Winnipeg Construction

[wags_in_the_peg]

from freepress.com

In a surprising rebuke of the city’s 2009 capital budget, two of six councillors on Mayor Sam Katz’s cabinet rejected the $476.1-million public works plan today, saying the city could do much more to build bike paths and pedestrian trails.

At a meeting of Executive Policy Committee, Point Douglas Coun. Mike Pagtakhan and Transcona Coun. Russ Wyatt turned the budget down, signalling a split on council between bike-riding advocates and others.

EPC, Katz’s cabinet, added $2.35 million to the budget.

The $1 million the committee pencilled in though for biking infrastructure, sidewalks and pedestrian trails - so-called active transportation - wasn’t enough for Pagtakhan and Wyatt.

The divide is likely not large enough to stop the budget from passing before the full 16-member council next week. But it was unmistakable around the committee table.

[Only The Lonely..]

Regarding the Devonshire Apartments, there's some great comments posted on the Free Press website.

Comment #1

Another sad day for Winnipeg! A national developer wanted to invest $50M into the city through this project (that's $50,000,000) and yet again a small group of myopic citizens has run this developer out of town. Why would anyone want to invest in Winnipeg?! Chances are this group of people are some of the first to complain about their property taxes. Unfortunately, at this rate, Winnipeg will always be a government town (not really a city), will continue to lose corporate head offices, meaningful jobs and any semblance of sophistication. Well, here's to mediocrity!

Comment #2

Most of those complaining, live in the blocks that are in place now! They don't even pay taxes. In these tough times, let's let the guy spend $50,000,000 of his own money! Contact the city Government and let them know how you feel! We pay taxes, turning down $400,000 a year in taxes is just stupid. Lets look at the Jobs for at least 2-3 years.

Comment #3

What an embarrassment. Where are the protesters when developers want to build ruinous urban sprawl big-box stores and residential subdivisions? Winnipeg badly needs new rental apartments, and highrises are a good way of accommodating them at a low cost to taxpayers (there is no need for many expensive streets, sewers, etcetera). When will city hall stop allowing itself to get hijacked by a small band of protesters every time someone wants to build something good in this city?

Comment #4

We live in NK and this development just might have let us stay in this part of the city when we don't want to live in a house anymore. We were looking forward to having some nice new apartments in the area. I guess we should have spoken up sooner. I agree it is likely a vocal minority that chased this away.

[Only The Lonely..]

Personally, I feel if the city can't get the tax revenue from the apartment tower its only fair to make the existing residents shoulder the burden.

If they want to live in a single family detached wonderland, they should have to pay for it.

Raise their taxes.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..

Personally, I feel if the city can't get the tax revenue from the apartment tower its only fair to make the existing residents shoulder the burden.

If they want to live in a single family detached wonderland, they should have to pay for it.

Raise their taxes.

are u willing to pay higher taxs also?

may i sujest u keep an eye on calgary construction and fallow the brentwood saga... theres a fiasco brewing there...

[drew]

Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..

Personally, I feel if the city can't get the tax revenue from the apartment tower its only fair to make the existing residents shoulder the burden.

If they want to live in a single family detached wonderland, they should have to pay for it.

Raise their taxes.

^ or just don't build any new bridges over the Red River to help get them there.

[trueviking]

it isnt a vocal minority or only renters....3/4 of the home owners in the area registered at the community meeting in opposition....

im all for increasing tax revenue, but that is not justification for incongruent development....

the rest of those comments are based in ignorance....compared to most cities winnipeg, is a breeze to get development accepted....try building anything in victoria with its 3 community committees for every neighbourhood.



there are far greater negative implications for developement in this city by accepting this proposal than there is by rejecting it.

i would suggest that this actually sets a good precedent...one that says developers will have to work with their community and develop buildings that are good for and supported by the neighbourhood.

if we had rules like most cities, developers couldnt build parkades on main street or strip malls on corydon.....

accepting this would have sent the message to developers that if they pay their taxes they can ram anything down the throats of any community....it is also a victory for democracy as the project was rejected out of hand by the development committee and that verdict was ignored by people without knowledge of the issues.

[Only The Lonely..]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

are u willing to pay higher taxs also?

may i sujest u keep an eye on calgary construction and fallow the brentwood saga... theres a fiasco brewing there...

Sure, but our block wasn't faced with the choice of new construction or the status quo.

Basically, the residents are asking the city to keep their neighbourhood locked in 1976 indefinitely.

