Saskatoon Construction III

[roryn1]

Well said Roquentin. This area is going to be a lot more lively with these new towers which help (but not solve) the:
1. sketchy uneasiness being around individuals that are high on drugs that could be getting assistance from Prairie Harm Reduction if the Sask Party opened their eyes and help fund them - starting ten years ago.
2. crime from individuals that are desperate and not getting the help they need from our provincial social services program left abandoned by Sask Party

Those two concerns are why myself and anyone I know selling condos in my building are leaving this area.

A building like this will make this side of the river more resident friendly like on the direct other side of the river.

Think about those two main drivers this election. I’m not even in love with the NDP, but god damn has Sask Party been bad for our downtown over the last decade. I’m like a republican against Trump, but a Conservative Against Sask Party...

[roryn1]

Viterra announced the construction of a grain elevator in Biggar - not entirely relevant here, but i think that amount of concrete is similar to a tower? Which should keep concrete prices cheaper/stable in the area. I think that’s a huge incentivizer for out of town prospective developers.

[SaskScraper]

Originally Posted by Roquentin

The church doesn't own that property (Ukrainian Museum of Canada), though. That is not a minor detail. Something else will eventually be built there, and that will be another conversation.

Frankly, I think that this strip badly needs the residential density. That part of the park across the street has gotten really fucking weird and drugged out lately. There are always syringes around the gazebo and the landscaping there. At night, the street is sketchy and barren. The churches are dead at night (and often during the day) and don't provide the eyes on the street that this development would. Also, it would be such a beautiful place to live --- this is the kind of development that Saskatoon's downtown needs in order to remain an attractive place to live, with a variety of new housing options.

Anyway, as others have noted too, I think the cautionary tale here is the Third Avenue United Church. That church would have loved to have had a parking lot to sell, even if it meant less sunlight on their windows or less visibility from the road (what an argument, ha, in light of the many, far greater benefits of projects like this to the city). I don't know anything about the Knox Church's finances, but buildings like that are damn expensive. This development could provide for the Church's long-term financial stability like nothing else (beyond a thriving congregation). To the extent that aesthetics matter, imagine being on this street twenty years from now. Would you rather see a bustling, attractive highrise beside the Knox Church, or would you prefer to see the current decrepit parking lot that the Church can't afford to pave beside the church itself, perhaps in a situation echoing that of the Third Avenue Church (which has flirted with the wrecking ball)? But heavens (sorry), think of the stained-glass windows!

Having said that, this development needs to be held to the highest standards. If Baydo were the developers here, that would be scarier than a thousand Halloweens. Meridian are far more capable, but this is still ambitious for them. A grander Escala would be just fine though.

Originally Posted by roryn1

Well said Roquentin. This area is going to be a lot more lively with these new towers which help (but not solve) the:
1. sketchy uneasiness being around individuals that are high on drugs...
2. crime from individuals that are desperate and not getting the help they need...

I'll third that motion, well stated Roquentin, I was directly think of 3rd Ave United, when reading comments of others having reservations about 'will the stained glass get the needed sunshine'. All I could think of is if the Knox Church isn't able to pay the bills then I think there are a few more urgent things the church needs to think about than the required amount of sunlight glinting off their windows.

Also congratulations to Roguentin to making into the triple digit amount of posts on Skyscraperpage forum! and all without any unseemly personal attacks on other posters.
That seems to be a major feat for Saskatoon posters in particular, considering the derogatory remarks and online trolling that a couple have resorted to on the previous page before they even get a few dozen posts under their belt on this forum. Those remarks will be something those posters will always be aligned with from here on in on SSP.

[phone]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

Those remarks will be something those posters will always be aligned with from here on in on SSP.

Hows the weather in Maple Creek today?

[EarlyByrdProductions]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

https://www.saskatoon.ca/sites/defau...files_2019.pdf

That link will take you to the Neighbourhood Profiles publication that shows population, total area, and park space broken down by neighbourhoods.

It also shows Saskatoon's total numbers. Looks like Saskatoon as a whole is 10.98% parks.

Great stats! Thank you for sharing. I'll take 11% parks in the entire city as something to be proud of

[Oiler]

Anyone know anything about the Library Project? According to their schedule they would have shortlisted architects by this time. It would be interesting to know who's is in the running. I hope some the is at least some local representation in there!

[Ricopedra]

edit

[ToonTownRob]

Originally Posted by Roquentin

The church doesn't own that property, though. That is not a minor detail.

No, but it is, at least as far as this discussion goes, which is about design, architecture and the built environment.

Meridian doesn’t own the Knox site either, so if Meridian wants to build a tower like this, why not consider or choose the other site?

I’m certainly not privilege to any information about the relationship and/or deal between Meridian and Knox, and obviously that is part of the equation, but assuming the land values would be similar, why not do one as opposed to the other?

