Regina | New Mosaic Stadium

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

Really? Where is all this land? Sure, there are individual lots spread out, but there isn't much for 2.5 blocks of space for a large group of low-income and/or multi-unit residential development in the area.

Clearly you have no background in urban planning. Perhaps you think we should return to the days of huge low-income housing projects, which concertate poverty in high densities? The current model is indeed a dispersal of units in a variety of areas, of which the individual lots downtown and in the core would be well suited for.

You are actually suggesting they should put low-income housing in between the Warehouse District and downtown? Not to mention it is across the street from the Dewdney strip, with the Casino on the other side of the tracks. This land is far too valuable for low-income housing. No offense, but do you know anything about Regina?

Yep, I know lots about Regina. Relatives live there, and I've been there many times. In my post I stated that the railway lands could be freed up for low income housing and condos - If urban revitalization is indeed the goal, then housing is the way to go for these "valuable" lands, not a stadium. Interestingly enough, no one even knows how valuable the land is - If the costs of land remidiation are prohibitively high, it would lower the value quite a bit. But, as you suggest, low-income housing is appropriate for the Taylor Field location (a few blocks west). Is this land not valuable too? The main point was that needed land for low income housing is a poor argument in favour of the stadium - if it were a priority, there are literally hundreds of other locations throughout the city where it could go...

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by Bdog

Clearly you have no background in urban planning. Perhaps you think we should return to the days of huge low-income housing projects, which concertate poverty in high densities? The current model is indeed a dispersal of units in a variety of areas, of which the individual lots downtown and in the core would be well suited for.

I am not suggesting there be a huge low-income housing project put there. Something more on the lines of new affordable multi-family dwellings like the ones being built just to the East of the General Hospital.

Originally Posted by Bdog

Yep, I know lots about Regina. Relatives live there, and I've been there many times. In my post I stated that the railway lands could be freed up for low income housing and condos - If urban revitalization is indeed the goal, then housing is the way to go for these "valuable" lands, not a stadium. Interestingly enough, no one even knows how valuable the land is - If the costs of land remidiation are prohibitively high, it would lower the value quite a bit. But, as you suggest, low-income housing is appropriate for the Taylor Field location (a few blocks west). Is this land not valuable too? The main point was that needed land for low income housing is a poor argument in favour of the stadium - if it were a priority, there are literally hundreds of other locations throughout the city where it could go...

The land by Taylor field is already surrounded by residential. The land at the CP railyards, as mentioned is surrounded by bars, restaurants, the post office and the casino, and as such, is not suitable for low-income and would not create an ideal gateway between the Warehouse district and downtown, as planned with the stadium. Commercial, shopping, entertainment and as you mentioned, condos and other high-density residential would be better suited for here. I'm not a professional, this is just my general opinion and I'm sure others would agree.

[babo]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

The land by Taylor field is already surrounded by residential. The land at the CP railyards, as mentioned is surrounded by bars, restaurants, the post office and the casino, and as such, is not suitable for low-income and would not create an ideal gateway between the Warehouse district and downtown, as planned with the stadium. Commercial, shopping, entertainment and as you mentioned, condos and other high-density residential would be better suited for here. I'm not a professional, this is just my general opinion and I'm sure others would agree.

I don't agree.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by Bdog

Interesting ideas he puts forward.

Its not his idea, although he'll try and make people think it is.

However, the multipurpose stadium doesn't need to get built in order to create low income housing and condos on Taylor Field land - there is plenty of land available for that within the core already. Furthermore, an argument could be made that a renovated Taylor Field could free up the rail lands for low income housing and condos, if that was a priorty. I'm surprised you haven't jumped all over "tax abatements for companies that contribute to the stadium" - you've made your political views quite clear in the past, so I can't see you supporting subsidies for enticing private investment (or low income housing, which is something out of the old, "socialist" NDP's playbook, right?)

Either way, I find it ironic that you say Mandryk "gets it" now that a small part of his message lines up with yours - Just last week you were making every attempt to marginalize him and discredit his views! Regardless, much of his article also raises important questions as to the funding, etc that myself and others have been asking too...

On a related note, does anyone know how much the land remediation costs for the rail lands are? Is it already factored into the price of the stadium project? Thanks...

