|
Posted Jul 9, 2019, 8:14 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Posts: 5,510
|
|
Quote:
Status quo 'unfair': Glenwood seeks heritage status
Tessa Vanderhart Posted: 07/8/2019 10:36 PM
FED up with the zoning appeals process, Coun. Brian Mayes (St. Vital) is moving to block infill construction in Glenwood until the City of Winnipeg revamps its planning rules.
On Monday night, the Riel community committee took a step toward making that happen, with a 2-1 vote in favour of Mayes’ motion to make Glenwood a heritage conservation district.
"I find the status quo is simply unfair and unacceptable," Mayes said, adding there’s at least an appearance different neighbourhoods get different treatment on zoning appeals.
Glenwood residents were outraged by an appeal committee decision in June to block the proposed splitting of a 153-foot-wide lot in Old Tuxedo. Meanwhile, there have been at least 89 lot-splits in Glenwood in the past eight years, many of which were unsuccessfully appealed.
"Circumstances created at least a public impression that some wealthier areas, that infill was not being promoted in those areas. Whereas in the Glenwood area… basically, there’d been a tremendous number of appeals, almost all of which had been lost by the Glenwood Neighbourhood Association," Mayes said.
The motion won’t likely make it to city council until September, via the property and planning committee Mayes chairs.
Armstrong’s Point is currently the city’s only heritage conservation district, though Crescentwood has also been nominated. The status comes with special policies on building alterations or demolitions, infill construction and setbacks.
Mayes said more will need to be done to standardize infill rules, but this motion is a stopgap.
"We’ve got to have one set of rules here, for everybody in the city," he said.
As Mayes finished arguing for his motion, seven members of the Glenwood Neighbourhood Association watching from the gallery clapped.
"What happens now, it’s basically random," association member Tim Higgins said. "We’re left with the situation where we have to come and appeal every single one. Because nothing seems to be working — until today."
Organization chairwoman Pam St. Godard called the motion a positive step forward. But she said it’s been "a very tough road," as community members mobilize to oppose more and more proposed infill developments — from a few 10 years ago, to 25 last year alone.
St. Godard said the Glenwood association members are not "NIMBYs," they’re "QIMBYs": asking for "quality in my backyard."
In January, it got 600 signatures on a petition seeking a moratorium until planning guidelines can be updated.
Coun. Matt Allard (St. Boniface) voted against the motion Monday, and spoke against it "in the strongest possible terms."
Allard cited one example in the southeast Winnipeg neighbourhood where a dilapidated home was torn down and two duplexes were built in its place, paying 10 times as much in property taxes with no infrastructure improvements required from the city.
"Infill isn’t a ‘sacrifice’ or something communities must endure for the greater good," Allard said. "Change will come to Glenwood, as it will to all neighbourhoods in Winnipeg. Our choice isn’t between change and not change; our choice is what kind of change we want."
Riel committee chairman Coun. Markus Chambers (St. Norbert-Seine River) supported the motion, allowing it to go ahead to the property committee in the fall.
"It’s incumbent upon us to get these decisions right," Chambers said.
Glenwood is approximately bounded by Fermor Avenue Caton Street, the Seine River and St. Mary’s Road/Ste. Anne’s Road.
tvanderhart@freepress.mb.ca
|
https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/lo...512453192.html
Quote:
Matt Allard:
Facebook post:
I learned this morning that this evening, Councillor Brian Mayes (St Vital) will be moving a motion tonight at Riel Community Committee calling for a de-facto moratorium on infill in the Glenwood neighbourhood of St Vital. Below is my statement explaining my opposition to this motion, why I voted against it.
Infill and densification having been a hallmark of my campaign. I will be voting against this motion, and wish to express my opposition to it in the strongest possible terms.
I’d like to begin by drawing your attention to an example of the type of development that could be killed if the motion passes. 71 Regal Ave in the Glenwood neighbourhood formerly paid about $860 a year on a 60 foot lot with an abandoned, dilapidated house. Once the split/development was complete, creating two 30 foot lots; the taxes on both lots were about $4000 dollars per year. Two brand new houses with secondary suites not only have provided homes for as many as four families where once there was zero; but the same land now pay 10 times the pre-infill amount of taxes per year, with no new infrastructure required.
In a recent tweet by Free Press reporter Aldo Santin, he pointed out that Glenwood has seen more than 89 lot splits in the last 8 years.
