HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2019, 8:22 PM
Curmudgeon Curmudgeon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 935
^ Absolutely not Orwellian. What we can be certain is that unrestricted rights for capital and property owners would result in a dystopian nightmare. It does not matter who owns the property, a prince or a pauper, there are property rights, but they are not absolute, and thank goodness for that.

I'm sure any process will weed out concerns that are minimal or without merit. In most cases the opposite is true, people are far too passive about allowing their communities to be degraded.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2019, 8:14 PM
Wpg_Guy's Avatar
Wpg_Guy Wpg_Guy is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Posts: 5,468
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 - March 2024

Winnipeg | A Picture Thread - Updated October 2023

In The Future Every Building Will Be World-Famous For Fifteen Minutes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2019, 8:48 PM
optimusREIM's Avatar
optimusREIM optimusREIM is offline
There is always a way
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,843
That blockage of the Tuxedo lot split was REALLY dumb. And now people will want to follow suit (block reasonable projects) simply for the sake of doing so. It's the NIMBYs who are in favour of the status quo, sorry Brian Mayes, not buying your line of reasoning.
__________________
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm."
Federalist #10, James Madison
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2019, 8:53 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Mayes is such a disappointment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2019, 9:09 PM
Spocket's Avatar
Spocket Spocket is offline
Back from the dead
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,505
I can understand why some people would be against gentrification in that it prices them out of their homes. That makes sense. However, if you're not living on the edge of your budget already then gentrification is generally a good thing. You get to keep the services you've relied for years. Your neighborhood escapes turning into a slum (or moves out from being one) In the long run, it winds up costing less to run the city which winds up costing you less. So, the new NIMBYism isn't just against tall buildings but against change in general. Hmm...like the people who were willing to chain themselves to Eaton's because they had memories of the place as kids, I'd say that we got way more out of its destruction and the lot's reconstruction than Eaton's ever provided the city in all the time it was on the site. Why is Winnipeg so afraid of change?
__________________
Giving you a reason to drink and drive since 1975.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2019, 9:26 PM
Andy6's Avatar
Andy6 Andy6 is offline
Starring as himself
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto Yorkville
Posts: 9,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spocket View Post
I can understand why some people would be against gentrification in that it prices them out of their homes. That makes sense. However, if you're not living on the edge of your budget already then gentrification is generally a good thing. You get to keep the services you've relied for years. Your neighborhood escapes turning into a slum (or moves out from being one) In the long run, it winds up costing less to run the city which winds up costing you less. So, the new NIMBYism isn't just against tall buildings but against change in general. Hmm...like the people who were willing to chain themselves to Eaton's because they had memories of the place as kids, I'd say that we got way more out of its destruction and the lot's reconstruction than Eaton's ever provided the city in all the time it was on the site. Why is Winnipeg so afraid of change?
Is any other city any different?
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2019, 9:36 PM
Spocket's Avatar
Spocket Spocket is offline
Back from the dead
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy6 View Post
Is any other city any different?
Fair comment but in most cities they're safely ignored and a dozen people showing up to a council meeting isn't usually recognized as representative of an entire neighborhood. Not that I'm saying only a dozen people showed up for this meeting but I'd be surprised if it was much more if it went that high. OTOH, my assumptions are proven wrong here on a daily basis so who knows, maybe the entire population of the neighbourhood was there including pets.
__________________
Giving you a reason to drink and drive since 1975.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2019, 9:52 PM
Pinus Pinus is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spocket View Post
I can understand why some people would be against gentrification in that it prices them out of their homes. That makes sense. However, if you're not living on the edge of your budget already then gentrification is generally a good thing. You get to keep the services you've relied for years. Your neighborhood escapes turning into a slum (or moves out from being one) In the long run, it winds up costing less to run the city which winds up costing you less. So, the new NIMBYism isn't just against tall buildings but against change in general. Hmm...like the people who were willing to chain themselves to Eaton's because they had memories of the place as kids, I'd say that we got way more out of its destruction and the lot's reconstruction than Eaton's ever provided the city in all the time it was on the site. Why is Winnipeg so afraid of change?
It's funny, because when I read threads from other cities, I always tend to see "Why is Halifax so afraid of change? Why is Quebec City so afraid of change? Why is Hamilton so afraid of change? Why is Regina so afraid of change? Why is Edmonton so afraid of change?" Seems like each city thinks that their respective city if the only city in the world that is "afraid of change". But in reality, being afraid of change is just simple human nature, no matter where you live.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2019, 5:11 AM
buzzg buzzg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 7,799
I absolutely love Matt Allard. I think he's the best councillor ever in my life (28 years) and think he would be an incredible mayor. He's progressive and vision, yet still understanding and realistic. He doesn't let his or his (loud) constituents emotions or personal (often uneducated) beliefs cloud facts, proof, or judgement. I commend him for standing up against other councillors and they mayor – but doing it with facts and figures, and never political grandstanding.

