HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2008, 6:35 PM
wags_in_the_peg's Avatar
wags_in_the_peg wags_in_the_peg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 3,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Only The Lonely.. View Post
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?
like it or not, people love suburbs. we on this forum perhaps don't but people do and I work with them. Downtown is scary, older homes are crappy, etc. I hear it all the time. I work at a fairly large company here (over 1000 employees) and some websites get blocked due to high usage that is not work related. nhl.com, cfl.com, facebook.com ANd...drum roll please.... IKEA.COM. People love the store and mark my word it'll be front page news when it's officially announced and then again when it opens. people are going to camp out. who remembers when BURGER KING opened at confusion corner and was giving out $1 Whoppers, people lined up for 2 hours to save $1.50. Here comes the IKEA talk, non-stop for days, weeks, years.
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2008, 7:06 PM
DowntownWpg's Avatar
DowntownWpg DowntownWpg is offline
The Loyal Opposition
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 511
Ikea... is their furniture really that — or unique? Or, is it just the brand name that people love and want to be associated with? (kind of like wearing a run of the mill shirt vs. a run of the mill shirt with a Nike swoosh on it).
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2008, 7:32 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 15,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrskylar View Post
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.
actually, 107 of the 150 houses in that neighbourhood were represented. it seems that the three councillors who actually heard the debate emphatically disagree with your assessment....
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2008, 7:39 PM
Greco Roman Greco Roman is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff View Post
I'm interested on the development side.....and the cheap hot dogs......mmmmm hotdogs.
And the Swedish meatballs; don't forget about the Swedish meatballs
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2008, 8:58 PM
flatlander's Avatar
flatlander flatlander is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spocket View Post
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.
I agree, but don't forget that higher end units and new construction has been exempt from rent control for some time now. It's pretty easy to get around rent control - just invest in your building.
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2008, 12:28 AM
Boreal's Avatar
Boreal Boreal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,704
DowntownWpg, I completely agree with you. However, my answer would be (and trust I'm not trying to turn this into a clash of political swords) that we need not so much two-tier the rental system but have our government - particularly the centre-left government we have now - to step up and do what a centre-left government should be adept at - building throngs of social housing. I think Premier Doer has fallen woefully short in this regard, and ANY future leader of any political colour should do all they can to fast track social housing. The reasons are numerous:

-if we want to bring (20,000) immigrants plus other intranational migrants to Winnipeg each year, a good portion of which wont have tonnes of disposable income, it is imperative that we provide a reasonable place to live, free of rats and bacterial infestations, which plague some residences today (see: Free Press stories).

-Manitoba housing/social housing would provide options, or an alternative option if you will for those who would otherwise be left under the grubby mitts of a slum lord.

As always, my opinion only, but this is the way I would look out for the poor, working poor, and provide a greater portfolio of rental units in the city.

There is also the right wing attitude that would state, many individuals would be willing to spend more to go to an upper end, new space, vacating an 'older' but still extremely sound unit open that would then be available for some mid-market individuals. So on and so forth, opening up a number of good spaces (few or many is debatable, to be sure) to lower income earners, that said lower income earners may have not been able to get their hands on due to a lack of vacancy in the rental market at large.
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2008, 12:49 AM
Only The Lonely..'s Avatar
Only The Lonely.. Only The Lonely.. is offline
Portage & Main 50 below
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,872
North Kildonan factbox

12:00 AM - Nov.26 | Winnipeg Free Press

Vancouver developer Devonshire Properties wants to add two new towers (331 more units) to a North Kildonan apartment complex that already has 473 units in two existing towers.

What happened on Nov. 17

All three members of council's East Kildonan-Transcona community committee shot down the plan after more than 200 people showed up to complain about traffic and safety issues.

What happened yesterday

Council's property and development committee voted 2-1 to overturn the community committee decision. That move would have died in a 2-2 deadlock if Transcona Coun. Russ Wyatt attended the meeting instead of going to the Association of Manitoba Municipalities' convention.

What happens next

The apartment complex expansion goes before executive policy committee on Dec. 10 and council as a whole on Dec. 17.
Rate this
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2008, 12:50 AM
Only The Lonely..'s Avatar
Only The Lonely.. Only The Lonely.. is offline
Portage & Main 50 below
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,872
River skate trail detoured

By: Aldo Santin | Winnipeg Free Press

12:00 AM | Comments (0)

The Forks plans to duplicate its record-setting outdoor skating rink this winter but this time the skaters will be heading to Assiniboine Park.
Paul Jordan, chief operating officer for The Forks, said river conditions will make it impossible to build a skating rink on the Red River this winter.

