Winnipeg Construction

[roccerfeller]

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

There was a series of stories in Saturday's Winnipeg Sun under the unfortunate headline "The Ax Effect" on the construction boom at U of Winnipeg. Did anyone see in particular this story:

Businesses not benefiting from U of W expansion: Developer

By ROSS ROMANIUK, Winnipeg Sun

Last Updated: April 15, 2011 10:04pm

The University of Winnipeg’s expansion has brought an “outstanding contribution” to its district, one developer says, but it should do more to boost the area’s business side.

Hart Mallin, who has constructed condominiums and undertaken other building projects downtown, told the Winnipeg Sun that the added campus facilities haven’t shown signs of making a large enough “capital contribution to productivity” in their area. What’s needed, he stressed, is a “better connectivity” with what’s going on at the street-level, storefront level on Portage Avenue. [...]

Read the whole article: http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/winnipeg/2011/04/15/18014741.html

Yes, better connectivity and...oh I dunno, these added expansions to actually OPEN UP first lol

[roccerfeller]

Originally Posted by flatlander

There's about 1300 housing units downtown on the Board, not including Heritage Landing. Lots of stuff happening. Heritage Landing just seems to be struggling for a few reasons. I have no inside knowledge on this one - just speculating.

Almost all the units are adaptive reuse as well. Good to see existing buildings being used. I imagine its a combination between economic viability and market demand that suggests loft style warehouse conversions are more appealing than high rise construction. Of those 1300, I believe 1000 are condos and 300 rentals.

This is interesting. Does this include redevelopments in the Exchange? (which I am ALL for) or is this only heritage Landing style developments?

Originally Posted by RAFS

What exactly is the basis for all of this speculation? The project is currently still on schedule. No one is struggling. There is no problem............ Well, other than all the incorrect information floating around out there.

Didn't the project get delayed?

Originally Posted by trueviking

^ in my opinion it is. For me this programme should be made permanent.... fine grain development is what makes urban areas live and breathe.

I am very excited about this initiative. Adding 1300 residents to downtown even every 2 years will make a huge difference. At 25-30k a critical mass will begin in my opinion.

Great points here viking. I agree....this is an amazing initiative.

Originally Posted by drew

I think it's a bit of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Converting old warehouse buildings into condos and retail space and current building Code is a very cost INeffective process. The cost per square foot often approaches basic new construction. From the projects our firm has been involved in, without subsidies and other incentives, these projects would simply not happen, certainly not at the pace we are seeing in the last few years.

In any event, I doubt developers large or small would touch any of these blocks without the incentives. In fact the nitpicky details that go into the architectural, structural and mechanical/electrical systems of these 100 year old blocks turn off many developers. It is A LOT of work, both in getting working drawings and adapting to reality while construction is ongoing - and profit margins just aren't there for the big guys.

We need these incentives to encourage developer to "cut their teeth" on one warehouse conversion. Once you get through the process the first time, future developments are that much simpler. I think this is highlighted in the Avenue Building Development. This developer got into the system by first converting a condo on Princess.

Again, excellent points here. Agree fully.

Originally Posted by 1ajs

Why should we let these underused buildings sit for another 20 yes? While we wait for a critical mass to build making them fall apart more and wind up just being torn down like in Calgary........

Yep. Well said 1ajs.

[rgalston]

Originally Posted by trueviking

^ in my opinion it is. For me this programme should be made permanent.... fine grain development is what makes urban areas live and breathe.

I am very excited about this initiative. Adding 1300 residents to downtown even every 2 years will make a huge difference. At 25-30k a critical mass will begin in my opinion.

I think the scale of these developments (in East Exchange, etc.) are great. Rehabbing old warehouses, building new on vacant land, etc. It is great stuff.

But I'm just wondering why is the announcement of new incentives made? Is there still a legitimate gap between building/redevelopment costs and making something of a profit? Or is this program just bonus gravy to lure developers?