He is the model politician and I'm so happy to live in his ward. I would love him to be mayor, but would be afraid to lose him altogether if the NIMBY crowd representative won.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2019, 1:28 PM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 7,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzg View Post
I absolutely love Matt Allard. I think he's the best councillor ever in my life (28 years) and think he would be an incredible mayor. He's progressive and vision, yet still understanding and realistic. He doesn't let his or his (loud) constituents emotions or personal (often uneducated) beliefs cloud facts, proof, or judgement. I commend him for standing up against other councillors and they mayor – but doing it with facts and figures, and never political grandstanding.

He is the model politician and I'm so happy to live in his ward. I would love him to be mayor, but would be afraid to lose him altogether if the NIMBY crowd representative won.
What a guy that Allard, a proponent of destroying the look of older neighbourhoods by turning 50 foot lots into two 25 foot lots with the pretence of infill housing and gentrification but only in neighbourhoods where a quick buck can be made because the value of existing homes is high enough, aesthetics and original site plans be damned, and no one wants to live in certain older areas where infill is really needed so why bother right Matt!

Of course splitting a 153 foot lot into two lots of 76 and 77 should never be allowed even when the norm for that area is 75 according to our city council! Certain posters here will stay mum on that decision of course because well, we all know why anyway!

Last edited by rrskylar; Jul 10, 2019 at 2:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2019, 3:13 PM
wardlow's Avatar
wardlow wardlow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 631
Quote:
St. Godard said the Glenwood association members are not "NIMBYs," they’re "QIMBYs": asking for "quality in my backyard."
The Glenwood Neighbourhood Association appeal EVERY. SINGLE. infill project in the Glenwood area that the city approves, regardless of design or where it's located. They then send a handful of volunteers to speak at the appeal committee hearing, where they usually don't speak about the appealed project in particular, just about how infill in Glenwood is bad generally: 'Here's a picture of an unrelated construction project from 2015.' 'Here's an article I found on Facebook about how trees are nice.' 'Here's why I think renters are bad.'

But yes, totally not NIMBYs...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2019, 4:21 PM
Andy6's Avatar
Andy6 Andy6 is offline
Starring as himself
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto Yorkville
Posts: 9,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinus View Post
It's funny, because when I read threads from other cities, I always tend to see "Why is Halifax so afraid of change? Why is Quebec City so afraid of change? Why is Hamilton so afraid of change? Why is Regina so afraid of change? Why is Edmonton so afraid of change?" Seems like each city thinks that their respective city if the only city in the world that is "afraid of change". But in reality, being afraid of change is just simple human nature, no matter where you live.
Fear of change tends to increase with experience of change.
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2019, 4:25 PM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 7,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy6 View Post
Fear of change tends to increase with experience of change.
Well isn't that the truth, also can't put the genie back in the bottle!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2019, 4:33 PM
Andy6's Avatar
Andy6 Andy6 is offline
Starring as himself
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto Yorkville
Posts: 9,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by wardlow View Post
The Glenwood Neighbourhood Association appeal EVERY. SINGLE. infill project in the Glenwood area that the city approves, regardless of design or where it's located. They then send a handful of volunteers to speak at the appeal committee hearing, where they usually don't speak about the appealed project in particular, just about how infill in Glenwood is bad generally: 'Here's a picture of an unrelated construction project from 2015.' 'Here's an article I found on Facebook about how trees are nice.' 'Here's why I think renters are bad.'

