Saskatoon Construction III

[roryn1]

[phone]

Originally Posted by Roquentin

Haha, oh gosh! I admire your optimism, and I certainly share your hope that this will turn out well. The rendering looks a bit more Walt Disney than Bed-Stuy to me, but renderings can be deceiving in ways both good and bad, so who knows.

At least it's more promising than 880 Broadway, though! Yech! It's somehow worse than the Luxe!

This is Saskatoon, not Williamsburgh, and I for one am happy with imperfect density rather than strip malls and imparks. Yay to Baydo and yay to the brownstone. I'm sure the ExtraFoods, small retailers, coffee shops and cafes nearby aren't complaining over their keyboards about it. You might say it's setting sights low but I don't think so. Getting more people living densely now is much better than waiting for the next Urban Capital-type developer to land here, which could take years. The hope is that density stimulates additional density, after all. I think these projects are going to make Nutana, which is already a great neighbourhood, an even better one to enjoy spending time in, even if the architecture isn't "Bed-Stuy" level.

But I admit, it can be fun to demonstrate one's cosmopolitanism online by poopoo-ing everything that doesn't match an arbitrary architectural standard, too.

[Roquentin]

Originally Posted by phone

This is Saskatoon, not Williamsburgh, and I for one am happy with imperfect density rather than strip malls and imparks. Yay to Baydo and yay to the brownstone. I'm sure the ExtraFoods, small retailers, coffee shops and cafes nearby aren't complaining over their keyboards about it. You might say it's setting sights low but I don't think so. Getting more people living densely now is much better than waiting for the next Urban Capital-type developer to land here, which could take years. The hope is that density stimulates additional density, after all. I think these projects are going to make Nutana, which is already a great neighbourhood, an even better one to enjoy spending time in, even if the architecture isn't "Bed-Stuy" level.

But I admit, it can be fun to demonstrate one's cosmopolitanism online by poopoo-ing everything that doesn't match an arbitrary architectural standard, too.

Fortunately, a middle ground exists between having high architectural standards and having no standards at all. I think the Broadway development has a lot going for it - it's mixed use, it's rentals, the floor plans look fine, and it will give Broadway a boost, as you say (not that businesses wouldn't also benefit from the residents of a beautiful building). I'm sure it would be a fun, colourful place to live (the building's colour scheme notwithstanding). I'm also happy that it's a midrise - it's nice to know that projects of this size make economic sense, it's an appropriate height for that part of the street, and it maintains a good standard for the density of future developments in the area. And let's do as you suggest and refrain from "cosmopolitan" comparisons (although the one I was replying to was thought provoking). The building fits the Saskatoon vernacular perfectly. It's a Stonebridge office blob with a Blairmore apartment block growing out of it. In all sincerity, it can help us define what we mean when we refer to local architecture. And you're right, Nutana is a special neighborhood. Adding this building, which fits its local context perfectly with its "imperfect density," will surely shape Broadway's image and appeal for years to come.

You raise good questions, too. How important are aesthetics? Are architectural standards arbitrary? Is anything better than nothing? How much imperfection is it tolerable and realistic to accept? What are we ready to settle for in our settlement? These are questions that Saskatoon answers with new developments. These are questions that consumers answer. These are even questions that we can try to answer "over our keyboards," because, as you so elegantly say, poopoo-ing is fun.

Anyway, what we're both really talking about is the need to compromise. The way that Saskatoon navigates its compromises helps to define the city. The way that we navigate our compromises helps to define us and our community.

[alt_center]

Originally Posted by phone

This is Saskatoon, not Williamsburgh, and I for one am happy with imperfect density rather than strip malls and imparks. Yay to Baydo and yay to the brownstone. I'm sure the ExtraFoods, small retailers, coffee shops and cafes nearby aren't complaining over their keyboards about it. You might say it's setting sights low but I don't think so. Getting more people living densely now is much better than waiting for the next Urban Capital-type developer to land here, which could take years. The hope is that density stimulates additional density, after all. I think these projects are going to make Nutana, which is already a great neighbourhood, an even better one to enjoy spending time in, even if the architecture isn't "Bed-Stuy" level.

But I admit, it can be fun to demonstrate one's cosmopolitanism online by poopoo-ing everything that doesn't match an arbitrary architectural standard, too.

I agree that the Baydo project will be a net benefit to Nutana / Broadway and that it is better than another strip mall. But I believe that most people who take the time to post opinions here do so not to demonstrate their worldliness but rather from a genuine care about the community in which we live (as you obviously have). I am gratified when people assert that we can do better.