Extrapolating the Regal Ave experience, if similar numbers panned out on the rest of these 89 lot splits, that would mean that Glenwood is generating roughly $765,400 per year in new taxes, With no new infrastructure required. ($860 x 89 x 10) That would mean that Glenwood is generating roughly $765,400 per year in new taxes, With no new infrastructure required. ($860 x 89 x 10) subtracting the original taxes 765,400 - 76,540 = $688, 860
https://twitter.com/aldosantin/statu...44253386199042
It is clear that our city’s economic and fiscal situation, is helped tremendously by infill, and would be hurt tremendously by a ban in Glenwood, and from there I fear, in other neighbourhoods as well.
I also wish to note that there are other neighbourhoods in St Vital ward which have seen infill. Varennes, St George, and others, all are experiencing lot splits and density. Why, can I ask, would we single out Glenwood for this treatment? Do we believe that the infill in those other neighbourhoods of St Vital Ward are ok, unlike in Glenwood? If so, why?
According to data assembled by Veritas Development Group, the Glenwood neighbourhood has seen significant population decline since 1971. Other mature communities have seen the same, with figures showing an 88,000 person population decline in Winnipeg’s mature neighbourhoods in the last 30 years.
In 1971, there were 5,755 people residing in Glenwood. By 2011, that number had falled to just 3,660. During that same time period, the City’s population overall grew from 535,100, to 663,617. These numbers can be explained by a variety of factors, including but not limited to family sizes. They bear out a troubling story though, of a neighbourhood seeing a gradual hollowing out, to the disservice of its neighbourhood amenities like schools and community centres, to its areas businesses, to its street life and vitality, and to its political influence and power.
We have seen cases where wealthy neighbourhoods like Crescentwood & Tuxedo, seem to be able to stop lot splits, while working class neighbourhoods like this one have a harder time. In part, I agree that this is sometimes the case. I spoke in delegation in favour of the Tuxedo lot split, and warned in my remarks about this perception. I was bitterly disappointed in the committee’s vote. I feared it would be used as a justification for exactly this kind of move.
Infill isn’t a ‘sacrifice’ or something that communities must endure for the greater good. It is a process which - fundamentally - represents change. The character, appearance, and architectural style and size of infill homes is different from those built in the previous century. Pre-war, wartime, and post-war housing has a certain look. Modern homes, have a different look. I think that is ok.
Change will come to Glenwood as it will to all neighbourhoods in Winnipeg. Our choice isn’t between change or no change; it’s what kind of change we get.
The choice, put bluntly, is between rejuvenation and evolution - or stagnation and decline. This choice is mirrored by a larger choice for our entire city.
Infill brings benefits that are intrinsic beyond those which simply benefit the city’s bottom line.
--They create diverse housing for families in desirable mature neighbourhoods
--They boost property values by creating new value on land occupied by deteriorating homes
--They benefit small business by bringing more customers into easy walking distance of pedestrian oriented commercial corridors
A moratorium on infill in Glenwood or anywhere else, will have the opposite effect
--Restrict housing supply in desirable neighbourhoods, driving up the cost of living
--Suppress property values, by removing a major buyer from the market of low value properties
--Push more customers to outlying, franchise, auto oriented commercial areas away from historic commercial business zones
In short, there is a risk inherent to this policy, of setting Glenwood and other neighbourhoods like it, on the path to stagnation and decline.
I have heard that historic designations for other neighbourhoods are on the table as a justification for why this neighbourhood should see the same. Historic designations are not intended to prevent infill, they guide how infill is to occur in the context of many heritage properties being available. The narrative and public discource in Glenwood has until recently, not been one of heritage. It has been of opposition to the new buildings, density, and styles we’ve seen. According to John Kiernan, the current three heritage neighbourhoods were chosen due to a high number of existing heritage classified buildings. If we want to see a similar type of neighbourhood plan designed for Glenwood, we must ask ourselves first whether protection of heritage is truly the goal, and second whether it is in keeping with broader heritage preservation objections, beyond simply blocking or delaying infill.
Infill is essential for the social and economic well being of the City of Winnipeg. Any move towards arbitrary and politically motivated restrictions of it; not only prevent our city from moving forward, but indeed take it backwards.
|
__________________
Winnipeg Act II - April 2024
In The Future Every Building Will Be World-Famous For Fifteen Minutes.
|
|
|