I also love south Manhattan .. its a great area and should be used as an inner city model. The only problem with that is much the buildings in the area are heritage and would not be constructed using today's methods.

South Manhattan is also a very densely populated district which allows for greater variety of street retail, as a means to fill local demands for products, goods and services.

And built on the availability of a supportive urban transportation system (e.g. subway system).

A few photos from TinChelseaNYC's thread help to explain how such a place remains livable.

Captions are those of the photographer, TinChelseaNYC.


Source

Union Square is an incredibly dynamic place

Source

Saskatoon should create the outline for a subway/LRT system for downtown and area (appropriate investment after a few years of dense urban development).

It's that easy kids

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by socialisthorde

Wow, great informative post. Thank you. What do you suppose the problem with the street level retail requirement is. The report is very sketchy, simply saying it was hard to enforce.

Yeah, the report is sketchy.

Enforcement could indicate a number of issues:

- Profitability for the buildings owners (office rates > retail rates = profit)
- Building owners familiarity and potential of securing retail occupants (as
opposed to office tenants)
- Parking stall minimum requirements, ties into profitability (long term (office)
vs short term (retail)
- Attracting complimentary uses for building owners (e.g. offices in upper floors, they would like coffee shops and restaurants on the ground floor, but all the coffee shops and restaurants chose to locate in single story structures in other parts of downtown because the lease rates are lower than would be in an office tower development, so what are they to do? lower their lease rates to attract a classy diner, coffee shop...at what cost to the developers profit margins? I'm not too sure if this is the overriding issue, but it might be.
- other issues arising from enforcement of retail use at grade level???

I'd like to know the real issue(s) with enforcement, hopefully that will be addressed in future discussions/policy reviews (2009?).

Originally Posted by socialisthorde

It seems to me that the rental rates of comercial downtown are skyrocketing. Increasing the supply would ensure the prices stay lower so that the small shops stay, which in turn goes a long way to making the area pedestrian freindly.

True, although, that may ignore the individual owners desire to construct parking (for tenants of upper floors), or more office space. Both elements relate to profitability.

The city could offer tax rebates, or some kind of incentive to ensure a healthy retail environment in the core. More importantly though, we need to boost the population in the immediate and surrounding areas (availability of cheap parking can only go so far before a city loses it's ability to remain an urban, pedestrian place, the very thing which attracts the suburban living folk). We need a tremendous boost to our core population; soon after the retail services take a chance and establish roots; perhaps more public and private office workers come to work in the core (driving from their suburban neighborhoods...because our transit system is not yet developed enough to warrant a switch in their preference of mobility); the critical mass of downtown and area is achieved, extensive investment into a subway/LRT system becomes necessary; post-subway/LRT the city becomes more compact and complex, LRT is extended to our 70s and 80s built suburban commercial centres (think Eastview, Lawson, Confederation), already developed their unique identities.

Sorry to drift off like that

Originally Posted by socialisthorde

The of allowing buildings without retail, is that the space can never be converted to retail if a demand arises, since it will already be parking or residential. Walking down first avenue from 21 to 22 street indicates what can happen with no street level amenities. The block is quite barren.

Yes, I completely agree with your first sentence.

Are you referring to Scotia Centre? 1st Avenue is not particular friendly to pedestrians (similar to 3rd Aveneue, width is a problem). Potential exists for that stretch to become more like 2nd, and the eventual born-again 3rd Ave. I can visualize a center median with trees. Keep the parallel parking, but provide a reason for Midtown to open up to the street, they could integrate a two storey addition on the strips of land either side of the main entrance, it will take creativity, but the potential exists. That would transform 1st Ave, although, across the street has Scotia Centre, CAA, and Royal Bank...not particularly accommodating structures.

[joelpiecowye]

ok meewasin approved a windmill measurment tower to be built in saskatoon, i dont know much but this is from the website

August 2008 Approved Projects

Proposal by Saskatoon Light and Power to install an 80-meter wind measurement tower and the future erection of a wind turbine within Diefenbaker Park. The construction and operation of the large wind turbine is pending further feasibility assessment.

hopefully it will prove to be feasible and we will get a few in the saskatoon area