HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #7841  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2017, 2:57 PM
thefourthtower thefourthtower is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Rueannatta
Posts: 2,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by UPP View Post
Yeah, 120 businesses leasing 120 spots with 120 families moving to Regina. Not a bad way to jump to the front of the immigration queue.
They say two more buildings are going up in 2018
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7842  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2017, 3:19 PM
thefourthtower thefourthtower is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Rueannatta
Posts: 2,597
http://leaderpost.com/news/local-new...s-back-on-2017
Can projects drawn up during the boom years – the Taylor Field redesign and railyard renewal, for example – still go forward at the same rate?

The market will decide. The bulk of our public investment was in the stadium, and the private sector will drive what happens with those projects. I don’t see a slowing down of that necessarily. I see a sense of enthusiasm to move forward, not stepping back.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7843  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2017, 9:06 PM
Drofmab's Avatar
Drofmab Drofmab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Regina
Posts: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefourthtower View Post
http://leaderpost.com/news/local-new...s-back-on-2017
Can projects drawn up during the boom years – the Taylor Field redesign and railyard renewal, for example – still go forward at the same rate?

The market will decide. The bulk of our public investment was in the stadium, and the private sector will drive what happens with those projects. I don’t see a slowing down of that necessarily. I see a sense of enthusiasm to move forward, not stepping back.
I expect we'll see some opportunists seizing the downturn to essentially strong-arm the City into watering-down their vision of the Taylor Field & Railyard sites... 'we'll do you a favour by developing the site... on our terms. Don't say no - you don't have other offers.'
Just like that, the nice mixed use development becomes a big box nightmare. The affordable housing becomes cookie cutter housing that is nothing even resembling affordable. And esthetics? first thing to get tossed out the window.
__________________
@drofmab
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7844  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2017, 9:37 PM
Festivus Festivus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drofmab View Post
I expect we'll see some opportunists seizing the downturn to essentially strong-arm the City into watering-down their vision of the Taylor Field & Railyard sites... 'we'll do you a favour by developing the site... on our terms. Don't say no - you don't have other offers.'
Just like that, the nice mixed use development becomes a big box nightmare. The affordable housing becomes cookie cutter housing that is nothing even resembling affordable. And esthetics? first thing to get tossed out the window.
This is unfortunately probably going to be the reality. Regina has a weak-willed and developer-beholden council on the best of days, and already routinely folds to their demands. If someone steps up and says they want the land for 1/2 the price and with no restrictions, the city may well take up their offer, permanently messing up the plans. I mean, look at all of East Vic for proof of that (Home Depot where interchange should have been extended to, Quance St being crappy and full of box stores, etc).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7845  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2018, 2:48 PM
Stormer's Avatar
Stormer Stormer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Festivus View Post
This is unfortunately probably going to be the reality. Regina has a weak-willed and developer-beholden council on the best of days, and already routinely folds to their demands. If someone steps up and says they want the land for 1/2 the price and with no restrictions, the city may well take up their offer, permanently messing up the plans. I mean, look at all of East Vic for proof of that (Home Depot where interchange should have been extended to, Quance St being crappy and full of box stores, etc).
Many developers would strongly disagree with you. Many are of the view that the City is far too activist, micro-manages what owners do with their own land and imposes huge additional costs, all of which have held back development. I agree with smart land use regulation. I am just saying there is two sides to the story.

Also I do not remember the Home Depot development as being controversial at the time. In fact it was contaminated (former Husky) land that the City was glad to see had interest at a time when there was very little development occurring in the City. Maybe I have forgotten.

Finally, every City in Canada has suburban big box stores. Clearly a lot of people like them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7846  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2018, 2:56 PM
jigglysquishy's Avatar
jigglysquishy jigglysquishy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 1,658
Quance was a nightmare because there was like 40 landowners
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7847  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2018, 3:24 PM
Festivus Festivus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormer View Post
Many developers would strongly disagree with you. Many are of the view that the City is far too activist, micro-manages what owners do with their own land and imposes huge additional costs, all of which have held back development. I agree with smart land use regulation. I am just saying there is two sides to the story.

Also I do not remember the Home Depot development as being controversial at the time. In fact it was contaminated (former Husky) land that the City was glad to see had interest at a time when there was very little development occurring in the City. Maybe I have forgotten.

