Regina Construction III - Page 263

StealthGirl · #**5241** Posted **Apr 25, 2016, 7:13 PM**

Fiacco did change attitudes, but I think in retrospect his legacy might also be crumbling infrastructure. I know a lot of people who were pretty disgusted at how the city deteriorated while he crowed about holding the line on property tax. I think we need new blood on council and councillors who aren't so tied to the construction industry. (I think my councillor has been absolutely invisible all term and does not answer email either.)

BrutallyDishonest2 · #**5242** Posted **Apr 26, 2016, 1:15 PM**

A small amount of sanity restored! 11 Leopold Cres removed from Heritage list and can be demo'd.

Dan0myte · #**5243** Posted **Apr 26, 2016, 2:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

A small amount of sanity restored! 11 Leopold Cres removed from Heritage list and can be demo'd.

That link goes to an article about the Rosewood school.

Here it on CJME: http://cjme.com/article/611395/regina-man-wins-removing-home-protection-list

13 Leopold will see a wrecking ball soon.

Treesplease · #**5244** Posted **Apr 26, 2016, 4:27 PM**

From the CJME article

"During the debate there was also a lot of talk about how and why houses are put on the Heritage Holding Bylaw list. An amendment was passed to have the administration make recommendations on changes to how buildings are put on and removed from the list, and for how the laws around heritage properties can better fit together."

Could there be sanity going forward?

HomeInMyShoes · #**5245** Posted **Apr 26, 2016, 4:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan0myte

That link goes to an article about the Rosewood school.

Here it on CJME: http://cjme.com/article/611395/regina-man-wins-removing-home-protection-list

13 Leopold will see a wrecking ball soon.

Read further. Section 2 talks about the house on Crescents. Oddly placed bit on it which is totally irrelevant to the title, but its there.

BrutallyDishonest2 · #**5246** Posted **Apr 26, 2016, 7:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

Read further. Section 2 talks about the house on Crescents. Oddly placed bit on it which is totally irrelevant to the title, but its there.

It was like that because the council meeting went until 10:40 PM and the journalist wanted to do a quick round up.

Dan0myte · #**5247** Posted **Apr 26, 2016, 7:52 PM**

I was following Paul Duchene's twitter feed of the council meeting last night and it was actually pretty entertaining.

His sarcasm and color commentary make it a good read and provides a lot more info than reporters report on.

https://twitter.com/PDcityhall

Especially this in response to Bob Hawkins claiming that the city bylaws infringe on the charter of freedom of expression.

StealthGirl · #**5248** Posted **Apr 26, 2016, 8:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan0myte

I was following Paul Duchene's twitter feed of the council meeting last night and it was actually pretty entertaining.

His sarcasm and color commentary make it a good read and provides a lot more info than reporters report on.

https://twitter.com/PDcityhall

Especially this in response to Bob Hawkins claiming that the city bylaws infringe on the charter of freedom of expression.

Good grief. The discussion around the lot size bylaw is priceless. Developers want to demolish the house at 4429 Acadia Rd, split the lot in two and build two houses, but they can't because the lot is 5" too short to meet bylaw requirements and Hawkins says the bylaw might be unconstitutional. Seriously?

Side note: the attendance records of the mayor and some councillors were tweeted last night and I still can't find any record that Burnett is actually doing anything other than collecting a paychq.

Stormer · #**5249** Posted **Apr 29, 2016, 6:56 PM**

At Fougere's campaign kickoff today he strongly emphasized his intent to continue to make downtown more vibrant. He also mentioned his expectation that there would be culture, housing, shopping and a movie theatre in the RRI lands.

BrutallyDishonest2 · #**5250** Posted **Apr 29, 2016, 7:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stormer

At Fougere's campaign kickoff today he strongly emphasized his intent to continue to make downtown more vibrant. He also mentioned his expectation that there would be culture, housing, shopping and a movie theatre in the RRI lands.

I'm stuggling to figure out how he knows that, considering they just concluded the second RFP for the RRI and the first planning RFP results haven't even been released/finished yet.

CCF · #**5251** Posted **Apr 29, 2016, 7:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stormer

At Fougere's campaign kickoff today he strongly emphasized his intent to continue to make downtown more vibrant. He also mentioned his expectation that there would be culture, housing, shopping and a movie theatre in the RRI lands.

That's all great and I agree, but the City nor it's politicians should take much credit for any resurgence of the downtown. The opening of new restaurants/bars/coffee shops has been exciting, but all the credit goes to the entrepreneurs who have stimulated the reinvestment.