However, Jordan said The Forks will build an 8.5-kilometre skating rink between The Forks and Assiniboine Park.

"It's going to be about the same length, it just will be in the opposite direction," Jordan said.

The winter River Trail was recognized last year by the Guiness World Records as the longest outdoor skating rink in the world, 8.5 kilometres.

That distinction upset officials from Ottawa, where its Rideau Canal had long been considered as the world's longest outdoor skating rink. But weather conditions in Ottawa last year resulted in the canal rink being shortened (to 7.8 kilometres) and operated for about half the number of days (34) that Winnipeg's River Trail (61) was in operation.

Last year's trail went from Omand's Creek on the Assiniboine River, opposite Polo Park, to The Forks and around the junction of the two rivers and another 2.5 kilometres along the Red River.

But Jordan said high river conditions on the Red this year will result in the build up of frazzle ice, which will make it impossible to build a skating rink there.

Jordan said it's about another 2.5-3 kilometres to reach Assiniboine Park from Omand's Creek, adding he thinks skaters will enjoy that route more.

Jordan said that building a skating trail linking The Forks with Assiniboine Park makes more sense, adding it will create a destination at either end of the the trail.

Jordan said that depending on conditions, there are one or two spots likely along the Assinibione Park river bank for the terminus of the rink trail, adding that steps or a snow ramp might have to be built to ensure skaters have access to the trail.

Jordan said the trail will likely be built in early January and last until the middle of March.

The $200,000 budget for the project is principally covered by the Assiniboine Credit Union with additional funding from the province, the City of Winnipeg, The Forks and other groups.

[email protected]
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2008, 12:51 AM
Greco Roman Greco Roman is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Only The Lonely.. View Post
north kildonan factboxBy: Staff Writer

12:00 AM - Nov.26 | Winnipeg Free Press

Vancouver developer Devonshire Properties wants to add two new towers (331 more units) to a North Kildonan apartment complex that already has 473 units in two existing towers.

What happened on Nov. 17

All three members of council's East Kildonan-Transcona community committee shot down the plan after more than 200 people showed up to complain about traffic and safety issues.

What happened yesterday

Council's property and development committee voted 2-1 to overturn the community committee decision.
That move would have died in a 2-2 deadlock if Transcona Coun. Russ Wyatt attended the meeting instead of going to the Association of Manitoba Municipalities' convention.

What happens next

The apartment complex expansion goes before executive policy committee on Dec. 10 and council as a whole on Dec. 17.
Rate this
Too bad they couldn't have done this for 100 Main Street
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2008, 12:52 AM
Only The Lonely..'s Avatar
Only The Lonely.. Only The Lonely.. is offline
Portage & Main 50 below
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,872
Revolving restaurant will turn no more

By: Larry Kusch | Winnipeg Free Press

A city landmark and tourist attraction is shutting its doors at the end of the year.

The revolving bar and restaurant atop Fort Garry Place will close after its lease runs out Dec. 31, and the building's landlord says it will likely be several months before the place is spruced up and a new tenant moves in.

The Gill Family Trust has operated the Royal Crown Revolving Restaurant as well as banquet and conference facilities on the building's fifth, sixth and 28th floors for 14 years, said a family member, who requested anonymity.

He cited declining sales and a lack of customer parking among the reasons for the closing.

He said the landlord, Edison Rental Agency, had been selling an increasing number of monthly parking spots, making it difficult for customers to find convenient parking.

"They (customers) won't park two blocks away and walk to the restaurant in -35 C. They will eat somewhere else," the family member said, adding that company revenues are down by "almost $280,000" this year.

The business is paying about $25,000 a month in rent, plus business and property taxes and utilities, for the 30th-floor restaurant, 31st-storey lounge and banquet facilities, he said.

Miriam Bergen, who heads Edison Rental, said she received notice from the Gill family earlier this year. She said she hopes to have the restaurant and banquet spaces leased soon, but they won't be occupied for at least a few months.

"It needs a good cleaning and there's some painting and patching and (other) maintenance that needs to be done," Bergen said Tuesday.

The revolving restaurant and bar completes one revolution every 70 minutes, offering diners a panoramic view of the city. It opened in 1988.

The manager of the restaurant, Crystal Alves, a four-year employee, said Tuesday that workers were in the dark about the facility's future.

"So far, we have no idea who is taking it over, if we're going to keep going, if they're going to close it down and renovate," Alves said.

