Winnipeg Construction X - Page 17

Wpg_Guy · #**321** Posted **Jul 17, 2019, 4:08 PM**

Anyone have info on a 19 townhouse development on Assiniboine next to 390?

optimusREIM · #**322** Posted **Jul 17, 2019, 4:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

Anyone have info on a 19 townhouse development on Assiniboine next to 390?

Is there even space for 19 townhouses?

Wpg_Guy · #**323** Posted **Jul 17, 2019, 4:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Is there even space for 19 townhouses?

No, there is an office building and an old apartment building in the lots next to 390.

esquire · #**324** Posted **Jul 17, 2019, 4:28 PM**

^ I wonder if Dobbin was thinking of 300 Assiniboine?

EndoftheBeginning · #**325** Posted **Jul 17, 2019, 5:28 PM**

Yeah, there is no room on either side unless demolition is the plan.

cheswick · #**326** Posted **Jul 17, 2019, 5:29 PM**

Original renders didn't have townhouses.

trueviking · #**327** Posted **Jul 17, 2019, 5:54 PM**

Since the bank owns it, I doubt there’s a phase two.

optimusREIM · #**328** Posted **Jul 17, 2019, 6:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

since the bank owns it, i doubt there’s a phase two.

lol

wardlow · #**329** Posted **Jul 17, 2019, 6:26 PM**

300 Assiniboine already has townhouse units, and they're surrounded by City owned park space so they don't have space for more.

trueviking · #**330** Posted **Jul 17, 2019, 9:20 PM**

Wpg_Guy · #**331** Posted **Jul 17, 2019, 9:35 PM**

Yay a new parking lot.

esquire · #**332** Posted **Jul 17, 2019, 10:15 PM**

Ugh.

buzzg · #**333** Posted **Jul 17, 2019, 10:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

I just took a photo of that and to ask —what does this mean, I don't understand these things? Is it saying the city is recommending it be approved? How can one reference it officially to go against it. Who is appealing what haha

cllew · #**334** Posted **Jul 18, 2019, 12:06 AM**

As I read it (and I may be wrong)

1) the northern section of the lot that is not used currently for parking will now be available for parking (aka the expansion)

2) the landscaping around the lot has to be improved

3) the billboard at the south end next to the old CNCP building has to be removed by 2021

4) They have do do something to Animate (?) the space in the fall of 2019 and the seasons of 2020 and 2021

After July 30 2022 this whole procedure gets to repeat itself unless the lot owner (Harvard) develops it sooner with a new building.

Biff · #**335** Posted **Jul 18, 2019, 1:11 PM**

I know they are trying to develop the land on those parking lots. I honestly believe they want to do something there other than have a parking lot. It will take some time. The idea for now is to amalgamate the two lots that are currently there - the active in-use lot and the lot furthest north.

I am torn here because I understand wanting to strong arm them into developing my most hated surface lot in the city, but I also see their perspective in wanting to use the lot, short term.

......again, I believe their interests are to put a building on that site....in my conversations with them.

wardlow · #**336** Posted **Jul 18, 2019, 1:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzg

I just took a photo of that and to ask —what does this mean, I don't understand these things? Is it saying the city is recommending it be approved? How can one reference it officially to go against it. Who is appealing what haha

As I understand it….

The City administration approved a conditional use application, which will allow the current parking lot to expand to the north (430 Main) subject to a bunch of condition, but the public can appeal that decision.

buzzg · #**337** Posted **Jul 18, 2019, 2:09 PM**

Those new simple signs can't come soon enough – I don't understand why we need a pilot project to decide if signs that the general public can read and understand are good. Jeez. I read it as they were being allowed to do the parking without even having to follow any of the normal requirements for landscaping.

wardlow · #**338** Posted **Jul 18, 2019, 2:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzg

Those new simple signs can't come soon enough – I don't understand why we need a pilot project to decide if signs that the general public can read and understand are good. Jeez. I read it as they were being allowed to do the parking without even having to follow any of the normal requirements for landscaping.

The language on public notice posters are incredibly byzantine. Unless you happen to have a full understanding of the specifics of the zoning bylaw, the text is incomprehensible to the point of being misleading sometimes.

esquire · #**339** Posted **Jul 18, 2019, 2:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wardlow

The language on public notice posters are incredibly byzantine. Unless you happen to have a full understanding of the specifics of the zoning bylaw, the text is incomprehensible to the point of being misleading sometimes.

It feels deliberate. I mean, if your goal was to provide meaningful information to the public, would you default to this impenetrable legalese?

It would be like a car ad showing nothing but detailed engineering diagrams and fine-print financial tables instead of a big picture of a shiny car that says "HYUNDAI ELANTRA, 0% INTEREST!"

Hecate · #**340** Posted **Jul 18, 2019, 2:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

It feels deliberate. I mean, if your goal was to provide meaningful information to the public, would you default to this impenetrable legalese?

It would be like a car ad showing nothing but detailed engineering diagrams and fine-print financial tables instead of a big picture of a shiny car that says "HYUNDAI ELANTRA, 0% INTEREST!"

It is 100% deliberate, no different than legal crap, purposefully complicated so someone can have a job.