The City created a fantastic Downtown Plan in 2008/09 but has done little to actually implement its policies. In reality, they've continued to deviate away from the plan so as to not rock the boat (i.e. continuing to allow surface parking lots despite what the plan says). In fact there have been numerous ideas coming from City Hall in recent years which would be regarded as poor planning (recall the conversation about rerouting transit to not actually enter downtown but instead stay on the periphery to the apparent benefit of the private vehicle).

Of course the City has an amazing opportunity in the RRI to truly be a champion of downtown revitalization, but I'll wait until that progresses past its current state before I can really start giving out credit. The City of Regina is extremely hands off when it comes to planning and development - I would say moreso than a lot of major Canadian cities.

HomeInMyShoes · #**5252** Posted **Apr 29, 2016, 7:05 PM**

Maybe its a forgone conclusion whose buddies will be winning the RFP, RFI? But that's just the cynical me talking.

bomberjet · #**5253** Posted **Apr 29, 2016, 7:07 PM**

140mm shy on both those lots. Ha, man splitting hairs much? Approve a variance, jeez.

The lots looked like they're pie shaped anyways. Okay, so they don't allow it. Cut the lot depth back until you get the extra 140mm frontage length and you're done. Give the slivers back to the City as a gift!

Stormer · #**5254** Posted **Apr 29, 2016, 7:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

I'm stuggling to figure out how he knows that, considering they just concluded the second RFP for the RRI and the first planning RFP results haven't even been released/finished yet.

He did not guarantee it or say it was a done deal. There were tons of media there so his exact quote will be posted somewhere later today.

StealthGirl · #**5255** Posted **May 1, 2016, 12:49 AM**

The owner of the Black lot (1700 Hamilton) wants another 3 year extension to keep that empty lot as a parking lot. Garbage. They should be told no, it doesn't match the city plan, but I bet they get approval because the downtown plan is not taken seriously.

http://leaderpost.com/news/local-news/ow...-wants-to-reapply-for-parking-lot-permit

sask1982 · #**5256** Posted **May 2, 2016, 3:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by StealthGirl

The owner of the Black lot (1700 Hamilton) wants another 3 year extension to keep that empty lot as a parking lot. Garbage. They should be told no, it doesn't match the city plan, but I bet they get approval because the downtown plan is not taken seriously.

http://leaderpost.com/news/local-news/ow...-wants-to-reapply-for-parking-lot-permit

EXACTLY! Fougere wants to improve downtown but him and city council will approve this surface parking lot to be extended another 3 yrs without any doubt. Contradiction much? Maybe plant a huge community garden or something with a little more substance if the owner isn't going to build right away. Surface parking lots in downtown cores are like living in the 20th century.

BrutallyDishonest2 · #**5257** Posted **May 2, 2016, 1:15 PM**

I'm as sympathetic as anyone to stopping surface parking downtown. However, I think it's important to keep in mind the choice is simply between two things for the short to medium term: an empty lot or a parking lot.

Forcing an owner to sit on a lot and make zero money from it is going to be a challenge for the commission/council.

Stormer · #**5258** Posted **May 2, 2016, 2:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

I'm as sympathetic as anyone to stopping surface parking downtown. However, I think it's important to keep in mind the choice is simply between two things for the short to medium term: an empty lot or a parking lot.

Forcing an owner to sit on a lot and make zero money from it is going to be a challenge for the commission/council.

Council must make a stand on principle at some point or it will be a free for all. This is the perfect time. This developer got a demo permit on the "promise" of redevelopment. He knew he could at best hope for a temporary parking permit. On top of that he has not lived up to the first permit's requirements (landscaping and solid fence).

BrutallyDishonest2 · #**5259** Posted **May 2, 2016, 6:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stormer

Council must make a stand on principle at some point or it will be a free for all. This is the perfect time. This developer got a demo permit on the "promise" of redevelopment. He knew he could at best hope for a temporary parking permit. On top of that he has not lived up to the first permit's requirements (landscaping and solid fence).

I don't disagree with the sentiment.

But it's also important to remember that if owners hasn't been granted a demo permit they most likely would have just shuttered the building and we would have had an abandoned building downtown. They demo'd the building because it was a nightmare to maintain and was a liability going forward.

And I'm actually ok with them stopping the parking lot, my point, however, is that it will be hard for council to tell someone that they are banned from making any money on their lot. Saying "well just develop it then" isn't a real answer.

In summary, they probably should make it sit empty, but they probably won't for the reasons I said.

thefourthtower · #**5260** Posted **May 2, 2016, 7:54 PM**

On CTV Regina there is a video clip of a massive hole being dug for the Regina bypass