Winnipeg Construction

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by dpenner

i have been stuck in the middle in regards to whether or not i like the construction of the convention centre expansion. I don't accept the argument that it is better then the surface lot currently there as valid, since building one massive project spanning the whole area makes it rigid and not flexible to the future growth and direction of the city. What happens if in twenty years we want a different use for the space in the area. Normally I oppose massive projects that are not residential in nature for this reason, they limit the organic growth of the city in that particular area. That being said I feel like in this particular case in Winnipeg, that there is a market for additional space and feel as if the expansion can provide an extra economic boost to the area and secure some serious tax revenue.

You make some very good points; however just because they decide to go ahead and build a massive project on this site, does not mean that it has to stay in its built form forever. It could be opened to redevelopment down the road in 30-40 years. A great example of this is the former Eatons building in Vancouver, which is a.k.a. Sears, a.k.a. the Toilet Bowl (google image search it; its hideous). Other than a couple entrances, loading docks and an underground parking ramp, it provides no organic connection to the streets in Vancouver. It is an ugly black hole amongst the rest of DT Vancouver.

Of course, it is now known as 'where Nordstrom is going' and Cadillac Fairview is doing a massive renovation / facelift that everyone is really excited about, which includes opening up the street access a bit more.

Another thought... maybe the whole Winnipeg Convention centre project is too far along for this, but why not reserve at least some of the street-facing walls for ground-level retail units. I would hope that at least some of them would actually get leased, and others could be left vacant with art displays or something in the window. Use a couple of them to set up displays for future events at the convention centre (until demand warrants leasing). It would be better than a solid concrete wall. Nothing like walking along solid wall, with only 4ft of sidewalk between you, the wall, and the cars.

[chrisallard5454]

as i recall the addition was pretty glassy at ground level and pretty similar to the existing building above

I don't think we have to worry about concrete. And the idea for retail could very well be the case in this project.

However out of all of us 1ajs gave the best reply. We really should withhold judgement until we see renders of the actual expanded portion, not just the bridge.

[rgalston]

I really don't think "it's a surface parking lot now" is an excuse to for building what looks to be a clunky, monolithic building. The "Parcel 4" parking lot across from the CMHR is a huge eyesore that's embarrassing to this city, but no one thought that that was a good enough reason for Canalta to build some ugly highway strip motel/waterpark there. I think the same goes for big parking lots in South Portage.

Bdog is right: no matter how strong the residential population, it's not enough to warrant continuous storefronts on every street. (Even in great neighbourhoods in Manhattan, lots of the side streets have few storefronts.)

What I think would be ideal for that surface parking lot, as well as the other massive, publicly-owned surface parking lots in that neighbourhood, is that they are subdivided into smaller lots and sold off to developers who build smaller residential buildings. Nothing necessarily fancy or expensive, just a dense collection of smaller multi-family developments. If someone wants to build mixed-use, or build taller, that's great. But low-rise isn't bad. Streetscaping on lower traffic streets (Carlton, Edmonton, and Hargrave) could be narrowed and/or converted to two-way traffic, and trees planted on the boulevards.

***
As much as I salivate thinking about all the economic spin-offs of having twice as many MGEU conventions and City of Winnipeg career symposiums (I mean, downtown has been THRRRRRIIIIVING since the original WCC opened in the mid-1970s), demand for convention space in North America is shrinking. (Read about it here, here, here,, and here.)

[trueviking]

as much as i believe in jane jacobs organic growth, fine grain development as the key to any success of a downtown, i think you have to look at the economy of a city a bit more three dimensionally than that.

nobody would argue that splitting up the big parking lots and selling them to developers who would fill our downtown with wonderful three storey walk ups is a lovely notion....who wouldn't want that?...i want to live in a snow globe too.

where are all the people living in the this urban utopia going to work?.....are they all going to be cobblers, tobacconists, or run haberdasheries on the ground floor of their buildings?

In the real world, cities have to have economic drivers....yes its easy to post links to editorial pieces about the death of conventions, but the reality is they are significant economic engines in a city....cities need large scale development....even the most urban cities in the world have convention centres.

its true that they are horrible for the pedestrian environment and are pretty terrible urban buildings, but in this case, i didnt see that parking lot getting filled anytime soon...and if the greenwich village dream is a reality, we have a whack more empty lots to do it on....

my hope is that this drives enough economic spin off that we start to see surrounding lots be filled with services to respond to this development....it could result in more hotels, restaurants etc. filling in the gaps around the convention centre....in the more fine grained development that we all hope for....that doesnt happen in isolation....new york is filled with massive buildings....the fine grain grows around it....the big buildings is where people work.

