Saskatoon Construction III

[asdfgh]

Originally Posted by The S'toon Goon

And here come the nimbys

https://saskatoon.ctvnews.ca/saskato...ista-1.6369131

Great reminder to write your Councillor encouraging them to support this application. It looks like it's too late to send a letter to city council itself to have it on the agenda, but you can still write directly to your councillor.

Looks like there are few letter on the council agenda already --> https://pub-saskatoon.escribemeeting...ab=attachments

[FarmerHaight]

“Clearly, you can’t have massive developments like this without problems. It calls for a little more planning than this.”

In Buena Vista, Thorinson says the residents he’s speaking to feel like the building is a done deal, no matter how they feel about it.

Clearly this concerned citizen has no idea what a massive development is. Hint: 90 units and six stories isn't that.

And I'm glad the residents feel that way. Private property owners own their land and not the land beside theirs. Public consultation is important, but unless Thorinson would allow his neighbours to veto his desire to paint his fence or put in a swimming pool or rip up his front lawn to plant a garden, I don't think low-rise condos on arterial streets should be blocked by neighbours either.

[Roquentin]

Originally Posted by The S'toon Goon

And here come the nimbys

https://saskatoon.ctvnews.ca/saskato...ista-1.6369131

This is essentially how I expect any and all proposed developments to be reported on by the media. Drumming up controversy boosts their readership/viewership, even if the source of that controversy is a single, out-of-touch old man whose arguments fall apart under any real scrutiny. A story like "Apartments will bring new amenities to Buena Vista" wouldn't grab readers like the idea of a "Saskatoon man fighting [the] city." Both Global and CTV decided to put this guy into the spotlight, and people like him will always pop up whenever change of any kind is proposed. Global and CTV don't care about whether this development, or any other, is built or not --- they only care about the spin they can put on it to get attention and impress the advertisers they shill for.

In the end, this is a dumbing down of public discourse, and it has a variety of negative consequences. Just look at how many people are now broadly "anti-library," for example. The media plays people like suckers, because it's easier to make money by making people mad than it is to produce and sell real journalism. It's a pernicious formula.

[Crisis]

Originally Posted by Roquentin

In the end, this is a dumbing down of public discourse, and it has a variety of negative consequences. Just look at how many people are now broadly "anti-library," for example. The media plays people like suckers, because it's easier to make money by making people mad than it is to produce and sell real journalism. It's a pernicious formula.

Get ready for a bunch more people to be "anti-library". Here's budget info from the Library's "Questions about the new Central Library's Cost & Funding plan published in 2020:
https://saskatooncentrallibrary.ca/q...-funding-plan/

Budget

The project budget is $134 million. The total project budget crosses multiple budget years, $132.7 million in 2019 and $1.3 million in prior years.

The budget includes all project costs:

Land $ 9,000,000
Professional Services & Consultants $ 12,600,000
Construction & Site Preparation $ 73,300,000
Furniture & Equipment $ 9,600,000
Permits, Fees & Other $ 1,300,000
Public Art & Public Engagement $ 1,300,000
Insurance $ 500,000
Escalation Allowance (Inflation) $ 3,000,000
Tax $ 7,000,000
Contingency $ 16,400,000

A letter to the Editor from two of the Library Board members published in the S-P in February 2023 responding to a Phil Tank article gives a bit of an update on the status of the budget:

This letter is to correct misinformation included in Phil Tank’s recent article titled “Saskatoon library budget claims still sound implausible” (SP, Feb. 10).


The 2019 new central library business case proposed a 149,000-square-foot library with a budget of $154 million and a request to borrow $87.5 million. Council approved $67.5 million in borrowing.

Tank’s article claims this decrease in borrowing removed “almost all of the contingency fund.” This is incorrect. The project’s scope was reduced to 136,000 square feet to align with a $134-million budget.

The revised budget included $73.3 million for construction, a $3-million escalation allowance and $16.4 million in contingency.

Due to market conditions, projected construction costs increased to $79.4 million. The Saskatoon Public Library (SPL) has absorbed the approximately $6-million cost increase by applying the $3 million earmarked for escalation and reallocating cost savings realized in other budget areas without increasing the project budget.

The construction contingency remains untouched.

SPL has worked with two independent cost consultants. Following each design phase, both consultants received architectural drawings and provided cost estimates. If an estimate exceeded the budget, the design was modified to align with the budget before proceeding.

There have been four cost estimates to date and one more will occur before the construction contract is tendered. SPL has mitigated cost increases thus far, but recognizes there are forces beyond our control which may impact the budget as the project progresses.

As new and updated cost information is available, SPL will provide updates at saskatooncentrallibrary.ca/funding-plan.

