Winnipeg Construction XI

[neutroniks]

Seeing those numbers, it's pretty wild that Winnipeg grew by 100K in 5 years.

Also interesting to note the population level of Headingly vs. East St. Paul + West St. Paul, as a Costco in North Winnipeg first would've made more sense?

[bomberjet]

Does it talk about demographics and mobility? Where did those 100k people come from? I'm assuming a boat of load of people left Manitoba to Alberta and such. So actual new residents like 150k?

[Wigs]

based on % growth rates, West St. Sprawl

[inlp89]

I’ve often wondered why the southeast portion inside the perimeter hasn’t seen more development. With the new McGillivray Overpass, it seems like growth there would be likely.

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by pspeid

I was wondering the same thing. I suspected the comment that "safety and profit" don't currently exist downtown was more or less saying "not enough profit exists, and that "safety" meant "safety for one's property", i.e. eliminate theft and vandalism. Both are legitimate concerns, of course, as is desire for a private company to make a desired profit, but the blanket comment that suggested development downtown is non-existent due to the above-mentioned issues came across as kind of self-serving to me.

It's not particularly surprising for any private developer to feel this way; it's their business they can operate how like like, within the law. It just seems a little out of place in a forum that seems dominated by people who want to see development for the good of the city, as opposed to exclusively personal profit.

I would disagree with the idea that owners of parking lots are the reason down town is blighted. As I have mentioned previously, development occurs when there is a likelihood of long term profit on capital invested.

I keep coming back to the St Regis / CV site sitting dormant with no current prospect for development. An existing structure was demolished and no parking is allowed on the site. It is not developable currently in these conditions. With government intervention it could be developed similar to the site across from City Hall, North Portage or The Bay. I view them as all worthy projects but not viable privately…

As for safety, there is no way development is happening on Waterfront with the current social issues. That is not the fault of the building or parking lot owners.

This forum does not function well in a vacuum or echo chamber. Comments from parties like ours add views which enriches dialogue and creates thoughtful perspectives. Most downtown building owners are parking lot owners as well. They own them because they are needed to rent out their buildings. The largest parking lot owners in the city are The Richardsons, The Province of Manitoba, GreatWest Life and Calvery Temple. They all want a better Winnipeg, as do I.

[Authentic_City]

Originally Posted by Labroco

[...]
This forum does not function well in a vacuum or echo chamber. Comments from parties like ours add views which enriches dialogue and creates thoughtful perspectives. Most downtown building owners are parking lot owners as well. They own them because they are needed to rent out their buildings. The largest parking lot owners in the city are The Richardsons, The Province of Manitoba, GreatWest Life and Calvery Temple. They all want a better Winnipeg, as do I.

Thanks for providing your perspective. I always appreciate hearing your take on these issues. I do understand that it's a complex puzzle. There is a financial reality driving downtown parking lots that can't be ignored.

However, the sea of parking lots around Calvary Temple is particularly puzzling and distressing. When the strip of commercial buildings on Notre Dame was demolished a few years ago to create more *new* parking, many were surprised to learn that this area was technically outside of the downtown zoning bylaw area. I'm sure C.T. does want a better Winnipeg overall. But the effect of this action is a stark, empty streetscape on the edge of the Exchange. These huge parking lots are empty 6 days of the week, and do nothing to improve the social fabric. I can't believe all that new parking was really needed to make their church viable, as they seemed to get on well for years before with the many other nearby surface lots.

[biguc]

Calvary Temple wants a better Winnipeg the way termites want a better house

[Wpgdude]

Owners of parking lots will build something when there is something profitable to build. If i build a building and no one rents space i go bankrupt. Thats not good for anyone.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Wpgdude

Owners of parking lots will build something when there is something profitable to build. If i build a building and no one rents space i go bankrupt. Thats not good for anyone.

There is some truth to that, but in my experience there are properties that sit - unavailable (i.e. not for sale) that owners have no intention or willingness to develop. But there are developers out there that want properties and will develop them if they can acquire them.

