Winnipeg Construction

[roccerfeller]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Sounds like a very expensive way to build 90 apartments.

Yeah. I am curious as to how they will end up doing the pricing.

The average 22 storey condo tower in Toronto will have ~130ish units with an average price of ~285 000$/unit. And this is a "mass market" like condo

(to note, average condo prices in general are much higher...around $80-100k more...though that is Toronto, not Winnipeg)

I know there is an entire BOM to consider as well, but 90 units in 22 storeys?

Will be nice if they can pull it off. According to Biff it will be a skinny, so perhaps there is an offset in such a design related construction cost here atm? I'm no architect nor engineer so I wouldn't know.

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

These homes are 'brownstone inspired' for design purposes only but are not actually a true brownstone building.

The reason for the se-back is to allow our owners extra parking for their homes.
It may also have been a consideration for requirements on set backs in that area but the main reason was to allow for an additional 2nd parking spot.
Interestingly, there was a previous application from another developer who was intending for a much higher density at this site which did not have support from the city. Our project has full support in design an density.

What is wrong with this city?

Really all the people and developers care about is parking, and our city is against anything that remotely resembles high density. Even our high density developments come equipped with massive parking lots and or parkades, making the point of high-density completely redundant. I thought we learned from our past mistakes.

Really though, does anyone see this city ever becoming less car dependent?

You really find a way to hate everything.

If you want to know why they are set back. The reason is simple. We aren't Manhattan.

You have to remember that this is still Winnipeg. This is a city where the people who can actually afford a development like Woodrow Place are the people who have (and want) two cars. In places like Manhattan the culture is completely different so to assume that you can transplant something that works in Manhattan in to Winnipeg and assume the same level of success is incredibly naive. Additionally, most brownstones in NYC were built prior to the proliferation of the automobile. They were built that way because people didn't have cars, not because they were hoping to promote a car-free urban utopia.

You also have to realize that this development (even with the setback due to the driveway) is still higher density than the original derelict houses on the properties. So it is still a step in the right direction.

Lets focus on the positive here and not nitpick the project to death because you don't like the fact that there is a setback on this rather insignificant street.

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

I am ok with the proposal overall, it just frustrates me that the developments that have potential have to constantly adhere to backwards policies and bylaws. What really frustrates me is that so much parking is necessary for a city of 700 000, when a city like Manhattan can go without it. I know it is apples and oranges, but it really does shed light on the fact that people are far too dependent on cars.

Just out of curiosity, how old are you? Are you married? Have any kids?

Are you car free and planning to be for the rest of your life?

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by Marc B.

^ Condo replacing a house that burned down on Westminister and Chestnut.

I wouldn't get too excited about that one. I saw a rendering of it and it looked like an oversized suburban house that Homer Simpson designed.

[chrisallard5454]

Originally Posted by h0twired

You really find a way to hate everything.

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

You are very right though. Looking at the development, it is far, far better than what is currently there. And worlds above what our subdivisions are producing! All in all a great and welcomed project to the city.

Missed that one Hotwired. I never once said I hated this project.
Remember I am still young and I don't know the answer to why everything happens in certain ways. So when I see a development proposing to be a chicago style row housing development, and then see a rendering that actually is a little off, I would like to figure out why. This doesn't mean I hate it.

Originally Posted by h0twired

If you want to know why they are set back. The reason is simple. We aren't Manhattan.

The reason they are set back is because of government policies preventing developments from butting up to the sidewalk. I was using Manhattan as an example, but there are cities all over the world in which developments are butted up to the sidewalk.
In fact I would say that it is more "Winnipeg" to be butted up as our heritage has more of a Chicago/Brooklyn and even Manhattan feel to it than our car orientated mentality of today would suggest.

Originally Posted by h0twired

You have to remember that this is still Winnipeg. This is a city where the people who can actually afford a development like Woodrow Place are the people who have (and want) two cars. In places like Manhattan the culture is completely different so to assume that you can transplant something that works in Manhattan in to Winnipeg and assume the same level of success is incredibly naive.

