Regina Construction IV

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by The mayor

There is something rotting in the state of city hall there is no way in Hell that no proposals where not made for the downtown some one is obviously paying someone to keep development out of the core ,cities with ten thousand people get more building done , for ten years no proposals I think not , when a proposal comes in to the city who sees it first , they are the ones

What do you think would have been proposed? There is no market for office, bricks and mortar retail is dead plus you had Harvard's Shoppes on Hamilton and the giant Sears store added to inventory. Also H&M got built. There is no market for downtown condos. Hotels have been suffering low occupancy for years. What is left? Rental apartments? I do not think there is much demand for these downtown either.

[Newstart]

Originally Posted by Stormer

What do you think would have been proposed? There is no market for office, bricks and mortar retail is dead plus you had Harvard's Shoppes on Hamilton and the giant Sears store added to inventory. Also H&M got built. There is no market for downtown condos. Hotels have been suffering low occupancy for years. What is left? Rental apartments? I do not think there is much demand for these downtown either.

I agree with everything on the commercial side. I agree with minimal to no market for Condos, however Regina has never had a proper Condo Tower built, the last two, 10 years ago aren't exactly architectural experiences, the construction process was a gong show.

but not market for downtown/urban rental? It would put Regina as the only City in Canada that does not have a market for urban rental. It would put it as one of the only cities in North America that would not have a market for urban housing.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by Newstart

I agree with everything on the commercial side. I agree with minimal to no market for Condos, however Regina has never had a proper Condo Tower built, the last two, 10 years ago aren't exactly architectural experiences, the construction process was a gong show.

but not market for downtown/urban rental? It would put Regina as the only City in Canada that does not have a market for urban rental. It would put it as one of the only cities in North America that would not have a market for urban housing.

I am not saying there is no market for downtown rentals, just that there is not sufficient demand to justify a new build. The rent one would have to charge to make a fair return after construction costs, interest, taxes, etc. is just not in market. The new proposal near the General Hospital likely benefits from lower land costs and taxes compared to downtown.

[The mayor]

https://leaderpost.com/news/local-ne...e-regina-lands
RM of Sherwood looks to acquire Regina lands
The proposed transfer of 24.1 acres is part of an MOU signed between the RM of Sherwood and the City of Regina
According to documents before committee, the RM of Sherwood is looking to acquire 24.1 acres of land from the city. Two companies, Brandt Industries and MF Enterprises have businesses on the lands adjacent to the proposed sites of annexation, and initiated the request for lands. Both businesses operate within the RM currently.
According to the documents contained within the agenda documents, the “City and RM have received letters of support for the boundary alteration from all impacted landowners and businesses.”

In that same document, city administration writes the expansion “of these businesses is expected to result in significant capital investments, as well as employment growth both in short-term construction jobs and long-term operations.”

[blacktrojan3921]

They should really put the condition that these companies also invest in downtown, like office space, if the land transfer is to be approved.

[one_brick_at_a_time]

Originally Posted by blacktrojan3921

They should really put the condition that these companies also invest in downtown, like office space, if the land transfer is to be approved.

Agreed.

[The mayor]

https://regina.ctvnews.ca/fitness-cl...ding-1.6254515
Fitness club set to open at former YMCA building
Published Jan. 31, 2023 7:44 p.m. ET
The former YMCA building is again becoming a hub of activity downtown. Last week, a temporary emergency shelter moved into the vacant facility. On Wednesday, a fitness club will open for business under private ownership.
For six decades, the YMCA was the centre for fitness in downtown Regina. It closed two years ago.
Great news

[one_brick_at_a_time]

Originally Posted by The mayor

https://regina.ctvnews.ca/fitness-cl...ding-1.6254515
Fitness club set to open at former YMCA building
Published Jan. 31, 2023 7:44 p.m. ET
The former YMCA building is again becoming a hub of activity downtown. Last week, a temporary emergency shelter moved into the vacant facility. On Wednesday, a fitness club will open for business under private ownership.
For six decades, the YMCA was the centre for fitness in downtown Regina. It closed two years ago.
Great news

Great news and love that physicians came together to develop the property privately.

