HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted May 17, 2022, 11:47 PM
eman eman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 177
YIMBY - Winnipeg Urbanism and Density

I wanted to start a discussion. Bellamy's article this week is a good starting point that points out that decades of low density city planning has resulted in unmanageable amounts of potholes and infrastructure decay. As we head into a fall election this issue should get the attention it deserve and maybe some action will come of it.

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/op...576504792.html

The Osbourne Village Neighbourhood Plan has the best of intentions yet resulted in zero high density buildings in the ten years since it was made law. Bellamy, Gerbasi an Rollins are great people yet they fell into the NIMBY trap despite what they say. They talk a good talk but the results of their work is there for all to see. Zero high density builds and the neighbourhood looks like its stuck in the 80s. If you want to see a collection of new high density builds go 12km to Bridgwater.

I think the entire Osbourne Village Neighbourhood Plan should be trashed. Rezone every square inch for mixed use high density except parks. Same goes for much of Corydon St. B, the West end and around every rapid transit station. Stop approving mid/high density housing near the perimeter for a while.


Last edited by eman; May 18, 2022 at 8:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted May 18, 2022, 12:04 AM
eman eman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 177
For reference here are some people I follow online:
They can express these issues much better than I can.

Phil Ritz is really good on Tiktok
https://www.tiktok.com/@philritz1
https://www.instagram.com/philritz/


Brent Toderian of course.
https://twitter.com/BrentToderian

Zac Bowling YIMBY
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZML3pNe2N/

Jake Gotta
https://www.tiktok.com/@jake_gotta
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted May 18, 2022, 12:05 AM
eman eman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 177

Last edited by eman; May 18, 2022 at 8:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted May 18, 2022, 12:13 AM
eman eman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 177
The whole neighbourhood should be mixed use high density, but I was shocked to see that high density is NOT zoned near Osborne Station. I thought the main point to rapid transit is to spur development next to stations to help pay for it.

Last edited by eman; May 18, 2022 at 8:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted May 18, 2022, 12:29 AM
Jeff's Avatar
Jeff Jeff is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Winnipeg|MB
Posts: 2,220
Just take a look at the new-ish Stationside building along the "rapid" transit line at Walker and Argue. Over half the lot is surface parking fronting the active transportation path and transit line. It's absolutely ghastly. If this is what the city is aspiring to for TOD they gotta throw the current playbook out and start again.
__________________
instagram: @jeff_vernaus
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted May 18, 2022, 1:52 PM
GreyGarden GreyGarden is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by eman View Post
I think the entire Osbourne Village Neighbourhood Plan should be trashed. Rezone every square inch for mixed use high density except parks. Same goes for much of Corydon St. B, the West end and around every rapid transit station. Stop approving mid/high density housing near the perimeter for a while.

I think the reason the city isn't seeing lots of high density development is because there is little to no demand for $2000 high rise apartments and zero demand for $300-400K condos. I'm skeptical that if we just opened everything up zoning wise we'd see tower cranes shooting up all over the place. None of the people you listed can snap their fingers and suddenly have a bunch of university educated people with good incomes (or students whose parents have good incomes) who want to live in higher density buildings.

Maybe as the cost of single family housing increases in Winnipeg and wages stay flat we might see an increase in demand for high rises, mid rises, and town houses. Its not like Osborne Village is Toronto's West End.

I think we both want a similar result, I'd love to see higher density development in Osborne Village around the 4 towers. But to be honest, I just want to see higher quality buildings built in the area, even if they're just 3-6 floors. From a walking perspective, I absolutely hate walking in Toronto's tower neighbourhoods. They look nice in the background and in pictures, but don't make very nice neighbourhoods.

Also, for what its worth, the higher density development in Bridgewater is awful urban design. It is almost always surrounded by surface parking. I'll never understand it, living in a city building without the city around you. I'd understand it if living close to the city was just too expensive and people were driven to terrible buildings because of cost limitations, but I'm almost certain that isn't the case here.

Edit: I just realized the demand/economics argument is already made in one of the Twitter threads posted above.