Fort Garry Place was developed by Martin Bergen, Miriam's father. The apartment, retail and restaurant and catering complex is owned by a numbered company, controlled by Martin Bergen.

Miriam Bergen said Edison Rental, which manages more than 20 apartment buildings in the city, has discussed the Fort Garry Place restaurant and banquet space vacancies with several potential tenants.

She said various parties have expressed an interest in some or all of the available facilities.

"It looks good for something (a deal) within the next month, but you never know what happens," Bergen said.

The Gill family member speculated that the Fort Garry Hotel may lease some of the space. Representatives of the hotel toured the facilities 18 months ago, he said.

Asked if the hotel was a potential tenant, Miriam Bergen laughed. "I'm not going to say anything. I'll just say there are a number of people (looking at the property)," she said.

Fort Garry Hotel co-owner Richard Bel declined to comment on Tuesday.

[email protected]
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2008, 12:59 AM
Only The Lonely..'s Avatar
Only The Lonely.. Only The Lonely.. is offline
Portage & Main 50 below
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,872


The revolving restaurant has so much potential.

They just need to clean it up a bit and get away from the Heidelberg theme that Bergen bestowed upon it.
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2008, 1:23 AM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 7,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
actually, 107 of the 150 houses in that neighbourhood were represented. it seems that the three councillors who actually heard the debate emphatically disagree with your assessment....
If you were to take a sampling of opinion of those 107 mentioned households I bet all would agree that if it could happen the current complex (Edgewood Estates) could be torn down so that no one could live at the end of Whellms lane. I am quite familiar with that particular area having an uncle that used to live on Tamarind Bay and know that there was always a plan to add another tower to the complex. I'm pretty sure most living in the area knew about that or conveniently forgot.


How many more people living in East and North Kildonan would welcome more rental space in that particular location. Me thinks the numbers would be overwhelmingly in favor. If your were to base city planning on such small numbers of opposition, nothing would ever get built!
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2008, 4:03 AM
Smron's Avatar
Smron Smron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 931
Quote:
What happened on Nov. 17

All three members of council's East Kildonan-Transcona community committee shot down the plan after more than 200 people showed up to complain about traffic and safety issues.

What happened yesterday

Council's property and development committee voted 2-1 to overturn the community committee decision. That move would have died in a 2-2 deadlock if Transcona Coun. Russ Wyatt attended the meeting instead of going to the Association of Manitoba Municipalities' convention.

What happens next

The apartment complex expansion goes before executive policy committee on Dec. 10 and council as a whole on Dec. 17.
I thought they were supposed to be reducing the amount of red tape.
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2008, 4:13 AM
Spocket's Avatar
Spocket Spocket is offline
Back from the dead
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by flatlander View Post
I agree, but don't forget that higher end units and new construction has been exempt from rent control for some time now. It's pretty easy to get around rent control - just invest in your building.
That's more or less what I was referring to. I have no problem with rent controls as they stand right now although, as I say, they seem like rent controls in name only. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if we abolished rent controls entirely and simply let the market dictate rents, I suspect we'd discover that we were paying for an uneccessary level of bureaucracy for some time. Anyway, what we have seems to be working so that's good enough.

As for Devonshire,

I have to admit that whether or not we agree with either the city or the community memebers who opposed those apartments, the fact does remain that for once, the NIMBY's have a point. They do : Whellams and Henderson is already a mess and this will make it substantially worse. Normally I'd say "Deal with it" because normally NIMBY's think that a four storey building built on a secondary artery is the equivalent to importing a chunk of Manhattan and dropping it on their doorstep. In this case though, they're right about that much. Whatever traffic those buildings generate WILL end up waiting in line at Whellams and Henderson and it's a bad situation already. The city never should have zoned that land for high-rise development in the first place. At the very least, the city should have thought about traffic concerns.

The best solution would be to arrange some sort of land swap that allows Devonshire to build what they want to with equivalent selling points (such as proximity to the river or some park...something anyway)
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2008, 5:45 AM
1ajs's Avatar
1ajs 1ajs is offline
ʇɥƃıuʞ -*ʞpʇ*-
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: lynn lake
Posts: 26,524
anyone know whats going on with the old union stock yards office aparently its being demolished as we speak?
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2008, 5:46 AM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 15,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrskylar View Post
If you were to take a sampling of opinion of those 107 mentioned households I bet all would agree that if it could happen the current complex (Edgewood Estates) could be torn down so that no one could live at the end of Whellms lane. I am quite familiar with that particular area having an uncle that used to live on Tamarind Bay and know that there was always a plan to add another tower to the complex. I'm pretty sure most living in the area knew about that or conveniently forgot.


