Winnipeg | Exchange District | 291 Bannatyne Ave | In Development

[drew]

^ the extra height probably allows for one more floors worth of units which is likely the difference between this being a viable project or not.

[Mr Tall Forehead]

So the appeal is to ensure ‘care’ is given during construction and to whittle it down to 100 feet from 106.1 feet…?

This $900 appeal will end up delaying construction by at least 4-6 months perhaps wasting a construction season and end up increasing costs by maybe, what, 5% in the interim?

Yeah, I’d say it’s frivolous…

[tron_javolta]

Drew, you say the extra floor probably makes the difference. But shouldn't evidence be required if a developer wants to bend rules? Many shorter financially viable infills have been built recently including one with more heritage work at 138 Portage.

Mr. Tall Forehead, I hope this project works out and a lot of it looks good but this doesn’t seem as simple you say. I’m very YIMBY but the developer could have avoided the appeal by not needing a variance ie by being under 100 feet, which seems like good level of density for the area. The developer has not shown why they need to break the rule plus the structural concern for adjacent buildings with rubble foundations seems legit.

[Mr Tall Forehead]

A public objection to a 6 foot height variance is supposed to address somebody’s concern about rubble foundations in the area how? If the building was proposed at 99 feet I guess they would just have to trust the City’s established permitting process…

[tron_javolta]

Mr Tall Forehead, your complaint was about the appeal. I am just pointing out that the developer opened the door to appeal by asking for a variance. They could have avoided that by doing 8 or 9 storeys instead of 10.

Yeah, the rubble foundation might still have been a problem either way. I do not think 2 engineering companies would have contributed to an appeal if there was no possibility of an issue. But regardless of the appeal, looking into that possible issue seems important and would have caused a delay. So why are you so bothered by the appeal?

I am Yes In My Backyard but do you think you should just automatically let people break rules and have literally no recourse process of any kind? I am Yes In My Backyard but not if it actually might literally harm neighboring buildings. This is different than not wanting a zoning compliant apartment building or duplex next door. The developer wants rules bent for them when the rules actually accommodate something pretty big. If the Exchange District was filled with rule following 6 to 8 storey buildings it would be great.

[Mr Tall Forehead]

I already noted why I have a problem with the appeal. It will delay, add costs and as drew notes, possibly impact viability of a project proposing to inject some life into a couple of decrepit buildings.

It’s swell that engineers have contributed to the appeal but they (or more likely the people that hired them) may be disappointed because, unless I’m mistaken, the focus of the hearing will be the issue that was involved in the variance - which is a whopping 6.1 feet of height (basically Nik Ehlers without skates).

[tron_javolta]

But in objecting to the appeal you aren't responding to any of the actual substance of it. All your points are hypothetical, ie "possibly impact viability" and "may be disappointed" etc. But some times some slowness is fine. The reason I even logged onto this site again was that I think its wrong that a citizen has to pay almost 1000 dollars just to get the city to consider possible damage to their structure. That should have already been dealt with which would take time anyway.

[Mr Tall Forehead]

I’m done. Good luck with your appeal.

[tron_javolta]

LOL it is not my appeal. Are you the developer?

I do know from experience that an appeal to fix an issue for a project beside your house even at great cost can help. I want infill but there are case by case differences and builders or the city are not always right and appeals wrong.

You have no proof delay might kill the project or that the foundation problem is false. A hearing will be good as both sides can make their arguments and show proof. I think the hearing is pretty soon too.

In my experience it can pay to take time to fix problems early. Hopefully we get a project that satisfies everyone. If that means they adjust the foundation and it is a bit shorter that seems fine.

Let me tell you, big picture, it is better to take two extra months than cause years of structural problems for neighbours.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by Mr Tall Forehead

So the appeal is to ensure ‘care’ is given during construction and to whittle it down to 100 feet from 106.1 feet…?

This $900 appeal will end up delaying construction by at least 4-6 months perhaps wasting a construction season and end up increasing costs by maybe, what, 5% in the interim?

Yeah, I’d say it’s frivolous…

hear what ur saying but plp are looking at what they can legaly use to apeal somthing thats got the feel of cookie cutter the scale is off for that spot the travelers building gives the block a unique feel id rather see the old spegeti factory building get rebuilt to orig hight and the garage next door left at its current hieght. and uses


the question we need to ask is why is it u need to build at that scale to make it profitable? is this result of how property tax gets jacked up and then add ur mortage and u will loose money as a result of doing a small scale projec? taxation based on value need to end

[drew]

Originally Posted by tron_javolta

Drew, you say the extra floor probably makes the difference. But shouldn't evidence be required if a developer wants to bend rules? Many shorter financially viable infills have been built recently including one with more heritage work at 138 Portage.

FYI - just about every project in the Exchange has one or more variance needed to get it moving - that the "bending the rules" argument is probably not the hill you want to die on.

138 Portage is a very different project - it has an existing 7-storey building that is being converted into apartments, so that developer is already ahead of the game in terms of the number of units in the overall development.

Once you get to 7 floors, you are into "highrise" construction which adds significant cost (for life safety, fire ratings, mechanical systems, etc). For this Maws development, the extra height likely adds for one more floor, and all those extra units to spread the costs around.

I don't really get the "evidence required" argument either. If you want to look at it that way, there is ample evidence in the Exchange of numerous existing 100-foot buildings that haven't "ruined the area", including one under construction, and another that will be starting late this year that both eclipse this arbitrary building height restriction.

Another way to look at it is that because there has been no one willing to develop this site for the past 50, 60 years? That is probably a good indication that this developer has determined what is or is not financially viable for this property - when countless others have probably walked away over the years.

The allowance of 10-floor buildings in the Exchange seems to have created a sweet-spot that is sparking developments in previously undevelopable properties. Thats a good thing IMO.

