Winnipeg | Downtown | Portage Place | Redevelopment | U/C

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by drew

Confined geography and an ocean. Same effect as Vancouver.

Also they were smarter and kept all their universities downtown.

Also they've become a retirement destination. A lot of those downtown new builds are Toronto transplants

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by Sheepish

Spied...is that the best you got...'people are funny'?
More like cynicism and dissatisfaction has been engrained after years of disappointment.
But the reality is that there has been an unfortunate cycle:
1) Developments announced. Some great. Some...meh
2) One of three things happens...Development gets built as proposed, development gets altered (change of design, cheaper materials, shorter, no balconies etc etc) and now falls in the Meh category, or it doesn't get built at all leaving an empty lot.
3) Sometimes the reality of a development (even as planned) does not meet up with expectations of the renderings.
4) often the belief that said development will be a 'game changer' is not met by reality.
5) Ultimate belief that something better could be in that space
6) inevitable (and not unjustifiable - double negative alert) envy that other jurisdictions (even smaller ones like Halifax) have more interesting developments going on (read taller buildings).

And this doesn't even address what's at ground level - poverty, homelessness, crime.

Please...This isn't meant to be a sky is falling message, but rather a call for better...better plans, better execution, higher expectations, and yes addressing the needs of the needy and troubled.

Sheep;

I believe what you are describing is disappointment from unmet expectations.

For the record, I too would love to see a thriving, attractive downtown, with safe, walkable spaces and varied and interesting attractions and amenities.

I also believe we should strive for the "better" you advocate.

What I find "funny" is the attitude expressed here, more than once, that we were "promised" this building or that development, in the form of proposals or pretty renders. It's the personal affront that people take when their desired project falls through or ends up less than expected. It reminds me of the crushing disappointments I had as a child, when I thought my parents would allow me to go to a movie or the pool, and found my hopes were not to be fulfilled when circumstances necessitated a change in plans.

I also get disappointed when a proposed civic improvement project falls through, but I also try to remember I am not on the "inside" and might not be aware of legal or financial issues that led to the change.

I also try to avoid this pitfall of confusing my "desire" with something I think I "deserve". Do I "deserve" a 50 storey tower in my downtown? Does someone else's 50 storey downtown necessarily diminish me?

I'm not saying we shouldn't aim high, or that we shouldn't hold people accountable if shady deals or adverse policies/attitudes put the kibosh on a positive development. I'm saying we need to realize that there are things such as circumstances beyond our control. IMO, doing that doesn't eliminate disappointment, but it makes it feel a lot less personal.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by Biff

What I find hard to wrap my head around is that Halifax, a city roughly half Winnipeg's size has so many 20+ storey towers under construction or proposed. More than half of the towers below are U/C. They have many more towers between 10 and 20 storeys under Construction as well.

Halifax
40+ storeys - 5
30+ storeys - 11
20+ storeys - 11

I wonder what the differences are that allow for them to build so many buildings and for Winnipeg to not.

Winnipeg
40+ storeys - 0
30+ storeys - 0
20+ storeys - 2
10+ Storeys - 5 to 10

Put this into an AI bot for you:
You’re not wrong to be puzzled — on the surface it does look counter‑intuitive that Halifax, with roughly half Winnipeg’s population, is building dramatically more high‑rise towers. But once you unpack the underlying drivers, the difference is actually very logical. It’s not about population alone; it’s about economics, geography, policy, and market structure all lining up very differently in the two cities.
Below is a structured breakdown of why Halifax can sustain so many tall buildings while Winnipeg generally cannot.

1. Geography and Land Supply (the biggest single factor)
Halifax

The urban core is hemmed in by water (the harbour, Northwest Arm) and steep topography.
Suburban expansion is geographically constrained, especially near downtown.
Limited land supply forces growth upward, not outward.
High‑rise construction becomes economically rational because alternatives are scarce.