If there is an actual market gap, that's fine to provide some assistance, although there are some unintended, long-term consequences to this. Mainly that it conditions developers to get handouts when doing anything downtown (while politically unconnected developers just stay home, or let their downtown properties rot). And also that it feeds the self-serving nature of redevelopment groups (ie, "we need money because downtown is so terrible"/"we need money because downtown is so wonderful").

It also does nothing to identify or tackle causes of cost-profit gap. It's just a Band-Aid. Residential fire codes are hard to work around, but how much less important red tape is slowing down (adding costs to) development of old buildings downtown? Do heritage conservation regulations do this? Are land values completely out of whack downtown?

Like I said, I think the scale and type of residential development going on in the East Exchange/Waterfront Drive is great, but it won't change things for the better over the long term, anymore than the apartment boom in the late '60s/'70s did.

Also, I just about die laughing when I read Sam, Ross, and Co. talk about how residential and density is so crucial. That's why CV spent the last five years trying to turn North Main into a non-profit bureaucracy ghetto?

[headhorse]

some verve tache (and a condo next to it?) pictures from winnipeger at SSC:




from enjoy03 @ flickr

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by rgalston

I think the scale of these developments (in East Exchange, etc.) are great. Rehabbing old warehouses, building new on vacant land, etc. It is great stuff.

But I'm just wondering why is the announcement of new incentives made? Is there still a legitimate gap between building/redevelopment costs and making something of a profit? Or is this program just bonus gravy to lure developers?

If there is an actual market gap, that's fine to provide some assistance, although there are some unintended, long-term consequences to this. Mainly that it conditions developers to get handouts when doing anything downtown (while politically unconnected developers just stay home, or let their downtown properties rot). And also that it feeds the self-serving nature of redevelopment groups (ie, "we need money because downtown is so terrible"/"we need money because downtown is so wonderful").

It also does nothing to identify or tackle causes of cost-profit gap. It's just a Band-Aid. Residential fire codes are hard to work around, but how much less important red tape is slowing down (adding costs to) development of old buildings downtown? Do heritage conservation regulations do this? Are land values completely out of whack downtown?

Like I said, I think the scale and type of residential development going on in the East Exchange/Waterfront Drive is great, but it won't change things for the better over the long term, anymore than the apartment boom in the late '60s/'70s did.

Also, I just about die laughing when I read Sam, Ross, and Co. talk about how residential and density is so crucial. That's why CV spent the last five years trying to turn North Main into a non-profit bureaucracy ghetto?

i dont disagree...i do think though that it will at least get the ball rolling....whatever you think of waterfront drive, it did do one thing.....it put exchange district residential on the radar....there was obviously demand for it, as they all sold easily, but it took government intervention to drag developers by their noses to the area...i see this as serving the same purpose....

i dont really have a problem if $20m a year of my tax dollars goes into this forever...no matter how anti-free market it really is....or if it really doesnt fill a legitimate gap....there are a lot of forces working against downtown residential....that is a tiny amount to pay to give it a push in the other direction....

i also think that it will eventually spur other development as a spin off that isnt tied to the subsidy....i agree that it is only one part of the puzzle.

[flatlander]

Originally Posted by rgalston

If that's the case, why were more subsidies to develop downtown just announced, and why does every developer still talk about gaps in the market?

I've seen a few studies years ago that attempted to quantify a market gap, and I was never comfortable with their methodology. From what i recall they attempted to show why construction downtown is more expensive. I'm not sure that it is. But high rise construction is more expensive than low rise. Structured parking is more expensive than surface. But is it more expensive to build Fort Garry Place on Assiniboine than on Pembina Highway? Only if the land is more expensive.

There were more applications for housing projects received than could be funded. Would some of them proceed without grants if the program wasn't extended? Possibly. Impossible to say. However, I support extending the program because I worry about losing momentum, but mostly because getting people living downtown is the only way things will ever change.

Keep in mind these aren't cash grants - they are tax credits. Property tax forgiveness for 10 years for condos and 15 years or rentals.

