Winnipeg Construction X

[bon_vivant]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I've found a change in tone, albeit anecdotal, of some folks living in St. B who have accepted that infills are in fact good for the neighbourhood. Even if they tower over surrounding homes and can be monstrosities depending upon the lot. Eventually most of the neighbourhood will be mostly replaced, albeit over decades of time.

A good solid strategy on infill guidelines and costs associated with it would be a practical solution, no?

I live in St. B and I wholeheartedly welcome infills. I hate that many of them are ugly and cheap looking (I'm looking at you, Des Meurons) but it's still better than a vacant lot or an abandoned building. I like the idea of guidelines, but I worry that if they're too stringent they could discourage cost-conscious developers from building anything at all. If only developers had taste...

[bomberjet]

So I think when we see developers advertise "luxury development!" or whatever they say. It's because they didn't do the complete bare bones, cheapest possible solution. And want credit for it, your credit lol

[bon_vivant]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

So I think when we see developers advertise "luxury development!" or whatever they say. It's because they didn't do the complete bare bones, cheapest possible solution. And want credit for it, your credit lol

Lol. Gotta love the "luxury" labelling. Clearly the bar for luxury is quite low here. In-suite laundry, a parking spot, and suddenly it's luxury!

[ColdRain&Snow]

Originally Posted by rebl

"City looks to duplexes, triplexes to ease housing shortage"https://winnipeg-can.newsmemory.com?...Start=Winnipeg

This motion was just passed 4-0 at the Standing Policy Committee on Property and Development, meaning that it will probably pass through the rest of City Council within the next few weeks. That being said, the public hearing took 6 hours and there were some amendments made (not sure what yet because I didn't have time to watch the whole thing). I'm curious to see what the amendments are once the meeting minutes are released in a day or two.

[rebl]

Originally Posted by EdwardTH

Even St B, Earl Grey or Lord Roberts are good examples to follow and they don't have a lot of that in Calgary or Edmonton. I also think maybe people here are more aware of the financial need for density. Albertans are used to having endless money but eventually the costs of sprawl catch up to them too.

This is a really good observation. After I read your comment I quickly compared satellite views of the neighbourhoods you mentioned and found half a dozen other examples in Winnipeg.

Do the same in cities like Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto etc. and the sprawl is jawdropping. None of those cities are even close to as walkable as Winnipeg. It's actually shocking that we have a reputation as a car city given the relatively even ratio of housing and services.

[bon_vivant]

Originally Posted by rebl

It's actually shocking that we have a reputation as a car city given the relatively even ratio of housing and services.

When public transport is insufficient, you are perceived as a car city.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by rebl

This is a really good observation. After I read your comment I quickly compared satellite views of the neighbourhoods you mentioned and found half a dozen other examples in Winnipeg.

Do the same in cities like Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto etc. and the sprawl is jawdropping. None of those cities are even close to as walkable as Winnipeg. It's actually shocking that we have a reputation as a car city given the relatively even ratio of housing and services.

Yes there’s sprawl in those cities, and I’d agree Winnipeg is generally more walkable than Calgary and Edmonton but it’s still a ridiculous modal split. Last I checked roughly 80% of Winnipeggers use the automobile as their primary form of transport. In the North American context the city is less car dependent sure, but in comparison to Asian and European cities Winnipeg has a long way to go.

And having been to Toronto 5 times, the actual city limits of Toronto is far more walkable than Winnipeg. Sure there might be a case that Waverley Heights and Transcona being more walkable than some GTA suburbs like Sauga and Brampton, but generally speaking Toronto is miles above Winnipeg in this department just due to the sheer scale of walkable neighborhoods in the city.

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Yes there’s sprawl in those cities, and I’d agree Winnipeg is generally more walkable than Calgary and Edmonton but it’s still a ridiculous modal split. Last I checked roughly 80% of Winnipeggers use the automobile as their primary form of transport. In the North American context the city is less car dependent sure, but in comparison to Asian and European cities Winnipeg has a long way to go.

And having been to Toronto 5 times, the actual city limits of Toronto is far more walkable than Winnipeg. Sure there might be a case that Waverley Heights and Transcona being more walkable than some GTA suburbs like Sauga and Brampton, but generally speaking Toronto is miles above Winnipeg in this department just due to the sheer scale of walkable neighborhoods in the city.

It's fair to say Winnipeg is more walkable than the GTA, not more walkable than Toronto proper. With some proper RT we might start getting close though.

[rebl]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

And having been to Toronto 5 times, the actual city limits of Toronto is far more walkable than Winnipeg. Sure there might be a case that Waverley Heights and Transcona being more walkable than some GTA suburbs like Sauga and Brampton, but generally speaking Toronto is miles above Winnipeg in this department just due to the sheer scale of walkable neighborhoods in the city.

I spend a lot of time in Toronto. Old Toronto, sure. East York and Old York...yes. North York is where things starts changing. Small parts of it could be considered walkable. Scarborough and Etobicoke are absolutely not even close to as walkable as Winnipeg.

