Saskatoon Construction III

[reddo]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Wasn't The Grove already criticized on this thread awhile ago because of the small and depressing windows? If your project isn't called referred to as a "commie block" at least once on this thread, you aren't trying hard enough

I believe they called it a "soviet bunker" (I know, I built it) but no that's a different building by span west on the same lot. The bunker is a new building for Horizon Bible College. When I was working on it back in March of this year the site supervisor said that the grove was 2-3 years away. That may have changed since then with Covid. I didn't ask too much about it as I wasn't planning on building it.

[YXE]

Another chain restaurant will announce shorty that it's closing its doors for good on 8th street. I won't say more until it's public. This is not a local brand, but one that is part of a large conglomerate in a very prominent location on the street.

[prairieguy]

I'm guessing Milestones...but we will see.

[Dino35]

Originally Posted by YXE

Another chain restaurant will announce shorty that it's closing its doors for good on 8th street. I won't say more until it's public. This is not a local brand, but one that is part of a large conglomerate in a very prominent location on the street.

My guess is moxies. That’s a pretty prominent location.

[Ricopedra]

edit

[TheCricket]

Originally Posted by YXE

Another chain restaurant will announce shorty that it's closing its doors for good on 8th street. I won't say more until it's public. This is not a local brand, but one that is part of a large conglomerate in a very prominent location on the street.

My guess is that it's Moxies as Original Joe's has apparently been in the works to take over the property. Moxies has been some good eats!! Sad to see them go!

[prairieguy]

Not that I want to see any restaurant close, if one IS closing my preference would be Milestones over Moxies. I really like Moxies food and restaurant/lounge!! IMHO

[Crisis]

Moxie’s had an interior renovation / facelift planned for this past summer but Covid ended that. Would be a shame to see Moxie’s disappear but not a surprise.

[nook]

I kind of preferred Moxies when it was a family centred restaurant. I didn't go a whole lot after it changed to a "higher-end" experience.

[roryn1]

Hopefully they’re just going downtown.. We should hear who’s taking the prime spot at River Landing in Nutrien tower soon and moxie’s are in a lot of downtowns. I really want something local or a direct Cactus Club competitor like The Keg or Joey at Nutrien Tower though.

[Ricopedra]

edit

[ToonTownRob]

A few thoughts after having been away for a little bit to see if cooler heads might be allowed to prevail.

Having read through the last six or seven pages of this thread, I’m disappointed by the utter lack of decorum and respect for others to have opinions different from one’s own without feeling a need to attack them, or worse, acting on that desire.

I really don’t want to stir anything up but also believe that a few suggestions might be helpful.

Keep in mind that this is a forum, a place for discussion and sharing of ideas, and all contributions should be welcomed and encouraged (unless promoting hate and intolerance). Just because someone else’s ideas or opinions are different from yours, or even the majority, doesn’t make them wrong.

It is important to reread what people write before responding, as often first impressions are wrong and it’s important to respond to what other people actually say, not what your knee-jerk reactions assume was said.

A couple of examples: I mentioned a concern for the Knox tower blocking the view of the church, and a few posters jump to nimbyism, construction noise, rights to unimpeded views, etc.

Wow! A little thought before speaking please! I wasn’t talking about anyone’s view from the church, which is ridiculous as it has stained glass windows after all, you can’t see out from it; my post clearly refers to buildings like the Knox Church being able to be seen (viewed) and appreciated from the outside. There is no ‘backyard’ to be concerned with, as we all get to benefit from the views up and down Spadina. Everyone will lose the ability to see and appreciate the church, even those who might not appreciate it at all at the moment. Who knows? You may come to feel differently about that twenty years from now.

I saw no one complaining about construction noise, but people complaining about people complaining about construction noise! I bet on a construction forum most members like the sound of development, at least temporarily while anything takes shape.

The number of posts anyone has made does not determine the quality of their contributions, or any one contribution. Living life off the internet means much broader knowledge and experience, providing source material and a broader view from which to contribute online.

From a different forum on an unrelated subject, I learned a very good rule of thumb to help keep discussion productive and on track: If you must, attack the post; never the poster.

In other words, disagree with the idea, never the person. You don’t have to be disagreeable to disagree.