Winnipeg

Sits on an almost unlimited supply of flat, cheap land in every direction.
Greenfield development on the edge of the city is:

Faster
Simpler
Much cheaper than structured parking + towers


The market naturally spreads outward instead of upward.

Bottom line:
Halifax must densify; Winnipeg chooses not to.

2. Housing Demand vs. Population Count
Population size is less important than population pressure.
Halifax

Massive in‑migration over the last decade:

Interprovincial migrants
International students
New immigrants


Extremely low vacancy rates (sub‑2% at times)
Severe rental shortages → developers can pre‑sell or pre‑lease towers confidently
Rents have risen fast enough to justify concrete high‑rise construction

Winnipeg

Slower population growth
More stable, predictable housing demand
Vacancies exist in many parts of the city
Rent growth is not yet high enough to support dozens of 25–40 storey buildings

Key insight:
Halifax developers are chasing urgency. Winnipeg developers are responding to stability.

3. Planning Policy and Political Will
Halifax

HRM made a clear, top‑down decision:

“Downtown and transit corridors will absorb growth.”


Height and density are actively encouraged:

As‑of‑right zoning for tall buildings in many areas
Faster approvals for large projects


Council generally views towers as a solution, not a problem

Winnipeg

Planning culture is cautious and fragmented
Height is often treated as something needing:

Neighbourhood consultation
Political capital
Case‑by‑case justification


Strong resistance outside of very small downtown zones

Important difference:
Halifax asks “How do we make this tower work?”
Winnipeg often asks “Do we really need it?”

4. Downtown Strength and Perception
Halifax

Downtown is:

A major employment hub
A lifestyle location
Within walking distance of universities, hospitals, port activity


Residential towers near downtown sell primarily as primary residences
Less reliance on suburban commuting

Winnipeg

Downtown recovery has been slow and uneven
Many higher‑income households still prefer:

Suburban houses
Townhomes or low‑rise condos


Towers downtown are often a hard sell unless heavily subsidized or specialized (e.g., senior housing)

Result:
Halifax has a deep pool of people willing to live high‑rise downtown; Winnipeg’s pool remains shallow.

5. Construction Economics (the invisible ceiling)
High‑rise construction gets exponentially more expensive after about 20 storeys due to:

Concrete and structural systems
Wind engineering
Elevator cores
Underground parking requirements

Halifax

Higher achievable rents
Smaller units, higher density
Strong investor participation
→ Towers above 25–30 storeys can still pencil out

Winnipeg

Rent and condo price ceilings are much lower
Once you go above ~20 storeys, the math often breaks
Mid‑rise buildings (6–15 storeys) provide better returns with less risk

This is why Winnipeg’s development sweet spot is 10–20 storeys, while Halifax can leap beyond that.

6. Regional Role and Capital Flow
Halifax

De facto economic and cultural capital of Atlantic Canada
Attracts outsized national and institutional investment
Developers can scale projects larger because:

The city acts as a regional magnet
Demand extends far beyond the metro population



Winnipeg

Strong regional role, but competes with:

Calgary, Edmonton
Toronto, Vancouver
Even Saskatoon and Regina for Prairie capital


More conservative financing environment


7. A Common Misconception to Clear Up

“If Winnipeg allowed towers, they would get built.”

Not necessarily.
Zoning alone does not create towers. Towers appear when:

Land is scarce
Rents are high
Demand is intense
Financing is comfortable with risk
Politics are predictable

Halifax checks all five boxes.
Winnipeg currently checks two to three.