There are at least two hotels already proposed in response to the expansion....i can guarantee the impetus for developing the MPI lot was based in large part on that as well....whatever is proposed there will absolutely be trying to capitalize on the convention centre...thats why it was such a desirable site.

residential and organic growth is of course the backbone of the future of our downtown, but you cant just ignore the other things that bring people there to work, to visit and to spend money.

even in its current configuration, the convention centre fills 100 000 hotel rooms a year, attracts 150 000 people to winnipeg per year.


@headhorse
the government is not donating $200m to the convention centre....it generates revenue....it would not be the same to simply give it away to developers to build housing with.

people have to work somewhere too.

[headhorse]

Originally Posted by trueviking

as much as i believe in jane jacobs organic growth, fine grain development as the key to any success of a downtown, i think you have to look at the economy of a city a bit more three dimensionally than that.

nobody would argue that splitting up the big parking lots and selling them to developers who would fill our downtown with wonderful three storey walk ups is a lovely notion....who wouldn't want that?...i want to live in a snow globe too.

where are all the people living in the this urban utopia going to work?.....are they all going to be cobblers, tobacconists, or run haberdasheries on the ground floor of their buildings?

In the real world, cities have to have economic drivers....yes its easy to post links to editorial pieces about the death of conventions, but the reality is they are significant economic engines in a city....cities need large scale development....even the most urban cities in the world have convention centres.

its true that they are horrible for the pedestrian environment and are pretty terrible urban buildings, but in this case, i didnt see that parking lot getting filled anytime soon...and if the greenwich village dream is a reality, we have a whack more empty lots to do it on....

my hope is that this drives enough economic spin off that we start to see surrounding lots be filled with services to respond to this development....it could result in more hotels, restaurants etc. filling in the gaps around the convention centre....in the more fine grained development that we all hope for....that doesnt happen in isolation....new york is filled with massive buildings....the fine grain grows around it....the big buildings is where people work.

There are at least two hotels already proposed in response to the expansion....i can guarantee the impetus for developing the MPI lot was based in large part on that as well....whatever is proposed there will absolutely be trying to capitalize on the convention centre...thats why it was such a desirable site.

residential and organic growth is of course the backbone of the future of our downtown, but you cant just ignore the other things that bring people there to work, to visit and to spend money.

even in its current configuration, the convention centre fills 100 000 hotel rooms a year, attracts 150 000 people to winnipeg per year.


@headhorse
the government is not donating $200m to the convention centre....it generates revenue....it would not be the same to simply give it away to developers to build housing with.

people have to work somewhere too.

I don't think I said it was a donation.. but it's over $150m in government funds going toward the project. Call it what you want, if we're going to be dispersing $150m for infrastructure funding there are better ways to spend it.

I couldn't find any numbers when I tried to look in regards to how much revenue the CC generates and how many people it employs, so I apologize for that oversight. If you do known of a report on that, I'd be interested in reading it.

edit: I guess I should PS this by saying that I'm basing this all on the idea that the CC will be blank walled/single use, which I don't know to be true. We'll have to wait and see.

[flatlander]

I have to admit that I've pretty much written off south Portage.

It would be a nice start if the streets were narrowed and streetscaped, maybe even returned to two-way ...

And maybe residential is the long term solution. But in the short term I'd rather see existing residential hubs strengthened with more residents. Princess Street, Waterfront Drive, Central Park, south of Broadway (SoBro?) ha.

Housing at CentrePoint or whatever it's called, along Graham ... our growth is so slow, and the land so enormous that we end up stealing from ourselves.

I guess all in all I don't mind the WCC expansion, if it is truly needed (not up on that at all). The bar's set pretty low with the current building so anything will be an improvement.

[lilwayne]

honestly this is probably the best thing that could happen for the downtown area in a long time.. We can sit here and nitpick about how we want the parking lots developed, but the fact that something as massive as this is even being built is a sign of progress. We still haven't seen the full range of what this project offers. We have only seen a small glimpse of what to expect, and judging by the picture i think the design is going to be top notch. and may even add more pedestrian friendly store fronts in the future. I know that center ventures main objective is to add more people and businesses into the core.. and they would only approve designs that support their goals. Mpi lots, centerpoint, and wcc expansion will make shed the go to spot in the city, for sports, concerts, and conventions.

[rgalston]

*Reaches for whiskey bottle. Takes a big swig. Bashes head against table. Takes another swig*

See you in another three-five months, SSP forum/status quo apologists.