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.

Unlike others, I don’t have anything against parking lots in general, particularly when they provide breathing room around a grand structure like the Knox. I just, like many others, hate their prevalence in downtown Saskatoon for the decay and lack of development they represent.

I’m not offended by this space in downtown Saskatoon, and perceive it as part of the transition between the open riverbank and the density (boy, using THAT term loosely) beyond.

I concur with the comments about the undesirables in the park. My wife and I have walked by this site almost every day for the last five years, and I no longer feel safe in the area at night. Some additional residential would be a great plus for the area.

[roryn1]

Not directly over there, but I was taking my recycling out just north of there near 6th Ave late at night the other day and this guy in a hoodie coming down the alley was slowing down the closer I got to the recycling bin... I was so sketched out.

TURNS OUT he opened the recycling lid for me and was just trying to HELP. I hate that I feel scared of people downtown now to the point that these types of situations cause me serious anxiety and make me want to move away from downtown.

I DIDN’T feel this way before.

I used to have faith in all of them but too many unpredictable souls with schizophrenia fell between our provincial government’s broken social services programming.

Most of them just need the social services and programming they deserve - a lot of that hasn’t grown in size or has actually been cut over the last ten years. I grew up with a friend that would be in this position and without well off parents he’d be on the streets like these people. Remember who cut these programs and didn’t let these services grow to what we needed over the past decade. The province is the one responsible for these types of services around mental health. booooo Sask Party for both mental health initiatives towards rural folk and for the folk moving downtown with schizophrenia and other extremely serious mental health issues.

Since the government doesn’t support them the way they should, all we can do is support services downtown. Max your charitable tax contribution out on downtown mental health services like United Way, Lighthouse, Prairie Harm Reduction, etc... all of these services that are the backbone of keeping people in our downtown.

These services are more important towards keeping our downtown flourishing than anything oil and gas has done for Saskatoon. Remember that this election.

[nook]

I think the city has outgrown the cloverleaf overpass at circle and highway 11. There's too much traffic, and it's going to fast to have a yield sign on the entrance from highway 11 to circle drive (towards lakeridge/costco.) Most people treat it as a merge lane, but it's a super short merge lane, then. Too many cars going in/out at varying speeds.

Maybe it's just me, but that seems like a disaster waiting to happen.

I know they don't plan on touching that overpass for another 10-15 years, but maybe it's time to push that project up a bit. Especially with the new construction going on around the Meadow's Market area.

[alt_center]

Originally Posted by nook

I think the city has outgrown the cloverleaf overpass at circle and highway 11. There's too much traffic, and it's going to fast to have a yield sign on the entrance from highway 11 to circle drive (towards lakeridge/costco.) Most people treat it as a merge lane, but it's a super short merge lane, then. Too many cars going in/out at varying speeds.

Maybe it's just me, but that seems like a disaster waiting to happen.

I know they don't plan on touching that overpass for another 10-15 years, but maybe it's time to push that project up a bit. Especially with the new construction going on around the Meadow's Market area.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saska...ange-1.4539782

I'm not saying the cloverleaf is not a problem, but this type of sprawl supporting infrastructure is what causes property tax increases to outpace inflation year after year after year. Maybe the estimated $280,000,000 cost for a SINGLE interchange would be better spent on a BRT, or relocating rail lines, or developing the city yards. Just sayin'

(this discussion probably belongs in the Saskatoon Roads and Infrastructure thread).

[roryn1]

Originally Posted by alt_center

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saska...ange-1.4539782

I'm not saying the cloverleaf is not a problem, but this type of sprawl supporting infrastructure is what causes property tax increases to outpace inflation year after year after year. Maybe the estimated $280,000,000 cost for a SINGLE interchange would be better spent on a BRT, or relocating rail lines, or developing the city yards. Just sayin'

(this discussion probably belongs in the Saskatoon Roads and Infrastructure thread).

I agree, but unfortunately I don’t see the Costco or highway 16 to Yorkton/Lanigan Potash, etc... crew will ever be taking BRT, so we will probably need both. Maybe if Costco would stop building in the middle of nowhere! That has dramatically changed the traffic on that highway as I used to take it out of town weekly and it is so different now - solely because of Costco. Opening up the road to costco on the other side is the only cost effective solution, but I can see this cheap suburban area forcing the city to spend the quarter million on the interchange faster than expected. I’m currently living in California and there’s a Walmart AND costco right in the center of the tiny city I’m in. It’s possible to have costco in the center of a city! We need to stop bowing down to these grocers. Hopefully Amazon shakes up the Costco model and reduces traffic down that road with a physical warehouse in the city soon. I’ve never used mobile delivery, but my renter in my downtown condo just started using it! They love it.

[Roquentin]

Originally Posted by ToonTownRob

No, but it is, at least as far as this discussion goes, which is about design, architecture and the built environment.

