Winnipeg Construction

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by trueviking

yes, score one the democratic process....hold a 300 person forum, have a committee to listen to all the arguments from both sides and formulate a balanced response based on that information...then have two councillors completely ignore that unanimous and emphatic decision and overrule the committee based mostly on the fact that the people in opposition are old.....o'shaugnessy admitted he knew little about the proposal and yet saw fit to oppose the committee made up of 3 other councillors who sat through a 6 hour meeting listening to the opposition.

i know everyone here loves tall buildings without any real reason other than perhaps their phalic reference, but this is a complete affront to the process at city hall...why not just vote and dont waste everyone's time.

nice to know they are letting it go threw but still they are

[Donovanf]

Downtown campuses keep growing

By: Nick Martin

25/11/2008 9:12 PM | Comments (0)

Wheeling and dealing Tuesday, Jeff Zabudsky and Lloyd Axworthy made their main downtown campuses bigger.
And in the process, they’re continuing the rejuvenation of downtown, said the two post-secondary presidents.
Zabudsky’s Red River College will take over the 21 classrooms in the Massey Building at 294 William Avenue in September. Red River takes over University of Winnipeg’s long-term lease on the historic building.
Meanwhile, U of W president Axworthy will move his continuing education program out of the Exchange District, and spread the program into one or more properties being developed just east of the Portage Avenue campus.
That could be in the bus depot when Greyhound vacates this summer, in 491 Portage Ave., or in a new facility to be built on the site of the former United Army Surplus store, Axworthy said.
Continuing education will likely be in temporary classrooms come September, but should be in new digs 18 months from now, he said.
“There is a certain yearning to come back to the campus as we’re developing it,” Axworthy said. “They’ve been kind of off by themselves.”
The 21 classrooms can handle from 16 to 45 students. Zabudsky said that RRC has not yet identified which programs will move into the Massey Building, but said there will be courses which do not require specialized labs.
“It will be a release valve for the pressure” on the Notre Dame and Princess Street facilities, he said.
With construction expected to start next spring on transforming the Union Bank Tower into a student residence, Zabudsky said, Red River’s campus is moving beyond just one block.
“We want to create a downtown education environment,” Zabudsky said.
“We can be a real spark for growth and development,” Axworthy said.
The two presidents also signed an agreement for their 12th joint program, in geographic information systems technology, and said they are developing joint four-year programs in aviation management and in disability studies.
[email protected]

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by trueviking

why not just vote and dont waste everyone's time.

Even a better idea.

Hopefully the city also expropriate the properties on the north side of Whellams Lane and add another two lanes to the street.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by trueviking

yes, score one the democratic process....hold a 300 person forum, have a committee to listen to all the arguments from both sides and formulate a balanced response based on that information...then have two councillors completely ignore that unanimous and emphatic decision and overrule the committee based mostly on the fact that the people in opposition are old.....o'shaugnessy admitted he knew little about the proposal and yet saw fit to oppose the committee made up of 3 other councillors who sat through a 6 hour meeting listening to the opposition.

i know everyone here loves tall buildings without any real reason other than perhaps their phalic reference, but this is a complete affront to the process at city hall...why not just vote and dont waste everyone's time.

I hardly doubt any of the 300 people at the forum were anything but nimby's and old people (opposed to everything and anything) who probably are living in rental unit's in the area. It seems to me that common sense prevailed and a legitimate development in the right place was approved. Those who call Whellams Lane a busy street or who think having a few hundred more people living at the end of it will create traffic gridlock need a reality check.

[Biff]

The IKEA rumblings are back, and pretty strong this time....

[TSN]

Originally Posted by trueviking

yes, score one the democratic process....hold a 300 person forum, have a committee to listen to all the arguments from both sides and formulate a balanced response based on that information...then have two councillors completely ignore that unanimous and emphatic decision and overrule the committee based mostly on the fact that the people in opposition are old.....o'shaugnessy admitted he knew little about the proposal and yet saw fit to oppose the committee made up of 3 other councillors who sat through a 6 hour meeting listening to the opposition.

i know everyone here loves tall buildings without any real reason other than perhaps their phalic reference, but this is a complete affront to the process at city hall...why not just vote and dont waste everyone's time.