Originally Posted by trueviking

as much as i believe in jane jacobs organic growth, fine grain development as the key to any success of a downtown, i think you have to look at the economy of a city a bit more three dimensionally than that.

nobody would argue that splitting up the big parking lots and selling them to developers who would fill our downtown with wonderful three storey walk ups is a lovely notion....who wouldn't want that?...i want to live in a snow globe too.

where are all the people living in the this urban utopia going to work?.....are they all going to be cobblers, tobacconists, or run haberdasheries on the ground floor of their buildings?

In the real world, cities have to have economic drivers....yes its easy to post links to editorial pieces about the death of conventions, but the reality is they are significant economic engines in a city....cities need large scale development....even the most urban cities in the world have convention centres.

its true that they are horrible for the pedestrian environment and are pretty terrible urban buildings, but in this case, i didnt see that parking lot getting filled anytime soon...and if the greenwich village dream is a reality, we have a whack more empty lots to do it on....

my hope is that this drives enough economic spin off that we start to see surrounding lots be filled with services to respond to this development....it could result in more hotels, restaurants etc. filling in the gaps around the convention centre....in the more fine grained development that we all hope for....that doesnt happen in isolation....new york is filled with massive buildings....the fine grain grows around it....the big buildings is where people work.

There are at least two hotels already proposed in response to the expansion....i can guarantee the impetus for developing the MPI lot was based in large part on that as well....whatever is proposed there will absolutely be trying to capitalize on the convention centre...thats why it was such a desirable site.

residential and organic growth is of course the backbone of the future of our downtown, but you cant just ignore the other things that bring people there to work, to visit and to spend money.

even in its current configuration, the convention centre fills 100 000 hotel rooms a year, attracts 150 000 people to winnipeg per year.


@headhorse
the government is not donating $200m to the convention centre....it generates revenue....it would not be the same to simply give it away to developers to build housing with.

people have to work somewhere too.

[h0twired]

.

[dpenner]

Just some counter arguments from various academic books like Harvard economist Edward Glaeser:

Harvard economist Edward Glaeser unambiguously opts for people as the key element that determines a city’s success. He argues that a place-centered approach to urban planning—that is, one informed by a “build it and they will come” logic that uses convention centers, pedestrian malls, festival marketplaces, light rail systems, and iconic buildings to reinvigorate downtowns—may have been “the biggest mistake in urban policy of the last 60 years.” Put differently, place-centered planning is a prime example of “edifice error.” Detroit serves as the textbook example of such folly, as evidenced by the failure of the GM Renaissance Center and the People Mover monorail to enliven the urban core.

Instead, Glaeser argues for planning strategies that invest in people: small businesses, affordable housing, and education. He does see a role for infrastructure in supporting people-centered strategies, especially the high-rise residential skyscraper. Building up is perfect for creating the sort of population density that fosters human collaboration and creativity, while also having certain “green” virtues


Here is a great article that mentions Dr. Witold Rybczynsk's, he authored makeshift metropolis, a wicked book btw
http://urbanland.uli.org/Articles/2011/July/EganFix

[chrisallard5454]

Originally Posted by dpenner

Just some counter arguments from various academic books like Harvard economist Edward Glaeser:

Harvard economist Edward Glaeser unambiguously opts for people as the key element that determines a city’s success. He argues that a place-centered approach to urban planning—that is, one informed by a “build it and they will come” logic that uses convention centers, pedestrian malls, festival marketplaces, light rail systems, and iconic buildings to reinvigorate downtowns—may have been “the biggest mistake in urban policy of the last 60 years.” Put differently, place-centered planning is a prime example of “edifice error.” Detroit serves as the textbook example of such folly, as evidenced by the failure of the GM Renaissance Center and the People Mover monorail to enliven the urban core.

Instead, Glaeser argues for planning strategies that invest in people: small businesses, affordable housing, and education. He does see a role for infrastructure in supporting people-centered strategies, especially the high-rise residential skyscraper. Building up is perfect for creating the sort of population density that fosters human collaboration and creativity, while also having certain “green” virtues


Here is a great article that mentions Dr. Witold Rybczynsk's, he authored makeshift metropolis, a wicked book btw
http://urbanland.uli.org/Articles/2011/July/EganFix

Interesting. Will definitely give it a read.

On a side note, here is a nice article from the Blue Website regarding the Field Turf.

http://www.bluebombers.com/article/winnipeg-blue-bombers-to-begin-fieldturf-installation

The Winnipeg Blue Bombers are joining the revolution! Team officials have announced that the playing surface at Investors Group Field will be FieldTurf Revolution. Installation of the turf surface will begin this week. This new, state-of-the-art facility will be home to both the CFL’s Winnipeg Blue Bombers, and the CIS University of Manitoba Bisons.