Last edited by GreyGarden; May 18, 2022 at 2:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted May 18, 2022, 2:49 PM
GreyGarden GreyGarden is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by eman View Post
The whole neighbourhood should be mixed use high density, but I was shocked to see that high density is NOT zoned near Osbourne Station. I thought the main point to rapid transit is to spur development next to stations to help pay for it.
I'm more or less fine with the zoning currently in place in OV (including the Burger King in character commercial is weird but may just be the graphic - seems absurd), but I agree that around Osborne Station larger buildings need to be built. For example in these locations:

https://www.google.com/maps/@49.8722...7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@49.8734...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@49.8738...7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@49.8739...7i16384!8i8192

Again, the demand and economics is likely the biggest thing standing in the way of new development. But I also wouldn't be surprised if Winnipeg's zoning around transit made no sense - someone who knows more than me may be able to shed light on that. If I was a student going to UofM I'd love to be able to live close to the Village but right next to a transit station.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted May 18, 2022, 3:49 PM
eman eman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyGarden View Post
I think the reason the city isn't seeing lots of high density development is because there is little to no demand for $2000 high rise apartments and zero demand for $300-400K condos. I'm skeptical that if we just opened everything up zoning wise we'd see tower cranes shooting up all over the place. None of the people you listed can snap their fingers and suddenly have a bunch of university educated people with good incomes (or students whose parents have good incomes) who want to live in higher density buildings.
Affordable density is certainly possible. Maybe architects hate designing cheap stuff but it's doable. Look at 24 Carlton Street. 10 floors on a small lot. That's got to be the cheapest 10 story building possible. I could see that on any street in the village even mid-block. Even taller on the same lot is possible and its common in many big cities.

Winnipeg is a car city. If there is any chance of reversing that we need big gains infill.

24 Carlton St
https://www.google.com/maps/place/26...!4d-97.1420415

Last edited by eman; May 18, 2022 at 10:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted May 18, 2022, 4:03 PM
GreyGarden GreyGarden is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 761
This point has been made many times but I think it is the parking minimums that also really stand in the way of quality development in Osborne Village, not zoning.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted May 18, 2022, 6:07 PM
1ajs's Avatar
1ajs 1ajs is offline
ʇɥƃıuʞ -*ʞpʇ*-
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: lynn lake
Posts: 25,833
We had a group at one time called wui on here winnipeg urban initive about 15yrs ago
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted May 19, 2022, 10:51 PM
eman eman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyGarden View Post
This point has been made many times but I think it is the parking minimums that also really stand in the way of quality development in Osborne Village, not zoning.
Zac just posted this about parking.
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMLTxEFsE/?k=1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted May 20, 2022, 12:58 AM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 13,440
The dramatic height reduction on Roslyn is a good example of economics being the primary driver of height. The cheapest high-rise (7+ stories) can be built for $250 per square foot. A quality mid-rise (6 stories) can be built for $175 per square foot.

That being said, there are definitely places in Osborne Village that should allow taller buildings. The low density area zoned east of Osborne should definitely be mid density.

Parking minimums should be eliminated everywhere but especially in OV.




Last edited by trueviking; May 20, 2022 at 1:09 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted May 20, 2022, 1:07 AM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 13,440
It should also be noted that high rise isn’t the only way to achieve high density. The new project on Osborne is an example. A 15 storey building tested for the site only had ten more units than the six storey that is going to be built. Six storey buildings can provide very high density and greater affordability. Like it or not, the economics of Winnipeg is 4-6 storey multi-family. Not high rise. We should be encouraging this kind of development as much as possible. It creates dense and high quality neighbourhoods.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted May 20, 2022, 1:40 AM
WildCake WildCake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
It should also be noted that high rise isn’t the only way to achieve high density. The new project on Osborne is an example. A 15 storey building tested for the site only had ten more units than the six storey that is going to be built. Six storey buildings can provide very high density and greater affordability. Like it or not, the economics of Winnipeg is 4-6 storey multi-family. Not high rise. We should be encouraging this kind of development as much as possible. It creates dense and high quality neighbourhoods.
Older european cities known for lively streets and density are dominated by ~6 story buildings in their core. Not tall New York or Hong Kong grade skyscrapers. If small jumps in densification (several 6 story buildings one at a time) rather than a single 42 story building is what happens then I'm all for it.

Sure downtown can be taller but if the economics don't dictate a new shiny 30+ tower downtown, then let's work in that 6 range in the fringe areas ripe for more densification until it brings up property values and demand downtown. Increased pressure from population density should also help the benefit side of the cost/benefit equation for transit improvements as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted May 24, 2022, 1:59 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
I guess one big difference with old European cities is that the 6 storey buildings are built wall to wall, while here we plunk a 6 storey building in the middle of a parking lot. It's tough to build much of a neighbourhood when you do it that way.



vs.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2022, 3:56 PM
eman eman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 177
The city should be trying to maximize the tax base. This video spells it out with great graphs.