And now, back to topical discussion:

Being that the issue of the proximity of the tower to the Knox Church and the shadows it will throw on its windows, an effect only felt from the outside, I wonder if any thought has been given to artificially lighting up the windows from outside? It can certainly be done rather inexpensively now with LED lighting. That is one way to mitigate the tower’s proximity on the interior of the church.

With regard to what had been posted on Meridian’s website regarding the arrangement and acquisition of the land and the church’s perspective on it; Oh come on now! Does anyone expect that anything less than positivity on the subject is going to be shared on Meridian’s own website?

Would anyone expect it to say anything like any of the following; “The church originally wanted a five or six story development but this suits our needs better!” Or “Half the congregation hates what we’re doing, but as usual, a few kickbacks in the right place to the leadership and its full steam ahead!”

I’m not saying that anything untoward is going on. And I can’t say anything negative about Meridian as I have absolutely no knowledge about this either way. I expect it’s a fine company, and like their work. I don’t know any particulars here, or have any insider information, but neither do most of you. I just find it unlikely that the church would have unreserved support for a plan like this, no matter their financial state, or ultimate decision. Everyone sometimes experiences being forced to go along with decisions they may not like.

All I’m saying is that generally speaking, one should not expect open, unbiased information from the developer promoting any project. Let’s not be that naïve, okay?

[Echoes]

I really appreciate your posts on here ToonTownRob, so don't go away too often. You're a thoughtful poster.

A related aside: I think in the River Landing thread you posted a while back that Nutrien Tower's proportions were off, that it was too short for the size of its floorplates, to have the elegance and visual impact that the centerpiece of the project and our new tallest tower deserved to have. Or something like that.

You took some flak for daring speak ill of it. I reserved judgment until it topped out, but I can now say: You were right. It is still, without question, a positive and welcome addition to the cityscape and should be celebrated. But you were right.

It's possible to hold that multiple things are true at once, and people forget that there can be nuance to one's position on something. That a new development can be a great thing for Downtown by adding new residents/vibrancy/whatever, but that some aspect of its location/design/whatever can potentially be a detriment to something else that's already great. Both can be true at the same time.

It's also been suggested on here before that none of us have a right to critique the developments we discuss because we're not the ones putting up the millions to build them. This maybe last came up over Baydo Towers. Well, I can't get behind that at all. No, I'm not bankrolling anything, but buildings of this scale and prominence in their location within our community have a very public impact on the cityscape, the built environment that we live in and interact with. So at the very least, we can have our 2 cents about this or that about the design on an internet forum. Besides, the people putting up the millions are grown ups. They can handle some noise from a few people clacking away on their keyboards.

A few years ago, and a couple owners ago, the then-owner of Third Avenue United Church (a known quack) wanted to build a highrise suspended above the church, and released a Mickey Mouse rendering of it, as if it was something that had a remote chance of ever happening. Like, graphics worse than SimCity 2000. I laughed it off for what it was -- pure lunacy -- and a poster on here attacked me for being an anti-development NIMBY. Hahaha. I still chuckle about that. Funny thing, that poster is still around and was recently whining about unfair attacks on them.

What a place, the internet.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by ToonTownRob

Let’s not be that naïve, okay?

It's too bad that the church has financial concerns so it can't avoid selling its prime piece of real estate.

It's also too bad some developer isn't willing to pay full market value and build a two storey building next to the church and avoid casting shadows on the stained glass windows.

Unfortunately, it is naive to think the church can get full market value for this parcel of land without making some concessions.

In real estate development, no one does things out of the good of their hearts. Sure, some developers may make more of an effort to be good neighbours, but getting full value from a project is priority #1.

If Knox needs money, Meridian has money to give, and the value of the land necessitates a large development be built on that land then who are we to stand in the way of free market capitalism???

(For the record, if the public wants to critique the appearance of the building that's fair game. I just think painting Meridian as the big bad developer taking advantage of a down on its luck church is disingenuous. Market forces and cash flow needs are the real bullies here.)

[Roquentin]

Originally Posted by ToonTownRob

Keep in mind that this is a forum, a place for discussion and sharing of ideas, and all contributions should be welcomed and encouraged (unless promoting hate and intolerance). Just because someone else’s ideas or opinions are different from yours, or even the majority, doesn’t make them wrong.