Recent examples of this would be the Maws Garage, 138 Portage. These are developers that want to make something work where others haven't been able to have success.

But, you need 2 willing parties for these kinds of deals. I am fairly confident in saying Winnipeg has more unwilling parties than willing ones when it comes to selling underused properties to developers who want to build.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

However, the sea of parking lots around Calvary Temple is particularly puzzling and distressing. When the strip of commercial buildings on Notre Dame was demolished a few years ago to create more *new* parking, many were surprised to learn that this area was technically outside of the downtown zoning bylaw area. I'm sure C.T. does want a better Winnipeg overall. But the effect of this action is a stark, empty streetscape on the edge of the Exchange. These huge parking lots are empty 6 days of the week, and do nothing to improve the social fabric. I can't believe all that new parking was really needed to make their church viable, as they seemed to get on well for years before with the many other nearby surface lots.

This is being very disingenuous. Yes, a single story building on Notre Dame was demolished and a new parking lot was created, but that is heavily ignoring the fact the new parking lot was to replace an existing parking lot that was needed to build a new electrical substation. That same substation was needed to support the continued growth of both downtown and the Exchange.

Would it have been preferable to you to have the multi floor building on King gutted and made it a substation as was originally purposed? Or perhaps we you would rather have had all development in downtown and the Exchange stopped as the electrical grid was maxed out.

Hard truth is that development needs things like utilities and while they aren't 🞵🞵🞵🞵 they are essential. The overall change to the area where Calvary Temple is minimal and overall neutral and maybe a long term positive. Surface parking lots are essentially free spaces on the bingo card. When the right proposal comes along with the right amount of money to make something happen there it will happen. Until then its best to let the parking lot be for the greater good of downtown and the Exchange. Losing a shop selling industrial equipment in the Exchange is not a really significant loss for the area.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by drew

There is some truth to that, but in my experience there are properties that sit - unavailable (i.e. not for sale) that owners have no intention or willingness to develop. But there are developers out there that want properties and will develop them if they can acquire them.

It seems fairly simple. If you own a basic single family home in Winnipeg with an assessed value of $300,000 and you see the functional value as $1 million if someone offers you $100,000 you aren't going to sell. Now if that same person offers you $10 million you might be a lot more interested to sell and if that offer became $100 million it is almost certain you would sell.

It is the same for vacant commercial lots. Everything is for sale for the right price and the right terms.

Take Calvary Temple and they surface lots. If someone came along and said in trade for all the surface lots they would build a multi-level parking structure there that would maintain the same number of parking spots and Calvary Temple would have full control, use and ownership of the structure plus there would be a significant payment with the deal the properties would likely change hands. The reality is that land is not valuable enough to anyone else right now for them to make an acceptable proposal. Hard truth is when Hydro came wanting to develop one of those same surface lots they put forward a proposal that saw one of the lots get developed.

[bomberjet]

The church I'm a member of has no parking lot. A very small one for accessible parking. We park elsewhere, such as on the street. That's how it is. Why does Calvary need uber sized parking lot? Just because.

[drew]

Originally Posted by CoryB

It is the same for vacant commercial lots. Everything is for sale for the right price and the right terms.

Yeah, not sure this is a universal truth in Winnipeg - at least for a "fair" price.

[Mr Tall Forehead]

Originally Posted by Labroco

I would disagree with the idea that owners of parking lots are the reason down town is blighted. As I have mentioned previously, development occurs when there is a likelihood of long term profit on capital invested.

I keep coming back to the St Regis / CV site sitting dormant with no current prospect for development. An existing structure was demolished and no parking is allowed on the site. It is not developable currently in these conditions. With government intervention it could be developed similar to the site across from City Hall, North Portage or The Bay. I view them as all worthy projects but not viable privately…

As for safety, there is no way development is happening on Waterfront with the current social issues. That is not the fault of the building or parking lot owners.