Final Summary (Plain Language)
Halifax builds towers because it has to.
Winnipeg doesn’t because it doesn’t need to — yet.
If Winnipeg ever:

Runs out of cheap land
Sees sustained population acceleration
Significantly strengthens downtown demand
Commits politically to vertical growth

…you’ll start seeing 30–40 storey proposals appear very quickly.
Until then, mid‑rise infill and outward growth will remain the dominant pattern — not because Winnipeg is “failing,” but because its economics and geography lead it down a different path.
If you’d like, I can also:

Compare Winnipeg to Calgary/Edmonton using the same framework
Break down what it would take for a 40‑storey tower to actually make sense in Winnipeg
Look specifically at policy changes (like Halifax’s Centre Plan) and how Winnipeg could adapt them

[Sheepish]

Hey Speid
Well yes, you are right, but it is well documented in these pages that things aren't always as they seem. Like many, I am disappointed if a development is subpar, a lesser version of the original plan or gets cancelled altogether. To me it seems like a fair reaction. Settling just to get something built is not terribly satisfying. In the end it is no doubt coming down to money....where it is and where can a developer get the best return.

As for wanting "a thriving, attractive downtown, with safe, walkable spaces and varied and interesting attractions and amenities", this is a matter of political priorities, creating the opportunity for success, and sticking to that plan for years and years. Tell me, since MTS/Canada Life was built, what makes the SHED anything close to a destination 'district'? This is the kind of lost focus that has contributed to the failure of SHED. This is the kind of thing that disappoints and frustrates me.

And yes, you are right...we are funny...

[Biff]

Very cool cheswick. It was an interesting read. I hadn't though of asking our friend AI.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by zalf

Aurora Borealis? At this time of year? At this time of day? In this part of the country? Localized entirely within Portage and Edmonton?

lmao.

I remember when renders for True North Centre (the arena) were being floated. And it has some fancy northern lights type things on that mesh parapet type thing fronting Portage ave. and then the actual building came and I was like where the lights?? haha

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

lmao.

I remember when renders for True North Centre (the arena) were being floated. And it has some fancy northern lights type things on that mesh parapet type thing fronting Portage ave. and then the actual building came and I was like where the lights?? haha

Does anyone have that rendering of the very first design unveiled for "True North Centre"?

The local business consortium announced last week it was shelving the original glass and steel concept unveiled last May because it was considered cold and uninviting. The futuristic design featured fibre-optic lighting designed to create the effect of the Northern Lights.
Arena design stays

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

lmao.

I remember when renders for True North Centre (the arena) were being floated. And it has some fancy northern lights type things on that mesh parapet type thing fronting Portage ave. and then the actual building came and I was like where the lights?? haha

I remember that proposal. Wasn't there some suggestion that the people who came up with the idea were pissed off that their "northern lights" were cast aside, so they refused the project? It sounds pretty unlikely now, but I think that was one of the stories being floated at the time?

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by Sheepish

Hey Speid


As for wanting "a thriving, attractive downtown, with safe, walkable spaces and varied and interesting attractions and amenities", this is a matter of political priorities, creating the opportunity for success, and sticking to that plan for years and years. Tell me, since MTS/Canada Life was built, what makes the SHED anything close to a destination 'district'? This is the kind of lost focus that has contributed to the failure of SHED. This is the kind of thing that disappoints and frustrates me.

I grok you, man. There doesn't seem to be much "staying power" at times for concepts like this.

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by pspeid

I remember that proposal. Wasn't there some suggestion that the people who came up with the idea were pissed off that their "northern lights" were cast aside, so they refused the project? It sounds pretty unlikely now, but I think that was one of the stories being floated at the time?

Correct:

The latest blow came a week ago when Smith Carter Architects and Engineers, the Winnipeg firm responsible for the initial concept, quit the project because it believed the latest design was selling the city short. WFP - Dec. 6, 2001

[Sheepish]

My recollection is that there was a feeling that the original design was too contemporary, and there was a desire to take some inspiration from the Eaton's building with red brick.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by Outlandish18

The goal is to ATTRACT people to live downtown. You beautify an area and let vagrants vandalize and shoot meth wherever they please then you will push people away. It drives me nuts that the city cannot keep our bus shacks intact and have spent millions of dollars "researching" for a shatter-proof material. How about enforcing the law and hold people accountable for their actions?
Downtowns in my home country (third world) are the centre of commerce and tourism. Where people hangout and feel safe. I hate to say it but our downtown is ghetto. The new PP redevelopment and the park are awesome. But until the government does something about the rampant drug abuse in that area it will be trashed all over again. I aint spending money in an area where people are openly smoking meth.

