Winnipeg | Forks Redevelopment | Parcel 4 - Rail Side Initiative | Proposals

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Biff

Can't this be accomplished by fulfilling the plan set forth on the Forks Sites with 6 storey buildings and then, if "things take off" filling all the surface parking lots 200 ft away across the tracks along Main St and around the Nutty Club Buildings with 30 storey towers.

Everyone wins.

Yeah... and this is kind of why I haven't been committing to a particular side with my posts as there is no telling what the future holds. I think it's great that we all have strong feelings on this but it all boils down to speculation and subjection. I mean this project could all be residential or it could be mixed-use... Hell, it could be office space for all we know at this point.

Towers would have been a disaster. We would sit here for ten years as proposals came and went. Selling 1/3 then bailing. One would get built and everyone would rejoice and say now finally the other three will happen. More will be proposed. And die.

The economics of smaller buildings are far more appropriate for Winnipeg's market. Has anyone noticed how many years SkyCity is taking? The artis tower will be the worst investment they have ever made. And that's with a substantial TIF subsidy.

I absolutely agree. Don't get me wrong, I still don't think that low-rises is the entire essence of a dynamic urban neighbourhood and that the location of Parcel 4 is too prominent. But this discussion is really getting out of hand based on proposals that haven't even been proposed lol.

I will come back to this thread in a couple of years when the proposals have been submitted and state my clear opinions on the project(s) then.

[crocket]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

Not to be that financial complainer again, but it depends on what our construction method options are, because theses determine our cost.

Nothing works if it doesn't check out financially. We'd end up with pretty, but empty buildings. Yes, we want more nice shit, but vibrancy is contingent to people, not structures.

4 storeys works. Wood construction is cheaper and proven.

6 storeys is a gray area... code will soon allow 6 storey wood construction, but with a lot of other costly requirments. It isn't proven to truly, consistently work outside of BC. Unless wood frame contractors from BC come in to do the job.... which would require a high enough volume of buildings to justify the trip, which would require a high enough interest from the population to fill these buildings.

Which could end in overbuilding. Other options include structural stud construction, but I don't know of many specialists that do that in Manitoba (could be wrong). 6 stoery concrete construction isn't that cost effective, and you make that money back by increasing structure density ie. going higher.

It might be more feasible to build 2-3 ten+ storey buildings than 4-5 six storey structures.

Yes there are ideals, but we must choose our ideals from a list of approaches that are achievable and financially responsible... that might be going 8-12 storeys twice rather than going low 5 times. And I'm quite sure we can still make that look pretty.


I still think that Biff's approach is best. Keep it to 4 storey wood construction, and hell, we know where the surface lots are should we have to grow more. But that is a citizen's perspective. We still have to live with whatever the developers choose to do to maximize their site.

There is no way anyone would build wood frame there, even by Winnipeg El cheapo standards, you can't do 6 plus wood anyway, but that would be sacrilege. These would have to be mid priced to higher end loft type condos to be marketable.

The 6 story range is perfect. I was just in NY and when you look around the East Village, Brooklyn, Upper East Side, it's all low to mid. Obviously they have high rise anchors in some places but the amount of 5-12 story buildings is what makes those neighborhoods so interesting. Of course, the Exchange is a perfect example just down the way.
Ex.

[Urban recluse]

The charm along streets such as those has to do with the age of the buildings, and the materials used. If such buildings were built at the Forks (ie: King Street parkade), the vibe would be amazing. Cheap materials must not be allowed.

[crocket]

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

The charm along streets such as those has to do with the age of the buildings, and the materials used. If such buildings were built at the Forks (ie: King Street parkade), the vibe would be amazing. Cheap materials must not be allowed.

Agreed, they've done a good job in NY with new brick, reclaimed brick or just blasted brick to look the part on the newer buildings that blend with the old.

[drew]

Brick is wonderful - but also expensive. It requires more foundation (40 pounds per square foot adds up over 6-storeys ~ 2000 pounds per lineal foot of aesthetic dead load). and makes the exterior wall assembly more complicated.

By the time this development reaches fruition - 6-storey wood framed construction will be permissible in MB. And by the time the next NBC comes out in 2020 - it may get even higher.

Nothing wrong with wood framed construction - provided it is done right.

[Urban recluse]

I would concede to this: a lot of brick...with a little bit of stucco if the costs are too prohibitive for brick only. It would have to be acrylic stucco.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.98646...7i13312!8i6656

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by crocket

There is no way anyone would build wood frame there, even by Winnipeg El cheapo standards, you can't do 6 plus wood anyway, but that would be sacrilege. These would have to be mid priced to higher end loft type condos to be marketable.