This forum does not function well in a vacuum or echo chamber. Comments from parties like ours add views which enriches dialogue and creates thoughtful perspectives. Most downtown building owners are parking lot owners as well. They own them because they are needed to rent out their buildings. The largest parking lot owners in the city are The Richardsons, The Province of Manitoba, GreatWest Life and Calvery Temple. They all want a better Winnipeg, as do I.

Yeah, Canada Life and Calvary own massive, self-serving surface lots but I don't think fingers can be pointed at the Richardsons or the Province.

The Richardsons only have one large surface lot left and they recently just gifted it to the GATE project, so that lot will be developed once that project gets going.

The Province really only has one massive eyesore of a lot in the Workers Compensation Board lot behind its building on Broadway. I recall reading that the former NDP government floated the idea of selling that lot for development but the WCB's union freaked out so the plan died.

[Authentic_City]

Originally Posted by CoryB

This is being very disingenuous. Yes, a single story building on Notre Dame was demolished and a new parking lot was created, but that is heavily ignoring the fact the new parking lot was to replace an existing parking lot that was needed to build a new electrical substation. That same substation was needed to support the continued growth of both downtown and the Exchange.

Would it have been preferable to you to have the multi floor building on King gutted and made it a substation as was originally purposed? Or perhaps we you would rather have had all development in downtown and the Exchange stopped as the electrical grid was maxed out.

Hard truth is that development needs things like utilities and while they aren't 🞵🞵🞵🞵 they are essential. The overall change to the area where Calvary Temple is minimal and overall neutral and maybe a long term positive. Surface parking lots are essentially free spaces on the bingo card. When the right proposal comes along with the right amount of money to make something happen there it will happen. Until then its best to let the parking lot be for the greater good of downtown and the Exchange. Losing a shop selling industrial equipment in the Exchange is not a really significant loss for the area.

No, not disingenuous, but yes, I should have mentioned this was part of scheme hatched with Hydro. What's disingenuous is calling this "a single story building'. It was, in fact, an amalgamation of four commercial buildings (including a two story building) along Notre Dame (see Bellamy's FP article below). See photos here: https://winnipegarchitecture.ca/places/312-318-notre-dame-avenue/

This was a strip of storefronts that provided a continuous pedestrian oriented streetscape along Notre Dame at the very entrance to the Exchange. Now, there is a windswept underused parking lot. A bad trade off, IMHO.

I'm all in favour of Hydro building a new substation to serve the Exchange and downtown, but more care could have been exercised in siting the station and demolishing buildings. I agree with you that their first idea to gut an historical building for this was terrible.

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/2015/04/13/the-sneaky-parking-lot-plot

[ColdRain&Snow]

Originally Posted by Labroco

I would disagree with the idea that owners of parking lots are the reason down town is blighted. As I have mentioned previously, development occurs when there is a likelihood of long term profit on capital invested.

I keep coming back to the St Regis / CV site sitting dormant with no current prospect for development. An existing structure was demolished and no parking is allowed on the site. It is not developable currently in these conditions. With government intervention it could be developed similar to the site across from City Hall, North Portage or The Bay. I view them as all worthy projects but not viable privately…

As for safety, there is no way development is happening on Waterfront with the current social issues. That is not the fault of the building or parking lot owners.

This forum does not function well in a vacuum or echo chamber. Comments from parties like ours add views which enriches dialogue and creates thoughtful perspectives. Most downtown building owners are parking lot owners as well. They own them because they are needed to rent out their buildings. The largest parking lot owners in the city are The Richardsons, The Province of Manitoba, GreatWest Life and Calvery Temple. They all want a better Winnipeg, as do I.

I think most of us on this forum appreciate your perspective. There are just a few voices on here that complain a lot / are frustrated with the slow pace of change. I agree that we do not want this forum to become an eco chamber.

[ColdRain&Snow]

Is the property at 285 Smith St (former St. Regis Hotel) still for sale? Can't find the listing anywhere online.

[pspeid]

I would disagree with the idea that owners of parking lots are the reason down town is blighted. As I have mentioned previously, development occurs when there is a likelihood of long term profit on capital invested.