Finally, every City in Canada has suburban big box stores. Clearly a lot of people like them.
Home Depot wasn't controversial at the time because the city only seems to perpetually plan 5 years in advance. But the site was the intended spot for expansion of the Vic-Ring Rd interchange. Now we are permanently stuck with turn lanes to get onto Ring Rd, which will only back up more and more as the city expands the East end.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7848  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2018, 5:42 PM
aberrant aberrant is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormer View Post
Many developers would strongly disagree with you. Many are of the view that the City is far too activist, micro-manages what owners do with their own land and imposes huge additional costs, all of which have held back development. I agree with smart land use regulation. I am just saying there is two sides to the story.
I believe the term I used was "depressingly reassuring," during a City-organized forum discussion with developers, landowners, and reps from the Business Improvement Districts on the topic of development and working with the City. I thought I was the only one completely frustrated...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7849  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2018, 1:13 AM
Rodo Regina Lover Rodo Regina Lover is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 204
Isn't it a bit of a stretch to say they would need the Home Depot lands to expand the Ring Rd/ Victoria Ave. interchange??
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7850  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2018, 4:07 AM
BrutallyDishonest2 BrutallyDishonest2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodo Regina Lover View Post
Isn't it a bit of a stretch to say they would need the Home Depot lands to expand the Ring Rd/ Victoria Ave. interchange??
Yes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7851  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2018, 2:55 PM
Festivus Festivus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 754
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2 View Post
Yes.
They would really need the YMCA area, and to get pretty close to Home Depot. But turning that whole area into a commercial development prevents a larger interchange with no at-grade crossings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7852  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2018, 3:42 PM
Stormer's Avatar
Stormer Stormer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Festivus View Post
They would really need the YMCA area, and to get pretty close to Home Depot. But turning that whole area into a commercial development prevents a larger interchange with no at-grade crossings.
The fact that the City allowed those duplexes to be built in the NW quadrant about 15 years ago and that they spent a fortune widening the underpass to create more left hand turn lanes tells me they were never really interested in a full interchange there. The construction of the stormwater detention pond in the SE quadrant cemented that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7853  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2018, 4:58 PM
Drofmab's Avatar
Drofmab Drofmab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Regina
Posts: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberrant View Post
I believe the term I used was "depressingly reassuring," during a City-organized forum discussion with developers, landowners, and reps from the Business Improvement Districts on the topic of development and working with the City. I thought I was the only one completely frustrated...
I think the issue is more that particular developers/developments seem to get handled differently. Day-to-day development? Yep - I've heard this too... way too much involvement/red tape (I believe a certain business near Dewdney/Broad went through a painfully bureaucratic process to simply get landscaping approved... [the status quo 'landscaping' was decades of tire-rutted dirt & weeds]).

But bigger, flashier, higher-profile developments seem to get pulled aside & handled differently. I don't recall Home Depot itself being an issue... but the early developments in that area (specifically, Boston Pizza & Price Club), certainly had a disproportionately strong influence on urban planning. Proper longer-term planning was tossed out the window in favour of the flavour of the day. If we hadn't bent over backwards for Price Club, does anyone honestly believe Regina would have been blacklisted? Of course not, we'd have a Price Club.

We continue to suffer through the Quance nightmare because City Hall's spine melted at the prospect of a a big retailer giving Regina a glance ("OMG! OMG!" OMG! Price Club likes me! How does my hair look? OMG!"). Set a unfortunate precedent for other developments along Quance (Home Depot, Walmart, Sears Home, Loblaws, etc).

Perhaps I'm being overly pessimistic, but an economic downturn shifts the power dynamic away from the City... developers offering an opportunity for economic development, jobs, etc, will once again be sparkly, distracting objects for City Council (and, I think it's important to note, that local politicians are usually the ones who pull developments aside & push for them to be handled differently). During a boom, the City has a better ability to dictate terms to businesses who want to enter our market/expand, than it does during a downturn.
__________________
@drofmab
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7854  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2018, 7:31 PM
Stormer's Avatar
Stormer Stormer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drofmab View Post
I think the issue is more that particular developers/developments seem to get handled differently. Day-to-day development? Yep - I've heard this too... way too much involvement/red tape (I believe a certain business near Dewdney/Broad went through a painfully bureaucratic process to simply get landscaping approved... [the status quo 'landscaping' was decades of tire-rutted dirt & weeds]).

But bigger, flashier, higher-profile developments seem to get pulled aside & handled differently. I don't recall Home Depot itself being an issue... but the early developments in that area (specifically, Boston Pizza & Price Club), certainly had a disproportionately strong influence on urban planning. Proper longer-term planning was tossed out the window in favour of the flavour of the day. If we hadn't bent over backwards for Price Club, does anyone honestly believe Regina would have been blacklisted? Of course not, we'd have a Price Club.

We continue to suffer through the Quance nightmare because City Hall's spine melted at the prospect of a a big retailer giving Regina a glance ("OMG! OMG!" OMG! Price Club likes me! How does my hair look? OMG!"). Set a unfortunate precedent for other developments along Quance (Home Depot, Walmart, Sears Home, Loblaws, etc).