While I might drive to work, virtually every service I can access is within 10 minutes walking...20 minutes and I can almost double my options. This isn't the case everywhere in Winnipeg, I know. But I would be hard pressed to find a location like that anywhere in another major city in Canada - which is my point.

I'm okay with building new housing developments at the outskirts of winnipeg if this mentality is worked into them.

[pegster]

171 suites in this building need to be evacuated, awful: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...rder-1.7200008

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by pegster

171 suites in this building need to be evacuated, awful: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...rder-1.7200008

We were just talking about Ladco being shitty in a different thread. I hope to hell there is a mechanism in place to force these fucks to pay for all of the hotels for these people. Shiesters tried to save a buck on maintenance, guaranteed.

[Biff]

I am not commenting on the design of this building but curious as to why this type of project doesn't ever seem to be in the cards for Winnipeg.

For reference the Sutton Place project is 21 and 15 storeys with 288 hotel rooms and 130 units of apartments/condo's (whatever they are going with now).

Similar scope projects, but always short in this city.

Originally Posted by nashvilleron

Renderings were released for the new St Regis hotel at 805 Demonbreun today from the Nashville Post.

https://www.nashvillepost.com/busine...d438c84c7.html

The hotel will be 611' and will be 46 stories, 173 rooms, 100 condos, & 32 furnished residences. The architect is still Morris Adjmi and groundbreaking is still targeted for 2025.
Also included are 25,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space and a parking garage with 542 spaces. Image courtesy of Nashville Post and Metro Nashville MDHA.

[Arts]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

I'm not sold on indoor water park. When I was a child, there was a water park in Fort Garry on Pembina Highway around 1984-86, at the Pembina Village Shopping Mall (Waverley Heights). It only lasted two years, due to low attendance, and went out of business.

Pretty sure it was called Atlantis and I loved that place, only ended up going a few times including once for my 9th birthday , we moved away before it shut down and every time I came back to Winnipeg I was hoping we could go there. I think it had just the two waterslides and they were pretty much enclosed for most of their length, of which a good portion was on the outside of the building - it must have been a lot to heat.

[bon_vivant]

Originally Posted by Biff

I am not commenting on the design of this building but curious as to why this type of project doesn't ever seem to be in the cards for Winnipeg.

For reference the Sutton Place project is 21 and 15 storeys with 288 hotel rooms and 130 units of apartments/condo's (whatever they are going with now).

Similar scope projects, but always short in this city.

Yes, I don't understand Winnipeg's seeming aversion to taller buildings. It makes for a squat and lumpy skyline. Height-wise, 300 Main was a welcome addition.

[drew]

I think it's likely a combo of high construction (Foundation, weather related) costs and lower property values when compared to other cities.

Nashville can probably have concrete placement almost year round without requiring protection, and almost assuredly has better foundation conditions as compared to here.

[Biff]

But, when building something that is 20 storeys or so, isn't that already a pretty involved foundation? Wouldn't going 60 storeys just require beefier caissons? I would imagine that both are going down to bed rock.

[Winnipegger]

Originally Posted by Biff

I am not commenting on the design of this building but curious as to why this type of project doesn't ever seem to be in the cards for Winnipeg.

For reference the Sutton Place project is 21 and 15 storeys with 288 hotel rooms and 130 units of apartments/condo's (whatever they are going with now).

Similar scope projects, but always short in this city.

I think one of the main factors that drives height is population. While there are obviously a ton of factors like construction costs, market rents, and interest rates, one factor will be more population = greater financial justification to build higher.

The Nashville Metro is more than double Winnipeg's. Take a look more locally. How many 100 meter proposals do you see floating around for Quebec and Hamilton, which are closer to Winnipeg's population than Nashville? I'd say we're seeing similar levels of development compared to our Canadian peers.

It could also be that here in Canada, much of the development community is waiting for anticipated decreases in interested rates and/or housing accelerator fund subsidy programs to begin operating before heading to the drawing board.

[drew]

But, when building something that is 20 storeys or so, isn't that already a pretty involved foundation? Wouldn't going 60 storeys just require beefier caissons? I would imagine that both are going down to bed rock

^ bigger diameters are usually used as you go higher - and you will be rock-socketing the piles into the bedrock. It's all expensive.

In Calgary (for example) the foundation for the Bow is a giant raft slab. Its has possibly more concrete involved (as compared to a piled foundation) - but likely far less laborious and specialized to build.

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by drew

^ bigger diameters are usually used as you go higher - and you will be rock-socketing the piles into the bedrock. It's all expensive.

In Calgary (for example) the foundation for the Bow is a giant raft slab. Its has possibly more concrete involved (as compared to a piled foundation) - but likely far less laborious and specialized to build.

Curse you Lake Agassiz for 60-70 ft of Manitoba gumbo.

[trueviking]

Man, I’m trying to do a building taller than ten storeys and it’s freaking everyone out. Contractors are debating who has the crane. Is there another project in the city using it.

I think Winnipeg is just not equipped to built high rises so we don’t.