More Ranting About How The City Has Failed Renters

If you don’t get boners from reading about finicky little details in city hall documents, skip this post.

For those who choose to continue, prepare your boner….

Remember months back when it seemed like every second article in the prairie dog or blog post here was about the demolition of 1755 Hamilton? The building was home to 46 units of affordable housing. And the city just let the owners tear the thing down. In the middle of a housing crisis. And that is angry making.


At some point I argued that the demolition might have been averted if city administration had gotten around to passing the Downtown Neighbourhood Plan as a bylaw because one of the things the plan says should be done immediately is rezone the downtown as a Direct Control District. That’s action item number four, in fact. And if they’d done that, that would have meant the demolition couldn’t have gone ahead without first going through council. And that would have meant a public process instead of the one city staff opted for which involved quietly issuing a demolition permit while council was blundering around trying to decide if it was willing/able to do anything.

Well, when I wrote that about the Direct Control District, all I had to go on was my own reading of the Downtown Plan and some “interviews” I’d done with some “unnamed people” who “know some shit.”

But then recently I was reading through the city’s 2011 budget. You know. Just for fun. And because I was trying to find out how much the city had budgeted for the construction of the plaza and how much they’d actually spent on it and as it turns out there isn’t a line item for that, surprise, surprise. Never seems to be line items for the things I want to know. Not that I can find anyway. Goddamn useless accountants.

And while I was scanning through the 2011 budget — last year’s budget — I stumbled on this little comment about the Downtown Plan on page 125 of the Operating Budget:

The plan will become a bylaw in early 2011, including new zoning regulations through the implementation of a direct control district.

Ah ha! Seems that whole Direct Control District idea wasn’t so far fetched after all! In fact, city administration was still writing about it in January of 2011 as if they loved the idea. Well, maybe love is a strong word. But they were¬† telling council that they were going to get it done right away.

And then they just didn’t.

And now it’s early 2012 — a whole other year — and there’s still no downtown bylaw. And no Direct Control District.

And 1755 Hamilton was torn down in late 2011 forcing 46 lower-income households out into the worst rental market in the country. And our vacancy rate is still 0.6 per cent. Just like last year.

Now, I suspect there will be some who will argue I’m making a mountain out of a molehill here. Say that the demolition of 1755 Hamilton and the city administration’s failure to pass a downtown bylaw are completely unrelated.

But they’re wrong. Those things are absolutely related. Guarding against short-sighted landowners and developers who hope to make a quick buck in an overheated real estate market by tearing good stuff down or building something crappy fast is precisely what the downtown bylaw is supposed to be for.

I remember a public meeting about the Downtown Plan back in 2009 I think (might have been earlier) where Jennifer Keesmaat of Office For Urbanism (now, Dialog) spoke with some urgency about a recent demolition of a historic warehouse building on Broad Street and how on the site there had been built a hideous, cinder-block of a parking garage (that was later embellished with an embarrassing, amateurish mural of green hills, a waterfall and an eagle because those things just scream Regina).

Keesmaat talked about the importance of adopting a downtown plan because it would mean that this kind of nonsense couldn’t go on any longer. Old buildings would be retained or repurposed, or, at the very worst, something worthwhile would get built in their stead.

That’s the whole point behind rezoning the downtown as a Direct Control District. It will make it possible for the city to protect the things that it values.

And if you don’t value 46 units of affordable housing while you’re in the midst of a housing crisis — value them higher than, say, protecting someone’s right to create another fucking vacant lot — I’d say there’s something wrong with you.

Author: Paul Dechene

Paul Dechene is 5'10'' tall and he was born in a place. He's not there now. He's sitting in front of his computer writing his bio for this blog. He has a song stuck in his head. It's "Girl From Ipanema", thanks for asking. You can follow Paul on Twitter at @pauldechene and get live updates during city council meetings and other city events at @PDcityhall.

18 thoughts on “More Ranting About How The City Has Failed Renters”

  1. Paul, i have come to depend on your tireless scrutiny of details most of us would never have the inspiration to work to discover. I share your sentiments about the need to take back the power to protect what is actually important in our city. It is truly time to mobilize the masses who agree on reshuffling our collective priorities. And, it is time to start peacefully dismissing these applications to erode and weaken Regina with greedy vision-less “developments”.

  2. Talbot: Depends on how broadly you define “boner”.

    Charles: Thanks! And yes, I agree.

  3. Talbot: Girls totally get boners. Especially for architecture.

    Anyone notice that there’s no hint of anything Capital-Pointey going up at the Plaines site? It’s almost like a landmark was torn down for no reason. That’s my wonderful town!

  4. Paul – In the right hands a DCD would be great. Unfortunately, I’m not sure that the City of Regina Administraction or Council would apply it in such a way as to actually benefit renters/the average citizen of Regina. More likely it would become like everything else down at City Hall and be selectively applied in order to benefit a select few.

  5. Anonymouse: Excellent point. But at the very least, a DCD would force a lot more development applications to go before council and that would make it easier to keep an eye on them. And, when it comes time to hold council accountable for things like the vacancy rate and the ugly, green cinder block, they wouldn’t be able to say, “There’s nothing we could do. Our hands were tied.”

  6. Yes Paul, a DCD would at least serve to bring these decisions into a public forum.

  7. Carle,
    I understand that Capital Pointless has finished the underground parking portion of the project. At least that’s what someone told me. I suspect that soon we will be informed of a name change to “Nocapital point”.

  8. #4

    Hi Carle. LTNT.

    Washington monument,Seattle Space Needle ( doesn’t sound friendly ), Calgary tower, Barj Dubai, CN Tower T..

  9. Yer last paragraph on this Paul makes 100% sense.

    If the city won’t build due to conflict issies ,& the construction co’s won’t build due to ” non / minimal profit” issues… then we are hooped.

    The city can’t work since a guy running for mayor ( could be , I assuming ) sort of in conflict, of the general ”
    progress” of any city in Sask, seeing how he’s on a Provincial Board too.

  10. #4 again !

    yer right, that old useless building coulda/mighta been someone’s residence.

    WTF COR it’s not an Impark lot in the mean-time !?!
    F what has it been?! 6 months..

  11. Let’s say that there was a direct control district downtown, and then let’s imagine that building was outside of the area …. same problem, different area.
    I say that ANY demolition in the city should have to go through council. Some will whine and complain about slowness or whatever, but really most things will pass after about one second. But anything anyone cares about will actually have a chance to be debated.

  12. Al: True. And personally, I’d like to see one of the rules to come out of the housing policy the city is currently putting together (to be completed next year…. after the election) to be that council will have to consider all applications to demolish multi-unit rental housing when the vacancy rate falls below three per cent — regardless of where in the city that housing is.

  13. there is an excellent confucian adage that should refer to everything every gov’t ever does: “it is better to move slowly, or even stop, than to rush headlong in the wrong direction.”

Comments are closed.