The updated $79.4M figure corresponds with what was published in the RFQ for General Contractor wishing to be short-listed for the tender. Add in $16.4M for construction contingency and you get $95.8M.

That in itself is likely enough to irritate many taxpayers, and I acknowledge that many would be opposed to a new library regardless of cost. However, the consensus of most who looked through the Design Report issued with the RFQ is that the tendered prices will be well in excess of $100M. Tenders are expected to be issued in May and close in June, so I guess we'll find out in a couple of months. But, if prices come in at $125M, I'll be curious to see what becomes of the project.

[Roquentin]

Originally Posted by Crisis

I acknowledge that many would be opposed to a new library regardless of cost.

I should have been clearer, but that's what I meant by being "broadly 'anti-library.'" If the library were budgeted to cost $40M, or $60M, or $80M, or $100M, or $120M, lots of people would respond in exactly the same way: "That's too much; don't build it." I believe that lack of critical thinking is fostered in part by the media. My point was more about the media than the library --- or any specific development proposal, including the one on Broadway. Global, CTV, the Star Phoenix, etc. have no reason not to dial up the rhetoric and foster divisiveness and controversy --- they make money by doing so. It's a reductive, formulaic approach that hampers better dialogue about the issues raised by any proposed development. And that's the rub --- by publicizing every proposal as a fight between those who are for it and those who are against it, the business of achieving an informed, workable consensus is impaired.

The CTV article about the Broadway proposal is a good example of this. The article is framed around the opposition of one man to the project. He claims that the project will create "traffic chaos" and that traffic and parking studies are needed. Then the article notes that the city conducted a traffic review that indicated that the development's impact wouldn't be substantial enough to warrant a full assessment. So in essence, the real story here is that the proposed development won't generate more traffic than the area has been built to handle. Besides ourselves here, how many people would read that article? That article would tell a humble story about the city functioning effectively to permit appropriate in-fill developments. What political sentiments would that article elicit --- civic confidence, political optimism, even if only on a small scale? Instead, we get the drama of a man who is fighting with the city, battling against foes both real and imagined, and only trying to do what he thinks is right in a dangerous and alienating world, lol. The real story here is one of a city functioning properly, but the article diverts our attention away from that because it is framed around the comic misadventures of this one crank in an effort to drive readership and make more money from advertisers. Where is the civic responsibility in that? What are the consequences --- in terms of local politics or development, say --- of repeating that rhetorical formula ad nauseam?

Anyway anyway, bugs me, that's all.

[Echoes]

Originally Posted by Roquentin

This is essentially how I expect any and all proposed developments to be reported on by the media. Drumming up controversy boosts their readership/viewership, even if the source of that controversy is a single, out-of-touch old man whose arguments fall apart under any real scrutiny. A story like "Apartments will bring new amenities to Buena Vista" wouldn't grab readers like the idea of a "Saskatoon man fighting [the] city." Both Global and CTV decided to put this guy into the spotlight, and people like him will always pop up whenever change of any kind is proposed. Global and CTV don't care about whether this development, or any other, is built or not --- they only care about the spin they can put on it to get attention and impress the advertisers they shill for.

In the end, this is a dumbing down of public discourse, and it has a variety of negative consequences. Just look at how many people are now broadly "anti-library," for example. The media plays people like suckers, because it's easier to make money by making people mad than it is to produce and sell real journalism. It's a pernicious formula.

In a pleasantly surprising move, Global News has run a story of a resident's perspective from the "other side":

‘Fear of change’: Buena Vista resident responds to those opposing apartments

[Roquentin]

Originally Posted by Echoes

In a pleasantly surprising move, Global News has run a story of a resident's perspective from the "other side":

‘Fear of change’: Buena Vista resident responds to those opposing apartments

Both sides of the "controversy" --- maybe I spoke too soon lol! At the very least, it's nice to see some YIMBY representation. It is a little funny though to see this proposal receive so much attention when similar-ish apartments are going up in Evergreen like dandelions without a peep, lol. Being an infill developer in this town must require a thick skin! It will be really nice when all the corridor plans are in place across the city and proposals like this can go forward without facing the full brunt of the rezoning preamble.

By the way, was the meeting tonight open to the public? If so, did anyone attend?

[Echoes]

Based on some twitter chatter that I saw, the rezoning was approved.