If you ask me, that's a premium they should have to pay for.

Money talks, if the residents had to pick between a new tower or increased property taxes we would soon see how serious everybody really is.

And that comment applies to Winnipeg as whole.

If you want to stall development, you should have to to back it up with your cheque book.

[trueviking]

^the onus should be on the developer, not the residents.

i worked on a project very similar to this in victoria, a place almost impossible to get through all the red tape...the proposal was for three 15 storey towers and a large number of 3 and 4 story townhouses.

the development was a strip of land between two low density areas that cascaded down to the ocean, so views were important.

at first there was 100% opposition to the project....before we even started design we did community meetings to ask what kind of development was deemed appropriate...residents filled out surveys and responses were assembled...we studied amny of the options presented and charted the pros and cons....a web site only for locals was set up with the results....design ideas were put on the site and community consultations were done every month....they were involved right from the begining.

concessions were made like providing access to some of the amenities of the development such as the park space and gymnasium....a river was rehabilitated that runs through the community....we did site line studies for every affected property so people were sure about what the development was.

by the time city council voted on the project we had complete support of the community and not a single person spoke in opposition.

for the project on whellams, the developer has never even shown his face at either of the community committee meetings...he has never consulted anyone...everything is done behind closed doors and just dropped on the table infront of everyone, take it or leave it....if he worked with the community like he is expected to in every other city in canada, he would get his development...why does he think that winnipeg doesnt deserve the same engagement that other cities do?

it said on the news that the developer will take his money to toronto...he will see that even there he will be required to work with the community to build residential towers.....

this decision sends the message that we deserve the respect that every other city expects...

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by trueviking

^
it said on the news that the developer will take his money to toronto...he will see that even there he will be required to work with the community to build residential towers.....
...

Good luck trying to get financing to build something in Toronto right now. It sounds like a rinkydink operation anyway. Winnipeg let developers run wild in the late 60s and early 70s and the result was mostly disastrous. I'd rather see a city where people care enough about their neighbourhoods to object to huge obtrusive developments.

[MichaelM]

I agree with Viking.

For my little 12 unit Apt hobby project in Transcona I had 2 public open houses to address the neighbors concerns.

I re-designed the development to satisfy ALL of their concerns.

It took 6 months to get the re-zoning but I listened to the neighbors.

I could have built 18 units 3 storeys but I didn't want to block the sun or go above the max. 2 storey homes in the area.

So I lost out on 6 units, but that's the way it goes.

I had a few naysayers speak in "support" of the project at the Oct 20 public hearing. Yes I converted some of them.

And NOBODY appealed the variances.

You must meet with the local residents, because they are scared of change, and just scared of life in general.

It is just simple common courtesy for a developer to be sensitive to residents.

It is not rocket science.

I have 20 renters for 12 units, and had over 100 phone calls for the rental units.

Anybody have any land for sale??????

MM

www.m2engineering.com

[Only The Lonely..]

Big drop seen in new apartments

By: Murray McNeill

9/12/2008 1:00 AM | Winnipeg Free Press


THERE'S been a dramatic drop-off in the number of new apartments being built in the city this year, and developers are blaming it on rent controls and high construction costs.

New Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. figures issued Monday show Winnipeg will likely finish the year with only 319 new apartment starts.

That's a far cry from the 800 started in 2007 and the 600 in 2006. And it comes at a time when the city-wide apartment vacancy rate is hovering at a mere 1.1 per cent. Jeff Powell, CMHC's senior market analyst for Manitoba, said with vacancy rates this low, he expected to see lots of new apartments being built again this year.

However, spokesmen for two local developers -- WRE Developments Ltd. and Winpark Dorchester Properties -- said rent controls and high construction costs are discouraging new construction.

They said rent guidelines -- set at two per cent this year -- have kept rates for existing apartments artificially low for years. And with construction costs going through the roof, developers are finding it difficult to build new units and still keep rents low enough to compete with existing suites.

So in many cases, they either don't build at all, build only a limited number of new units, or purchase and refurbish existing units instead.

New rental units remain exempt from rent control guidelines for the first 20 years after they come onto the market. Winpark Dorchester co-owner Arch Honigman said his firm has gone the refurbishing route, and it's able to do it for about half the cost of building new apartments.

While rents for its refurbished units are higher than for most older suites, they're still hundreds of dollars a month less than what it would have had to charge for a new one.