[Rutlander]

Originally Posted by pspeid

This is possibly me being ignorant, but I'm surprised 3D printing isn't used more to replicate authentic-looking vintage building elements. Maybe it's cost-prohibitive, but I'd think that some clever boots should be able to scan and replicate things like mouldings and cornices in a way that looks more authentic than the clumsy-looking roof they have on the McKim (aka "big 4 sales") building.

Spectis Moulders in Niverville does excellent custom work and can replicate vintage elements.

[drew]

Originally Posted by tron_javolta

But in objecting to the appeal you aren't responding to any of the actual substance of it. All your points are hypothetical, ie "possibly impact viability" and "may be disappointed" etc. But some times some slowness is fine. The reason I even logged onto this site again was that I think its wrong that a citizen has to pay almost 1000 dollars just to get the city to consider possible damage to their structure. That should have already been dealt with which would take time anyway.

This is not accurate, and if this is the basis of an appeal - it is indeed frivolous.

For construction near or adjacent to Heritage buildings, the COW will require (As part of their structural plans approval process) a Geotechnical engineer to submit a report that estimates the vibration associated with the new construction, maximum allowable vibration as a function of the existing building type (i.e. masonry, rubblestone foundation, etc.) as well as the processes in place to record vibration when the foundation is installed and visual assessment of existing structures pre and post construction.

[WestEndWander]

Originally Posted by tron_javolta

LOL it is not my appeal. Are you the developer?

I do know from experience that an appeal to fix an issue for a project beside your house even at great cost can help. I want infill but there are case by case differences and builders or the city are not always right and appeals wrong.

You have no proof delay might kill the project or that the foundation problem is false. A hearing will be good as both sides can make their arguments and show proof. I think the hearing is pretty soon too.

In my experience it can pay to take time to fix problems early. Hopefully we get a project that satisfies everyone. If that means they adjust the foundation and it is a bit shorter that seems fine.

Let me tell you, big picture, it is better to take two extra months than cause years of structural problems for neighbours.

So if the building was proposed to be built to its "allowed" limit of 100ft. you would have no issue with it?

[tron_javolta]

WestEnd Wander, I do think it matters that the developer is asking for the rules to bend for them, yes. Do you think there should be any height limit in the Exchange. I think it does make sense, given the heritage of the area, its national historic designation, and the fact that its tall buildings are to the sidewalk and the streets aren't that wide, which means that there is only a height to which buildings can go before living in nearby buildings gets unpleasant when something new goes up. Main Street is an exception, which I believe is true in the bylaw. So if there is a limit, yes, it matters when there is a request to bend the rules. The onus should be on the developer to prove they need it. When you ask for things from the government you should have to prove it. You have to show your math. And asking to bend the rules in this case does open you up to a legitimate appeal, as do things like the impact of construction on neighbouring foundations. And my concern on this forum that even got me to log on was that everyone treats every appeal like it is frivolous, but that's not true and I have experienced personally where an appeal literally saves a neighbouring building from irresponsible construction practices (albeit in a residential district, not downtown). The confidence that an appeal is unwarrented is what bothers me. Have the hearing, prove your case. It's not such a bad thing.

Drew, you used "probably" twice in your post. And then you posted that it is not accurate that you have to pay almost $1000 to appeal or that the appeal doesn't relate to structural damage. In terms of the latter, I posted two links that directly show you are wrong about those calls. The fee for appeal is $955 and that was reported by CTV and is on the City link I posted. The fact that the appeal relates to possible structural damage is in the text of the appeal on the other link. And we have lost two heritage buildings recently due to problems with the structure during construction and another in the Exchange semicollapsed when the neighbouring foundation failed. What is your evidence for your certainty that the appeal is unwarranted? Just let the hearing happen and have cases made. And in terms of the extra floor being needed, that may be true. But they should make that case at the hearing. That should not just be an assumed fact. What I am bothered is your certainty that an appeal is frivolous when they appealer have made a case with letters from engineers and your certainty that the extra floor is needed when you have no evidence, just a bunch of "probablys."

You all are YIMBYs. I want development too. But sometimes due to realities it pays to be a 95% yes but with a couple of caveats like "prove you are taking care with the foundation work." And don't complain that there's a process, one which was only triggered because you are asking for more than the rules allow. Maybe they should be granted that or maybe the rules should change. But having the right to appeal is important and good outcomes that satisfy everyone can come out of such processes.

[neutroniks]

TLDR;

"The appeal isn't frivolous, prove your case and let the appeal go through it's process. "

[Mr Tall Forehead]

If that’s your speech for the appeal hearing, I hope you break it up with some images and graphics. Maybe a bar chart or infographic to somehow illustrate your displeasure of the extra 6.1 feet being asked for?

[tron_javolta]

Haha neutroniks yeah that is about right.

Mr Tall Forehead, it isn’t my appeal, I live in the burbs. I logged on here because someone posted incorrectly that the city doesn’t charge for appeals. The city does do that so I thought I'd correct the record. You later posted that the “appeal will end up delaying construction by at least 4-6 months perhaps wasting a construction season.” You don't actually know any of that to be true. The developer said this project is in the "early stages."

My point isn’t that this appeal is necessarily right or wrong. It’s that appeals are an important part of the system and can help work issues out. People (like you) should not be online posting against some appeal they aren't party to when they don’t actually know the relevant facts. Doing that is a weird way to spend your time. Go enjoy the beautiful weather and as neutroniks put it let the city see hear the folks (engineering info, business cases etc) and “let the appeal go through it’s process.” Don't rush to post baseless hypotheticals online.

[WinCitySparky]

But baseless hypotheticals are what the internet is all about

[BAKGUY]

All this chat and yet a 16 floor residential tower is being built a block away at Marketlands?
.