HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted May 17, 2016, 9:13 PM
Stormer's Avatar
Stormer Stormer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,575
My vote is B. Why would we need more live theatres or concert venues. We have plenty already nearby. A Cinema on the other hand is essential.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted May 17, 2016, 9:32 PM
Festivus Festivus is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 816
I'd prefer a mix of things:

- Movie theater
- Indoor market
- Grocery store
- Residential on floors 2+ of many buildings
- Street-level retail
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted May 17, 2016, 10:01 PM
Treesplease Treesplease is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 990
I voted B as well - mostly because of the theatre/cinema (for as long as they will be around). Option C with the library/college/university made no sense to me. Is the UofR with the college campus not butchered up enough already? they want to spread it across three locations? Is there a shortage of land out at the UofR? Central library already has a place downtown.

I didn't like that only option A had the berm/physical seperation from the railyards - that is essential vs. surface parking as seperation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted May 17, 2016, 10:02 PM
W.W. La Chance's Avatar
W.W. La Chance W.W. La Chance is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Districts of Assiniboia & Saskatchewan
Posts: 101
My first thoughts are with B as well. Aesthetically, I like that it doesn't have that surface lot on east end and I like how the pedestrian bridge comes into the park and market building.

And I agree with Festivus on the mix. A theatre seems desired and would be great for the area, but what I really care about is the residential and street level shopping (including grocer), and an emphasis on classic urban form.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted May 17, 2016, 10:20 PM
Stormer's Avatar
Stormer Stormer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,575
I agree with W.W. and Trees, but I have concern about parking for the Dewdney retail and restaurants. If it is mostly along the rail lines and they restrict street parking, the retail will fail. This is not Vancouver. At a minimum they need full street parking, and better yet angle parking on the south side. Everywhere is Saskatoon there is angle parking there is vibrant retail.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted May 17, 2016, 10:28 PM
StealthGirl's Avatar
StealthGirl StealthGirl is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 864
I like the idea of all the trees on the street side but I think the snow removal plan needs to be considered there as well. Are these trees going to be killed the first winter we have a regular amount of snow? I love the look of the older areas of the city with tree-lined streets, but it takes work to get the trees to that age where they will survive a bit of street salt and snowplows.

I think the city also needs to identify whether this is downtown or warehouse and adopt the appropriate city plan from those corridors as well. I hope they can determine that in their planning and follow the rules. I don't want a huge span of surface parking but that's not supposed to happen in the downtown, yet they allow it anyway.

It seems odd to me they want to put in these dedicated bike lanes that we really don't have anywhere else remotely close to downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted May 17, 2016, 10:42 PM
Nathan's Avatar
Nathan Nathan is offline
Hmm....
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 3,440
This will sound similar to what some of you have said...

But it really feels like a lot of the "star" attractions in the options aren't really adding something new to the area (grocery and movie theatre excepting), but rather moves them from downtown or duplicates them from other areas (i.e. Educational Institutions). Rather than feeding downtown and the warehouse district, it feels like it would more cannibalise and poach growth. Almost like how building the Cornwall finished off the Galleria.

And yes, with parking, I really hope they go with a walk before you run type plan...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted May 18, 2016, 2:23 PM
kenskca kenskca is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 44
The setup of the pedestrian bridge to cross the tracks concerns me.

It looks like it crosses the tracks and then just terminates on the north side of Sask Drive. From there, you have to go either one block east, or one block west to get to a pedestrian crossing if you want to continue heading south.

With cold weather half the year I think it would make sense to spend the extra money and do this right, being that this is a generational opportunity .

Have the pedestrian bridge cross the tracks. Then, have stairwell/elevator north of Sask Drive for people wanting to go to the casino, and then have a pedway going across Sask Drive with another stairwell/elevator for people wanting to continue South. Maybe it could be tied right into the Cornwall Centre, although that could create access issues after hours.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted May 18, 2016, 2:42 PM
Stormer's Avatar
Stormer Stormer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenskca View Post
The setup of the pedestrian bridge to cross the tracks concerns me.