Sorry bdog but I ain't getting baited into another pissin match with you, you know my thoughts on this project and i ain't going to regurjitate them once again. When I said Mandryk finally gets it, it was in regards to the fact that this is project is about much more than just a new stadium, sorry I didn't point out the obvious to you. Its pretty obvious that the only reason why you participate in this thread is to talk down to and try to discredit those who want this project completed as is (ie. as evidenced by your suggestion that we put a lowincome housing project beside the Dewdney Avenue strip, the Casino, and Regina's biggest shopping mall) Brilliant idea lol

That said, if your continuous negative participation in this thread has something to do with a Winnipeg inferiority complex, I don't really know and don't really care. Welcome to my ignore list, you got one Regina stadium thread closed with your Debbie Downer negative "You can't do it" schtick, I ain't going to participate in letting you achieve another.

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by babo

I don't agree.

I didn't expect you to . I'm sorry, but low-income housing is something I just can't see, and don't want to see in that location. Its well needed in this city, but not there.

[thefourthtower]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

I didn't expect you to . I'm sorry, but low-income housing is something I just can't see, and don't want to see in that location. Its well needed in this city, but not there.

i second that

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by Migs

Its pretty obvious that the only reason why you participate in this thread is to talk down to and try to discredit those who want this project completed as is (ie. as evidenced by your suggestion that we put a lowincome housing project beside the Dewdney Avenue strip, the Casino, and Regina's biggest shopping mall) Brilliant idea lol

That said, if your continuous negative participation in this thread has something to do with a Winnipeg inferiority complex, I don't really know and don't really care. Welcome to my ignore list, you got one Regina stadium thread closed with your Debbie Downer negative "You can't do it" schtick, I ain't going to participate in letting you achieve another.

I'm not sure you read my post. Nowhere did I suggest the lands become a "low income housing project" - I suggested the opposite, stating that if low-income housing is a priorty, it should be dispersed throughout, not concentrated in one area. I also said that housing, regardless of price or tenure type, has been proven to be a more effective strategy for downtown revitalization than stadiums (and the stated goal for the land has been revitalization).

I've already stated my interest in this topic, as I've done graduate research on infrastructure projects in the past, including on stadiums as downtown renewal catalysts. I realize that you want to silence open debate on the stadium, and silence those who do not agree with your opinion. And to suggest that I am responsible for the last group getting locked? If I have broken any forum rules, feel free to alert the moderators, and they can decide what action to take against me.

It's February 1st - let the countdown to the announcement begin.

[rypinion]

Originally Posted by Bdog

Nowhere did I suggest the lands become a "low income housing project" - I suggested the opposite, stating that if low-income housing is a priorty, it should be dispersed throughout, not concentrated in one area.

You all may be interested in an article in the Free Press from the other day that continues this thought - mega projects aren't necessarily the way to revitalization. Lots of smaller things with great street presence is where it's at.

This was linked to in the Winnipeg Construction forum, but some of you might be interested and may not follow the Winnipeg forum:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/loc...114919599.html

Some of the things happening in downtown Winnipeg are wonderful, and I'm really starting to be happy that (unlike what was proposed for a while) there isn't a humongous stadium going up two blocks from my condo - where there is so much more that could be done with the same (high potential value) land.

[thefourthtower]

Originally Posted by Migs

Its not his idea, although he'll try and make people think it is.
Sorry bdog but I ain't getting baited into another pissin match with you, you know my thoughts on this project and i ain't going to regurjitate them once again. When I said Mandryk finally gets it, it was in regards to the fact that this is project is about much more than just a new stadium, sorry I didn't point out the obvious to you. Its pretty obvious that the only reason why you participate in this thread is to talk down to and try to discredit those who want this project completed as is (ie. as evidenced by your suggestion that we put a lowincome housing project beside the Dewdney Avenue strip, the Casino, and Regina's biggest shopping mall) Brilliant idea lol

That said, if your continuous negative participation in this thread has something to do with a Winnipeg inferiority complex, I don't really know and don't really care. Welcome to my ignore list, you got one Regina stadium thread closed with your Debbie Downer negative "You can't do it" schtick, I ain't going to participate in letting you achieve another.

there is something not right with all his nasty hate filled posts i wish he was banned

[Bdog]

P3 money for Regina stadium unlikely by end of February
Regina MP Tom Lukiwski says feds have to be fair to all provinces

Story Tools
ShareThisReported By Sarah Mills
Posted February 1, 2011 - 4:25pm

The final whistle won't get blown on the stadium proposal anytime soon.

