Regina Construction III

[jigglysquishy]

They spoke at the meeting that underground parking isn't logistically possible due to the size of the ramp.

Only 1 stall per unit is required. Which is way way too much parking in a place that's walking distance from downtown.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

They spoke at the meeting that underground parking isn't logistically possible due to the size of the ramp.

Only 1 stall per unit is required. Which is way way too much parking in a place that's walking distance from downtown.

Outside the central areas it is 1.5 stalls per unit.

[Festivus]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

They spoke at the meeting that underground parking isn't logistically possible due to the size of the ramp.

Only 1 stall per unit is required. Which is way way too much parking in a place that's walking distance from downtown.

You're assuming that people need to work downtown. What if they work in the South end? And it's 1.5-2.0km from downtown, so a good 20m walk. That's pretty far for a winter walk to work, even if you live downtown.

I've said it before, but it's completely unrealistic to design cities around cars, fail to implement fast and affordable (and regular!) public transit, and then tell people to not use cars. The chicken really does need to come before the egg in cities like Regina. Until the city actually puts in place good transit, then they have an obligation to keep new developments fairly friendly to cars. I don't like it, but it's morally required.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

I legitimately think such thinking is backward. I honestly believe that developers should be able to offer zero parking at any time. There should only be parking maximums. If developers want to take a risk that should be their right.

But I've pretty much had it with the Regina Planning Commission. They are completely unaccountable and actively worsening the city with their shortsighted pedantry.

As for my Cathedral neighbours, I hope they they are ashamed of themselves. They're about as progressive as my dead racist grandparents. NIMBYs the whole lot of them. This means war.

[UrbanClimate]

Reported on CBC News yesterday, the official unveiling of the provincial legislature's new copper dome will take place May 16, followed by the throne speech on the 17th.

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan

[CoR East]

Originally Posted by Festivus

You're assuming that people need to work downtown. What if they work in the South end? And it's 1.5-2.0km from downtown, so a good 20m walk. That's pretty far for a winter walk to work, even if you live downtown.

Maybe if they work in the south end, they should consider living in the south end, as neighbourhoods go it isn't so bad, I hear they have some grocery stores... The City needs to stop assuming that people are inherently stupid, and unable to understand their own needs. People should have the choice to determine for themselves whether they need a parking stall, and they should be responsible for the outcome of that choice, be it monthly parking fees, walking a block 'cause you could not park close to your apartment, or the inevitable parking ticket(s). Equally, those who might choose to get rid of their car and seek alternative forms of transportation are free to reap the rewards of that choice. Developers should also be free to take the risk in developing the amount of parking that their business model says will work best for them (up to a maximum) its their money, it should be their risk. Doing what we have always done will only result in the same thing happening over and over and over and over and over.....

[Migs]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

I legitimately think such thinking is backward. I honestly believe that developers should be able to offer zero parking at any time. There should only be parking maximums. If developers want to take a risk that should be their right.

But I've pretty much had it with the Regina Planning Commission. They are completely unaccountable and actively worsening the city with their shortsighted pedantry.

As for my Cathedral neighbours, I hope they they are ashamed of themselves. They're about as progressive as my dead racist grandparents. NIMBYs the whole lot of them. This means war.

It's fascinating how the Progressives are usually the biggest NIMBY's.

[StealthGirl]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

They spoke at the meeting that underground parking isn't logistically possible due to the size of the ramp.

Only 1 stall per unit is required. Which is way way too much parking in a place that's walking distance from downtown.

Downtown doesn't have a parking requirement (according to the LeaderPost article). Where does that change to the 1 stall per unit? Or does that follow the boundaries like the RDBID?

Also looks like there are problems with the new school construction in the NE. Rosewood Park Alliance Church is having trouble funding the new build and has been bailed out by Westridge, but the city is still threatening to take over the project if Rosewood can't meet their obligations by month end. Council pushed this deal with Rosewood through despite city admin's objections. This is just getting stupid.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/rosewood-park-school-experiencing-problems-1.3546315

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Migs

It's fascinating how the Progressives are usually the biggest NIMBY's.

to be honest I live like right beside this proposal and am concerned about such a big building towering over my house. I don't know if such a development will decrease my property value, I guess time will tell. I don't think I'm completely irrational for having such concerns. Maybe it is my fault for buying in the area, but I'm sure most people would have trouble with the idea of such a large building by their house. Just some thoughts, and if anyone can chime in on property values being affected I would appreciate it, being this is our first major investment.

[jigglysquishy]

Originally Posted by Coach

to be honest I live like right beside this proposal and am concerned about such a big building towering over my house. I don't know if such a development will decrease my property value, I guess time will tell. I don't think I'm completely irrational for having such concerns. Maybe it is my fault for buying in the area, but I'm sure most people would have trouble with the idea of such a large building by their house. Just some thoughts, and if anyone can chime in on property values being affected I would appreciate it, being this is our first major investment.

The height is actually permitted. One of the folks at the meeting said that the height limit on the lot is 13 meters and the building is slightly below it.

From my understanding the only thing up for discussion was tearing down the home and putting in a parking lot.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by Coach

to be honest I live like right beside this proposal and am concerned about such a big building towering over my house. I don't know if such a development will decrease my property value, I guess time will tell. I don't think I'm completely irrational for having such concerns. Maybe it is my fault for buying in the area, but I'm sure most people would have trouble with the idea of such a large building by their house. Just some thoughts, and if anyone can chime in on property values being affected I would appreciate it, being this is our first major investment.

In the long run it's going to increase your property value. The new building with a improved commercial component is going to spur development along 13th Avenue. In fact, all of 13th should probably be variations of 4-5 story mixed use buildings.