I am not being naive. I am just an individual who doesn't understand the term status quo. Unlike yourself I crave the best for every piece of this city. The biggest problem I have with the parking is that this development is taking place in Woseley. Woseley is a neighbourhood where cars are not the priority for people. The development claims to fit in with the urban fabric or "niche" of the area. When setting back for extra cars, that sounds like fitting in with the urban fabric of Waverly West, not the city's greenest neighbourhood.

Originally Posted by h0twired

Additionally, most brownstones in NYC were built prior to the proliferation of the automobile. They were built that way because people didn't have cars, not because they were hoping to promote a car-free urban utopia.

I am aware of this. Yet high density construction occurs every where in the world still today. Remember this is Woseley, right on the border of West Broadway. I am not niave enough to believe that any city will be non-dependent on cars. But in Woseley and West Broadway there is an extremely high population of Active Transportation or Public Transit users. West Broadway and Woseley are both medium density neighbourhoods, filled with high density blocks butted right up to the sidewalk. So if a development is built, it should most definitely continue the trend of sustainability. Instead the development is focused around parking.

Originally Posted by h0twired

You also have to realize that this development (even with the setback due to the driveway) is still higher density than the original derelict houses on the properties. So it is still a step in the right direction.

I completely agree with this 100%. But you have to also remember that this development could have been even higher density if there weren't certain by-laws preventing it from being so. So no I won't complain about what we got, but I will definitely complain about why our city is preventing a good thing from happening.

Originally Posted by h0twired

Lets focus on the positive here and not nitpick the project to death because you don't like the fact that there is a setback on this rather insignificant street.

Insignificant? I am moving to Woselely just down the street on Woselely Avenue in two weeks. For me this project is very significant. I have every right to nit pick about this development, just like you would if you felt a development could be better in your backyard.

And I am not the only one who dislikes it when developments are pulled back from the sidewalk. Ask Viking if it was nothing to him when they decided to pull the Science building away from the sidewalk.

As someone with a vested interest in the developments, architecture, culture and history of this city I should darn well complain when developments are only made to fit the status quo. I, like yourself, should hope for the very best of this city. This is especially true concerning inner city infill projects. Don't ream me out because I care too much. Instead maybe you should care a little more.

I wonder do you care that the Shanghai building is going to be ripped down for a paved parking lot? Because it is being voted on today, and I plan to attend the meeting.

[chrisallard5454]

Originally Posted by h0twired

Just out of curiosity, how old are you? Are you married? Have any kids?

Are you car free and planning to be for the rest of your life?

I am twenty.

I have a long term girlfriend who shares the same views as me.

I don't plan on having kids any time soon.

It may come as a surprise, but yes I did own a car. But that was when I lived in an isolated town of 10 000. When I moved to an inner city neighbourhood I felt it would be more appropriate to live sustainably. So now I - like the majority of the people who live in Woseley and West Broadway - cycle and take the bus.
I do plan on getting a scooter one day.
And if you are going to use kids as an excuse, it won't work on me. I grew up on the bus.

[Marc B.]

Originally Posted by h0twired

I wouldn't get too excited about that one. I saw a rendering of it and it looked like an oversized suburban house that Homer Simpson designed.

That's the one. It's fine. Better than the weedy vacant lot that it's going to replace.

So now I - like the majority of the people who live in Woseley and West Bradway - cycle and take the bus.

I live in Wolseley and drive a car (well, a Dodge). I don't know an adult in Wolseley that doesn't own a vehicle. I take the bus a lot and I ride my bike to work most days. But, even if I didn't have kids, I'd still want/probably need to own a car. Wolseley is great, no doubt, and there's a reason why a number of folks that browse here live there, but it's not like it isn't part of the 21st century.

Question to anyone - are there any renderings handy of the new Police HQ? Looks like they're opening up the entire south side and much (all?) of the west side, which from where I'm sitting here in my office is already an improvement over the block-long wall that was there before. Wondering if the plan is a glass curtain all round or what.

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

Missed that one Hotwired. I never once said I hated this project.
Remember I am still young and I don't know the answer to why everything happens in certain ways. So when I see a development proposing to be a chicago style row housing development, and then see a rendering that actually is a little off, I would like to figure out why. This doesn't mean I hate it.

Okay. So you don't hate it. However your initial reaction came across as pretty negative over a single design detail. A detail that is not at all uncommon in Winnipeg as well as MANY other major cities. You will see a similar setback in cities all across Canada.