“We’re looking forward to the move to Investors Group Field, especially to our new FieldTurf Revolution surface,” said Blue Bombers President and CEO Garth Buchko. “Many of our peers in the Canadian Football League play on FieldTurf surfaces, and we feel with this installation it puts us on an even playing field. This product is proven throughout the industry to be one of the best, and we look forward to seeing it deliver results in our great city.”...

[armorand93]

On my street (Ferry Road), theres a lot of new housing popping up lately. And City Council just voted for 506-530 Ferry and the lot at Collegiate/Silver to become infill housing.

[1ajs]

once side of the cc has a hydro substation across the st from it...

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by flatlander

I have to admit that I've pretty much written off south Portage.

It would be a nice start if the streets were narrowed and streetscaped, maybe even returned to two-way ...

And maybe residential is the long term solution. But in the short term I'd rather see existing residential hubs strengthened with more residents. Princess Street, Waterfront Drive, Central Park, south of Broadway (SoBro?) ha.

Housing at CentrePoint or whatever it's called, along Graham ... our growth is so slow, and the land so enormous that we end up stealing from ourselves.

I guess all in all I don't mind the WCC expansion, if it is truly needed (not up on that at all). The bar's set pretty low with the current building so anything will be an improvement.

SoBro, that's classic! I hope it sticks!

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by rgalston

*Reaches for whiskey bottle. Takes a big swig. Bashes head against table. Takes another swig*

See you in another three-five months, SSP forum/status quo apologists.

It's not that many don't agree with your vision for a pedestrian friendly, aesthetically pleasing, 1900s urban fabric. My point is that Winnipeg can only absorb so much multi-family, small business, mixed-use housing, etc. I would MUCH rather see that development add to the vibrancy of already-on-the-cusp areas (e.g. the Exchange, West Broadway, South Osborne, etc.). These are areas that already HAVE the urban fabric that we want, but not necessarily the critical mass or investment to support the community we can envision.

What I don't agree with is that all of downtown needs to be like that. Particularly areas (like that around the Convention Centre) that currently don't have the bones to lay that great vision on. There are no small parcels, there is no demand for shops, there is not the population to support retail, there is no pedestrian friendly environment, etc. etc. etc. etc. By encouraging (or holding out for) quality development in an area like that, we only neglect the areas that DO have the bones and need for that investment. By spreading development so thin, the whole core loses.

[rypinion]

Originally Posted by Bdog

West Broadway

What's 'West Broadway'? Do you mean WesBro?

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by headhorse

I don't think I said it was a donation.. but it's over $150m in government funds going toward the project. Call it what you want, if we're going to be dispersing $150m for infrastructure funding there are better ways to spend it..

i guess i dont see this as infrastructure spending.

http://www.wcc.mb.ca/pdf/expandingforsuccess-businessplan-cct2008.pdf

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by dpenner

Just some counter arguments from various academic books like Harvard economist Edward Glaeser:

Harvard economist Edward Glaeser unambiguously opts for people as the key element that determines a city’s success. He argues that a place-centered approach to urban planning—that is, one informed by a “build it and they will come” logic that uses convention centers, pedestrian malls, festival marketplaces, light rail systems, and iconic buildings to reinvigorate downtowns—may have been “the biggest mistake in urban policy of the last 60 years.” Put differently, place-centered planning is a prime example of “edifice error.” Detroit serves as the textbook example of such folly, as evidenced by the failure of the GM Renaissance Center and the People Mover monorail to enliven the urban core.

Instead, Glaeser argues for planning strategies that invest in people: small businesses, affordable housing, and education. He does see a role for infrastructure in supporting people-centered strategies, especially the high-rise residential skyscraper. Building up is perfect for creating the sort of population density that fosters human collaboration and creativity, while also having certain “green” virtues


Here is a great article that mentions Dr. Witold Rybczynsk's, he authored makeshift metropolis, a wicked book btw
http://urbanland.uli.org/Articles/2011/July/EganFix

to me, it is as much folly to believe that only small scale development can be beneficial to an urban centre as it is to believe that megaprojects will rejuvenate a downtown.....there needs to be a balance....cities and economies are multi-dimensional....neither solution works in isolation.

[armorand93]

Lane expansion on the east side of the MTS Centre. Odd...

[cllew]

Anybody got any information on what's going on behind the Costco on Regent? I drove down Peguis St from Concordia Ave E to to Regent and saw that all the topsoil it being stripped off which usually means something is going to be built.

I looked at the city webpage history and could not find any zoning changes or plan approvals over the last 3 years for this land.