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by one_brick_at_a_time

Great news and love that physicians came together to develop the property privately.

It might just be me but I don't think private healthcare is great news or anything to be loved. This is not going to make healthcare better. But its good for our downtown I guess.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

It might just be me but I don't think private healthcare is great news or anything to be loved. This is not going to make healthcare better. But its good for our downtown I guess.

So you are even against physicians owning their own offices and clinics within the public system? They should all be Government employees and only work out of Government facilities?

[The mayor]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saska...-hub-1.6728285
Regina food bank's new location welcomed as expansion moves ahead
The government should give this building for free

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by Stormer

So you are even against physicians owning their own offices and clinics within the public system? They should all be Government employees and only work out of Government facilities?

Not necessarily. Depends on the ownership model. If its a sole proprietorship or coop, I have no problem with it because its directly owned by the workers (in this case, the doctors), or if its a non-profit of course, which would be ideal. If its a corporation, absolutely not, because of the profit incentives that come with it. The distinction is quite simple. Doctors currently charge a per patient fee, which isn't good for many reasons (not part of this conversation but a better payment system is possible), but those fees go to the doctor to pay for admin costs, rent/mortgage, other bills, and the rest is kept by the doctor. Once you add on a profit incentive from shareholders, either the payments from the public have to rise, or the costs have to be cut in order for the doctors to make the same, and more often than not, the cost comes out of quality of service. Yes, its well known that I am generally against the profit-motive, but healthcare, at the least, should not be driven by it, and we can get into the why if need be but my link to the tweet in my previous post summarizes it. Basically, outside of any supposed gains from innovation and efficiencies, they are far out shadowed by the arguably-negative incentive to keep either prices increasing or number of customers increasing in order to keep up the demand for profit growth from shareholders in a highly competitive stock market. Why do you think Americans are so unhealthy (and we aren't far behind)? Healthy people don't make good customers for for-profit healthcare (I will just add that Americans spend double per capita on healthcare than we do, for similar or worse outcomes). There is no reason for these services to not be provided by the public system other than ideology and the desire to keep the public service from expanding. Also, an aging population presents an immense opportunity for profit growth, as it already is for pharmaceutical companies and long term care facilities.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

Not necessarily. Depends on the ownership model. If its a sole proprietorship or coop, I have no problem with it because its directly owned by the workers (in this case, the doctors), or if its a non-profit of course, which would be ideal. If its a corporation, absolutely not, because of the profit incentives that come with it. The distinction is quite simple. Doctors currently charge a per patient fee, which isn't good for many reasons (not part of this conversation but a better payment system is possible), but those fees go to the doctor to pay for admin costs, rent/mortgage, other bills, and the rest is kept by the doctor. Once you add on a profit incentive from shareholders, either the payments from the public have to rise, or the costs have to be cut in order for the doctors to make the same, and more often than not, the cost comes out of quality of service. Yes, its well known that I am generally against the profit-motive, but healthcare, at the least, should not be driven by it, and we can get into the why if need be but my link to the tweet in my previous post summarizes it. Basically, outside of any supposed gains from innovation and efficiencies, they are far out shadowed by the arguably-negative incentive to keep either prices increasing or number of customers increasing in order to keep up the demand for profit growth from shareholders in a highly competitive stock market. Why do you think Americans are so unhealthy (and we aren't far behind)? Healthy people don't make good customers for for-profit healthcare (I will just add that Americans spend double per capita on healthcare than we do, for similar or worse outcomes). There is no reason for these services to not be provided by the public system other than ideology and the desire to keep the public service from expanding. Also, an aging population presents an immense opportunity for profit growth, as it already is for pharmaceutical companies and long term care facilities.