Perhaps I'm being overly pessimistic, but an economic downturn shifts the power dynamic away from the City... developers offering an opportunity for economic development, jobs, etc, will once again be sparkly, distracting objects for City Council (and, I think it's important to note, that local politicians are usually the ones who pull developments aside & push for them to be handled differently). During a boom, the City has a better ability to dictate terms to businesses who want to enter our market/expand, than it does during a downturn.
I fail to see the issue with any of the stores you mention being where they are. Sure it is congested at Christmas and on Saturdays but so what? Don't go there on those days. Also I noticed you did not mention Co-op aren't they as equally guilty as the big corporations?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7855  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2018, 8:36 PM
brithgob brithgob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 827
The issue wasn't Home Depot interfering with an upgraded Vic/Ring Road interchange (rumour I heard was that a systems interchange was rejected there because it was thought to be too complicated for Regina drivers). It was more about plans for interchanges at Fleet and Prince of Wales, which went out the window because THAT land was sold off.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7856  
Old Posted Jan 4, 2018, 5:59 AM
Drofmab's Avatar
Drofmab Drofmab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Regina
Posts: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by brithgob View Post
The issue wasn't Home Depot interfering with an upgraded Vic/Ring Road interchange (rumour I heard was that a systems interchange was rejected there because it was thought to be too complicated for Regina drivers). It was more about plans for interchanges at Fleet and Prince of Wales, which went out the window because THAT land was sold off.
This aligns better with the frustration I recall when the area between Fleet/UPD and Prince of Wales was being developed.
__________________
@drofmab
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7857  
Old Posted Jan 4, 2018, 1:13 PM
aberrant aberrant is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 152
The Quance debacle was many years ago. There has been a lot of turnover at the City since then.

City Square Plaza wouldnt have been a disaster had they actually stuck to the downtown plan it was based on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7858  
Old Posted Jan 4, 2018, 6:57 PM
Stormer's Avatar
Stormer Stormer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,149
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7859  
Old Posted Jan 4, 2018, 7:52 PM
Drofmab's Avatar
Drofmab Drofmab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Regina
Posts: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberrant View Post
The Quance debacle was many years ago. There has been a lot of turnover at the City since then.
Agreed.

Quote:
City Square Plaza wouldnt have been a disaster had they actually stuck to the downtown plan it was based on.
I agree - and this actually points to one of the big issues I see... the City (admin) develops a plan in good faith, consults, Council reviews/modifies/endorses it. Then someone complains about something, and Council (twitchy about votes?) wades into operations & waters down the plan.

I keep saying it, Regina is a medium sized city that continues to govern as if it's a small city/big town. Guess what, Councillors? You'll be able to count on one hand the number of decisions that you make that don't ruffle a single feather - governing by consensus is a recipe for mediocrity. Be ready to course-correct, if you've made a mistake... but don't take a few voices whining to mean that you're off-course.
__________________
@drofmab
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7860  
Old Posted Jan 4, 2018, 8:44 PM
aberrant aberrant is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drofmab View Post
I keep saying it, Regina is a medium sized city that continues to govern as if it's a small city/big town. Guess what, Councillors? You'll be able to count on one hand the number of decisions that you make that don't ruffle a single feather - governing by consensus is a recipe for mediocrity. Be ready to course-correct, if you've made a mistake... but don't take a few voices whining to mean that you're off-course.
I don't like that Regina is viewed as being behind the times. HOWEVER, this gives us a huge advantage that I keep telling councillors and admin to take advantage of:

All we have to do is look at what other similar sized, successful cities have done, and do what they do! We don't have to waste money and time on studies, we don't need to waste time and money on debate. We can jump straight into execution and just follow the successful strategies and models other cities have already had success with. IE: recycling. IE; ride sharing. IE; infill development. IE; homelessness. IE; transportation. IE; streetscaping. IE; pick just about any municipal service.

Instead, we spent a pile of money on a Downtown plan that has been shelved. We spent money on an OCP that is already being ignored. The Transit plan was completed 3 years ago and has been sitting on a shelf in draft, and now that the fonts have been changed, it might finally get approved. We have targets for % of infill development, but no action plan, and instead they have approved many more millions of green field development in the last 12 months making these targets next to impossible to achieve. Now they are doing another study on infill development, so that they can create yet another plan with no teeth, no action, and no results. They teased the public with the RRI development; in 2016 multiple city officials publicly stated the walking bridge would be built spring of 2017, and now all we have are some conceptual drawings with no plan, no action, no budget.

I attended the international downtown conference last fall, and it was jaw dropping how back asswards Regina is. A lot of the panel discussion from other cities was about programs like infill development being SO successful that there is now backlash, and how to deal with that. Some panelists were even mocking the massive success of local business/culture/cuisine/streetscaping in their cities as now being passe and old hat. I was absolutely shocked, because we are just now trying to start creating these things here in Regina, albeit with little to no support from City Admin.

Last edited by aberrant; Jan 5, 2018 at 12:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:39 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.