Do you think that this is really just a discussion about design, architecture, and the built environment though? Why? Respectfully, this conversation is never going to be limited to your personal, hyperbolic interest in aesthetics. Anyway, your post here certainly veers into the real estate and business side of things. Is that just bad faith on your part? I'd suggest that property ownership shouldn't be (and can't be) divorced from those other kinds of considerations; it is a fundamental facet of any real estate development.

Originally Posted by ToonTownRob

Meridian doesn’t own the Knox site either, so if Meridian wants to build a tower like this, why not consider or choose the other site?

I’m certainly not privilege to any information about the relationship and/or deal between Meridian and Knox, and obviously that is part of the equation, but assuming the land values would be similar, why not do one as opposed to the other?

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.

I'd be surprised if Meridian (and every other urban developer in town) hasn't given at least a passing thought to the museum site, though this is already an ambitious proposal for them, and they've clearly put time and resources into their work. Speculations about suddenly dropping one proposal and magically creating another are, frankly, out of touch with reality. As far as I know, the Church has had a memorandum of agreement and understanding with Meridian dating back to 2014, before the museum property came up for sale. With such a longstanding and apparently positive business relationship, wouldn't it stand to reason that both parties would be interested in continuing to work on their plans together for their mutual benefit? To me, that sounds like the ideal basis of a respectful development, especially in a sensitive context like this. Inventing a "sweetheart of a deal," a desperate Church, and a predatory developer to fit your distaste for this proposal is shameful unless you have anything to support that narrative. Maybe Meridian will develop both sites, or one, or neither, but I'm certainly not going to start second-guessing the Church or Meridian based on half-cocked assumptions and speculations, especially when they seem to stem from a prevailing interest in sunshine on pretty windows and views from the road over all else.

[prairieguy]

Can someone please repost pdf document for Meridian Know Tower. I can't seem to open the original posting.

thanks

[canuck10]

Originally Posted by prairieguy

Can someone please repost pdf document for Meridian Know Tower. I can't seem to open the original posting.

thanks

The original link has changed to this.

A new document has been added.

And comments urging the appeal board to deny the application have been submitted by a neighbour.

[roryn1]

so selfish from that nimby - “THIS VIEW IS MINE” lol how dare parking lots become developed!

[alt_center]

I have a lot of sympathy for someone losing a view like that. All I need to do is put myself in that person's position and think about how I would feel.

Having said that, I would vote to approve the appeal. I don't think the deficiencies are at all significant, and all things considered it would be a tremendous improvement to our downtown.

[Crisis]

I can certainly sympathize with someone who is going to lose their river view, but the reality of the situation is that, expect in rare circumstances, your view is not guaranteed forever.

Here is Saskatoon, it's happened on the east side of the River near Broadway when River Walk (green glass) was built in front of Bridgewater (blue glass). While those on the upper floors of Bridgewater retained most of their view, those on the lower floors lost a big chunk of theirs. Similarly, the lot between the Renaissance Condos and the north end of the Broadway Bridge also has room for a tower that would eliminate much of the river view for many of the south facing units in the Renaissance.

In bigger cities, where they seem to be constantly building into the water to create new waterfront properties, this is a pretty regular occurrence. Just something that we flatlanders don't typically have to deal with.

[roryn1]

Let’s be clear they’re not losing their whole river view, they’ll just have to bend their head outside their balcony to see a ton of the river - of which they’re guaranteed that view forever. They’re also now guaranteed a beautiful glass reflective building in front of them. This won’t at all affect their condo value. I know someone living on the 2nd floor of Park Avenue facing Baydo Towers - now that’s a different story

IM losing a ton of my north end view from uglybarfy Baydo towers and no part of me is sad about it because the best people downtown don’t care about the views but are here for the closeness of amenities, services, and overall entertainment of the downtown. I’m excited for the new friends because i’m LOSING FRIENDS DOWNTOWN to the burbs, over crime. A lawyer family, and a extremely talented graphic designer family - both key people that we shouldn’t lose to the suburbs.

I think more about how sad that TWO units of my close friends are leaving downtown this fall over all of the crime physically directly and indirectly mentally impacting them. Friends leaving downtown to the suburbs over our crime is what that nimby should be mad about but probably voted Sask Party for lower taxes than fixing our short term services.

Let me be clear - they are both two individuals leaving downtown over the crime of downtown. This issue is a crisis. This is our biggest issue on our thread, and Social Services Minister Paul Merriman said “i have been kind of out of the loop the last month during the election” over our social issues downtown during a CBC interview on election night. ( pretty sure if we responded like that regarding a main issue in our jobs we’d get fired?)
This is who we re-elected to coordinate the issues of our downtown - a clown - let’s make sure we are hard on this lazy clown because he is why people are leaving downtown.

[Ricopedra]

edit