There was renewed optimism that Regina may be used as a test case of the P3 fund, which the province has applied under.

And the government here is hoping for an answer either way of the end of February .

Regina MP Tom Lukiwski thinks that's doubtful.

"I would be doubtful that there would be word or a decision at that time because there are many other proposals coming in for P3," said Lukiwski.

Lukiwski argues the feds have to be fair to all provinces not just one. He thinks Saskatchewan should start considering other options.

http://www.newstalk980.com/story/20110201/46479

[Migs]

http://www.newstalk980.com/story/20110201/46479

P3 money for Regina stadium unlikely by end of FebruaryRegina MP Tom Lukiwski says feds have to be fair to all provinces

Story Tools
ShareThisReported By Sarah Mills
Posted February 1, 2011 - 4:25pm

The final whistle won't get blown on the stadium proposal anytime soon.

There was renewed optimism that Regina may be used as a test case of the P3 fund, which the province has applied under.

And the government here is hoping for an answer either way of the end of February .

Regina MP Tom Lukiwski thinks that's doubtful.

"I would be doubtful that there would be word or a decision at that time because there are many other proposals coming in for P3," said Lukiwski.

Lukiwski argues the feds have to be fair to all provinces not just one. He thinks Saskatchewan should start considering other options.

LOL these guys just can't get their stories straight. I guess it depends which project they are refering to, the Quebec one or the Saskatchewan one. And the bolded statement above proves Likiwski is lying through his teeth as the P3 program closed round two of applications in June.

That said, regardless whatever the feds end up doing, I look forward to the provinces announcement later this month. Like I said in the other thread, my sources tell me in the end this project is going through with or without the fed funding. My guess is the announcement later this month will be to proceed with the purchase of land from CP with the intention of giving the feds a little more time to come up with the money (a good choice given the recent developments of P3 funding perhaps coming available as well as the budget coming down in March and the pressure being put on by QC). Everyone knows that construction cannot begin until 2012 at the earliest (as the railyards start their relocation later this year) so there still is time in that regard. The main point of concern right now is getting the deal finalized with CP.

I hate delays as much as anyone, but that is what happens when you are dealing with various levels of beaurocracy. Interesting times ahead....

[skthunder77]

Originally Posted by Migs

http://www.newstalk980.com/story/20110201/46479



LOL these guys just can't get their stories straight. I guess it depends which project they are refering to, the Quebec one or the Saskatchewan one. And the bolded statement above proves Likiwski is lying through his teeth as the P3 program closed round two of applications in June.

That said, regardless whatever the feds end up doing, I look forward to the provinces announcement later this month. Like I said in the other thread, my sources tell me in the end this project is going through with or without the fed funding. My guess is the announcement later this month will be to proceed with the purchase of land from CP with the intention of giving the feds a little more time to come up with the money (a good choice given the recent developments of P3 funding perhaps coming available as well as the budget coming down in March and the pressure being put on by QC). Everyone knows that construction cannot begin until 2012 at the earliest (as the railyards start their relocation later this year) so there still is time in that regard. The main point of concern right now is getting the deal finalized with CP.

I hate delays as much as anyone, but that is what happens when you are dealing with various levels of beaurocracy. Interesting times ahead....

I've had it with these Arse-clowns....it's time for a change.

[CCF]

Lets just have Goodale represent Saskatchewan in every constituency. No one else has done a thing.

[Chaps]

Originally Posted by CCF

Lets just have Goodale represent Saskatchewan in every constituency. No one else has done a thing.

Agreed.

The feds need to **** or get off the pot. Their ho-humming and thumb-twiddling is wasting time and money.

And even if P3 applications were still coming in, would they not be evaluated on a FIFO basis? So why would that be holding anything up that they currently are looking at. A bunch of BS and hot air if you ask me.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by Chaps

Agreed.

The feds need to **** or get off the pot. Their ho-humming and thumb-twiddling is wasting time and money.

And even if P3 applications were still coming in, would they not be evaluated on a FIFO basis? So why would that be holding anything up that they currently are looking at. A bunch of BS and hot air if you ask me.

