I attended a “stakeholders” Design Regina workshop yesterday evening at Evraz Place. The draft map each table was to go over and express opinions on was based on the only map of the 3 I recall being soundly rejected (by the table I was at) previously at the last Design Regina workshop. Each of the 3 maps had sprawl objectives of 70%, opposed to 30% infill. For a variety of reasons, the City staff had determined the draft map last night to be the most fiscally likely to produce a surplus budget by a couple percent over the other two.
It was not set to expand Harbour Landing into what could potentially be described by some as a “complete community”, with schools, library, community centre/hall, or non-retail forms of employment.
The positive aspect to the plan included some recognition that express transit routes need to be planned on, and protected, if not utilized now. There was also broad support in the room for constructing complete communities. I cautioned that the map approach doesn’t give sufficient detail to ensuring the areas targeted for development end up producing each aspect of a complete community, and Jason Carlston replied that it was not supposed to reach that level of detail. There is an upcoming policy workshop in June, pretty soon.
The process is very fiscally driven, when it should be idea driven, so we can design a city that meets the vision, not fiscal constraints of this present year. We’re designing for 25 years into the future, not for now. Setting the bar low, to where there is no growth required, encourages more stagnation of thought and problem solving.