It looks like it crosses the tracks and then just terminates on the north side of Sask Drive. From there, you have to go either one block east, or one block west to get to a pedestrian crossing if you want to continue heading south.

With cold weather half the year I think it would make sense to spend the extra money and do this right, being that this is a generational opportunity .

Have the pedestrian bridge cross the tracks. Then, have stairwell/elevator north of Sask Drive for people wanting to go to the casino, and then have a pedway going across Sask Drive with another stairwell/elevator for people wanting to continue South. Maybe it could be tied right into the Cornwall Centre, although that could create access issues after hours.
I hear you about the weather but the urban planners really want to push people to street level. Having half the people walking around at pedway level can really eat into the viability of street level businesses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted May 18, 2016, 3:05 PM
jigglysquishy's Avatar
jigglysquishy jigglysquishy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 1,831
The pedestrian bridge design is essentially a place holder right now. They plan on getting a bridge design firm to do the actual work. Right now they only really know where it will be on the RRI lands
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted May 18, 2016, 3:19 PM
HomeInMyShoes's Avatar
HomeInMyShoes HomeInMyShoes is offline
arf
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Pile 'O Bones
Posts: 12,109
It's placed poorly. Not that there are great options, but having the pedway go over the connection between the Casino and Show Lounge would be a better link. More difficult to execute, but just better to be on a vibrant street (Hamilton) and not mid block. Halfway down the block in the Canada Post mail truck dead zone and across the street from two gigantic parkades is going to invite a lot of jaywalking on that fairly busy section of Saskatchewan Drive. Then they'll erect wonderful pedestrian barriers to prevent that and the entry into what should be a very vibrant and awesome addition to the city will be quite the eyesore. Plus it will take everyone an extra few minutes to walk the half block two times.

The design of this area should start outside of the area itself.

I agree with most of the sentiments leaning towards B. It makes the most sense from downtown needs. Although I can see the Globe Theatre wanting more space and building a new venue in the area.
__________________

-- “We heal each other with kindness, gentleness and respect.” -- Richard Wagamese
-- “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, Nothing is going to get better. It's not.” -- Dr. Seuss
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted May 18, 2016, 4:11 PM
Stormer's Avatar
Stormer Stormer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes View Post
It's placed poorly. Not that there are great options, but having the pedway go over the connection between the Casino and Show Lounge would be a better link. More difficult to execute, but just better to be on a vibrant street (Hamilton) and not mid block. Halfway down the block in the Canada Post mail truck dead zone and across the street from two gigantic parkades is going to invite a lot of jaywalking on that fairly busy section of Saskatchewan Drive. Then they'll erect wonderful pedestrian barriers to prevent that and the entry into what should be a very vibrant and awesome addition to the city will be quite the eyesore. Plus it will take everyone an extra few minutes to walk the half block two times.

The design of this area should start outside of the area itself.

I agree with most of the sentiments leaning towards B. It makes the most sense from downtown needs. Although I can see the Globe Theatre wanting more space and building a new venue in the area.
I am hopeful the Post Office won't be there long. It makes zero sense to be where it is. Mail doesn't come by train anymore. I do not believe they even do mail sorting there anymore so they need a much smaller facility with better highway access. I believe all the mail is trucked to and from Winnipeg for sorting. Having all those delivery trucks parked on prime land makes no sense.

It has big floor plates with potential for conversion to a conventional office building.


http://www.dianping.com/shop/29118128
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted May 18, 2016, 4:19 PM
wacko wacko is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 421
From the article in today's Leader-Post, it seems a number of people dislike the idea of having high-rise residential. Which leads me to wonder if Regina residents in general aren't fond of high-rise living? Yet it appears to me this element would be crucial for a successful mixed-use development. That urban density would provide the impetus for ground-level services such as restaurants, a small grocery store, maybe even a small theatre.

