Regina Construction IV

[aberrant]

The City of Regina neglects downtown for 10+ years.

In that time, downtowns around the world transitioned to less cars on streets, and are now focusing on converting unused office space to living space.

The City of Regina now thinks the answer to our downtown problem is more cars on streets.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by Stormer

As frequent user of FWH Mall, I think opening it to traffic evenings and weekends will breath life into the businesses. There is precedent for this in other cities.

This is utter insanity.

[Stormer]

Stephen Ave outdoor pedestrian mall in Calgary has done this for may years. It is generally open to vehicles after 6pm. It is about helping the businesses on this stretch and in downtown generally. One's personal bias's for against cars should not play into into it. I will never drive down Scarth so it does not matter to me, but we need to keep it vibrant.

Calgary and other Cities have struggled to find the right balance. One has to realize that we are not Vancouver or Paris and the wrong policies downtown will have implications.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

I have literally never had a problem finding parking downtown, even during the Christmas rush. This isn’t going to convince more people to come downtown. What this craven city needs to do is change the expectations of a certain lazy and entitled segment of the population and start hammering it into people that we need to move AWAY from being so car-centric, to become a sustainable, efficient city. We are spending way too much on roads and are taking up precious farmland expanding outward. The more we resist moving forward as a city, the quicker we will be left in the dust.

Sorry, this just is not realistic for a small prairie city, at least for decades. You can't even sell a downtown condo right now without taking a 25% loss.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

I don’t believe this for one second. Maybe, just maybe you can’t sell anything downtown because our city is so anti-pedestrian that it’s practically impossible to walk anywhere, not to mention how far away the closest grocery store is. The fact is, if we want to be a city that attracts people to move and stay here, we need leadership with a vision to escape that “small prairie town” mindset so many non-critical thinkers have. Oh, and part of that is housing the people that are living downtown but have no home, but that’s a discussion for another thread…

Also, just realized you suggested people have a personal bias against cars. Feel free to think this is personal but doing so ignores all the evidence to suggest that car-centric cities are terrible for individuals and society in general, that were NOT born out of some grassroots movement, and were only born out of the desire to profit from everything downstream from owning a vehicle, from car dealerships, to service stations, to big box stores and malls, to sub-urban developers, to construction companies. It’s literally a Ponzi scheme and they control most of our city council. Just look who historically makes up our city council. If you would like to learn more, I can steer you in the right direction, no pun intended. If you want an entertaining start to the topic, you could give Who Framed Roger Rabbit a watch. Seriously.

So nobody likes their cars, we were just tricked by our corporate masters into thinking we do?

[Festivus]

Originally Posted by Stormer

So nobody likes their cars, we were just tricked by our corporate masters into thinking we do?

I think it's more that we were tricked into needing our cars through massive subsidies to grow cities outward, as well as established (and historically racist) policies to build major freeways and arterial roads into downtowns and established neighbourhoods, thereby encouraging/demanding private vehicle use. It wasn't a conspiracy, it was a convergence of interests of major companies and wealthy politicians. Even today a huge percentage of the population (especially in the US) believes that cities are dangerous warzones; people were told that to be safe they needed private, detached homes in the suburbs, and a private way to get from home to work, etc. Overall this policy has been harmful to society and the planet compared to denser urban centres.

[cityboy]

Originally Posted by Festivus

I think it's more that we were tricked into needing our cars through massive subsidies to grow cities outward, as well as established (and historically racist) policies to build major freeways and arterial roads into downtowns and established neighbourhoods, thereby encouraging/demanding private vehicle use. It wasn't a conspiracy, it was a convergence of interests of major companies and wealthy politicians. Even today a huge percentage of the population (especially in the US) believes that cities are dangerous warzones; people were told that to be safe they needed private, detached homes in the suburbs, and a private way to get from home to work, etc. Overall this policy has been harmful to society and the planet compared to denser urban centres.

This!

[TMB14]

I read a quote somewhere about vibrant downtowns that went something like: It's easier to keep visitors downtown than it is to attract new visitors. That is to say, once people come downtown, let's give them a reason to stay. Food options, entertainment, variety!

We don't have anything keeping people downtown once office hours come to an end. No one really lives downtown and the pub scene typically doesn't get going until later in the evening, where people then have to return to the downtown core with their personal vehicles.

A vibrant pedestrian mall would be something that could keep people downtown. The FW Hill Mall hasn't been maintained in decades and now we're being told it's crumbling and needs some asphalt running through it to keep it vibrant. It's the Regina MO: let something fall into disrepair and then say it's not working and we either a) need a new one, or b) get rid of it.

I used to say Regina is good place to live, but a meh place to visit. It's starting to become a meh place to live, too.