WRE Developments spokesman David Blatz said to get a reasonable return on investment, most developers would need to charge $1,200 to $1,300 a month for a new two-bedroom apartment. Thanks to many years of rent controls, the average rental rate for an existing two-bedroom suite is only about $800.

"Nobody can afford to build (new units)," he said.

He said WRE has gone ahead and built about 300 new units over the last three years as part of its Dawson Trails development at Lagimodiere Boulevard and Fermor Avenue. And it will likely build more in the future, although it's not sure when because it takes so long to get new developments approved.

"Certainly in 2009 it won't happen," he said, "and 2010 -- maybe, if we really pushed it."

This year's tally of 319 units includes 90 new units that were started last month, the CMHC figures show.

They were among 271 new housing starts -- 136 single-family and 135 multi-family -- in the Winnipeg Census Metropolitan Area in November. That was a 23 per cent increase from the 221 recorded in November of last year.

The November housing-start numbers was one of two housing-related reports issued Monday. RBC Economics also issued its latest quarterly housing affordability report for Manitoba and seven other jurisidications in Canada.

It showed the cost of owning a home in Manitoba declined slightly in the third quarter of this year, thanks mainly to an increase in family incomes.

It said Manitoba remains the third most affordable market in Canada to own a standard bungalow or two-storey home, and the most affordable place to own a standard condominium or townhouse.

[email protected]

[flatlander]

Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..

Sure, but our block wasn't faced with the choice of new construction or the status quo.

Basically, the residents are asking the city to keep their neighbourhood locked in 1976 indefinitely.

If you ask me, that's a premium they should have to pay for.

Money talks, if the residents had to pick between a new tower or increased property taxes we would soon see how serious everybody really is.

And that comment applies to Winnipeg as whole.

If you want to stall development, you should have to to back it up with your cheque book.

The existing residents will pay for it. If adjacent development reduced their property values, it would also reduce their property taxes. By fighting to maintain their property values they are also maintaining the tax base.

And renters pay property taxes. The landlord pays, and its part of the rent. Residential renters, that is.

[Only The Lonely..]

Developer walks away

By: Bartley Kives

1:00 AM | Winnipeg Free Press


Winnipeggers looking for rooms to rent may have to "move to Saskatchewan or Alberta," chided the owner of a Vancouver company that cancelled a $50-million apartment expansion in North Kildonan in the face of political opposition.

Minutes before Mayor Sam Katz's cabinet had the chance to vote on a proposal to add two new towers to an existing apartment complex on Whellams Lane, Devonshire Properties formerly withdrew its application for three zoning changes it needed before the company could add 331 new units to the property.

The move Wednesday pleased dozens of North Kildonan residents who trekked through snow to city hall to see what council's executive policy committee would do with the proposal, which was rejected by northeast Winnipeg councillors on Nov. 17 before the more powerful property and development committee overturned the recommendation the following week.

"I'm thrilled. I'm going out to celebrate," said Marcel Segstro, one of several hundred North Kildonan residents who opposed the project because of safety, traffic or sewage concerns.

But Devonshire owner and president Zev Shafran said he's frustrated with Winnipeg, which suffers from a shortage of apartment units but seems reluctant to approve new construction.

The 331 units planned for Whellams Lane would have exceeded the total number of apartments created in the city in 2008. Developers only built 319 new rental units this year, according to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which pegs the Winnipeg apartment-vacancy rate at 1.1 per cent.

"Most cities are clamouring for rental accommodation. Most cities go out of their way to try to accommodate," Shafran said in a phone interview.

"What's going to happen in the next 10 years? There's going to be no housing built. What's everyone going to do in Winnipeg? Move to Saskatchewan or Alberta?"

Devonshire has apartment expansions planned for existing properties in Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver and had no trouble receiving approval from the latter two cities, Shafran said.

He withdrew the Whellams Lane application because he was told it would not have received enough votes at EPC. Most councillors do not like overturning rulings made at community committee hearings, where citizens can speak out.

More than 200 people turned out to oppose the Whellams Lane proposal on Nov. 17 and many were outraged after the property committee reversed the decision on Nov. 25.

For years, councillors have complained that Winnipeg's consultation process is flawed, as few councillors are brave enough to vote against the wishes of large and sometimes angry crowds.

"I don't think we should be turning down deals that bring $50 million worth of private investment to the city and add half-a-million dollars to the property-tax base," property committee chairman Scott Fielding (St. James-Brooklands), said.