So how to convince people to adopt a more urban lifestyle? One way would be to build high-rises with smaller, more affordable units. That would incentivize people to relocate at a more attractive price point. But would any developers in Regina be willing to take up that sort of concept? It seems like they're more interested in building upscale condos with fatter profit margins.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted May 18, 2016, 4:51 PM
Treesplease Treesplease is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 990
Quote:
Originally Posted by wacko View Post
From the article in today's Leader-Post, it seems a number of people dislike the idea of having high-rise residential. Which leads me to wonder if Regina residents in general aren't fond of high-rise living? Yet it appears to me this element would be crucial for a successful mixed-use development. That urban density would provide the impetus for ground-level services such as restaurants, a small grocery store, maybe even a small theatre.

So how to convince people to adopt a more urban lifestyle? One way would be to build high-rises with smaller, more affordable units. That would incentivize people to relocate at a more attractive price point. But would any developers in Regina be willing to take up that sort of concept? It seems like they're more interested in building upscale condos with fatter profit margins.
I really don't get people sometimes. The people that dislike hi-rise residential either prefer zero growth and no change or they prefer sprawling suburbia and road arteries where people spend time in their car and don't interact. Maybe they want to see individual lots where they can build little cottage houses with yards and pickett fences in the middle of downtown.....like the movie "UP".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted May 18, 2016, 4:54 PM
Festivus Festivus is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 816
Quote:
Originally Posted by wacko View Post
From the article in today's Leader-Post, it seems a number of people dislike the idea of having high-rise residential. Which leads me to wonder if Regina residents in general aren't fond of high-rise living? Yet it appears to me this element would be crucial for a successful mixed-use development. That urban density would provide the impetus for ground-level services such as restaurants, a small grocery store, maybe even a small theatre.

So how to convince people to adopt a more urban lifestyle? One way would be to build high-rises with smaller, more affordable units. That would incentivize people to relocate at a more attractive price point. But would any developers in Regina be willing to take up that sort of concept? It seems like they're more interested in building upscale condos with fatter profit margins.
If townhouses are built on this land I will burn city hall to the ground, lol. If there is a box store I will detonate a nuke!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted May 18, 2016, 5:13 PM
HomeInMyShoes's Avatar
HomeInMyShoes HomeInMyShoes is offline
arf
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Pile 'O Bones
Posts: 12,109
^Haha. Pretty much sums up my irritation.

I can see an argument that perhaps more residential should continue in the area South of Victoria avenue in the core, but a balanced approach is probably the best. Given the issues with the pedestrian crossing I don't believe there will be a huge flow of people into the area during the day outside of regular vehicular traffic which makes, as others pointed out, a necessity to have residential to support the businesses there.

Part of the issue is that this is not a next year or even five year from now build out. This is going to be over a longer period of time. Regina's market is still pretty small and this kind of development is on the scale of much larger cities like Winnipeg or Edmonton. The demand for this is not quite there. The risk is that the 'plan' of what could be possible and should be built will morph into the what is currently supportable by the market and we'll end up with strips of cheap-suburban power center strip mall and some walk-up apartments. None of us are really envisioning this.

Perhaps at this time, Regina is spreading itself a little thin and we should focus on the Taylor Field neighborhood and reinvigorating a couple of sections South of the tracks that could use this kind of thinking and plan like 11th Avenue.

And maybe as was pointed out. Let's work on getting Canada Post out and retrofitting the building to another use and work on making Saskatchewan Drive better. Saskatchewan Drive is an interesting puzzle. It's an incredibly important E-W feeder road linking Victoria, Broad, Albert, Winnipeg and Lewvan together. It's always going to be a major vehicular link. How do we make it a better pedestrian experience because I think it's going to need that to truly develop the link into the warehouse area.
__________________

-- “We heal each other with kindness, gentleness and respect.” -- Richard Wagamese
-- “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, Nothing is going to get better. It's not.” -- Dr. Seuss
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted May 18, 2016, 5:24 PM
VANRIDERFAN's Avatar
VANRIDERFAN VANRIDERFAN is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,351
I was at the first part of the meeting.

