SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   Manitoba & Saskatchewan (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=129)
-   -   221-227 Stradbrook Ave - 18 Storey Residential Apartment (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=230613)

blue4life Nov 9, 2017 3:27 AM

221-227 Stradbrook Ave - 18 Storey Residential Apartment
 
Anyone catch this article?


"New Stradbrook Avenue apartment tower gets committee endorsement"
'By: Aldo Santin"
"Winnipeg Free Press"
"Posted: 11/7/2017 1:08 PM"

Quote:

Plans for a new 18-storey residential tower adjacent to the Harkness transit corridor station were endorsed by a civic committee Tuesday.

Councillors on the property and development committee supported a rezoning application for the building that would be constructed at 221-227 Stradbrook Ave. near Donald Street.

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/lo...455897723.html

Wpg_Guy Nov 9, 2017 4:16 AM

https://i.imgur.com/KDCAbeF.jpg?1
https://i.imgur.com/5A0ScNu.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/4K8DBHs.jpg
http://waltechvis.com/portfolio/6

https://i.imgur.com/4CR4lpD.jpg

BigG Nov 9, 2017 5:53 AM

It has been discussed in the Winnipeg Construction IX thread some time back.

buzzg Nov 9, 2017 6:06 AM

Renders are already out of date as the townhouses have been cancelled.

Bluenote Nov 9, 2017 6:53 AM

Red fin will be taken out to save money. That’s for sure lol

WildCake Nov 9, 2017 2:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzg (Post 7980710)
Renders are already out of date as the townhouses have been cancelled.

Must be old. I only count 16 floors including the main floor and what looks like a common area 2nd floor

wardlow Nov 9, 2017 2:51 PM

The live-work townhouse units were taken out because of a couple of things: (1) the Winter Club, who previously owned the land, put a caveat on the sale that any development would have a high amount of accessory parking (1.5 stalls per unit). The developer could have gotten a major reduction through a variance, but they weren’t allowed to because of the caveat. Apparently the Winter Club was worried about spillover parking taking up their many surface parking spots around their dumpy fortress of a building.

(2) The property is on a combined sewer, and regulations for such a big development required them to instill an underground tank, which would have cost a lot. Not sure if they don’t need to do this without the townhouse units or what.

At this point, they are still planning on having a ground floor commercial unit, and the ground floor of the main 18-storey complex is supposed to be quite permeable. Not as great as it could have been, but more pedestrian-friendly than a good number of proposed East Exchange/Portage and Main developments I’ve seen lately.

esquire Nov 9, 2017 3:29 PM

^ Good to hear. The project is no one's ideal of design perfection, but hey, it's still an 18 storey residential tower that takes up a prominent vacant lot near a BRT station so it's not all bad.

I wonder if that little wedge of land to the east will ever get developed? I hope it doesn't become a permanent little wasteland... does the Winter Club still own it?

wardlow Nov 9, 2017 4:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire (Post 7980921)
^ Good to hear. The project is no one's ideal of design perfection, but hey, it's still an 18 storey residential tower that takes up a prominent vacant lot near a BRT station so it's not all bad.

I wonder if that little wedge of land to the east will ever get developed? I hope it doesn't become a permanent little wasteland... does the Winter Club still own it?

For sure. This is a great type of density for this part of Osborne Village. Hopefully other properties near the Harkness and Osborne brt stations are developed. The wedge of land to the east is owned by the Winter Club, though I've never noticed it being used for parking?

esquire Nov 9, 2017 4:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wardlow (Post 7980978)
The wedge of land to the east is owned by the Winter Club, though I've never noticed it being used for parking?

It is often used as overflow parking when the other WWC lot fills up... if it isn't used on a daily basis, then it's close.

BTW your description of the WWC as a dumpy fortress is quite apt... I wish there was some way to make it look less horrendous. Perhaps the day will come when the land reaches a value that makes it worthwhile for WWC to sell to developers and rebuild its facility somewhere else.

rkspec Nov 9, 2017 4:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildcake (Post 7980873)
must be old. I only count 16 floors including the main floor and what looks like a common area 2nd floor

15?

bomberjet Nov 9, 2017 4:54 PM

Still debating the renders... They're old..

buzzg Nov 9, 2017 6:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wardlow (Post 7980881)
The live-work townhouse units were taken out because of a couple of things: (1) the Winter Club, who previously owned the land, put a caveat on the sale that any development would have a high amount of accessory parking (1.5 stalls per unit). The developer could have gotten a major reduction through a variance, but they weren’t allowed to because of the caveat. Apparently the Winter Club was worried about spillover parking taking up their many surface parking spots around their dumpy fortress of a building.

Is this even something allowed and/or legally binding? Once they own the land couldn't they just ignore it and build as they please? Or the city decide "sorry, 1 stall/person maximum at TOD" ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire (Post 7980990)
It is often used as overflow parking when the other WWC lot fills up... if it isn't used on a daily basis, then it's close.

BTW your description of the WWC as a dumpy fortress is quite apt... I wish there was some way to make it look less horrendous. Perhaps the day will come when the land reaches a value that makes it worthwhile for WWC to sell to developers and rebuild its facility somewhere else.

Even a fresh coat of paint and some landscaping would do wonders. I don't understand how this is even allowed? Doesn't the city rules have rules regarding requirements for decorative fencing and landscaping along sidewalks?

LilZebra Nov 9, 2017 7:04 PM

All the hi-rises surrounding the planned project are "Brutalist"/Post-modern architecture. I guess they have to design it to fit in with the surroundiing buildings.

Or not.

bomberjet Nov 9, 2017 7:48 PM

What's wrong with the design? Looks like a normal building. Windows are actually quite large in the render.

buzzg Nov 9, 2017 7:58 PM

Five Donald recently redid their little plaza and landscaping out front... looks kinda odd TBH.

WildCake Nov 9, 2017 9:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet (Post 7981257)
What's wrong with the design? Looks like a normal building. Windows are actually quite large in the render.

We're ripping on the winter club building, not the render for the apartment tower

bomberjet Nov 9, 2017 9:57 PM

I was referring to this post. But yes the winter club is junk. Rip away haha

Quote:

Originally Posted by LilZebra (Post 7981217)
All the hi-rises surrounding the planned project are "Brutalist"/Post-modern architecture. I guess they have to design it to fit in with the surroundiing buildings.

Or not.


LilZebra Nov 10, 2017 2:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wardlow (Post 7980881)

At this point, they are still planning on having a ground floor commercial unit, and the ground floor of the main 18-storey complex is supposed to be quite permeable. Not as great as it could have been, but more pedestrian-friendly than a good number of proposed East Exchange/Portage and Main developments I’ve seen lately.

A convenience store, handy for getting a slurpee while waiting for a BRT?

LilZebra Nov 10, 2017 8:30 AM

Added to Construction IX.

I'll just have to be mindful if/when new renders are released to post.


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.