[phone]

Originally Posted by Roquentin

Fortunately, a middle ground exists between having high architectural standards and having no standards at all. I think the Broadway development has a lot going for it - it's mixed use, it's rentals, the floor plans look fine, and it will give Broadway a boost, as you say (not that businesses wouldn't also benefit from the residents of a beautiful building). I'm sure it would be a fun, colourful place to live (the building's colour scheme notwithstanding). I'm also happy that it's a midrise - it's nice to know that projects of this size make economic sense, it's an appropriate height for that part of the street, and it maintains a good standard for the density of future developments in the area. And let's do as you suggest and refrain from "cosmopolitan" comparisons (although the one I was replying to was thought provoking). The building fits the Saskatoon vernacular perfectly. It's a Stonebridge office blob with a Blairmore apartment block growing out of it. In all sincerity, it can help us define what we mean when we refer to local architecture. And you're right, Nutana is a special neighborhood. Adding this building, which fits its local context perfectly with its "imperfect density," will surely shape Broadway's image and appeal for years to come.

You raise good questions, too. How important are aesthetics? Are architectural standards arbitrary? Is anything better than nothing? How much imperfection is it tolerable and realistic to accept? What are we ready to settle for in our settlement? These are questions that Saskatoon answers with new developments. These are questions that consumers answer. These are even questions that we can try to answer "over our keyboards," because, as you so elegantly say, poopoo-ing is fun.

Anyway, what we're both really talking about is the need to compromise. The way that Saskatoon navigates its compromises helps to define the city. The way that we navigate our compromises helps to define us and our community.

We can certainly aim for better architecture more broadly but I guess it just comes down to a question of priority in the compromise you mention. Personally speaking I would rather see buildings that are ugly yet practical and functional built than holding out for long periods of time for the perfect fit meanwhile suburban development goes unchecked.

Would I like the Baydo project to be a little nicer on the eyes? Sure. The Stonebridge/Blairmore comparisons are apt. But as far as any neighbourhood vibe compromise is concerned, to me the benefit of having 100+ additional residents right on Broadway Ave well offsets any associated aesthetic drawback. Yes, a more beautiful building would have the same benefits but unfortunately that's not what's on the table.

Beyond that, we have been seeing a reasonably fair share of (arguably) beautiful buildings to offset the more blase projects -- Highpoint, Prairie Sun, and McDougall Gauley stand out for Broadway. Not everything is going to be an architectural masterpiece and I just don't find it particularly productive to pick on one of the only developers who are actually putting their money where their mouth is with respect to mid-rise residential development in the city centre. We have enough gravel parking lots and potential development sites downtown that I don't see the risk that this building poses with respect to opportunity cost as being so grave. And for the record I do hope that Baydo ups its game and that Urban Capital returns with friends. I just also prefer to be pragmatic in how I think about this city's direction.

There is something else would help the architecture problem. Giving the hometown developers a better talent pool to draw from by getting a USask College of Architecture up and running. Maybe someone knows if there has been any progress on that front.

[ToonTownRob]

Aesthetics are all well and good, but the truth is that economics drives all of these things.

Back in the early 80s when I was in Architecture at the University of Manitoba, it was considered (even back then) a dying profession. I had to fight like hell to get one of 5 or 7 spots set aside for students from Saskatchewan to get into that college. Out of a total of 80. At the end of six years, maybe 15-20 graduated if they were lucky. The profs and crits felt it their responsibility to wage a war of attrition on the students to keep the numbers down and the existing walls around their professional designations intact.

I consider with dismay the idea of an Architecture School in Saskatoon. Who is going to employ the graduates it produces? I suppose we can always get back to exporting our young people, except in this case they would be better educated (hopefully).

Whether schools, buildings or neighborhoods, it is always dangerous when ego drives choices too much.

If there was work for architects here, believe me, they would be here and working, no matter where they went to school.

What is a Saskatchewan aesthetic in architecture? Soddies? Grain elevators? What are some of the posters here really suggesting?

All of the comments over the last few years here about how ugly this or that is... how this development is just another unwanted strip mall, gulag style prison or whatever...

If you don’t like what’s being built or how it’s being done, invest your own millions, buy a few chunks of land at 500k a piece and have at er! Oh... Don’t have the money to do that? Not in a position to do so?

Then perhaps it would be reasonable to dial back the criticism of those that do.

I’m not saying that people aren’t entitled to an opinion (especially here, this is a forum after all, and for me all tastes and perspectives wanted) only that I for one would appreciate seeing them offered with a little more humility, and dare I say it, respect? It is so easy to be critical when it isn’t your millions on the line.

The fact is that builders and developers always build what they think people will want. Some get it wrong, some get it right, but most of the time they’re right in assessing local tastes and demand. If you don’t like what is being offered, perhaps the criticism needs to directed to the population at large, because ultimately they are the ones that choose and pay for it.