[Roquentin]

Originally Posted by Echoes

Based on some twitter chatter that I saw, the rezoning was approved.

kickass

[phone]

Who is this Bertrand Bartake fellow, and where are his posts

[Roquentin]

https://thestarphoenix.com/news/loca...do-development

Unanimous approval --- very nice

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by phone

Who is this Bertrand Bartake fellow, and where are his posts

He seems like a great fit for urbanist forums everywhere

[Echoes]

Originally Posted by phone

Who is this Bertrand Bartake fellow, and where are his posts

https://twitter.com/bertrand_sk

[Saskabusher]

Originally Posted by Roquentin

https://thestarphoenix.com/news/loca...do-development

Unanimous approval --- very nice

It's approved! I like the nimby concerns. traffic will be crazy on trash days, lord! haha. I just hope this isn't another, 'get the approval and try to sell the land/plans to someone else' kinda deal, like the other 6floor one behind the lost grocery store... rip... tear in my eye. I liked shopping there on Broadway in my Nutana days.... Anyway if everything proposed for Broadway actually gets built, this area will be awesome! List: this 6floor on 8th/7th; the other 6 floor condo on main; the 17story top o' the bridge; the 8 story office right beside it, and whatever might happen with the grocery store site. If you build it, they will come!

[phone]

Sask Govt announced that the new urgent care site will be built on the Pleasant Hill School site:

https://www.ckom.com/2023/04/28/sask...auls-hospital/

Pleasant Hill School has a unique style compared to any other elementary school in the city and I will be sad to see it go. Also sad for the students in the area who will be forced to travel a greater distance to get to school. I would imagine that the increased distance could put downward pressure on attendance.

That said, accepting the school's now-settled certain doom, this is among the best re-uses for the site that I think anyone could have hoped for. The site will remain busy, play a key role in our ailing healthcare system, and will attract people from around the city.

In an ideal world I would have liked to have seen the existing building retained and incorporated into the new project, like how the former Wilson School was incorporated into an office project. But I understand that it likely would have been cost prohibitive to proceed that route, especially considering the specialized requirements for an urgent care centre. I just hope that the building will be better looking than the ugly-as-sin value-engineered P3 butt-wipings of public buildings that the province seems ever eager to fart out these days.

Still, on the whole I'd call this very good news.

Edit: considering the renderings of the Saskatoon urgent care centre's sister project in Regina, I'd say my architectural concerns are well-founded: https://www.saskatchewan.ca/-/media/...renderings.pdf

[Saskabusher]

Now's the time to bomb them with your desire to keep heritage alive. Good luck!

[saskatoonborn]

Just a heads up for those who care but there is a survey on the entertainment district on the city of Saskatoon website. Survey is open until the 18th of May.

https://www.saskatoon.ca/engage/down...nment-district

If you cant think of a big feature or centerpiece idea feel free to use my indoor/semi indoor 4 season green space idea haha.

[Crisis]

Originally Posted by phone

Sask Govt announced that the new urgent care site will be built on the Pleasant Hill School site:

Edit: considering the renderings of the Saskatoon urgent care centre's sister project in Regina, I'd say my architectural concerns are well-founded: https://www.saskatchewan.ca/-/media/...renderings.pdf

Yowsa! That’s a pretty basic looking building.

In SHA’s defence, the services provided are more important than what the building looks like. And pretty buildings do cost more money.

[4LSaskatoon]

Originally Posted by saskatoonborn

Just a heads up for those who care but there is a survey on the entertainment district on the city of Saskatoon website. Survey is open until the 18th of May.

https://www.saskatoon.ca/engage/down...nment-district

If you cant think of a big feature or centerpiece idea feel free to use my indoor/semi indoor 4 season green space idea haha.

Thanks for posting the survey. I have done the survey, and also suggested a 4 season greenspace/winter space.. in a huge skywalk between the Performing Arts center and Arena... Make the area useable all year round! (Tim Hortons?) multi level parkade with smaller sky walks directed to Performing Arts Center, Convention center, and main Sky walk to Arena.
Also suggested an ebike, bike, scooter, etc secure cage with charging outlets.
Also like the idea of different approaches for different modes of transportation.. eg Idylwyld for vehicles, 1st Ave for BRT, under skywalk for ebike,etc cages, covered Access transit on 22nd under skywalk..
(I know. But a person could dream...lol)

[phone]

Originally Posted by Crisis

Yowsa! That’s a pretty basic looking building.

In SHA’s defence, the services provided are more important than what the building looks like. And pretty buildings do cost more money.

I'd absolutely rather have an ugly urgent care centre than no urgent care centre, but I sincerely wish that the provincial government took the position that investments in the public realm are worth the extra expenditure for their own sake. Even modest accents or exterior treatments could go a long way to change what is essentially a basic box to something that looks like an inviting public space. I don't think spending an extra $200k on a bit of detailing is too much to ask in the grander scheme of the provincial budget, especially when we are headed back to surplus.