The 6 story range is perfect. I was just in NY and when you look around the East Village, Brooklyn, Upper East Side, it's all low to mid.]

6 storey range is perfect for the area. It has to be perfect for the balance sheet. I'm not opposed to 6 storeys for the area, it would be the best, perhaps. But in order for the project to go ahead, it must provide a desired return to the developer.

And wood construction is perfectly fine, provided the builder/developer isn't a shithead. 6 storeys is on the verge of code approval, so it could happen. Otherwise, it's tough to make the margins desired, which is why so many stick to 4 storey wood.

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

The charm along streets such as those has to do with the age of the buildings, and the materials used. If such buildings were built at the Forks (ie: King Street parkade), the vibe would be amazing. Cheap materials must not be allowed.

Situations like on market Avenue need to be avoided. Nonetheless, that's a finishing materials matter, not a wood/concrete construction matter.

Originally Posted by drew

Brick is wonderful - but also expensive. It requires more foundation (40 pounds per square foot adds up over 6-storeys ~ 2000 pounds per lineal foot of aesthetic dead load). and makes the exterior wall assembly more complicated.

By the time this development reaches fruition - 6-storey wood framed construction will be permissible in MB. And by the time the next NBC comes out in 2020 - it may get even higher.

Nothing wrong with wood framed construction - provided it is done right.

This ^

[crocket]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

6 storey range is perfect for the area. It has to be perfect for the balance sheet. I'm not opposed to 6 storeys for the area, it would be the best, perhaps. But in order for the project to go ahead, it must provide a desired return to the developer.

And wood construction is perfectly fine, provided the builder/developer isn't a shithead. 6 storeys is on the verge of code approval, so it could happen. Otherwise, it's tough to make the margins desired, which is why so many stick to 4 storey wood.



Situations like on market Avenue need to be avoided. Nonetheless, that's a finishing materials matter, not a wood/concrete construction matter.



This ^

I like concrete construction, for buildings with higher ceilings and larger spans it makes sense. But, having said that, there are some interesting wood frame buildings coming online in Ontario where the rules have changed. This article talks about a couple new buildings, the one in Liberty village looks cool.

I think this area deserves great design and great quality.

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2015/12/...me-condo-beach

[crocket]

Let's make Winnipeg great again!

[drew]

Originally Posted by crocket

I like concrete construction, for buildings with higher ceilings and larger spans it makes sense. But, having said that, there are some interesting wood frame buildings coming online in Ontario where the rules have changed. This article talks about a couple new buildings, the one in Liberty village looks cool.

I think this area deserves great design and great quality.

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2015/12/...me-condo-beach

It does deserve great quality and design - however the prices may not allow for all concrete/brick clad structure, or even steel/hollowcore brick clad structure. So, to keep the "look" quality, it may become necessary to reduce costs somewhere else (i.e. wood construction).

If we want the highest quality - then we should expect some sort of public funds being thrown in to cover the extra costs - because I doubt the market realities will bear it on the side of the developer.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by drew

2000 pounds per lineal foot of aesthetic dead load.

This is a perfect engineer's description of brick...love it....aesthetic dead load.

gonna have to remember that one.

[drew]

^ I did say it was wonderful aesthetic dead load.

[crocket]

Originally Posted by drew

It does deserve great quality and design - however the prices may not allow for all concrete/brick clad structure, or even steel/hollowcore brick clad structure. So, to keep the "look" quality, it may become necessary to reduce costs somewhere else (i.e. wood construction).

If we want the highest quality - then we should expect some sort of public funds being thrown in to cover the extra costs - because I doubt the market realities will bear it on the side of the developer.

Please no public funds, that would be a disaster. All high quality condos in that range are concrete construction. Brick, stone, glass and concrete are typical for mid to higher-end buildings.

"It requires more foundation (40 pounds per square foot adds up over 6-storeys ~ 2000 pounds per lineal foot of aesthetic dead load). and makes the exterior wall assembly more complicated. "

No, almost all commercial cladding is heavy, it's not complicated at all. It's pretty standard, it's actually uncommon to see something other than brick or stone used at least for most of the exterior on condos these days. I'm in Atlanta right now and there is tons of development and 90% of condos are brick.

I'm afraid to ask what you guys would suggest, more wood? lol. I'd be a shame to see super cheap wood buildings with super cheap cladding, just like the junk they build in the suburbs in Winnipeg. I am pretty sure the developers will do the right thing.

[Urban recluse]

I would expect FNPP to demand better.

