Winnipeg Construction X - Page 65

stringedbean · #**1281** Posted **Oct 29, 2019, 5:18 PM**

Anyone have any idea what's going in along Furby north of Sara?

headhorse · #**1282** Posted **Oct 29, 2019, 5:31 PM**

it’s been like that for months now.. I’m assuming it’s related to klinic moving in on Sherbrook. I don’t think it would be for a fancy new parking lot but...

Wpg_Guy · #**1283** Posted **Oct 29, 2019, 6:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by stringedbean

Anyone have any idea what's going in along Furby north of Sara?

Unfortunately They are just redoing the parking lot.

headhorse · #**1284** Posted **Oct 29, 2019, 7:28 PM**

very frustrating that that is how resources are being allocated

OTA in Winnipeg · #**1285** Posted **Oct 29, 2019, 7:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by headhorse

it’s been like that for months now.. I’m assuming it’s related to klinic moving in on Sherbrook. I don’t think it would be for a fancy new parking lot but...

A clinic or Klinic from Portage Ave and Home St?

DonaldSmith · #**1286** Posted **Oct 29, 2019, 8:20 PM**

FYI: 634 Portage Ave (former McNaught Dealership) is owned by Private Pension Partners and they are currently looking for capital to develop.

headhorse · #**1287** Posted **Oct 29, 2019, 8:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OTA in Winnipeg

A clinic or Klinic from Portage Ave and Home St?

with a K

https://klinic.mb.ca/building/

i'm curious how much money they are spending building and maintaining the lot.

OTA in Winnipeg · #**1288** Posted **Oct 29, 2019, 9:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by headhorse

with a K

https://klinic.mb.ca/building/

i'm curious how much money they are spending building and maintaining the lot.

Thanks!

Wpg_Guy · #**1289** Posted **Oct 30, 2019, 2:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonaldSmith

FYI: 634 Portage Ave (former McNaught Dealership) is owned by Private Pension Partners and they are currently looking for capital to develop.

That's interesting, its been hit and miss with them. They have done a nice job in Osborne Village refurbishing 99 & 121 Osborne. The Stradbrook tower is a big miss for a TOD and is not very aesthetically pleasing but that could be on MMP for the design. The Osborne Village Inn development looks really promising so far.

esquire · #**1290** Posted **Oct 30, 2019, 12:33 PM**

^ Big miss for TOD is being too harsh IMO. The Stradbrook tower is still a pretty substantial building across the street from a BRT station... it's a pretty good development from a transit perspective even if the building itself is not necessarily an award winner in the making.

buzzg · #**1291** Posted **Oct 30, 2019, 2:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Since, like you mentioned, it appears Graham will be abandoned by transit. But they still intend to use Union Station for the A line I believe it was. But are abandoning any further dedicated corridors for RT. The most logical place for the transitway to connect would be at Westbrook. Just have a ramp down from the transit highline to the existing intersection, with some mods for transit priority or whatever they need.

All three RT lines are planned to run through Union Station. BLUE is UofM-Portage, GREEN is St. Mary's/Main, and PINK is Regent Grant. If you look closely at the map, BLUE and PINK run through the station and GREEN stops in front of it on Main. So even if we're not going to get dedicated transitways (yet) those 3 lines should be able to be implemented soon as Union Station gets converted, which would make a big difference combined with on-street improvements.

buzzg · #**1292** Posted **Oct 30, 2019, 2:38 PM**

Yeah I don't think the Stradbrook tower is a "big miss" – it's actually quite good in terms of the TOD aspect, it's right across from an RT station. The miss with it is its streetfront presence being dominated by a parkade.

dmacc · #**1293** Posted **Oct 30, 2019, 2:50 PM**

And the Parkade street presence is more a failure on the City IMO, they were the once who said more parking was needed. The original plan had Townhouses along the street.

Labroco · #**1294** Posted **Oct 30, 2019, 3:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmacc

And the Parkade street presence is more a failure on the City IMO, they were the once who said more parking was needed. The original plan had Townhouses along the street.

My recent conversation with Planning stated there is no parking requirement for any development downtown...

If there is no relaxation for parking requirements when right on top of a rapid transit stop we have a HUGE problem with how sensible development can move forward in the area directly adjacent to the City core.

wardlow · #**1295** Posted **Oct 30, 2019, 4:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmacc

And the Parkade street presence is more a failure on the City IMO, they were the once who said more parking was needed. The original plan had Townhouses along the street.

From my understanding, this is not true. The townhouses were removed because of an agreement with the Winter Club, who didn't want to see any reduction in the number of parking on this property (221 Stradbrook), which might cause people to park in the Winter Club's precious sea of dumpy concrete.

dmacc · #**1296** Posted **Oct 30, 2019, 5:09 PM**

I pretty sure this is the second time I've mentioned it. I believe it was Bomberjet who found the information from the city where they requested additional spots per unit. Maybe he can find it again?

bomberjet · #**1297** Posted **Oct 30, 2019, 5:33 PM**

I can't remember.

buzzg · #**1298** Posted **Oct 30, 2019, 6:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wardlow

From my understanding, this is not true. The townhouses were removed because of an agreement with the Winter Club, who didn't want to see any reduction in the number of parking on this property (221 Stradbrook), which might cause people to park in the Winter Club's precious sea of dumpy concrete.

The number of parking spots didn't change by getting rid of the townhouses – they were going to go in front of the parkade on Stradbrook, which will now just be grass.

Also, a deal with the WWC doesn't override the city making its own rules.

esquire · #**1299** Posted **Oct 30, 2019, 6:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wardlow

which might cause people to park in the Winter Club's precious sea of dumpy concrete.

I appreciate the humour of that phrase because it highlights the irony of one of Winnipeg's more prestigious clubs having pretty well the same appearance as an industrial recycling facility.

But that said, I wonder how long WWC will last in their location before they sell to developers and move out? I don't have a heat map of the WWC's membership base but I'd wager that it's probably concentrated on the south side of town... if they put something up on, say, McGillivray, suddenly it's cheap land, oodles of parking, and proximity to many of their members.

The site would definitely have some appeal for redevelopment.

headhorse · #**1300** Posted **Oct 30, 2019, 6:47 PM**

so this is a comment from a a member of the community committee in response to a an development application on Wolseley and Sherbrook that has no doors fronting Sherbrook and about half of it a blank wall

Quote:

I want to thank Mr. Wan in terms of the sensitivity to the pedestrian level and the nature of Sherbrook Street, and I think that is very sensitively and respectfully held through this project, including the roof terrace and the urban greenspace that is going to present, but most importantly the response to the housing priority of assisted living barrier free.