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

The reason they are set back is because of government policies preventing developments from butting up to the sidewalk. I was using Manhattan as an example, but there are cities all over the world in which developments are butted up to the sidewalk.
In fact I would say that it is more "Winnipeg" to be butted up as our heritage has more of a Chicago/Brooklyn and even Manhattan feel to it than our car orientated mentality of today would suggest.

Heritage? If we were that married to our heritage we wouldn't have parking lots or wider streets. All of the roadways would be built like they were in the 1800s and early 1900s and everyone would have to deal with it. However times change and so does our technology and our design and architecture is modified to allow for our changing society and needs as a culture. So what if this development is set back? Does it really change anything? Not really. Other than that some people hold the opinion of what looks good and what doesn't.

If you take a more glass-half-full approach to life you will realize that complaining about the setback is pretty petty.

That said. I can think of several new infill projects (OZ Condos, BGBX etc) that are butted up against the sidewalk in Winnipeg. So it obviously isn't a hard and fast by-law that applies to all development.

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

I am not being naive. I am just an individual who doesn't understand the term status quo. Unlike yourself I crave the best for every piece of this city. The biggest problem I have with the parking is that this development is taking place in Woseley. Woseley is a neighbourhood where cars are not the priority for people. The development claims to fit in with the urban fabric or "niche" of the area. When setting back for extra cars, that sounds like fitting in with the urban fabric of Waverly West, not the city's greenest neighbourhood.

Define "best". Lets face it. Society has evolved to the point where we drive cars more than we used to. In the days when the original brownstones were built our society was much different. Men worked six days a week. Women stayed at home. Most people never travelled beyond their cities and shopped and did business at the same places every week. Life was much simpler and basic. The people who now live in Wolseley aren't the same type people that lived in the community 100 years ago.

Also how do you know that the majority of people in Wolseley don't like their cars. I know MANY people that live in Wolseley that have 2+ cars.

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

I am aware of this. Yet high density construction occurs every where in the world still today. Remember this is Woseley, right on the border of West Broadway. I am not niave enough to believe that any city will be non-dependent on cars. But in Woseley and West Broadway there is an extremely high population of Active Transportation or Public Transit users. West Broadway and Woseley are both medium density neighbourhoods, filled with high density blocks butted right up to the sidewalk. So if a development is built, it should most definitely continue the trend of sustainability. Instead the development is focused around parking.

I own a house in an area (Frasers Grove) that has great AT and PT access. In fact I looked in that area specifically for that reason. However I see it as an additional amenity. Not a replacement for my automobile. I personally like having the ability to easily explore areas outside of the city. Or even going to places across town on the weekend or after hours when transit service is limited. I am sure many others feel the same way.

Just because an area has high amounts of AT or PT users doesn't mean that they own less cars? I take the bus daily to work, but I still need a car to visit my sister and other family that live outside of the reach of Winnipeg Transit.

Now compound that with the fact that the people buying these houses are going to drop $500-600k on them. Are you really going to believe that someone with that kind of money only has one car?

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

I completely agree with this 100%. But you have to also remember that this development could have been even higher density if there weren't certain by-laws preventing it from being so. So no I won't complain about what we got, but I will definitely complain about why our city is preventing a good thing from happening.

Zoning by-laws exist to create a level of continuity in areas. If you let anyone build whatever they wanted and however they wanted you would end up with some pissed off people. The set back is reasonable in this case because it actually retains the look of 95% of Wolseley when it comes to 2-3 floor homes. The only homes in Wolseley that aren't set back are apartment blocks.

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

Insignificant? I am moving to Woselely just down the street on Woselely Avenue in two weeks. For me this project is very significant. I have every right to nit pick about this development, just like you would if you felt a development could be better in your backyard.

You have the right to nitpick. However just because you think that the houses shouldn't be allowed the additional parking spot and front yard doesn't necessarily make it right. What would you rather have. This development with a setback or no development at all?

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

And I am not the only one who dislikes it when developments are pulled back from the sidewalk. Ask Viking if it was nothing to him when they decided to pull the Science building away from the sidewalk.

Not all setbacks are created equal. I will let trueviking respond to this on his own if he wants.