Take a look at places in Canada which have seen older neighborhoods increase density and development. In Calgary you have Kensington and Bridgeland, etc. The Glebe in Ottawa, or any of Toronto's older neighbourhoods. The major routes are redeveloped with mixed use, more walkable neighbourhoods. This makes the areas more desirable and more valuable.

If you were concerned about redevelopment you should never buy near higher traffic corridors. If you're worried about development never buy near an open field or an unused park: they might just be developed.

I live quite close to this development as well and I'm 100% in favor of it. It perfect? Of course not. Is it a giant move in the right direct? You bet it is.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

The height is actually permitted. One of the folks at the meeting said that the height limit on the lot is 13 meters and the building is slightly below it.

From my understanding the only thing up for discussion was tearing down the home and putting in a parking lot.

Which is of course required by the damn city.

I've really had it with people like Barbara Kahan, literal NIMBYs and Hertitage Regina who think that old = good. Always, no matter what. Well let me tell you: the vast majority of these century old Cathedral homes are piles of shit. And I know this because I've just spent a considerable sum of money bringing my house up to code and out of 18th century.

[CCF]

Originally Posted by Festivus

A few comments on this:

1) They made the wrong decision overall, it was a good development for the area.

2) Only 31 parking stalls for 29 apartments and a business? How would that meet parking bylaw requirements? I agree public transit should be a good alternative, but it's not in Regina so we still need parking. Even 2 stalls per unit is probably not enough in this city.

3) The old home is a total dump, I've been in there (my friend's grandma is the one who sold it to the developer and now has changed her mind and wants it to stay). It's infested with rats and needs major work.

4) Could this push the developer to create underground parking of some sort? I doubt that would be economically feasible for them.

Two parking stalls per unit? That would be a major inhibiting factor to further infill. Every parking stall has huge costs, and eats up valuable land.

Parking minimums are a thing of the past. Many cities (understanding the many negative effects of requiring x amount of parking) have moved onto parking maximums. Regina of course is likely decades away from embracing any such concepts.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by StealthGirl

Downtown doesn't have a parking requirement (according to the LeaderPost article). Where does that change to the 1 stall per unit? Or does that follow the boundaries like the RDBID?

Also looks like there are problems with the new school construction in the NE. Rosewood Park Alliance Church is having trouble funding the new build and has been bailed out by Westridge, but the city is still threatening to take over the project if Rosewood can't meet their obligations by month end. Council pushed this deal with Rosewood through despite city admin's objections. This is just getting stupid.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/rosewood-park-school-experiencing-problems-1.3546315

The zero parking requirement applies to anything zoned D. It is close to the RDBID but not exactly.

Regarding Rosewood, the reporting is very misleading, especially the headlines. The Church has nothing to do with actual school build. That is financed and built by the P3 consortium. The Church owns the subdivision and is responsible for constructing the surrounding infrastructure (roads utilities, etc.).

[jigglysquishy]

Parking maximums are closer than we think. I've spoken to my councilor about it before and there seems to be decent political will to get it done.

Councilor Fraser said the parking spots are costing $30,000 per spot due to land cost for this project. That's obscene. If I don't want to own a car I shouldn't be forced to pay for a parking spot.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

Parking maximums are closer than we think. I've spoken to my councilor about it before and there seems to be decent political will to get it done.

Councilor Fraser said the parking spots are costing $30,000 per spot due to land cost for this project. That's obscene. If I don't want to own a car I shouldn't be forced to pay for a parking spot.

I do not disagree but try telling this to someone with a house near a project with limited parking. They will likely never have any available street parking in front of their house.

[HomeInMyShoes]

Does anyone believe those opposed to the development would have approved this if the parking were less and the house was saved? I don't.

They latched on to their best argument. They would have found another one and the one with less parking would have been the on-street parking nightmare for residents and the school right across the street.

[jigglysquishy]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

Does anyone believe those opposed to the development would have approved this if the parking were less and the house was saved? I don't.

They latched on to their best argument. They would have found another one and the one with less parking would have been the on-street parking nightmare for residents and the school right across the street.

Fred Clipsham, former councilor and current boss of the Cathedral community association was quoted as saying he would support it if the house was saved.

If parking requirements are lightened no one will have a legal leg to stand on to oppose it.

[HomerSPC]

The man leading the planning of Regina’s new stadium has been let go by the City of Regina.

Deputy city manager/chief operations officer Brent Sjoberg is no longer employed with the city.

A news release from the city said “City Manager Chris Holden is making changes at the City of Regina.”

“Strong organizations require a strong and unified leadership team,” Holden, who took on the city manager role on March 1, said in the release. “The effectiveness of an organization is directly impacted by leadership from the senior level.”

The vacated role will not be filled. The deputy city manager job duties will be redistributed to existing roles.

Sjoberg served as a senior leader since 2007 and was hired by former city manager Glen Davies. Sjoberg has been the city’s lead on the stadium project since 2011.

“The changes are designed to build a stronger leadership team — a team that will strengthen collaboration across the entire organization, is more empowered, promotes strategic long-range planning and serves citizens well,” says Holden. “The leadership team and I care deeply and are committed to our organization, our employees and our community.”

“I thank Brent for his contributions to the organization and the community, and wish him and his family well,” says Holden.

Source: http://leaderpost.com/news/local-news/deputy-city-manager-brent-sjoberg-let-go-by-city-of-regina

Shocking to hear.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by HomerSPC

Source: http://leaderpost.com/news/local-news/deputy-city-manager-brent-sjoberg-let-go-by-city-of-regina

Shocking to hear.

Hardly, if you have read this thread:

http://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7330777&postcount=4735