If Downtown Winnipeg bothers you to such a degree that you would compare third World countries favorably to here, why not just go back there? I just find it incredibly amusing that you expect us to believe these lies.

[Outlandish18]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

If Downtown Winnipeg bothers you to such a degree that you would compare third World countries favorably to here, why not just go back there? I just find it incredibly amusing that you expect us to believe these lies.

"why not just go back there?" That's such a lazy reply. I was just being honest about the current state of downtown and you took offense. You should travel the world more.

[KnickKnack]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

Also they've become a retirement destination. A lot of those downtown new builds are Toronto transplants

Moving the U of M out to fort garry has to be one of the worst urban planning decisions we ever made. If all that activity was concentrated around downtown it would make such a massive difference (the U of W being where it is has a major positive impact for a much smaller institution)

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by KnickKnack

Moving the U of M out to fort garry has to be one of the worst urban planning decisions we ever made. If all that activity was concentrated around downtown it would make such a massive difference (the U of W being where it is has a major positive impact for a much smaller institution)

A big part of its mandate in 1910s when the Fort Garry Campus was built was agricultural education. Of course they moved out there. Lets not pretend like the Fort Garry Campus is some post-war suburbanism byproduct, its over 100 years old. Some of the trees out front of UC were planted as a memorial to alumni who fell in the Great War for Pete's sake.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by Outlandish18

"why not just go back there?" That's such a lazy reply. I was just being honest about the current state of downtown and you took offense. You should travel the world more.

You are not being honest, if you state that a third World country has less violence/poverty/etc. than Winnipeg. Despite Winnipeg's reputation of being a dangerous city in Canada, it's mainly perception.

If Winnipeg was an American city, it would not even make the top 50 most violent American cities (per-capita). People like to exaggerate Winnipeg's problems. I really suggest you get out more.

[Mr Tall Forehead]

Originally Posted by FactaNV

A big part of its mandate in 1910s when the Fort Garry Campus was built was agricultural education. Of course they moved out there. Lets not pretend like the Fort Garry Campus is some post-war suburbanism byproduct, its over 100 years old. Some of the trees out front of UC were planted as a memorial to alumni who fell in the Great War for Pete's sake.

We've definitely strayed from the topic of this thread, but just because U of M originally had an ag ed mandate doesn't mean they had to skip over about four miles of undeveloped land south of the city centre to develop out where they did.

Even if the U of M was halfway down Pembina where Wildwood and SJR currently are, or out in Tuxedo as was originally proposed, it would have a way more positive impact on the vibrancy of the city than it does now.

[Wpg_Guy]

Granite Concrete

[wags_in_the_peg]

I was at the UofM gala IDEA dinner on Thursday. This year they were honouring Reinhold Schmieding' who founded and CEO of Arthrex which has 15,000 employees worldwide and an annual revenue of US$6 billion. They have Orthopedic tools and devices. Massive 60 acre campus in Naples Florida. Anyway, he says he will be taking up an entire floor of the new Pan Am clinic to be used to train Surgeons (from all across the world) on the use of his devices. This is huge for the building, shocked more isnt in the news about it. He even showed a video of what the training centre will look like

Premier Wab also gave a speech and he talked about it but didnt really seem as excited, used lots of "maybes"

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

lmao.

I remember when renders for True North Centre (the arena) were being floated. And it has some fancy northern lights type things on that mesh parapet type thing fronting Portage ave. and then the actual building came and I was like where the lights?? haha

that changed from the protests around save the eatons.