Do aesthetics sell and have real economic value? Of course they do! Just look at Apple’s success, something which confuses and frustrates only those who don’t appreciate aesthetics. But it can really be tricky taking aesthetic risks and getting them right. Especially when building.

It’s great to be critical and wish for better things, but let’s always keep this in mind; somebody has to pay for it.

Unless you yourself can do better and doing so, maybe lighten up on those that actually are?

Just a Monday morning thought to start the week.

[LittleBoy]

Originally Posted by ToonTownRob

Aesthetics are all well and good, but the truth is that economics drives all of these things.

Back in the early 80s when I was in Architecture at the University of Manitoba, it was considered (even back then) a dying profession. I had to fight like hell to get one of 5 or 7 spots set aside for students from Saskatchewan to get into that college. Out of a total of 80. At the end of six years, maybe 15-20 graduated if they were lucky. The profs and crits felt it their responsibility to wage a war of attrition on the students to keep the numbers down and the existing walls around their professional designations intact.

I consider with dismay the idea of an Architecture School in Saskatoon. Who is going to employ the graduates it produces? I suppose we can always get back to exporting our young people, except in this case they would be better educated (hopefully).

Whether schools, buildings or neighborhoods, it is always dangerous when ego drives choices too much.

If there was work for architects here, believe me, they would be here and working, no matter where they went to school.

What is a Saskatchewan aesthetic in architecture? Soddies? Grain elevators? What are some of the posters here really suggesting?

All of the comments over the last few years here about how ugly this or that is... how this development is just another unwanted strip mall, gulag style prison or whatever...

If you don’t like what’s being built or how it’s being done, invest your own millions, buy a few chunks of land at 500k a piece and have at er! Oh... Don’t have the money to do that? Not in a position to do so?

Then perhaps it would be reasonable to dial back the criticism of those that do.

I’m not saying that people aren’t entitled to an opinion (especially here, this is a forum after all, and for me all tastes and perspectives wanted) only that I for one would appreciate seeing them offered with a little more humility, and dare I say it, respect? It is so easy to be critical when it isn’t your millions on the line.

The fact is that builders and developers always build what they think people will want. Some get it wrong, some get it right, but most of the time they’re right in assessing local tastes and demand. If you don’t like what is being offered, perhaps the criticism needs to directed to the population at large, because ultimately they are the ones that choose and pay for it.

Do aesthetics sell and have real economic value? Of course they do! Just look at Apple’s success, something which confuses and frustrates only those who don’t appreciate aesthetics. But it can really be tricky taking aesthetic risks and getting them right. Especially when building.

It’s great to be critical and wish for better things, but let’s always keep this in mind; somebody has to pay for it.

Unless you yourself can do better and doing so, maybe lighten up on those that actually are?

Just a Monday morning thought to start the week.

Ah yes, if you don't have money, you don't deserve an opinion. Heaven forbid someone be born without millions of dollars still be passionate about the city they live in? This is how you get motivated people to give up and end with only shitty developers who just care about money

[prairieguy]

I left or stopped viewing the Regina thread as it became pages and pages of personal attacks on posters. There were some very angry posts there that had nothing to do with construction...became very personal.

I am not saying we are there, or going in that direction, but let us all ensure our posts are respectful of each ohers opinions, even when they may be different then our own. Feel free to post that opposing position, but just don't make it personal.

The saskatoon thread has been really good about providing good information and varying views. I hope it stays that way.

[Crisis]

Originally Posted by LittleBoy

Ah yes, if you don't have money, you don't deserve an opinion. Heaven forbid someone be born without millions of dollars still be passionate about the city they live in? This is how you get motivated people to give up and end with only shitty developers who just care about money

I echo the sentiments expressed by ToonTownRob in his well thought out post. As for LittleBoy's comment above, I'd ask, did you fully read what ToonTownRob had written? How you paraphrased his post is certainly not in keeping with the gist of what he's posted, especially the line that reads:

I’m not saying that people aren’t entitled to an opinion (especially here, this is a forum after all, and for me all tastes and perspectives wanted) only that I for one would appreciate seeing them offered with a little more humility, and dare I say it, respect? It is so easy to be critical when it isn’t your millions on the line.

I don't think that asking for a little understanding of those that are actually spending their money instead of simply complaining about it should be considered unreasonable.

[roryn1]

The "World Trade Center" is posted for lease.

Talk about dirty - do you all remember the announcement of the Saskatchewan Health Authority moving their headquarters to Saskatoon?

I know Canwest is tight with the Sask Party, but they managed to incentivize SaskParty to get SHA to move into this building. Talk about dirty politics. I thought this building was vacant since construction like two years ago.