[flatlander]

Originally Posted by Andy6

The likelihood is that all the subsidies are going to make big projects uneconomical. So instead of having developers come in and build a couple of larger unsubsidized projects to service the demand for downtown living, you instead have dozens of comparatively uneconomical projects going ahead thanks to taxpayer subsidization, eating up the market that the private developers would have serviced in a different way. The question is whether it's worth all the subsidies to have the development steered into a form (mostly small projects and Exchange District renovations) that is favoured by the planners.

The tax credit program doesn't favour new construction over adaptive reuse, high rise over low rise. The amount of the credit is based on the assessed value of the unit. If a high rise building costs more to construct, and the assessed value is higher, the tax credit will be higher. I think we're seeing more adaptive reuse projects because that's where the demand is. And I'm ok with that.

[flatlander]

Originally Posted by rgalston

I think the scale of these developments (in East Exchange, etc.) are great. Rehabbing old warehouses, building new on vacant land, etc. It is great stuff.

But I'm just wondering why is the announcement of new incentives made? Is there still a legitimate gap between building/redevelopment costs and making something of a profit? Or is this program just bonus gravy to lure developers?

If there is an actual market gap, that's fine to provide some assistance, although there are some unintended, long-term consequences to this. Mainly that it conditions developers to get handouts when doing anything downtown (while politically unconnected developers just stay home, or let their downtown properties rot). And also that it feeds the self-serving nature of redevelopment groups (ie, "we need money because downtown is so terrible"/"we need money because downtown is so wonderful").

It also does nothing to identify or tackle causes of cost-profit gap. It's just a Band-Aid. Residential fire codes are hard to work around, but how much less important red tape is slowing down (adding costs to) development of old buildings downtown? Do heritage conservation regulations do this? Are land values completely out of whack downtown?

Like I said, I think the scale and type of residential development going on in the East Exchange/Waterfront Drive is great, but it won't change things for the better over the long term, anymore than the apartment boom in the late '60s/'70s did.

Also, I just about die laughing when I read Sam, Ross, and Co. talk about how residential and density is so crucial. That's why CV spent the last five years trying to turn North Main into a non-profit bureaucracy ghetto?

Dammit I'm trying to respond in quotes above but haven't got the hang of it ...anyway you'll see my response interspersed above.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by flatlander

Keep in mind these aren't cash grants - they are tax credits. Property tax forgiveness for 10 years for condos and 15 years or rentals.

Are you sure they're not grants? If I'm thinking of that same program (the one introduced last year and just renewed), aren't they grants that are given to developers up front? That's the way I understood it anyway, but I could be wrong...

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by flatlander

But is it more expensive to build Fort Garry Place on Assiniboine than on Pembina Highway? Only if the land is more expensive.

If it's true (and I agree with you in remaining skeptical) it may be because you have to factor in the cost of parking facilities . I'm only guessing here but if you build downtown you almost certainly have to provide some sort of parking structure that would accommodate all residents with parking while if you build in the burbs somewhere you can get away with a large percentage of said parking space being surface or street .

It may also have something to do with soil or foundation work . As you may recall Mb. Hydro had to axe part of their underground parking plans due to something along those lines . As well , with downtown being a nexus for so much utilities-related , it could be that you have to move so many things before any real construction can begin . There's also the fact that you have to demolish something which is probably a lot bigger than your average house so I guess that ain't cheap .

Lastly there's always the heritage aspect of it all . Fighting to get something built doesn't cost a lot in any direct sort of way but it can delay it for some time while costs rise. Not that a) I'm against protecting buildings or b) of the opinion that we do a very good job of protecting buildings anyway but it's another level of red tape and bureaucracy that has got to affect the bottom line .

Just as an example of how any of this could potentially be true , look at Heritage Landing . Without passing judgment on anybody necessarily , we can't ignore the costs that have been introduced thanks to delays and legal wrangling .

So I'm not saying the study is necessarily right but certainly there is potential for it to be at least somewhat accurate even if it overstates the conclusion .