I like to think that we all choose to be here because we want what’s best for Saskatoon and are interested in the city’s future. Call it a form of digital, engaged citizenry, which entails that, as citizens, we treat each other with respect. These are stressful, politically-charged times, and social distancing has certainly helped to make clear (to me, speaking personally) the value, as well as the limitations, of social media like this forum. I know that I’ve felt more on edge than usual over the past however many months. The world has so many problems. Maybe a forum like this is so satisfying, especially now, because it offers a sense that we can meaningfully interact with local issues, etc., and thereby have some control or agency over our world. Maybe “Saskatoon Construction” is a convenient metaphor and vehicle for that kind of personal (and social) empowerment and engagement. Alternately, maybe the forum is a worthy escape from larger cares. Whatever the case might be, in these days when maintaining one’s mental health should be a special priority, I too hope that this forum can continue to be welcoming and positive.

Originally Posted by ToonTownRob

It is important to reread what people write before responding, as often first impressions are wrong and it’s important to respond to what other people actually say, not what your knee-jerk reactions assume was said.

A couple of examples: I mentioned a concern for the Knox tower blocking the view of the church, and a few posters jump to nimbyism, construction noise, rights to unimpeded views, etc.

Wow! A little thought before speaking please!

I worry that you might be doing here what you seek to prevent on this forum. I’ve re-read the forum’s conversation about the Knox tower development, and I think that the rest of your post misrepresents that conversation in a number of ways. The use of quotations might have helped to clarify your interjections. In general, though, that conversation is more thoughtful and nuanced than you suggest. The conversation seems to consist mainly of people weighing the pros and cons of the development, and then articulating their priorities. If someone disagrees with you, that doesn’t mean that they are being unduly impulsive with their replies, or that they are naive and haven’t thought things through. In an earlier post, you write the following:

Originally Posted by ToonTownRob

It strikes me as odd how often some people seem driven to form their opinions based on ideologies rather than looking at each opportunity based on its individual merits, with an understanding and acceptance that there is lots of grey in the world, and that’s okay. It is rare that anything is rightly just black or white.

I’m not sure that I see anyone doing that in the Knox tower conversation except, perhaps, you. You say that you hate the location of this proposed development, going so far as to say that this tower would have “the legacy of being the building that destroyed the Knox’s place in Saskatoon’s built environment.” Histrionics aside, your argument that the tower would partially block views of the church is true; from certain angles, it would. That’s worth considering, and others have brought it up too. Whether or not the project is aesthetically pleasing is entirely subjective, though. For my part, I think that juxtapositions of architectural styles can be beautiful and that the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts. The proposal includes space for a bistro between the two churches, and you’d definitely find me there enjoying the scenery. In any case, I would love to see more renderings of the proposal to get a better sense of the project’s aesthetics in the context of its surroundings.

However, your posts have mainly focused on aesthetic concerns. You suggest that on this forum we should focus on and debate ideas (i.e. rather than make things personal). Again, beauty is subjective. Concern about an obscured view of the church is not really an idea that can be meaningfully debated. Likewise, you’ve reminded me of your last post on this development, which included the following musings on the relationship of Meridian and the church:

Originally Posted by ToonTownRob

Unless the Knox site is a sweetheart of a deal because the church is desperate, but if that’s the case, a developer taking advantage of a church’s desperation (wow, that would be a news shattering headline wouldn’t it?) is in itself a shame.

As much as I want to believe that you are addressing this topic in good faith and not being entirely driven by your passionate dislike of the proposal’s location, I find rhetoric like this to be so distasteful. Again, you’ve asked us to “attack the post, never the poster,” but this pernicious narrative of yours (which, by the way, creeps again into the end of your most recent post) is completely fictitious unless you have evidence to support it. There’s nothing here to “attack” or debate because this is baseless speculation, so you shouldn’t be surprised when saying unscrupulous things like this turns the attention onto you, personally. I really don’t care to make things personal --- again, I think we’re all here because we care about the city, and “Saskatoon Construction” is all I care about --- but this is a forum for debate, and your “butter won’t melt in my mouth” approach seems insincere.