How many more people living in East and North Kildonan would welcome more rental space in that particular location. Me thinks the numbers would be overwhelmingly in favor. If your were to base city planning on such small numbers of opposition, nothing would ever get built!
you are completely wrong about that...there has been a zoning agreement in place since 1974 that restricts all further development on that site....there has never been any plan to build more....the only way the first towers were built was by accepting this agreement....without that agreement there would be no debate...the towers could be built.

the merits of development shouldnt be based on numbers of people in opposition (although, 3/4 of the residents in a neighbourhood is substantial)....it should be based on the merits of the arguments in favour or in opposition....the committee charged with hearing both sides and making a fair judgement voted unanimously against...that was overturned by 2 councillors who admitted to not knowing the details but saw fit to ignore the reccommendation.

what other people in north kildonan think about it is irrelevant....im sure 99% wouldnt care either way....in fact at the public meeting several people spoke in opposition from outside the neighbourhood, concerned that their children who attend the large school on the already congested corner would be at increased risk from 4 years of heavy construction vehicles on a small residential street and then 600 added cars (an increase of 100%) after that.

if you are so familiar, you would know that it is tamarind drive not bay.
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2008, 5:57 AM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 15,081
^add

there are in fact two agreements in place that are being disregarded...not only is there an agreement restricting all further devlopment on that site, but when the city built chief peguis trail they sold it to that neighbourhood by creating a large parkspace with pathways and new planting to act as a buffer....that land has been sold to this developer so he can move the road and add a fire truck turn around....how is that fair exactly?
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2008, 6:23 AM
1ajs's Avatar
1ajs 1ajs is offline
ʇɥƃıuʞ -*ʞpʇ*-
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: lynn lake
Posts: 26,524
if this turns into a fiasco can we ask for all members of city concle to step down and a new councle be forumed!!
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2008, 3:06 PM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 7,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
you are completely wrong about that...there has been a zoning agreement in place since 1974 that restricts all further development on that site....there has never been any plan to build more....the only way the first towers were built was by accepting this agreement....without that agreement there would be no debate...the towers could be built.

the merits of development shouldnt be based on numbers of people in opposition (although, 3/4 of the residents in a neighbourhood is substantial)....it should be based on the merits of the arguments in favour or in opposition....the committee charged with hearing both sides and making a fair judgement voted unanimously against...that was overturned by 2 councillors who admitted to not knowing the details but saw fit to ignore the reccommendation.

what other people in north kildonan think about it is irrelevant....im sure 99% wouldnt care either way....in fact at the public meeting several people spoke in opposition from outside the neighbourhood, concerned that their children who attend the large school on the already congested corner would be at increased risk from 4 years of heavy construction vehicles on a small residential street and then 600 added cars (an increase of 100%) after that.

if you are so familiar, you would know that it is tamarind drive not bay.


I'm still not going to admit to being wrong about whether a new separate tower could be allowed on that site. You must know though that the smaller of the two current buildings was designed to allow for more floors. An agreement signed 34 years ago should not be set in stone to disallow for the needs of today.


What you call the merits of opposition although some may have been legitimate cannot override the benefits to the greater area and city in general. The local councilors need to deny this project were probably more politically driven than anything else.


No good argument against anything is without the cry of "what about the children", many kids cross Henderson Highway everyday which is a much busier street than Whellams Lane could ever be even at the height of construction. Whellams Lane at Henderson is a 4-lane street that narrows to a wide two-lane street as it goes west. Since Whellams Lane is not a through street traffic is never heavy.


Since the towers proposed are geared to seniors I don't think their presence on that site will lead to a rush in traffic at peak times.

Although technically a bay Tamarind is called a drive, my mistake.


Trueviking your sounding more like a nimby more than you would likely admit!
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2008, 3:28 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 15,081
not sure how you cant admit it, that is the whole point of the debate...if there was no zoning agreement, the developer would just build it....

the agreement was implemented because the planners of 1974 understood that the site would be overdeveloped if allowed the full zoning capacity....not a single house or street has been constructed in the neighbourhood since, nothing has happened on that site or in the community that makes development there any more appropriate today than it did then....the city needing more rentals is not an excusse to build them in inappropriate locations.

a nimby is someone opposed to something without legitimate reason...i have many.

i am certain that 99% of people in NK would be opposed if these towers were proposed 30 metres from their yard.....whether the city needs rentals or not.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:25 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.