Winnipeg's Exchange District | East/West | Development

[drew]

Originally Posted by cllew

As for downtown and exchange, don't those biz groups have the responsibility to run the clean up now? I know I have seen the downtown biz running their sidewalk sweepers late at night when I get off work.

They do clean up, and they do a great job for the most part.

It's just that some areas (especially Portage from Maryland to Sherbrook and bit beyond) they can't keep up. And almost ALL of the trash you see is McDs and Tims.

Plus during winter, there is no real trash collection, so when spring comes - look out.

[wardlow]

In non-development news, Harvard is asking the City once again about expanding their parking lot next to 201 Portage (416 Main, the former McIntyre site) to the muddy vacant lot next door. Yayyyyy.

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by wardlow

In non-development news, Harvard is asking the City once again about expanding their parking lot next to 201 Portage (416 Main, the former McIntyre site) to the muddy vacant lot next door. Yayyyyy.

Has that request shown up in public anywhere?

The problem is it sets a precedent to a number of other parcels downtown that have already been shut down for parking. I can think of two sizable sites that were parked for years shut down by the city in the last 18 months on some technical zoning breach.

You cannot force development onto the owners of these sites by restricting parking. They will just sit and grow weeds. No one is selling.

The solution in my mind is offer a tax deferment on any additional value created on the site in a similar way as was exclusively offered to TN.

The best, most stable cash flow is parking. That’s not going to change anytime soon.

[OTA in Winnipeg]

^^Especially at $14+ per car, per day. Downtown Winnipeg, new normal. Never mind the cost of city of winnipeg street parking which is now astronomical.

[buzzg]

To me $14/day for a lot is very reasonable. The jump from $2 to $3.50 an hour on the street was/is not. That was a huge jump.

Harvard has applied to expand the parking lot 3 years in a row, and the city has denied them every time. Don't see why they'd change their minds this year.

[wardlow]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Harvard has applied to expand the parking lot 3 years in a row, and the city has denied them every time. Don't see why they'd change their minds this year.

I fear this time it may be different. This time around:
- They have definite plans to renovate the ground floor of 201 Portage Avenue with ground-floor CRUs
- They are saying they would, like, totally develop on this land if it wasn't for the P&M barricades
- They are giving Peg City Car Co-op a free parking space

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by wardlow

I fear this time it may be different. This time around:
- They have definite plans to renovate the ground floor of 201 Portage Avenue with ground-floor CRUs
- They are saying they would, like, totally develop on this land if it wasn't for the P&M barricades
- They are giving Peg City Car Co-op a free parking space

I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to use 416 Main for parking. So long as it's just sitting there like that it may as well make money. However, #1: no chance in hell they should be allowed to tear down the Pal building. #2: they should have to demonstrate how they plan on incorporating that building into their future development plans.

Other than that, park away until such a time when the land becomes too valuable to leave un-developed.

[wardlow]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to use 416 Main for parking. So long as it's just sitting there like that it may as well make money. However, #1: no chance in hell they should be allowed to tear down the Pal building. #2: they should have to demonstrate how they plan on incorporating that building into their future development plans.

Other than that, park away until such a time when the land becomes too valuable to leave un-developed.

Not allowing parking in the (undetermined) meantime is a way the city can encourage redevelopment. If an owner can't make money from their vacant land, they may be slightly more compelled to make money from building something on that land.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by wardlow

Not allowing parking in the (undetermined) meantime is a way the city can encourage redevelopment. If an owner can't make money from their vacant land, they may be slightly more compelled to make money from building something on that land.

Well sure but I worry that what we would get if we rush the owners would be half baked and just not living up to the land's highest and best use

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Well sure but I worry that what we would get if we rush the owners would be half baked and just not living up to the land's highest and best use

Isn't that exactly what a parking lot is? It's the least amount of effort to get some sort of revenue out of it.

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by dmacc

Isn't that exactly what a parking lot is? It's the least amount of effort to get some sort of revenue out of it.

No...

Parking IS the highest and best use of the land...

If there was a more profitable use of the land by building, people would...

TN square is the result of a $30,000,000 government subsidy.

A $30,000,000 subsidy would create development on any DT parking lot you like!

No subsidy, no development sorry...

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by dmacc

Isn't that exactly what a parking lot is? It's the least amount of effort to get some sort of revenue out of it.

Highest and best use is, with the consideration of zoning and surroundings, the most revenue possible from a parcel of land, and if you think that a surface parking lot yields more revenue than a highrise I got news for you. The problem is twofold. There needs to be demand to justify a full buildout to highest and best use, and the capital required to build can be an obstacle for some land owners.

