Winnipeg | Osborne Village & Fort Rouge

[buzzg]

This is going where the auto body shop is? Looks like a giant RT Station lolol.

EDIT: Posted this before the most recent pic  – we getting grey or the red/white/blue?

[esquire]

^ If the blue and red one is the updated render then it must be that one?

The proposal gives off a vibe similar to the new Osborne Place as well as the building that went up on the site of the old Banana Boat.

It looks like a good development, but I have to admit I'd have preferred to see it go closer to the existing critical mass on South Osborne...basically anywhere from Brandon to Jubilee.

[michelleb]

Originally Posted by esquire

The proposal gives off a vibe similar to the new Osborne Place as well as the building that went up on the site of the old Banana Boat.

Good eye. DIN Projects also designed the ugly as sin Chaeban Ice Cream building next door and the 257 Osborne office building (Osborne Place at the Station). They really like blocky buildings based on their other projects: http://www.dinprojects.ca/

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

Regarding 281 River

Village High Density Residential Policies
Encourage medium and high-rise multiple-family development;
o New development along River Avenue east of Osborne Street will have a
minimum of three storeys, and a maximum height of five storeys;
o New high-density development should consider the height, scale, prevailing
densities, and design characteristics of surrounding land uses;
The proposed five (5) storey, 99 unit multi-family building is consistent with the above policies in
the VHDR policy area of the OVNP. The proposed building is within the established height
limits, is adding additional residential density to the area and is consistent in scale and density with buildings in the surrounding area.

Interesting. Seems a little odd. I guess I can see the 5 limit height making sense at the street (like this development), but I wonder if maybe they'd allow something taller if it was situated closer to the river. There's 5 buildings with 7+ storeys on the river side of River, between Donald and Osborne.

Originally Posted by michelleb

Good eye. DIN Projects also designed the ugly as sin Chaeban Ice Cream building next door and the 257 Osborne office building (Osborne Place at the Station). They really like blocky buildings based on their other projects: http://www.dinprojects.ca/

Chaeban is the former Banana Boat esquire was referring to. It's a great project, but the finishings are terrible. Maybe that siding wouldn't look as bad if it wasn't grey. They dropped a lot of the modern/minimalistic touches from the renders, which sucks.

Has anyone heard anything regarding Osborne Place? I just don't get it. All the construction is cleaned up and gone, landscaping done, but the building isn't finished and no one has moved in. Really hope this didn't jeopardize the residential building planned.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Interesting. Seems a little odd. I guess I can see the 5 limit height making sense at the street (like this development), but I wonder if maybe they'd allow something taller if it was situated closer to the river. There's 5 buildings with 7+ storeys on the river side of River, between Donald and Osborne.

Would this be something similar to Provencher? Provencher on the south side limits to 4 storeys while they allow 6 on the north side, to prevent the south side from shading the north. Would limiting height on the river side allow for taller buildings on the south side to allow both to have some view of the river? just thinking out loud (or on my keyboard)

[Tacheguy]

Originally Posted by WildCake

Would this be something similar to Provencher? Provencher on the south side limits to 4 storeys while they allow 6 on the north side, to prevent the south side from shading the north. Would limiting height on the river side allow for taller buildings on the south side to allow both to have some view of the river? just thinking out loud (or on my keyboard)

I believe the south side limit on Provencher has been changed recently. I think that allowed the development beside le Garage to proceed. By the way, no signs of life yet on that one..

[bomberjet]

Some nice developments there. Peaked roofs kept to a minimum. Awesome.

[EndoftheBeginning]

Yes the red/blue accent is the updated render (dated June 6,2018). It also reflects some changes that were asked for, including transparent glass on doors/windows on the facade and removal of a half-wall on the south elevation to open up the entrance.

[esquire]

^ I actually liked the half-wall on the south. It helps to define the building's space... it's a bit like a backyard fence.

[buzzg]

Looks great. And maybe I'm crazy but the half-wall looks like it's still there in the exact same way in the newer render. I actually think the city requires it (or a fence) as it's along the public sidewalk.

The city really needs to install better lighting under the rail/RT line underpass – it's almost pitch black. Not the most inviting or safe if you're walking to the Village.

It'd also be nice if whoever looks after streetscaping in SO would replace the banners.... about 80% of them are gone.

[EndoftheBeginning]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Looks great. And maybe I'm crazy but the half-wall looks like it's still there in the exact same way in the newer render. I actually think the city requires it (or a fence) as it's along the public sidewalk.

It's just the little section in front of the door at the corner that they removed - they didn't like that it blocked the entryway area.

[esquire]

^ Yeah, good point about the underpass... it is really designed to 1920s streetscaping standards. I realize you can only do so much given the physical limitations of an old railway underpass, but at least they could maybe brighten it up a little, especially at night. Especially given how much busier that stretch is since the RT station opened.

[buzzg]

Yeah it's kind of mindblowing they did almost nothing to spruce it up when they built the RT line, which made it even darker and longer. Really just LEDs and fresh paint and you're good (Donald Bridge over Assiniboine needs it as well).