Suburbia is Subsidized: Here's the Math


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2022, 4:10 PM
eman eman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
It should also be noted that high rise isn’t the only way to achieve high density. The new project on Osborne is an example. A 15 storey building tested for the site only had ten more units than the six storey that is going to be built. Six storey buildings can provide very high density and greater affordability. Like it or not, the economics of Winnipeg is 4-6 storey multi-family. Not high rise. We should be encouraging this kind of development as much as possible. It creates dense and high quality neighbourhoods.
The city has been falling so short on building/encouraging density that its loosing ground. One step forward(six storey) 3 steps back by continuing to zone low/mid density in Osborne and near rapid transit stations.

That's why I see Bellamy and Rollins as complete Urbanism failures. Grade F because current zoning is NIMBYism. They should be doing everything possible to trash the current zoning and replace it with mixed use high density.

I started this thread then didn't engage till now because it makes me so angry to see Osborne as having not a single building I would consider living in and nothing on the drawing board. Grade F. Osborne is a time capsule from the 80s and is a now a stagnant NIMBY neighbourhood. It should be a fine example of what rapid transit walkable communities can do and fund future transit legs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2022, 5:00 PM
thebasketballgeek's Avatar
thebasketballgeek thebasketballgeek is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Rimouski, Québec
Posts: 1,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by eman View Post
The city has been falling so short on building/encouraging density that its loosing ground. One step forward(six storey) 3 steps back by continuing to zone low/mid density in Osborne and near rapid transit stations.

That's why I see Bellamy and Rollins as complete Urbanism failures. Grade F because current zoning is NIMBYism. They should be doing everything possible to trash the current zoning and replace it with mixed use high density.

I started this thread then didn't engage till now because it makes me so angry to see Osborne as having not a single building I would consider living in and nothing on the drawing board. Grade F. Osborne is a time capsule from the 80s and is a now a stagnant NIMBY neighbourhood. It should be a fine example of what rapid transit walkable communities can do and fund future transit legs.
You know there’s about to be like 400 units added to Osborne replacing the old Inn and the Gags right? Also you must have not been seeing the Infill projects happening on River, Stradbrook, Grosvenor, and McMillan. By no means is the village a stagnant neighborhood. South Osborne also has been slowly adding more infill projects as well especially with the new TOD at Fort Rouge.

One more thing to note is that zoning reform won’t be the transformational change you’re expecting. Simply turning low density to high density zoning still neglects lot coverages, setback requirements, combating NIMBYism, FAR, and parking minimums. These all have to be addressed in order to spur more development.

Finally from a design perspective when there’s an area full of single-family houses you can’t just plop a 12-storey apartment because it’ll effect the quality of life for nearby residents because of massive shadows and wind tunnels. That’s why these upzoning need to be incremental (1 storey to 3 storey or 3 storey to 6 storey). The only way to make substantial changes in height would require the provincial government (not municipal) to go full eminent domain and establish a regional planning board so that NIMBYs can’t do anything about it. Of course I would support a change like that but it requires very high political will especially in Manitoba.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2022, 12:25 AM
eman eman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
It should also be noted that high rise isn’t the only way to achieve high density. The new project on Osborne is an example. A 15 storey building tested for the site only had ten more units than the six storey that is going to be built. Six storey buildings can provide very high density and greater affordability. Like it or not, the economics of Winnipeg is 4-6 storey multi-family. Not high rise. We should be encouraging this kind of development as much as possible. It creates dense and high quality neighbourhoods.
Why not test a 30 story building like 55 Nassau built 52 years ago.

To achieve a reasonable amount of density at 6 floors you need to load up entire block for many blocks, like from the Osborne Bridge to Jubilee. If you can do that, great, do it, do it fast as it's already been 10 years since rapid transit was built. Or load up a few high real high density mixed use.

The demand is there. New 6 floor building on Bell that is 80% leased and they expect 100% when construction is finished. Obviously it should have been 20+ floors similar to 240 Stradbrook/3 Donald near by. The NIMBY zoning forced the builder to keep it short.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2022, 4:04 AM
eman eman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 177
I saw a sign outside the Masonic Temple. I was hoping it was for sale sign and the land was ready for upgrading, but its just a lease of commercial space.

The property is right next to Osborne Station and its zoned commercial.

https://rowswellrealty.com/property/...-ave-winnipeg/

https://rowswellrealty.com/wp-conten...n-Ave420-L.pdf

Why is this zoned commercial?

It's right next to our first rapid transit station. Nothing less than high density mixed use. TOD with mainfloor services.

On the other side there are commercial warehouses, a carwash, gas station/car wash, office building. Then the Burger King block should also be high density mixed use.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:17 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.