1. The final presentation this fall will have winter representations. That all the concepts were in the summer was brought up a couple of times.

2. The 3 concepts are just that, concepts. They will be taking the feedback from everyone (including business, government and others who were briefed earlier in the day) and come up with final renders in the fall. They have no qualms of taking the best from all three and come up with something that best fits the bill.

4. I was eaves dropping on many conversations regarding the concepts. I will be very subjective here, but most of the people not liking the highrise residential were what I would term as the "Older Cathedral NIMBY Crowd"

5. The pedestrian bridge to downtown shown on the renders in no way is what the final result will be. The city is planning to do quite a bit of work connecting the downtown with the rail-yards. We should see more in the fall.

I didn't stay for the Q&A, but I like the direction this is going.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted May 18, 2016, 5:49 PM
Treesplease Treesplease is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 990
Quote:
Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN View Post
I was at the first part of the meeting.

1. The final presentation this fall will have winter representations. That all the concepts were in the summer was brought up a couple of times.

2. The 3 concepts are just that, concepts. They will be taking the feedback from everyone (including business, government and others who were briefed earlier in the day) and come up with final renders in the fall. They have no qualms of taking the best from all three and come up with something that best fits the bill.

4. I was eaves dropping on many conversations regarding the concepts. I will be very subjective here, but most of the people not liking the highrise residential were what I would term as the "Older Cathedral NIMBY Crowd"

5. The pedestrian bridge to downtown shown on the renders in no way is what the final result will be. The city is planning to do quite a bit of work connecting the downtown with the rail-yards. We should see more in the fall.

I didn't stay for the Q&A, but I like the direction this is going.
I didn't want to go out on a limb and say it but that was my first guess. In other words....the "UP" crowd. Interesting that the people most vocal about what the future will look like will probably be around the shortest amount of time. At least comments from city planners and designers indicates the need for densification.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted May 18, 2016, 6:20 PM
Stormer's Avatar
Stormer Stormer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Festivus View Post
If townhouses are built on this land I will burn city hall to the ground, lol. If there is a box store I will detonate a nuke!
I was surprised to see townhouses in the survey. Really? I checked the "absolutely should not be included box".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted May 18, 2016, 6:57 PM
Festivus Festivus is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 816
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes View Post
^Haha. Pretty much sums up my irritation.

I can see an argument that perhaps more residential should continue in the area South of Victoria avenue in the core, but a balanced approach is probably the best. Given the issues with the pedestrian crossing I don't believe there will be a huge flow of people into the area during the day outside of regular vehicular traffic which makes, as others pointed out, a necessity to have residential to support the businesses there.

Part of the issue is that this is not a next year or even five year from now build out. This is going to be over a longer period of time. Regina's market is still pretty small and this kind of development is on the scale of much larger cities like Winnipeg or Edmonton. The demand for this is not quite there. The risk is that the 'plan' of what could be possible and should be built will morph into the what is currently supportable by the market and we'll end up with strips of cheap-suburban power center strip mall and some walk-up apartments. None of us are really envisioning this.

Perhaps at this time, Regina is spreading itself a little thin and we should focus on the Taylor Field neighborhood and reinvigorating a couple of sections South of the tracks that could use this kind of thinking and plan like 11th Avenue.

And maybe as was pointed out. Let's work on getting Canada Post out and retrofitting the building to another use and work on making Saskatchewan Drive better. Saskatchewan Drive is an interesting puzzle. It's an incredibly important E-W feeder road linking Victoria, Broad, Albert, Winnipeg and Lewvan together. It's always going to be a major vehicular link. How do we make it a better pedestrian experience because I think it's going to need that to truly develop the link into the warehouse area.
Realistically this project would have been perfect at the start of the boom. Now...there is a very good chance it will never finish the way we want it to. Maybe 1/4 done and then filled in with regular boring stuff we've grown used to.
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 8:16 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.