[drew]

Originally Posted by crocket

No, almost all commercial cladding is heavy, it's not complicated at all. It's pretty standard, it's actually uncommon to see something other than brick or stone used at least for most of the exterior on condos these days. I'm in Atlanta right now and there is tons of development and 90% of condos are brick.

Sorry, no brick/stone (real stone, not prairie stone or that glue-on shit) is the heaviest. Certainly orders of magnitude heavier than stucco, wood siding, the pre-finished wood/vinyl/cement board siding etc.

And yes it is more complicated. Brick requires a cavity wall system which is basically your backing structural wall complete with weather barrier on the exterior, then an ~1" airgap and then your brick. The brick is tied back to the structure with brick ties, and also requires weep holes or drainage at the base PLUS something to support the base of the brick.

And FYI 2000 pounds per lineal foot is essentially tacking the equivalent perimeter load of a typical 2-storey house to the foundation. It isn't trivial.

It also requires heavier lintels/beams to span openings etc. etc.

I am happy for Atlanta. But we are discussing development in Winnipeg.

[crocket]

Originally Posted by drew

Sorry, no brick/stone (real stone, not prairie stone or that glue-on shit) is the heaviest. Certainly orders of magnitude heavier than stucco, wood siding, the pre-finished wood/vinyl/cement board siding etc.

And yes it is more complicated. Brick requires a cavity wall system which is basically your backing structural wall complete with weather barrier on the exterior, then an ~1" airgap and then your brick. The brick is tied back to the structure with brick ties, and also requires weep holes or drainage at the base PLUS something to support the base of the brick.

And FYI 2000 pounds per lineal foot is essentially tacking the equivalent perimeter load of a typical 2-storey house to the foundation. It isn't trivial.

It also requires heavier lintels/beams to span openings etc. etc.

I am happy for Atlanta. But we are discussing development in Winnipeg.

Well it's every city, not just Atlanta. Can you imagine vinyl or pre-finished wood on a condo downtown. Haha, that would be a new low even by Winnipeg standards. And then it wouldn't sell and people would wonder why.

Were not talking about building a cheap house, we are talking about mid to higher-end condos in a historic area. Brick, stone, glass, concrete are the most common materials used, not complicated at all for commercial construction.

[trueviking]

economics of residential buildings in Winnipeg generally precludes anything more than a small amount of brick....stucco, hardie board, metal siding etc are the basic economic materials of choice.

The project will be getting a TIFF....so there will be lots of government money...It is not possible to build residential in downtown Winnipeg without a subsidy...hopefully the forks commands higher pay back than elsewhere to level the playing field somewhat....still a significant challenge I suspect, once the rubber hits the road.

[crocket]

Originally Posted by trueviking

economics of residential buildings in Winnipeg generally precludes anything more than a small amount of brick....stucco, hardie board, metal siding etc are the basic economic materials of choice.

The project will be getting a TIFF....so there will be lots of government money...It is not possible to build residential in downtown Winnipeg without a subsidy...hopefully the forks commands higher pay back than elsewhere to level the playing field somewhat....still a significant challenge I suspect, once the rubber hits the road.

You can definitely build downtown without government money. I can't imagine using those cheap "economic" materials in this area. This isn't Transcona, it is downtown, the heart of the city.

[Urban recluse]

It truly boggles the mind: WHEN will we get to the point where government subsidies are not needed?

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by trueviking

economics of residential buildings in Winnipeg generally precludes anything more than a small amount of brick....stucco, hardie board, metal siding etc are the basic economic materials of choice.

The project will be getting a TIFF....so there will be lots of government money...It is not possible to build residential in downtown Winnipeg without a subsidy...hopefully the forks commands higher pay back than elsewhere to level the playing field somewhat....still a significant challenge I suspect, once the rubber hits the road.

^This

Originally Posted by crocket

You can definitely build downtown without government money. I can't imagine using those cheap "economic" materials in this area. This isn't Transcona, it is downtown, the heart of the city.

Not really... our concrete, paving, finishing, plumbing and insulation costs (among others) are VERY high here. There is a reason very little gets done in DT. Nobody is going to build anything if the reward for their work and risk isn't there.

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

It truly boggles the mind: WHEN will we get to the point where government subsidies are not needed?

When

1) Construction becomes cheaper
2) Rents or housing prices climb and
3) Vacancy levels drop

Higher housing prices or rent sounds "bad", but in the context of downtown development, is healthy. However that will only happen when people show an interest in urban living here. Then, and only then can developers do great things in this city... when there's a profit for it. And that's not a bad thing.