But yes, totally not NIMBYs...
NIMBY is just a silly insult that has lost its meaning. It was supposed to refer to people who refused to accept, in their neighbourhoods, their fair share of public burdens - a halfway house for ex-cons, a garbage dump, basically any ugly or undesirable — but necessary — piece of infrastructure that unfortunately “has to go somewhere”. Now it is just randomly slung at anyone who opposes anything proposed by any for-profit developer.
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2019, 4:43 PM
optimusREIM's Avatar
optimusREIM optimusREIM is offline
There is always a way
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy6 View Post
NIMBY is just a silly insult that has lost its meaning. It was supposed to refer to people who refused to accept, in their neighbourhoods, their fair share of public burdens - a halfway house for ex-cons, a garbage dump, basically any ugly or undesirable — but necessary — piece of infrastructure that unfortunately “has to go somewhere”. Now it is just randomly slung at anyone who opposes anything proposed by any for-profit developer.
It's because NIMBYs are opposing legitimate development as if it WERE a thing that were a public burden like a halfway house or a dump. Infill in mature communities IS necessary development to ensure that the city is economically sustainable in the long run.
__________________
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm."
Federalist #10, James Madison
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2019, 4:49 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimusREIM View Post
It's because NIMBYs are opposing legitimate development as if it WERE a thing that were a public burden like a halfway house or a dump. Infill in mature communities IS necessary development to ensure that the city is economically sustainable in the long run.
I don't get how people expect neighbourhoods with an increasingly aging housing stock to just remain frozen in time. Eventually these older homes need replacement, and you can't expect them to be replaced with houses suited to 1920s tastes.

Prohibiting or inhibiting infill in certain areas means that those areas will decline as the homes become older and less desirable, and new owners can't build something that suits their tastes.

Fear of change is not really a sound basis for city planning bylaws.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2019, 5:12 PM
optimusREIM's Avatar
optimusREIM optimusREIM is offline
There is always a way
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
I don't get how people expect neighbourhoods with an increasingly aging housing stock to just remain frozen in time. Eventually these older homes need replacement, and you can't expect them to be replaced with houses suited to 1920s tastes.

Prohibiting or inhibiting infill in certain areas means that those areas will decline as the homes become older and less desirable, and new owners can't build something that suits their tastes.

Fear of change is not really a sound basis for city planning bylaws.
Not only that, but the idea of having economically feasible infill and having aesthetic standards for a neighbourhood are not mutually exclusive concepts.

However, it needs to be noted that new developments will not necessarily perfectly reflect the old character of the neighbourhood, not to mention that there are modern building codes to respect. Doesn't mean that they won't fit in and it certainly doesn't mean that every new build has to fit in completely innocuously.
__________________
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm."
Federalist #10, James Madison
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2019, 5:20 PM
Wpg_Guy's Avatar
Wpg_Guy Wpg_Guy is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Posts: 5,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
I don't get how people expect neighbourhoods with an increasingly aging housing stock to just remain frozen in time. Eventually these older homes need replacement, and you can't expect them to be replaced with houses suited to 1920s tastes.

Prohibiting or inhibiting infill in certain areas means that those areas will decline as the homes become older and less desirable, and new owners can't build something that suits their tastes.

Fear of change is not really a sound basis for city planning bylaws.
Agree 110%. And usually once change takes place the initial arguments and fears are unfounded.

Years ago a 55+ complex was proposed on an empty field behind my house. No body used the field it was overgrown, unsightly, strewn with garbage and infested with mice, but of course the neighbourhood was up in arms. The main argument, with seniors living in this complex the neighbourhood will experience an increase in noise due to fire/ambulances having to attend the elderly living there. The complex was built and no such increase in noise ever transpired.
__________________
Winnipeg Act II - March 2024

Winnipeg | A Picture Thread - Updated October 2023

In The Future Every Building Will Be World-Famous For Fifteen Minutes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2019, 5:22 PM
Wpg_Guy's Avatar
Wpg_Guy Wpg_Guy is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Posts: 5,468
Some of the houses going are up are really ugly. It would be nice if there were design guidelines for materials used or facades that are not just grey stucco.
__________________
Winnipeg Act II - March 2024

Winnipeg | A Picture Thread - Updated October 2023

In The Future Every Building Will Be World-Famous For Fifteen Minutes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2019, 5:50 PM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 7,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy View Post
Some of the houses going are up are really ugly. It would be nice if there were design guidelines for materials used or facades that are not just grey stucco.
How about height guidelines as well, I've seen too many ugly twin grain elevator new homes hacked into what was once a 50 foot lot that dwarf and tower over existing homes to the benefit of only the developer, to some and Allard that's progress dammit, lot splitting infill doubles the city's tax base which is all that really matters.
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 2:02 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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