[Crisis]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

I don’t believe this for one second. Maybe, just maybe you can’t sell anything downtown because our city is so anti-pedestrian that it’s practically impossible to walk anywhere, not to mention how far away the closest grocery store is. The fact is, if we want to be a city that attracts people to move and stay here, we need leadership with a vision to escape that “small prairie town” mindset so many non-critical thinkers have. Oh, and part of that is housing the people that are living downtown but have no home, but that’s a discussion for another thread…

Also, just realized you suggested people have a personal bias against cars. Feel free to think this is personal but doing so ignores all the evidence to suggest that car-centric cities are terrible for individuals and society in general, that were NOT born out of some grassroots movement, and were only born out of the desire to profit from everything downstream from owning a vehicle, from car dealerships, to service stations, to big box stores and malls, to sub-urban developers, to construction companies. It’s literally a Ponzi scheme and they control most of our city council. Just look who historically makes up our city council. If you would like to learn more, I can steer you in the right direction, no pun intended. If you want an entertaining start to the topic, you could give Who Framed Roger Rabbit a watch. Seriously.

Originally Posted by Festivus

I think it's more that we were tricked into needing our cars through massive subsidies to grow cities outward, as well as established (and historically racist) policies to build major freeways and arterial roads into downtowns and established neighbourhoods, thereby encouraging/demanding private vehicle use. It wasn't a conspiracy, it was a convergence of interests of major companies and wealthy politicians. Even today a huge percentage of the population (especially in the US) believes that cities are dangerous warzones; people were told that to be safe they needed private, detached homes in the suburbs, and a private way to get from home to work, etc. Overall this policy has been harmful to society and the planet compared to denser urban centres.

Man, I really should know better that this but I'll step into it anyway. As long as I've been active on this forum, this discussion of what a city should be has been an ongoing debate. There is a very passionate group of participants on this forum that believe that density through centralized highrise multi-unit housing is the best thing for a city and that those who prefer a single family detached home (even worse - one in the suburbs) with a decently sized back yard are all uneducated yokels whose opinions are worthless.

So, I'll say again, the vast majority of people living in the suburbs aren't living there because they are forced to. They are living there because the want to. Believe it or not, even in this frigid weather, there are people getting into their cars in the morning and driving to work because they like living in their single family home on the prairie. And they do feel safer than if they were living in the downtown core of a city. If they wanted to live the big city urban lifestyle, they would be doing so in Toronto, Vancouver or elsewhere. For the most part, people can still exercise their free will when choosing where to reside.

For over a decade on this forum, I've read the opinion of the social engineers among us who want to impose their beliefs of what constitutes a superior society and rail against anything other than high density urban living. Frankly, it's getting tiring & tedious.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by Crisis

Man, I really should know better that this but I'll step into it anyway. As long as I've been active on this forum, this discussion of what a city should be has been an ongoing debate. There is a very passionate group of participants on this forum that believe that density through centralized highrise multi-unit housing is the best thing for a city and that those who prefer a single family detached home (even worse - one in the suburbs) with a decently sized back yard are all uneducated yokels whose opinions are worthless.

So, I'll say again, the vast majority of people living in the suburbs aren't living there because they are forced to. They are living there because the want to. Believe it or not, even in this frigid weather, there are people getting into their cars in the morning and driving to work because they like living in their single family home on the prairie. And they do feel safer than if they were living in the downtown core of a city. If they wanted to live the big city urban lifestyle, they would be doing so in Toronto, Vancouver or elsewhere. For the most part, people can still exercise their free will when choosing where to reside.

For over a decade on this forum, I've read the opinion of the social engineers among us who want to impose their beliefs of what constitutes a superior society and rail against anything other than high density urban living. Frankly, it's getting tiring & tedious.

Well said. I have lived downtown and I try to encourage young people who work for me to live downtown at least until they have kids. It works sometimes. I recently sold an ideally situated (for walking) downtown condo and the biggest complaint from prospective buyers was that there was only one parking spot and it was not underground. I guess they were also brainwashed.

[aberrant]

I have no problem with anyone wanting to live in a detached suburban sprawl home.

What I have a problem with is subsidizing the true cost of these homes, while letting the core rot.

https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/how-sprawl-bernie-madoff/26448/

[CCF]

Originally Posted by Crisis

Man, I really should know better that this but I'll step into it anyway. As long as I've been active on this forum, this discussion of what a city should be has been an ongoing debate. There is a very passionate group of participants on this forum that believe that density through centralized highrise multi-unit housing is the best thing for a city and that those who prefer a single family detached home (even worse - one in the suburbs) with a decently sized back yard are all uneducated yokels whose opinions are worthless.

So, I'll say again, the vast majority of people living in the suburbs aren't living there because they are forced to. They are living there because the want to. Believe it or not, even in this frigid weather, there are people getting into their cars in the morning and driving to work because they like living in their single family home on the prairie. And they do feel safer than if they were living in the downtown core of a city. If they wanted to live the big city urban lifestyle, they would be doing so in Toronto, Vancouver or elsewhere. For the most part, people can still exercise their free will when choosing where to reside.

For over a decade on this forum, I've read the opinion of the social engineers among us who want to impose their beliefs of what constitutes a superior society and rail against anything other than high density urban living. Frankly, it's getting tiring & tedious.