Quite a shame that the SHA headquarters announcement didn't lead to a new office tower downtown. Not to get political, but the last decade's increase in public servant staff due to population growth has not been reflected in any of the public buildings downtown.

https://sl2-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/us...pdf?1580420157

Edit: Oh dear god, they have a development plan on their official website and they want to build like 5 more of these freak buildings: https://cornerstonecommons.ca/development-plan/

Edit2: We are doomed by North Prairie. They are proud to put head office jobs next to a railway on the outskirts of town.

[NotToScale]

Originally Posted by roryn1

Edit: Oh dear god, they have a development plan on their official website and they want to build like 5 more of these freak buildings: https://cornerstonecommons.ca/development-plan/

Edit2: We are doomed by North Prairie. They are proud to put head office jobs next to a railway on the outskirts of town.

Did you read the past few posts? This is development. Let them build

[phone]

Originally Posted by NotToScale

Did you read the past few posts? This is development. Let them build

This is development that is counter to the goals of having a dense, populated core. Having the SHA in Stonebridge is a HUGE loss for downtown, and illustrates the benefits of Regina's zoning policy that mandates a certain proportion of office space to be located downtown. Or at least I believe that this was the policy at one point -- is that still so?

But while we're on Stonebridge, I must admit that the south end of Preston has become quite the little area. There's a critical mass of people in all those townhouses and apartments and it shows in the large number of excellent food options in the area. Like it or not, Stonebridge has become a cohesive self-sustaining district.

Imagine if 8th Street had redeveloped according to the city's new corridor growth plan during the last 15 years instead of the denser parts of Stonebridge being built. There could be comparable new-build mixed use development running (probably partway) from Cumberland to McKercher in Stonebridge's stead. That's an issue with planning policy rather than developers themselves. Missed opportunities! At least the city is pushing corridor growth now so that when (if) the next boom comes around we will hopefully get more things right.

[roryn1]

Originally Posted by NotToScale

Did you read the past few posts? This is development. Let them build

R u part of the North Prairie clan building soviet style architecture as sprawled across SK as possible? You’re on the wrong thread bro.

[Crisis]

Originally Posted by roryn1

R u part of the North Prairie clan building soviet style architecture as sprawled across SK as possible? You’re on the wrong thread bro.

I’m thinking we need a sarcasm emoji on here. Unless I really misinterpreted NotToScale’s post.

[NotToScale]

Originally Posted by Crisis

I’m thinking we need a sarcasm emoji on here. Unless I really misinterpreted NotToScale’s post.

Yes we do. It was all sarcasm.

[roryn1]

Well it's official then, WTC Saskatoon downtown is dead on arrival as they decided a lot on the outskirts of town made more sense. I am so over North Prairie Developments and Don Atchison. Can we run them out of town?




It doesn't even have anything to do with the fact that they built these ugly buildings next to railway tracks, it's the fact that they are leaving an entire block dead in the middle of downtown Saskatoon. Tear the old credit union building down and put up a parking lot if you're just owning it on spec. It's going to set empty for another ten years. Hopefully their grandkids have more respect for Saskatoon when they inherit this plot of land.

Just to note - they are officially the first WTC to be located in the suburbs of a city. I'm so surprised the WTC brand let this happen. Sick. For the ego of old white men that inherited capital.

[Crisis]

So, I take that the WTC at Prairieland is now done and this is their new home? Not that WTC at Prairieland made any sense either.

As much as I'm a believer in letting those spending their money decide what and where to build, I would agree that calling this a World Trade Centre is laughable. Especially when looking at their website and seeing them list other WTC sites around the world. Admittedly, Saskatoon is not New York or Toyko, but this facility being compared to those is like comparing apples and anvils - just not the same thing.

[prairieguy]

My beef with North Prairie is no so much what they build...or I guess even where...as it is their money and prerogative. However, the list of fanfare announcements that end up in the trash bin is becoming just a bit too long to have any respect or faith in their intentions.

I don't get it...don't raise expectations only to default or build something totally different. Do your diligence in research and not propose an office tower or condo tower if there is not the rationale/market/resources for your company to proceed.

it is just so frustrating....

[roryn1]

Originally Posted by prairieguy

My beef with North Prairie is no so much what they build...or I guess even where...as it is their money and prerogative. However, the list of fanfare announcements that end up in the trash bin is becoming just a bit too long to have any respect or faith in their intentions.

I don't get it...don't raise expectations only to default or build something totally different. Do your diligence in research and not propose an office tower or condo tower if there is not the rationale/market/resources for your company to proceed.

it is just so frustrating....

I think they do it to create press which causes out of town developers not familiar with Saskatoon to stay away, and also for their own narcissistic egos.

I don't know their complete background nor should anyone care when they have the poorest reputation of the developers in Saskatoon by far.

[NotToScale]

.