Well, first of all I can't agree with words like "blighted". Downtown Winnipeg isn't Gary, Indiana or East St. Louis, Illinois, and sensational adjectives really don't help the discussion.

There seems to be a general consensus among most urban designers that an excessive number of surface parking lots create "dead zones" disrupts streetscapes, and inhibits pedestrian activity, which in turn inhibit economic development.

Can one separate lot ownership from the effects of their lots? I suppose it depends on the owner. I don't doubt there are a number of lot owners who need their lots but would like to see an opportunity for development, but I'm also just as sure there are lot owners who simply don't give a rat's 🞵🞵🞵 about the downtown, as long as the cheques keep coming in from their property


I keep coming back to the St Regis / CV site sitting dormant with no current prospect for development. An existing structure was demolished and no parking is allowed on the site. It is not developable currently in these conditions. With government intervention it could be developed similar to the site across from City Hall, North Portage or The Bay. I view them as all worthy projects but not viable privately…

I think we'd have to go back and look at the history of this site and it's proposed development. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I remember, the St. Regis lot was sold and it's building demolished because a supposed developer promised building a huge apartment complex. After the St. Regis was torn down, the proposal changed to a 4-storey parkade. After that was rejected by CV, the "developer' disappeared, or gave back the property of whatever, and we have yet another empty lot. Not knowing the developer or their financial statements I can't speak to the integrity of their original proposal, but from the outside it certainly looks similar to several other "big" developments that started with developer promises and went no-where.

As for safety, there is no way development is happening on Waterfront with the current social issues. That is not the fault of the building or parking lot owners.

I don't see vast parking lots along Waterfront drive, so i'm not sure how this relates to the discussion. I agree that there are social issues that desperately need to be addressed.

This forum does not function well in a vacuum or echo chamber. Comments from parties like ours add views which enriches dialogue and creates thoughtful perspectives. Most downtown building owners are parking lot owners as well. They own them because they are needed to rent out their buildings. The largest parking lot owners in the city are The Richardsons, The Province of Manitoba, GreatWest Life and Calvery Temple. They all want a better Winnipeg, as do I.

So who's asking for an echo chamber? You're previous statement was extremely broad, vague and, IMO, a bit defensive. I'm glad you provided this more comprehensive answer, as you make a number of good points. I think it's important to get a variety of perspectives, but I think we have to realize all we tend to be heroes in our own narratives. I'm glad we can disagree and keep it civil.

[CoryB]

Let's be totally upfront here, the Government felt pressured to do something about the perception of issues downtown. They viewed St Regis as being one of the hot spots the issues were originating from. When they had an opportunity to close the beverage room they jumped on it. Then they fell victim to a scam and demolished the property.

As less than idea as the property was those rooms would likely be welcome today to help with the issues around accessible for affordable housing.

[Sheepish]

Clearly this is NOT an echo chamber. There are plenty of divergent views, and sound arguments (as can be noted with PSPEID).
There are some basic truths we can probably agree upon:
1) unless there is a social/community benefit driving a development, development happens when it is economically beneficial...TO THE DEVELOPER.
2) ground level parking lots prevent street level social interaction
3) a lack of street level interaction creates a vacuum in which less desirable activity can happen
4) crime and other socially negative activity has a negative impact on positive social activity
5) this becomes a further disincentive for development as it will be perceived to be financially risky.
6) Development has to be more attractive that NOT developing - ie leaving a lot empty.

If you give a mouse a cookie...

Where do you start? Perhaps closing Graham was considered a strategy for creating social interaction. Unfortunately, with so little organic activity in the area, and kind of half baked execution, that won't do the trick...and it isn't really even a good start.
There is only one way...create an economic environment that will make development of the lots attractive and will create an urban neighbourhood that is safe and socially attractive. Look no further than the renders for the UofM community. THAT is what downtown should be like! Waterfront has that vibe. The area around Assiniboine Ave has that vibe. OV certainly has that vibe. And Railside will have that vibe. Now focus on the blocks from Graham to York (including St Regis) and Donald to Fort. And reimagine as a downtown neighbourhood.