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

As someone with a vested interest in the developments, architecture, culture and history of this city I should darn well complain when developments are only made to fit the status quo. I, like yourself, should hope for the very best of this city. This is especially true concerning inner city infill projects. Don't ream me out because I care too much. Instead maybe you should care a little more.

What exactly is your "vested" interest? Being vested means that you have money invested in the area that you are fighting for.

The term "inner city infill projects" is far to broad of a definition to impose a single set of rules too.

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

I wonder do you care that the Shanghai building is going to be ripped down for a paved parking lot? Because it is being voted on today, and I plan to attend the meeting.

I am certainly not a fan of the demolition of the building especially if the end result is a parking lot. However this is apples and oranges compared to a trivial setback for a small residential development that will ultimately bring more residents into an area like West Broadway.

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

I am twenty.

I have a long term girlfriend who shares the same views as me.

I don't plan on having kids any time soon.

It may come as a surprise, but yes I did own a car. But that was when I lived in an isolated town of 10 000. When I moved to an inner city neighbourhood I felt it would be more appropriate to live sustainably. So now I - like the majority of the people who live in Woseley and West Broadway - cycle and take the bus.
I do plan on getting a scooter one day.
And if you are going to use kids as an excuse, it won't work on me. I grew up on the bus.

I am 33. Have a wife and 2 kids.

I take the bus daily to work and we own one car that gets driven less than 10,000 km/year.

Contrary to your personal beliefs, I think you will soon realize that the vast majority of Wolseley residents own cars. Most households own at least 2.

There are MANY reasons why people live in Wolseley. It's not just because they feel that they can live there and ditch their cars.

[dpenner]

as long as winnipeg maintains -40 winter temperatures and has access to cabin country, campgrounds and provincials parks there will always be a car culture in winnipeg. I do believe though that the typical 2-3 car family will turn into the 1 car and public transportation use family in the future. Theres nothing wrong with providing ample parking at new developments although it should be underground or at least hidden from the streetscape. I know i make a lot of ottawa/winnipeg comparisons but all the condo/apartment developments in dt ottawa provide parking and yet it maintains a fairly dense and urban feeling that far surpasses winnipeg.

[Biff]

City council voted on a few important things this morning;

- Unanimously in favor of spending $51 million for Convention Centre Expansion

- Unanimously in favor of $2.5 million for Exchange street-scaping

- and unfortunately 13-3 to allow Shanghai demolition. Eadie, Gerbasi & Smith oppose.
This is apparently to turn into a "landscaped lot" not parking. Either way they will be ripping down a historic building for nothing.

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by h0twired

I am 33. Have a wife and 2 kids.

I take the bus daily to work and we own one car that gets driven less than 10,000 km/year.

Contrary to your personal beliefs, I think you will soon realize that the vast majority of Wolseley residents own cars. Most households own at least 2.

There are MANY reasons why people live in Wolseley. It's not just because they feel that they can live there and ditch their cars.

Ok, I'll play along with this: I am 30, and I have a wife and a son.
My wife is a resident physician based out of Seven Oaks Hospital, and I work at the University of Manitoba (Fort Garry Campus): our daycare is by my work.
We live in Wolseley, and we will soon own two cars, simply because it is impossible for us to function without two cars. 1) I need to transport my son to daycare as my wife works long hours and cannot do it 2) My wife needs to be mobile during the day to go to different hospitals. 3) The number of cars parked on my street every night suggests that many houses have 2 cars... As much as I'd prefer to carpool or take the #36 to work, I can't anymore.

[dpenner]

interesting little game that could be its own thread,

[good_dude]

Originally Posted by h0twired

I wouldn't get too excited about that one. I saw a rendering of it and it looked like an oversized suburban house that Homer Simpson designed.

Suburban? Actually, it looks like an updated version of a Wolseley house. Plus it adds density while maintaining proportions similar to neighbouring houses. To me it's pretty much ideal infill for that spot.

[cheswick]

The parkade at York and Donald looks almost complete. Here's a picture for those who don't go by there often. Not bad as far as parkades go.




Also story in the news. Hi hostel and Lo Pub is set to close:

Downtown Winnipeg hostel to be put up for sale

By Lauren Parsons Metro Winnipeg

A popular downtown pub and restaurant could soon be closing its doors. In a few short weeks the Ellice Street Hostelling International (HI) Manitoba building will be put on the market after being unable to make a substantial profit from the 120-bed low-budget accommodation.