Highest and best use is a description of potential. So sorry, parking is NOT the highest and best use of the land.

[DowntownBooster]

Originally Posted by Labroco

No...

Parking IS the highest and best use of the land...

If there was a more profitable use of the land by building, people would...

TN square is the result of a $30,000,000 government subsidy.

A $30,000,000 subsidy would create development on any DT parking lot you like!

No subsidy, no development sorry...

The $30,000,000 government subsidy led to development of the $400,000,000 TNS. I'll take that over some surface parking lot.

[dmacc]

And it will result in tens of millions a year in property taxes alone. The investment will have been paid off in 2-3 years for the City. If someone came to me with a proposal like that I would jump at the opportunity... oh yeah, and you get this great public space for the people living and working downtown.

[bomberjet]

sour grapes

[wardlow]

Originally Posted by Labroco

No...

Parking IS the highest and best use of the land...

If there was a more profitable use of the land by building, people would...

TN square is the result of a $30,000,000 government subsidy.

A $30,000,000 subsidy would create development on any DT parking lot you like!

No subsidy, no development sorry...

I don’t think one can talk about the downtown real estate market like it’s some kind of rational system (highest and best use, etc.) and then say that it’s all about the subsidies. Subsidies play a large role in distorting the economics of real estate development downtown; it’s what makes downtown development so often not based in rational market incentives at all.

In downtown, you can build dense and fairly tall as-of-right. Around Portage and Main you can basically build as tall as you want. I recognize this is a big question, but why is it that there’s always an apparent “market gap” and that a subsidy is required to make to the numbers work downtown, but just outside of downtown (Osborne Village, West Broadway) developers are lining up to haggle over height and density with the City, and go through the lengthy, expensive, risky subdivision and rezoning process? Maybe it's because there's no subsidy game to play out there?

[trueviking]

^^ higher construction costs downtown and lower rental rates?

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by trueviking

^^ higher construction costs downtown and lower rental rates?

Out of curiosity, what drives up construction costs downtown vs. OV, WB, etc: Higher construction costs because of less room for staging? More underground infrastructure? Something else?

I would have thought that development in OV, WB, etc would be more expensive because you would have to budget for a year of variance applications, hearings, consultations, appeals, etc. from the NIMBY crowd. Wouldn't that push up costs by adding a year of carrying costs for the land (plus legal, consulting, etc)?

[wardlow]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

Out of curiosity, what drives up construction costs downtown vs. OV, WB, etc: Higher construction costs because of less room for staging? More underground infrastructure? Something else?

I would have thought that development in OV, WB, etc would be more expensive because you would have to budget for a year of variance applications, hearings, consultations, appeals, etc. from the NIMBY crowd. Wouldn't that push up costs by adding a year of carrying costs for the land (plus legal, consulting, etc)?

Yes, that's what I was getting at. I'm not comparing downtown to greenfield development, I'm asking why is it that there doesn't appear to be a 'market gap' when it comes to subdividing and rezoning land to do higher-density on Mayfair, Stradbrook, Sherbrook or Maryland, but we always hear of one when it comes to developing higher density downtown. Is consumer demand for rental so wildly different depending on which side of Memorial Boulevard you're on?

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by wardlow

Yes, that's what I was getting at. I'm not comparing downtown to greenfield development, I'm asking why is it that there doesn't appear to be a 'market gap' when it comes to subdividing and rezoning land to do higher-density on Mayfair, Stradbrook, Sherbrook or Maryland, but we always hear of one when it comes to developing higher density downtown. Is consumer demand for rental so wildly different depending on which side of Memorial Boulevard you're on?

As I have been suggesting it’s because “ the highest and best use” is parking.

To remove a parking lot downtown requires a huge project and ultimately will need to be subsidized.


For someone to sell their lot, pay their capital gains and invest the cash left in bank stocks to be in the same position as just keeping the lot and collecting rent is HUGE. That’s why they are not sold or developed.

While I could easily find 10 buildings for sale today in the Exchange, it’s impossible to purchase any parking lot... Why? Because they are the most valuable asset in the area and easiest to third party manage (Impark). If a landlord cannot offer parking downtown there building’s value and rental rate is diminished...

If we had a better transit system that functioned like what one sees in Europe or Asia there would be less need to drive to work and less need for all the parking we see. Until that happens, I can assure you parking lots will remain and continue to be the investment of choice downtown.

I am not opposed to the subsidy but am explaining why it’s necessary to get the development everyone seems to wants.

The vast majority of development happening DT is on sites that a building was recently demolished first to allow construction, NOT on a parking lot...

( I can think of only two exceptions and could discuss in a latter post)