Councillors must consider what's best for the city, not just their wards, he said.

But, Mayor Katz said there is nothing wrong with the community-committee process, even as he lamented the loss of an apartment expansion that would have alleviated Winnipeg's housing shortage.

"We're not going to pretend this kind of development is bad for the city," Katz said.

"Hopefully now, the area councillor (Jeff Browaty), the developer and the community can move this project along."

Shafran, however, said he is not sure he'll bring a new proposal forward.

"I believe our company is a good corporate citizen and we wanted to build something good for the city," he said.

"It's pretty frustrating to go through a process like this and not have the permit to build."

[email protected]



Opposition rules
City-wide apartment vacancy rate: 1.1 per cent

Apartment units created in Winnipeg in 2008: 319

Number of new apartment units that developer Devonshire Properties wanted to add to an existing apartment complex on Whellams Lane in North Kildonan next year: 331

What happened? The developer withdrew its application in the face of opposition from area residents.


Number of new apartment units that Winnipeg's Crystal Developments wanted to create on a surface parking lot at the corner of Fort Street and Assiniboine Avenue this year: 120

What happened? The developer withdrew its proposal in the face of opposition from the Friends of Upper Fort Garry.

Originally Posted by Free Press Comment

Property rights ought to be ruling the day. If "area residents" and "Friends of Upper Fort Gary don't want any development, they ought to buy the land in question and do as they please with it. They ought not be able to stop the present owner from building whatever they want on their own property.

[drew]

^ I don't really think the real issue is that citizens will NIMBY ever proposal presented by the developer.

I think the real issue is that developers (especially out-of-town ones) think of the Winnipeg market as a place where they can buy property cheap and propose just about anything they want.

If it gets approved, great. If not, they really don't care because there isn't a great deal of investment in the first place. They just walk away.

It seems obvious to me that if developers were willing to work with the public from the beginning and demonstrate co-operation, they might smooth the process, and end up with more vocal support.

It seems that for Winnipeg developments, it's the developers way, or no deal. I think the real reason for this is not NIMBY's, who exist in all cities, but rather that property values in this city don't justify (in the developers mind anyway) the need to put any real effort in the whole process.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by trueviking

it isnt a vocal minority or only renters....3/4 of the home owners in the area registered at the community meeting in opposition....

im all for increasing tax revenue, but that is not justification for incongruent development....

the rest of those comments are based in ignorance....compared to most cities winnipeg, is a breeze to get development accepted....try building anything in victoria with its 3 community committees for every neighbourhood.



there are far greater negative implications for developement in this city by accepting this proposal than there is by rejecting it.

i would suggest that this actually sets a good precedent...one that says developers will have to work with their community and develop buildings that are good for and supported by the neighbourhood.

if we had rules like most cities, developers couldnt build parkades on main street or strip malls on corydon.....

accepting this would have sent the message to developers that if they pay their taxes they can ram anything down the throats of any community....it is also a victory for democracy as the project was rejected out of hand by the development committee and that verdict was ignored by people without knowledge of the issues.

This statement is somewhat misleading:


"it isn't a vocal minority or only renters....3/4 of the home owners in the area registered at the community meeting in opposition....


The number of houses to be affected by this project was surprisingly small, probably in the neighbourhood of 50 homes, the majority of those being on Tamarind Drive, with a few on Whellams Lane and a few more on Appleton St. north of Whellams.

If a project of this magnitude that would have brought so many rental units to an area where the true vacancy rate is near 0%, certain politicians just aren't doing their job!


I personally have an elderly Aunt looking to downsize from her NK home (of 40 years) to an apartment in NK, she has her name in at about a dozen units and she has been told that the waiting time for an opening is between 3-4 years.

[trueviking]

^ it was 3/4 of the 200 homes in the direct neighbourhood....its an isolated island of low density reseidential bordered by the river, the old rail line and henderson....basically the neighbourhood that uses whellams as its only access.

i agree that there is a rental shortage.....and i am all for finding your aunte a place to live, but that doesnt mean we should just accept any proposal no matter what... it can be done properly...even on that site more appropriate development could happen.

[rgalston]

End rent control now!

[Boreal]

x 2. It would be my first move if I was in Sam Katz's shoes. I understand why some are aprehensive about abolishing rent controls, but I think the pros radically outweigh the cons.

[1ajs]

its set by the province not the city...

[Boreal]

I apologize. You know, I really did honestly believe that it was civic based. Thanks.