“It’s not something we’ve come to too lightly,” said Clara Mackay, spokesperson for the Forks-North Portage Partnership (FNPP). “They’ve done some great things for the area.”

http://metronews.ca/news/winnipeg/300941/downtown-winnipeg-hostel-to-be-put-up-for-sale/

[chrisallard5454]

Based on our ages and our lifestyles it makes sense that our opinions differ. You can't honestly be surprised that I would love a higher density development with less orientation to cars. That is what defines a healthy, sustainable city. But you were missing the point of and origin of my frustration.

When I was told we were getting brownstones, everyone obviously saw how excited I was. Then were given the renderings, and I realized that they were not true brownstones, just mock brownstones. Which in general is fine, I still think it is a great development with many more aesthetically pleasing qualities than what is currently there.

The thing that frustrated me was that a potential development that was higher in density and butted against the sidewalk was turned down in favour of lower density and car orientated development.

Just remember that you are 33 and have kids. I am 20 without kids. Imagine yourself as a 20 year old. If you even cared about development - which most people my age couldn't give a — about - you would probably crave the same thing I do. I understand that you have kids and need a vehicle. But that doesn't mean that everyone is 33, has kids and needs a vehicle.

Remember this city is in desperate need of people my age, or young aspiring professionals who will be out of university in a couple of years. Many of those people do not need nor could they afford vehicles. And they may not be able to afford 500 000 condos, but if the development originally planned was mid-priced apartments blocks which were medium density, they would have been perfect for the location.

[chrisallard5454]

Originally Posted by cheswick

The parkade at York and Donald looks almost complete. Here's a picture for those who don't go by there often. Not bad as far as parkades go.

I was just biking past this half an hour ago, and was thinking about snapping a picture for the forumers to see. I think it looks great!

[chrisallard5454]

Originally Posted by h0twired

I am 33. Have a wife and 2 kids.

I take the bus daily to work and we own one car that gets driven less than 10,000 km/year.

Contrary to your personal beliefs, I think you will soon realize that the vast majority of Wolseley residents own cars. Most households own at least 2.

There are MANY reasons why people live in Wolseley. It's not just because they feel that they can live there and ditch their cars.

People may own cars but most take the bus or cycle to and from work. Also there has never been a development in the neighbourhood that has catered around vehicles, that I know of anyway. Although like someone mentioned, there really isn't anywhere for people to park if they do own a car. However point of frustration missed. Read previous post to see what I meant.

And today's action by city council shows just why I get so frustrated with this city. Don't fault me for being emotional. I know it isn't an excuse, but I am sure you were no better at 20.

We are clogging the construction thread though. If you want to continue the debate, I would have no problem with it in the Expresso section. Actually I am quite enjoying it. Despite the fact that the debates seem heated, I actually obtain a lot of useful information through them, and I learn a lot of new things from arguing with you guys! I remember when I first started coming to this thread I used to think that the larger the city, geographically, the better it was.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Mininari

Ok, I'll play along with this: I am 30, and I have a wife and a son.

My turn! My wife, 1-3/4 year old son and I live in Wolseley too. (we are both 34).

We actually own 3 cars (one daily driver, one summer only, and one winter beater), and I have just punted my stupid reel-push mower in favour of a gas-powered mower. I keep expecting to have an angry mob of torch and pitchfork armed hippies come and chase me out of the area...

I mostly walk or bus to work, however my wife requires the car to get to work, as well as to drop and pick up our son from daycare. I need a car for work a couple times a month.

Anything built in Wolseley or any other neighborhood in Winnipeg is going to require provisions for a car to be viable. That's just the facts of life.

[dpenner]

couldn't resist.

22 year old student, lives downtown ottawa about 5.5km from my school, I have a car that is used 1-2 times per week, only when I go golfing or travel out of the city. I take the BRT daily or bike distances longer then 3km. Otherwise I walk everywhere. It helps that i live in the ottawa equivalent of osborne village so i literally have all amenities i ever needed within a 10 minute walk.

When i do come back to winnipeg I'm planning on finding a place close to sherbrooke and will not be using a car.