They painted over the really ugly old Canada mural recently... guess that's a start?

[Wpg_Guy]

i hate this trend of white buildings they look tend to look terrible.

[buzzg]

I actually like lots of the white buildings, depends on material and application though. Buhler Centre has stood up remarkably – doesn't show any signs of age or dirt. Meanwhile a lot of these new black buildings look brutal – the black parts of 360 Main look filthy – shows every dried water spot and spec of dirt.

[Wolf13]

I'm perhaps slightly more tolerant for less-than-perfect design if it gets density into neighbourhoods but DAMN those are bad. Yes, budget and all, but I have a feeling a blind person could shit out something nicer...

Originally Posted by buzzg

OK well they can pay taxes if they don't want any government control whatsoever. Can't just be allowed to freely operate with no rules or expenses.

As someone who is personally not religious, I could easily make the argument that they shouldn't be exempt from any taxes.

Because they don't make money.

From an academic perspective, it's a fair but flawed point, but it just doesn't work out in reality unfortunately. The return comes in form of their contribution to communities. Admittedly, it's clearly not in the form of streetscape here, but people.

But religious organizations are clearly not the same as individuals or corps. They are very much within confines of government guideline, but are protected from those guidelines continually shrinking around them. In principle. It's not like their anarchistic rogue russian spy agencies haha.

[borkborkbork]

Great to see the infill in the Village, especially that little duplex being replaced on Stradbrook.

Mixed feelings about the one on River. Happy to see 100 units where there used to be 50, but that does mean that some of the neighbourhood's more affordable (<$800) rentals will get bulldozed.

On an unrelated note, it looks from that agenda that the Gas Station Theatre is having its application to clean up/improve the corner common space at Osborne/River denied. That is really unfortunate, since that space is currently a bit of a blight on the neighbourhood.

[Wpg_Guy]

Is a 5 storey height limit in the Village too low?

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

Great to see the infill in the Village, especially that little duplex being replaced on Stradbrook.

Mixed feelings about the one on River. Happy to see 100 units where there used to be 50, but that does mean that some of the neighbourhood's more affordable (<$800) rentals will get bulldozed.

On an unrelated note, it looks from that agenda that the Gas Station Theatre is having its application to clean up/improve the corner common space at Osborne/River denied. That is really unfortunate, since that space is currently a bit of a blight on the neighbourhood.

One on River overall looks good to me, except I wish they found a way to not keep the parking lot on the river. Only thing that scares me is BLDG tends to turn out junk, but these renders appear to make it look like lots of brick.

Originally Posted by Wolf13

Because they don't make money.

From an academic perspective, it's a fair but flawed point, but it just doesn't work out in reality unfortunately. The return comes in form of their contribution to communities. Admittedly, it's clearly not in the form of streetscape here, but people.

But religious organizations are clearly not the same as individuals or corps. They are very much within confines of government guideline, but are protected from those guidelines continually shrinking around them. In principle. It's not like their anarchistic rogue russian spy agencies haha.

In principle sure, but there are many (of all faiths) that generate a ton of money, and sure it's not "corporate profit" but there are many congregations where the leaders make a ton of money, and the institution sits on a ton of it... so it's not all that different.

I'm not saying we should tax them at all, just that they can't be exempt from all rule of law, considering it's just a bunch of beliefs. I believe in karma – why can't I make my house a place of worship... There's danger in deciding what constitutes a "religion."

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

Is a 5 storey height limit in the Village too low?

Is that even a thing? There's multiple buildings of 10 stories on Mayfair and Roslyn, not to mention the towers on the west side of Osborne.

I do believe there are rules all over the city for how tall you can build based on how close your building, and the neighbouring building, are to the property line. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it's likely a reason we're seeing lots of smaller buildings – small lots. Not to mention costs of course.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by buzzg

In principle sure, but there are many (of all faiths) that generate a ton of money, and sure it's not "corporate profit" but there are many congregations where the leaders make a ton of money, and the institution sits on a ton of it... so it's not all that different.

I'm not saying we should tax them at all, just that they can't be exempt from all rule of law, considering it's just a bunch of beliefs. I believe in karma – why can't I make my house a place of worship... There's danger in deciding what constitutes a "religion."

That's the great thing with charities. They're subject to strict CRA reporting criteria, so it's easy for cynics to see how their funds are spent. Anyone can go online and instantly see how many permanent employees a church (or any charity) has on their payroll, their salary disclosures within a range, the percentage of their revenue spent on community outreach, among other things. That way, there's no need to speculate.

As for the bad neighbour argument, it would be interesting to hear what the actual neighbours think. You know, those who actually live in the area and have a direct stake in what the church does; the hundreds of Central Park residents who will tell you stories of how the church played a key role in their transition as newcomers. Not the Riverview urbanists who think the demolition of a vacant building built in 1970 is the definition of "destroying a neighbourhood".