[flatlander]

Originally Posted by Bdog

Are you sure they're not grants? If I'm thinking of that same program (the one introduced last year and just renewed), aren't they grants that are given to developers up front? That's the way I understood it anyway, but I could be wrong...

Same program. The developer can collect the property taxes over ten/fifteen years or finance them to get a (discounted) grant up front.

The important thing to note is that it's not cash coming out of income or property taxes. It's a tax credit based on the incremental property taxes - before redevelopment compared to after.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by flatlander

Same program. The developer can collect the property taxes over ten/fifteen years or finance them to get a (discounted) grant up front.

The important thing to note is that it's not cash coming out of income or property taxes. It's a tax credit based on the incremental property taxes - before redevelopment compared to after.

Ah ok, that's what I thought. So the takehome message is that these are grants from dollars that wouldn't have been there in the first place, had the development not taken place (and thus not increased the property values in the area)...

[flatlander]

Originally Posted by Spocket

If it's true (and I agree with you in remaining skeptical) it may be because you have to factor in the cost of parking facilities . I'm only guessing here but if you build downtown you almost certainly have to provide some sort of parking structure that would accommodate all residents with parking while if you build in the burbs somewhere you can get away with a large percentage of said parking space being surface or street .

It may also have something to do with soil or foundation work . As you may recall Mb. Hydro had to axe part of their underground parking plans due to something along those lines . As well , with downtown being a nexus for so much utilities-related , it could be that you have to move so many things before any real construction can begin . There's also the fact that you have to demolish something which is probably a lot bigger than your average house so I guess that ain't cheap .

Lastly there's always the heritage aspect of it all . Fighting to get something built doesn't cost a lot in any direct sort of way but it can delay it for some time while costs rise. Not that a) I'm against protecting buildings or b) of the opinion that we do a very good job of protecting buildings anyway but it's another level of red tape and bureaucracy that has got to affect the bottom line .

Just as an example of how any of this could potentially be true , look at Heritage Landing . Without passing judgment on anybody necessarily , we can't ignore the costs that have been introduced thanks to delays and legal wrangling .

So I'm not saying the study is necessarily right but certainly there is potential for it to be at least somewhat accurate even if it overstates the conclusion .

Just a couple of extra things to think about ...

If you build downtown, you are not required to provide parking. Granted most do as a business decision, but it's not required. Parking is required for land outside of downtown, and just try to get a variance to reduce the number of parking stalls, or argue that residents can park on street. You would have the neighbourhood staging a sit in.

I think the issue that Manitoba Hydro faced is not downtown related, although it could be coincidental. True that there are more utilities downtown but the only time that has been a big issue was Sky.

Heritage is heritage, regardless of whether or not the property is downtown.

To me, none of the factors are justification to say that building downtown costs more.

[flatlander]

Originally Posted by RAFS

What exactly is the basis for all of this speculation? The project is currently still on schedule. No one is struggling. There is no problem............ Well, other than all the incorrect information floating around out there.

Just curious, but why the change in architect?

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by headhorse

some verve tache (and a condo next to it?) pictures from winnipeger at SSC:

The condo next to it is phase 2 of the verve.

[trueviking]

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/winnipeg/2011/04/15/18014766.html

U of Winnipeg invigorates core

With 27 laboratories, a focus on digital media and a design aimed at maximum sustainability, the three-floor Richardson complex will open in June as what Axworthy describes as “probably the most modern, up-to-date science facility in the country” and a “real hallmark for the city itself” that will also serve as a community gathering place.

“Its atrium is going to be, I think, one of the eight wonders of Winnipeg,” he explained, noting the importance of public accessibility “to also demonstrate the fundamental value to the broad community which, after all, pays our bills.”


till trees to come, but its getting there:

[flatlander]

^^^^ Wow!!!

[roccerfeller]

Lookin' good. Updates U of W with some high tech equipment. Those labs they have currently are is desperate need for an upgrade - and have been for about a decade lol

[trueviking]

^ the wood squares you see on the floor will eventually have 22' trees in them....should add some softness to the space.

[SKYSTHELIMIT]

Looks great TV very impressive!