Having said that, what are the odds that this thing actually gets built? The church wants it. Meridian wants it. Most of us want it. I’m sure the city wouldn’t mind making some money from that land. I’d expect it to catch the attention of a lot of prospective renters. And yet....... this is such a slow city for things like this. Maybe after all is said and done, our views of the church will remain unobstructed. That is, maybe we’ll have another Third Avenue Church to look at: beautiful and endangered. Is that really what we want? Is that a month-old conversation that we really need to dust off and reopen?

[Ricopedra]

edit

[prairieguy]

If you have never been inside 3rd Ave United Church, check out the virtual tour. Click on one of the links for interior view. It's architecture is spectacular inside and the acoustics are amazing. I am not a "church goer". but have been in this church for performances and it is pretty spectacular!

https://www.cyark.org/projects/third...h/virtual-tour

I do hope it can be repurposed as a special event or concert hall of some kind. Need someone with very deep pockets that wants it to be their legacy to community!!

[Echoes]

Originally Posted by Roquentin

Having said that, what are the odds that this thing actually gets built? The church wants it. Meridian wants it. Most of us want it. I’m sure the city wouldn’t mind making some money from that land. I’d expect it to catch the attention of a lot of prospective buyers. And yet....... this is such a slow city for things like this.

The project is rental, not condo. So no pre-sale success to rely on. If Meridian has brought the project to this point, my guess is that they see the rental market being lucrative enough that they intend to proceed.

[Wormo]

Just to add some perspective to the Meridian apartment project on Spadina, here's a letter from the Knox United congregation to the Heritage Advisory Committee in support of the project.


source: Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee agenda Nov 17, 2020

Hopefully a project of this sort will secure the long-term viability of the church and its role in the community. I think the angle and setback of the tower from Spadina will preserve most of the sightlines of both churches without being unnaturally far from the street. It certainly beats the current parking lot, in my opinion. The rows of cars and the "Park all day $8.00" signs aren't the most inspiring foreground. There are always going to be pros and cons to any development, but the style looks inspired, the added density and amenities are appreciated in the northeast end of downtown, and it seems it will genuinely benefit the church and its congregation as well. Hard to see too much of a downside here. With regard to the shadows cast over the church, keep in mind that that segment of Spadina runs Northeast-Southwest. Since solar noon is around 1:00pm, the Spadina-facing façade of the church and its front yard won't be shadowed until mid-afternoon anyway. Still, it's a bit of a sacrifice, but I don't think the consequences are as dire as some might imagine. As someone who walks in the area on an almost daily basis on both sides of the river, I can't see it detracting much from the views of either church. I'm curious to actually see some proper public renderings, as the ones we've seen are obviously still in development and do not show details or finishes.

I'm glad they're going to have café space on the ground floor. I find the entire northeast downtown residential area to be very lacking in street-level activity, which in my opinion is one of the area's greatest downsides. I think in the future there should be a real emphasis on a mix of uses at ground level, which luckily seems to be the trend in these newer projects. Nothing better than going downstairs and grabbing a coffee, or a sandwich, or even a pint or a cocktail or two. Street activity really helps make an area feel safer, too. As has been mentioned, more eyes on the street can only help reduce property crime.

In other news, once again mining the treasure chest that is the Development Appeals Board agendas, there seem to be a couple new infill projects in the works. You can check them out here, in the attachments for the December 1st meeting.

The first project is a small one, a 5 storey 8 unit building across from Rotary Park at 212 Sask Crescent East.

The second is on Jackson Ave (south of the Cumberland Sobeys) on the site of the former Horizon Seminary. It's a project by Span West, the developer responsible for The Grove which was announced quite recently. 4 storeys, 116 units. Based on their past projects I wouldn't expect anything incredible, but looks like aodbt is involved so I won't judge it until I see it. At least the parking is a mix of underground and surface, not above ground structured, so it should have a better street presence than The Grove. Minimal renderings in the appeal aside from floorplans, but if you want to check it out, look at attachment R.1 - 025. At the very least, it's a good increase of density a block away from the future BRT line. For that reason, I suspect it'll pass the appeal without much issue, as the increased gross floor space ratio and reduced parking based on current requirements align quite well with the corridor growth plan. Nobody wants to deal with rezoning if they can avoid it, haha.

[roryn1]

ooo coffee proposed there, coffee proposed at the new Baydo Tower, coffee proposed at the new library, coffee at the new Sparrow Coffee, coffee at the new Starbucks on 25th and 2nd. Coffee for all of north downtown!