The city amazes me. I can understand the dislike for the NIMBYism but this city is so starved for private sector development that any proposal is a good proposal and we'll let it go through even if it makes little technical sense.
Just because you shoehorned high density development away from a major transportation corridor years ago doesn't mean it's OK to repeat the same f'up in 2008.

[pegcity]

Originally Posted by Biff

The IKEA rumblings are back, and pretty strong this time....

Is it that time of year again

Anyways, there's talk on the Newwinnipeg message board about this, something CBC radio was reporting.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by pegcity

Is it that time of year again

Anyways, there's talk on the Newwinnipeg message board about this, something CBC radio was reporting.

I guess all the hype this time is they actually had an IKEA representative on the radio confirming that IKEA is looking for property around the Kenaston/Bishop Grandin area. Now that doesn't mean anything is imminent but for the first time in recorded history they haven't used the "Winnipeg doesn't meet our requirement of 1 million people argument" and actually said we are looking.

[DowntownWpg]

Originally Posted by Jeff1987

Regarding rental units, the abolishment of rent controls should be the ultimate goal. My opinion only, however.

It'll never, ever, happen here. Not only would it be political suicide, but Winnipeg is prime for slum lords to ride a gravy train if it does.

On the flip side, I also feel the frustrations on this board, that rent controls have extremely limited the amount of new apartments being built (especially high rise). It just makes getting into building and/or owning apartment blocks a business of more headache than it's worth, and not profitable enough. Most of the nicer apartment buildings, at least the ones downtown, have substantial waiting lists. There is demand for nice apartments, but it seems like a bad idea to build one given rent controls.

As I said, however, rent controls are very important to those in "poor" apartment buildings... as well, these residents can be easier to take advantage of and cannot afford unregulated and extreme year-to-year increases. Further, what other building could they afford to move into that isn't also experiencing unregulated and extreme rent increases?

Here is where I'm going with all of this:

Is it at all possible to have a two-tiered type of rent control system. As in, if the value/condition of the average unit in an apartment building is less than a certain threshold, the protections of rent control apply. As well, if the average value of units in a building is above some threshold, then rent controls do not apply (or at least, are not nearly as strict).

Theoretically, this should encourage development of ritzier buildings for the middle class and up... at the same time, the vital protections for those living in poorer buildings remain in place (to prevent slum lords from taking advantage of, and maintaining affordable rent increases, for what is often a more vulnerable population).

Can this be done? Is it done elsewhere in Canada?

[flatlander]

I don't know if this is done anywhere else - not that I'm aware of. My concern would be that it would enhance 'slum' blocks and create two tiers of apartment blocks - basically what is starting to happen now but even worse. I would prefer any affordability subsidy go straight to the tenant (a portable benefit, tax credit, whatever) and leave the landlord out entirely.

[Archiseek]

Originally Posted by Biff

I guess all the hype this time is they actually had an IKEA representative on the radio confirming that IKEA is looking for property around the Kenaston/Bishop Grandin area. Now that doesn't mean anything is imminent but for the first time in recorded history they haven't used the "Winnipeg doesn't meet our requirement of 1 million people argument" and actually said we are looking.

IKEA coming to Winnipeg?

11/26/2008

Swedish furniture chain IKEA is thinking about building a store in Winnipeg.

But, before you get too excited, Madeline Frick with IKEA tells CJOB nothing is close to being finalized yet.

She says while they are interested, it's just in the investigation stage that includes scoping out potential property.

She says at this time there are no deals in place, or immediate plans for a store in Winnipeg.

Sources at City Hall have told CJOB there is a serious attempt by a Calgary based developer to build an IKEA in the city.

[Only The Lonely..]

Originally Posted by flatlander

I don't know if this is done anywhere else - not that I'm aware of. My concern would be that it would enhance 'slum' blocks and create two tiers of apartment blocks - basically what is starting to happen now but even worse. I would prefer any affordability subsidy go straight to the tenant (a portable benefit, tax credit, whatever) and leave the landlord out entirely.

Yes I totally agree.

Scrap rent controls and give those truely needing the protection a $200 voucher to cushion any increase.

Also, one should consider the laws of supply and demand.

When tenants vacate existing buildings for new buildings, landlords will have to either A.) Compete on price..or B.) Become MUCH more attentive to the upkeep of their property.

In any case, tenants win.

[Only The Lonely..]

Originally Posted by Archiseek

IKEA coming to Winnipeg?

11/26/2008

Swedish furniture chain IKEA is thinking about building a store in Winnipeg.