As far as I am aware, Nest's shareholders are physicians.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

Not necessarily. Depends on the ownership model. If its a sole proprietorship or coop, I have no problem with it because its directly owned by the workers (in this case, the doctors), or if its a non-profit of course, which would be ideal. If its a corporation, absolutely not, because of the profit incentives that come with it. The distinction is quite simple. Doctors currently charge a per patient fee, which isn't good for many reasons (not part of this conversation but a better payment system is possible), but those fees go to the doctor to pay for admin costs, rent/mortgage, other bills, and the rest is kept by the doctor. Once you add on a profit incentive from shareholders, either the payments from the public have to rise, or the costs have to be cut in order for the doctors to make the same, and more often than not, the cost comes out of quality of service. Yes, its well known that I am generally against the profit-motive, but healthcare, at the least, should not be driven by it, and we can get into the why if need be but my link to the tweet in my previous post summarizes it. Basically, outside of any supposed gains from innovation and efficiencies, they are far out shadowed by the arguably-negative incentive to keep either prices increasing or number of customers increasing in order to keep up the demand for profit growth from shareholders in a highly competitive stock market. Why do you think Americans are so unhealthy (and we aren't far behind)? Healthy people don't make good customers for for-profit healthcare (I will just add that Americans spend double per capita on healthcare than we do, for similar or worse outcomes). There is no reason for these services to not be provided by the public system other than ideology and the desire to keep the public service from expanding. Also, an aging population presents an immense opportunity for profit growth, as it already is for pharmaceutical companies and long term care facilities.

Virtually all family doctors and specialists operate out of facilities that are privately owned or rented from commercial landlords. They are all businesses with goverment funding. It has been operating since the beginning of government funded medical in Canada. Nest isn't some private hospital. It's some doctors buying a building...

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

Virtually all family doctors and specialists operate out of facilities that are privately owned or rented from commercial landlords. They are all businesses with goverment funding. It has been operating since the beginning of government funded medical in Canada. Nest isn't some private hospital. It's some doctors buying a building...

Yes, I know that about family doctors hence my description of how they are paid. Nest isn’t just some family doctor clinic. But good to know that it’s likely owned by the doctors who work there.

[gecho111]

I was looking at something on the city's oblique air photos site and noticed that there was a set of images from 2022. I had waited months for the 2022 images to become available on the ortho imagery site when I contacted them to see when they'd get posted. I was told there was an "issue" and they'd get done in 2023 instead.

Looking at the oblique images I see the "issue" was that the contracted company took the images in the wrong month (late May to early June, contract requires it be done in April before leaves open so city can see who built a deck without a permit). The same company did that back in 2020 too, they must like having to book a second set of flights at their expense.

The oblique site requires that you zoom in very close to see the images, annoying but at least pics from last year are there. https://opengis.regina.ca/Pictometry...on=-104.604772

When taking another look at the paint goof up at 13th & Lewvan I noticed they captured the aftermath of someone getting rear-ended on May 24th. The "new" crosswalk across the Lewvan had definitely completely faded by last spring with only the old lines / stop line visible.

[djforsberg]

Lol. The condition of the lines at that point in the year is embarrassing.

[one_brick_at_a_time]

1840 Lorne Street Parking Extension request to 2024 (Namerind Housing Downtown Project)

https://www.regina.ca/export/sites/R...ne-Street-.pdf

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by one_brick_at_a_time

1840 Lorne Street Parking Extension request to 2024 (Namerind Housing Downtown Project)

https://www.regina.ca/export/sites/R...ne-Street-.pdf

Why even go through the process when it’s just going to be rubber stamped. And people thought what Leblanc did on behalf of the homelessness issue was a waste of resources.

[Newstart]

Originally Posted by one_brick_at_a_time

1840 Lorne Street Parking Extension request to 2024 (Namerind Housing Downtown Project)

https://www.regina.ca/export/sites/R...ne-Street-.pdf

Enough with this already. This project was an awful concept from the beginning. It clearly isn’t going to happen. It’s time to move on.

This needs to be denied and put the final nail on the coffin.