Social engineering is the 70+ years of planning and development centred around the automobile, which requires everyone has access to an automobile to complete even the most basic daily tasks.

[The mayor]

I love mayor Sandra’s ideas of legacy projects downtown something must be done to save the city this is the answer

[yveseluj]

Originally Posted by Stormer

Stephen Ave outdoor pedestrian mall in Calgary has done this for may years. It is generally open to vehicles after 6pm. It is about helping the businesses on this stretch and in downtown generally. One's personal bias's for against cars should not play into into it. I will never drive down Scarth so it does not matter to me, but we need to keep it vibrant.

Calgary and other Cities have struggled to find the right balance. One has to realize that we are not Vancouver or Paris and the wrong policies downtown will have implications.

The idea that allowing cars on the only 100m stretch of road in the city they’re not currently allowed on is going to help revitalize downtown in some fashion is hilarious.

[jigglysquishy]

63% of Regina households live in a detached house. It's the majority, but we have to stop pretending it's 90%. 25% live in an apartment building. Those numbers were 67% and 24% in the 2006 census.

We continue to lose young people to Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, and Calgary. Those cities offer the urban lifestyle and amenities that people want, but cannot find here. I can point to dozens of people I personally know that had work here, wanted to stay here, but did not because Regina lacked the urban lifestyle they sought.

We lose young people to Saskatoon too, largely due to neighbourhoods like Nutana and Riverside.

The inner city midrise/ highrise explosion in Saskatoon is enough proof that the demand is there in small prairie cities, it is just not being met in Regina.

[CCF]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

63% of Regina households live in a detached house. It's the majority, but we have to stop pretending it's 90%. 25% live in an apartment building. Those numbers were 67% and 24% in the 2006 census.

We continue to lose young people to Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, and Calgary. Those cities offer the urban lifestyle and amenities that people want, but cannot find here. I can point to dozens of people I personally know that had work here, wanted to stay here, but did not because Regina lacked the urban lifestyle they sought.

We lose young people to Saskatoon too, largely due to neighbourhoods like Nutana and Riverside.

The inner city midrise/ highrise explosion in Saskatoon is enough proof that the demand is there in small prairie cities, it is just not being met in Regina.

Yep. Spot on.
I could add dozens of people to this list as well.

[pappcam]

Originally Posted by aberrant

The City of Regina neglects downtown for 10+ years.

In that time, downtowns around the world transitioned to less cars on streets, and are now focusing on converting unused office space to living space.

The City of Regina now thinks the answer to our downtown problem is more cars on streets.

You mean downtowns around the world where it isn't completely fucking inhospitable for 4-6 months a year. We have a square street pattern downtown with zero geographical features that would entice people to be there like a river, park, lake, etc. We need to face the fact that as it is, downtown is a flat featureless shithole and I don't think that can be fixed unless we move downtown a mile to the south.

[pappcam]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

You should check out Scandinavia. We aren’t in a unique climate. As for the lack of geographic features, I don’t buy that excuse. Other downtowns have rivers but are but one of many features that attract people there. We are still a fairly compact city but the inner city continues to be hollowed out as we push outward. It doesn’t have to be that way.

Are you disputing that downtown is a flat featureless square grid of streets with nothing to attract people? Rivers are basically nature and are sort of a barrier to development and ensure this natural area will stay a natural area. We have zero nature downtown.

I'm not saying we should stop trying to improve but we really don't have much to start with down there.

[jigglysquishy]

The Regina CBD is a comparable distance to the lake as the Toronto CBD is to Lake Ontario.

We've left Centre Square to be a mess of a neighbourhood of parking lots and seniors housing. It should be the trendiest neighbourhood in the city with dozens of bars, coffee shops, and trendy shops. It needs thousands of extra young people.

The CBD will never be lively. In Notth America, it's basically only NYC that has a lively CBD. Toronto, Vancouver, Montréal, and Calgary all have their liveliest neighbourhoods bordering downtown.

Centre Square, 13th, 11th East, and the waterfront itself should all be lively areas. But they're not.

Downtown needs more residents. It needs more entertainment options. It needs more stores and offices. Growth in the downtown will spur life on the aforementioned locations.

It isn't one building or one development. It's dozens of developments that bring thousands of extra people there living and thousands more coming for recreation.

Additional cars does none of the above.

[WhipperSnapper]

New York City's CBD isn't lively. Remember, THC is the fun ingredient.

Fill in those parking lots. Recreating Toronto or Vancouver with towers on parking podiums and mass produced living spaces is not going to compete with those cities. Living environments will need to be finer grained, more human scaled and, attractive as a alternative to the homogeneous warehousing of people being developed in the larger cities. Europe understands. Winnipeg, surprisingly, has quite a few examples as well.

SSP Canada is a firm believer in maximum populations. It's inferred every time an ugly development gets the. "at least its better than a parking lot" treatment. People suck more than ever with social media providing supportive outlets for every divisive opinion out there. We are living more and more in a Seinfeld episode. Warehousing or extreme population densities relative to city popluation is not all its cracked up to be.