But, before you get too excited, Madeline Frick with IKEA tells CJOB nothing is close to being finalized yet.

She says while they are interested, it's just in the investigation stage that includes scoping out potential property.

She says at this time there are no deals in place, or immediate plans for a store in Winnipeg.

Sources at City Hall have told CJOB there is a serious attempt by a Calgary based developer to build an IKEA in the city.

Here's one thing i've never understood about the forumers on SSP.

Why is everyone so Gung Ho about Ikea?

Ikea is the very definition of wasteful suburban living.

They sell nothing but shit furniture that breaks after a year and ultimately finds its way into a dump.

Their stores are big blue boxes that take up whole city blocks and are typically surrounded by 10 acres of surface parking.

If I substituted the name Ikea for Wal-Mart would things really be any different?

[Archiseek]

Never understood it myself either

[Biff]

Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..

Here's one thing i've never understood about the forumers on SSP.

Why is everyone so Gung Ho about Ikea?

Ikea is the very definition of wasteful suburban living.

They sell nothing but shit furniture that breaks after a year and ultimately finds its way into a dump.

Their stores are big blue boxes that take up whole city blocks and are typically surrounded by 10 acres of surface parking.

If I substituted the name Ikea for Wal-Mart would things really be any different?

I'm interested on the development side.....and the cheap hot dogs......mmmmm hotdogs.

[Spocket]

Re : rent controls

My rent just went up ten percent. Basically I'll be paying an extra $600 - $700 bucks a year. In return I get new windows. Whee.
See, actually, I don't mind having to pay this extra cash since it's not like I don't get anything for it. Really, this is the way it's supposed to work in a free market. It seems to me that today's version of "rent control" now has so many allowances for special circumstances that it's not really rent control as intended anymore. I think we have rent control in name only. The government has been slowly chipping away at this policy for some time now and it seems that perhaps that's why we're seeing apartment construction again.

[Only The Lonely..]

On a different note..

Has anyone seen the downtown Sheraton lately?

Boy, does it ever look good now that they've turned it into apartments.

They easily took 10 years off the appearance of the building by glassing in the balconies.

[wags_in_the_peg]

Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..

Here's one thing i've never understood about the forumers on SSP.

Why is everyone so Gung Ho about Ikea?

Ikea is the very definition of wasteful suburban living.

They sell nothing but shit furniture that breaks after a year and ultimately finds its way into a dump.

Their stores are big blue boxes that take up whole city blocks and are typically surrounded by 10 acres of surface parking.

If I substituted the name Ikea for Wal-Mart would things really be any different?

they have some funky stuff, but overall pretty cheap. it's more status simple...yippee we are big (and cool ?) enough to have an Ikea.

kind of like brian burke joining the maple leafs and is a big deal.

I predict along bishop grandin, east of waverly, west of pembina. basically the old sugar beet place. that's a big area and i know a calgary developer bought it up.

[DowntownWpg]

Originally Posted by OTL

On a different note..

Has anyone seen the downtown Sheraton lately?

Boy, does it ever look good now that they've turned it into apartments.

They easily took 10 years off the appearance of the building by glassing in the balconies.

For sure, I like the black glass.

Guess they must feel there are enough people who are okay without being able to crack a window and are okay with an "air exchange system" (at least, from what I can tell, it looks like it'll be like 33 Hargrave in this regard).

I'm just a bit disappointed... if they kept balconies, I would have totally looked into getting a place in that building.

[Only The Lonely..]

Originally Posted by wags_in_the_peg

they have some funky stuff, but overall pretty cheap. it's more status simple...yippee we are big (and cool ?) enough to have an Ikea.

kind of like brian burke joining the maple leafs and is a big deal.

I predict along bishop grandin, east of waverly, west of pembina. basically the old sugar beet place. that's a big area and i know a calgary developer bought it up.

I guess I've just never equated big box retailing with our success as a community.

I still think it’s a pretty stupid metric for measuring how desirable a city really is.

All in all, I think it’s pretty hypocritical. How can people be against one form of automobile dependent development like Sage Creek or Waverly West and then on the flip side support another like Ikea?

You have to admit we've all seen it on these forums before, where people quote Jane Jacobs in verse about the need for aged buildings and small blocks and then pee themselves with excitment talking about Ikea.

Where’s the consistency in view gentlemen?