Winnipeg Construction X

[anthonyk]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

So what does this have to do with Winnipeg Construction?

Nothing, I had posted a list of some private tenders and it included some that are outside of Winnipeg, my apologies Mr. Rrskylar.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

IIRC, we saw this one come through a while ago. The new 8 storey building at St. James and St. Matthews, and the suburban nature of the site layout. Well looks like it's being approved.

http://clkapps.winnipeg.ca/DMIS/permalink.asp?id=A20230907(RM)AC-20

The Urban Planning Division raised some pretty important concerns. It will be interesting to see how they are going to be addressed, or if they will be ignored and the project is simply allowed to proceed as originally proposed.

It's a good project for the area but the devil is in the details. We should not be building 1970s style car-centric parking-out-front designs anymore in areas like this.

[Biff]

I am not endorsing or approving of anything here, but the parking arrangement may have to to with that substation adjacent to this project. I honestly don't know, but we have seen these things before.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Biff

I am not endorsing or approving of anything here, but the parking arrangement may have to to with that substation adjacent to this project. I honestly don't know, but we have seen these things before.

I have to admit I only skimmed the report but as far as I can tell, the main impetus for the setback seems to be preserving the visibility of the Tim Hortons to the north, which is apparently on land owned by the developer of the project.

That said, there are so many big box stores with massive parking lots around there that the developer might wonder why these high standards are being selectively applied...

[Biff]

...on second thought, it appears to be due to the main floor being comprised of commercial units.

[CoryB]

From what I could see of the plan the development at St James and St Matthews would be in keeping with the overall development on the area. Even the older apartments further south on St James are set back from the street with parking in front. And the two previous developments that occupied these sites also had similar setbacks for front parking. It would be very challenging to make a case that this new development should be built right up to the street. Further, maintaining the existing setbacks would safeguard the city against a future expropriation of the building if they ever needed to expand the ROW there.

[esquire]

^ It would be nice to see standards evolve for the better a little, though... I don't know that peak car-centric boomer-era planning from the 60s, 70s and 80s should be the model for everything that gets built around there until the end of time. Pushing the parking to the back is not really a huge leap from what was previously there.

[peg]

I would think the upcoming polo park developments would be reason enough to fight the parking setback.

[BAKGUY]

Originally Posted by Biff

Hey, those buildings are my dream for South Main along the tracks from William Stephenson to the train station.

I agree.Also many parts of Downtown also

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ It would be nice to see standards evolve for the better a little, though... I don't know that peak car-centric boomer-era planning from the 60s, 70s and 80s should be the model for everything that gets built around there until the end of time. Pushing the parking to the back is not really a huge leap from what was previously there.

Yup. Just because something was done before doesn’t mean it’s what should be done today.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ It would be nice to see standards evolve for the better a little, though... I don't know that peak car-centric boomer-era planning from the 60s, 70s and 80s should be the model for everything that gets built around there until the end of time. Pushing the parking to the back is not really a huge leap from what was previously there.

First, most of what is on St James now between Ellice and Portage has been there less than 20 years now. A great time to have done something different was when the former rail line was decommissioned mid 90s and Winnipeg was well into the planning stages for building rapid transit to U of M.

In terms of the specific building being planned for St James and St Mathews I would bet the city is asking for the setbacks on both streets as a way of preserving future right of way changes at that intersection. Keep in mind the parcel in question was actually owned by the city as they took over that parcel and demolished the former buildings there to make way for the St Mathews road expansion.

And let's further be real, I have seen how big box "to the street" retail is done in lots of other cities. There is zero chance if the development had required it the buildings would face onto the sidewalk with parking behind. If they were forced to build to the sidewalk they would at best have a token "entrance" from the sidewalk with a long hall to the true front of the building overlooking the parking lot. Further still, in the mid 90s when the majority of that development took place the area was still under such a harsh airport vicinity zoning that is continued to be one of the worst areas for cell phone coverage until around ten years ago. And it wasn't that companies didn't want to improve coverage there but the height restrictions meant they could not even build a proper wireless tower. The land use along St James is very similar to what you see near other airports such as McArthurGlen Designer Outlet in Vancouver.

[trueviking]

Love it.

BLDG architecture office inc.
The proposal for 914 and 980 St. James St. in Polo Park would add a 100-foot-tall, eight-storey mixed-use residential building with 101 suites and a 9,300-square-foot commercial space on the main floor.

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breaki...elopment-proposes-101-residential-suites

[esquire]

^ The building is OK but I really would like to see it reconfigured to push the parking to the back.

Also, this was an interesting tidbit thrown into the news story:

"Meanwhile, a $1-billion development planned for the Winnipeg Blue Bombers former football stadium site is not yet at the city application stage. It would add thousands of additional residential units to the area, if approved."

[WinCitySparky]

That $1 billion proposal was probably just to pump CF stocks in the short term. I’m calling it, it won’t see first shovel for at least 6 years a recession notwithstanding.

[WinCitySparky]

The 914/980 proposal looks like brutalism is making a comeback lol

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by WinCitySparky

That $1 billion proposal was probably just to pump CF stocks in the short term. I’m calling it, it won’t see first shovel for at least 6 years a recession notwithstanding.

Ignoring all the various fraud implications with such a notion, it's not a publicly traded company, it's wholly owned by a pension fund.

[WinCitySparky]

lol well insert other skeptical example you can come up with, bets still on

[CoryB]

Maybe CF Polo was looking to get some REITs putting in funding for the project as a "mortgage" or similar. Something like the private industry version of a public-private partnership.

[WinCitySparky]

Interesting idea, I didn’t realize it worked that way but makes a lot of sense.

[zalf]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Maybe CF Polo was looking to get some REITs putting in funding for the project as a "mortgage" or similar. Something like the private industry version of a public-private partnership.

I believe "private placement" is the term of art for this, but finance is not my industry.