Let these guys know how you feel.

Tom Likiwsky
lukiwt@parl.gc.ca

Andrew Scheer
scheer.a@parl.gc.ca

[Migs]

I had a really good conversation with MP Tom Lukiwsky earlier tonight and I have to say I came away very impressed. First of all his comments on newstalk980 yesterday were taken out of context in that he didn't say the province should look at other options per say, just to do so if the end of February deadline is rock solid as unfortunately P3 won't have an answer that early. He said it is very frustrating when reporters pick and choose quotes without telling the whole context of what is said.

He said he wants the new stadium built as much as anyone, just that the feds are facing a very tough decision in that projects around the country are going to want fair and equal share. I then asked him if that is the same guidelines for every funding program in that if Saskatoon gets a new bridge then so does Winnipeg, he didn't have an answer. lol. Also he said to me that the province has 'about' $350-370mil already commited to the project (he said he thinks the numbers are $200mil province, $70-80mil city, $75mil private, and a significant number from the Riders) so even if the feds can't come through they can either look for more funding elsewhere or settle for something a little less 'cadillac' than whats being proposed.

Nevertheless he stressed to me the importance of the revitilization aspect (ie ped bridges, squares, etc) as well as the lowincome housing at the old stadium site as avenues to pursue federal funding in case P3 says no to the stadium. He said there is no doubt in his mind that the feds will be a part of this project, maybe just not the stadium itself. Funding for those types of infrastructure projects are very tough to say no to.

He also said there is zero chance that Quebec City will get funding for their stadium if we don't. He said the govt will be rock solid in that policy as they have been from the get go.

[Welkin]

Originally Posted by Migs

Also he said to me that the province has 'about' $350-370mil already commited to the project (he said he thinks the numbers are $200mil province, $70-80mil city, $75mil private, and a significant number from the Riders) so even if the feds can't come through they can either look for more funding elsewhere or settle for something a little less 'cadillac' than whats being proposed.

For the stakeholders in a community our size to have committed $370 million towards this project is very impressive. I was surprised to see the province being able to commit a giant chunk of $200 million. Lets hope they have better luck selling the bonds than Glendale, AZ. (NHL in Winnipeg thread). But again, overall it is very impressive.

Regardless of previous quotes on this thread, I still don't see this project happening (in its current form) without $100 million plus from the federal government. Since it is going to cost Winnipeg $190 million for their new stadium and Hamilton $160 million for their renovated stadium, how much "less Cadillac" are we talking about for our $370 million? I think the retractable roof is probably out of the question and that was the major selling point of this project. Are we looking at just a bigger version of the FargoDome? Are we really looking at Dome football in the summer?

Unless we can figure out a way to raise another $100-$150 million in the province (unless the Feds kick in and solve all our problems), I'm not sure we should spend our $370 million on a basic dome stadium. I think we should either raise the money and spend $470 million on a really neat retractable roof stadium or spend $190 million on a really nice outdoor stadium. I see no reason to spend $370 million for something in the middle.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Welkin

Unless we can figure out a way to raise another $100-$150 million in the province (unless the Feds kick in and solve all our problems), I'm not sure we should spend our $370 million on a basic dome stadium. I think we should either raise the money and spend $470 million on a really neat retractable roof stadium or spend $190 million on a really nice outdoor stadium. I see no reason to spend $370 million for something in the middle.

good points.

the provincial money I can understand but the city's reported contribution of $80m is the most amazing....i dont know how a city of that size could possibly find that kind of money, but good on them if they have.....that would cripple winnipeg's civic government.

[Migs]

My letter to the editor was in the Leaderpost this morning, I am not sure however how they came up with that title??

http://www.leaderpost.com/opinion/le...630/story.html

Also there were some very encouraging comments by Premier Wall on the radio this morning (@ 22:50) , every day I am more impressed with how articulate and well spoken this man is, future PM of Canada????... many think so.

http://www.newstalk980.com/audio/joh...mier-brad-wall

[dsim249]

Originally Posted by Migs

My letter to the editor was in the Leaderpost this morning, I am not sure however how they came up with that title??

http://www.leaderpost.com/opinion/le...630/story.html

Yeah, WTF?