Winnipeg Construction VIII

[armorand93]

Well, if the retail doesnt drag in better transit service, that project sure as hell would! the 95 has less density on its routing, and they still route it to Tuxedo. I could definitely see more service within the next year...

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by headhorse

Again, renderings that overestimate the amount of pedestrians. I'm sure it will have as many pedestrians walking around it as depicted, because it's so easy to walk over to that shopping centre. It's just across a 7 lane intersection in a 70 zone and then across a 1.4km stretch of parking lot.

EDIT: I didn't even notice it has a bus stop right in the middle -- you can bet everyone will be taking the bus from here. I mean, then they can leave their 1.5 cars in the 1.5 stalls per unit.

[Darren Tate]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

Again, renderings that overestimate the amount of pedestrians. I'm sure it will have as many pedestrians walking around it as depicted, because it's so easy to walk over to that shopping centre. It's just across a 7 lane intersection in a 70 zone and then across a 1.4km stretch of parking lot.

EDIT: I didn't even notice it has a bus stop right in the middle -- you can bet everyone will be taking the bus from here. I mean, then they can leave their 1.5 cars in the 1.5 stalls per unit.

Hahaha. So true.

[JamieDavid Exchange]

ANOTHER set of lights going up on Portage Ave! Just what that stretch (between Maryland and Polo Park) really needed.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

Again, renderings that overestimate the amount of pedestrians. I'm sure it will have as many pedestrians walking around it as depicted, because it's so easy to walk over to that shopping centre. It's just across a 7 lane intersection in a 70 zone and then across a 1.4km stretch of parking lot.

EDIT: I didn't even notice it has a bus stop right in the middle -- you can bet everyone will be taking the bus from here. I mean, then they can leave their 1.5 cars in the 1.5 stalls per unit.

I'm confused. Are people actually upset that higher density, multi-family is going up in the suburbs?

[armorand93]

Originally Posted by Bdog

I'm confused. Are people actually upset that higher density, multi-family is going up in the suburbs?

They're sure dicks about that in the Southwest... the other parts of the city never really mind about added density.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by armorand93

They're sure dicks about that in the Southwest... the other parts of the city never really mind about added density.

No. I'm referring to posters here, not residents...

[DancingDuck]

^^^ hahaha

But I think people are more complaining about the look of the buildings and the exaggerated amount of pedestrians than the development itself

[vid]

Simply having denser development isn't enough for us, it must be high quality denser development.

Seasons of Tuxedo won't be complete until it has a 22 storey condo, food trucks and a permanent homeless population!

[DancingDuck]

On another note: Dcondos had an ad in the Saturday free press saying they are now 50% sold. Does anyone know when the construction start date is, seeing as they said it was getting built regardless of sales?

[wags_in_the_peg]

Originally Posted by Danny D Oh

I'm assuming the 3rd rink will go on the current soccer fields? I really hope they do something about parking. I live near the arena on Melrose and there isn't enough parking there currently for 2 rinks. If the Parking Authority wanted to make their quotas they'd hang out in the area during hockey season. Lots of blocked fire hydrants.

With the ice shortage I wonder if there has been any thought about building an iceplex type facility at Buhler Park. Not like you need these facilities in the middle of a residential area, nobody walks to hockey practice anymore.

Yes, they are moving the entrance to the field side and expanding parking lot. this rink is not a "+" up, it's replacing Roland Mitchener which is closing down. 3 rinks under 1 roof sharing a ice plant, staff, zamboni make a lot more sense.

[ctochico]

Originally Posted by trueviking

looks like those things being built on waterfront.

my thoughts exactly

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by vid

Simply having denser development isn't enough for us, it must be high quality denser development.

This exactly... We can build density all we want, it still won't change the problem that we need to spend so much on infrastructure because we have too many cars on the road. This development will mean more cars on the road in this area, so the traffic engineers at the City of Winnipeg will say we need wider streets, making the area even less walkable and forcing even worse land-use.

The cycle of car dependency continues.

[Cyro]

Not to be too critical with the look of both of these developments, but I find the balconies somewhat small and unappealing? Understandably the blocks have been designed to maximize the amount of units and still give the tenant/owner some access to the outdoors.

I'm just wondering what the exp. architects/planners feel about this small box shaped outer balcony or if someone has lived in a complex like this. The balconies I've experienced were not always large but seemed to be more open to the outdoors?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Cyrodill

Not to be too critical with the look of both of these developments, but I find the balconies somewhat small and unappealing? Understandably the blocks have been designed to maximize the amount of units and still give the tenant/owner some access to the outdoors.

I'm just wondering what the exp. architects/planners feel about this small box shaped outer balcony or if someone has lived in a complex like this. The balconies I've experienced were not always large but seemed to be more open to the outdoors?

Small apartment and condo balconies are ugly and expensive (costly balcony repairs are typical in condo buildings more than 20 years old), and from my own experience of living in condo blocks, hardly anyone uses them other than for barbecues and bike storage.

Yet it is well known that, for some reason, marketing apartments and condos without balconies is a lot harder than if they do have them... even if it's just a tiny sliver of a balcony. It must just be something about human nature.

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by esquire

Small apartment and condo balconies are ugly and expensive (costly balcony repairs are typical in condo buildings more than 20 years old), and from my own experience of living in condo blocks, hardly anyone uses them other than for barbecues and bike storage.

Yet it is well known that, for some reason, marketing apartments and condos without balconies is a lot harder than if they do have them... even if it's just a tiny sliver of a balcony. It must just be something about human nature.

Yes, fugly would be the word and overall costs to construct/maintain them would be a huge consideration to the budget of any developer. A smaller balcony is good for the barbecue and a quick breath of air. Larger balconies(old school blocks),at least, a gathering of a few friends/family was possible.

You made a great point reg: marketing and human nature. It makes so much sense that someone may over pay, just to step out into the air, and take a condo/apt. that they wouldn't without an egress out into the sunshine.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

This exactly... We can build density all we want, it still won't change the problem that we need to spend so much on infrastructure because we have too many cars on the road. This development will mean more cars on the road in this area, so the traffic engineers at the City of Winnipeg will say we need wider streets, making the area even less walkable and forcing even worse land-use.

The cycle of car dependency continues.

So what would your solution be? Push these units up to Sterling Lyon, add some streetscaping, cut parking requirements in half, and then voila, urban utopia?

Nearly 50% of housing starts these past couple years have been multi-family. Isn't that something to be lauded? Especially since most of it is happening in the suburbs, which is exactly where density is needed if we want transit to be viable, walkable neighbourhoods to be viable, etc...

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by Bdog

Nearly 50% of housing starts these past couple years have been multi-family. Isn't that something to be lauded? Especially since most of it is happening in the suburbs, which is exactly where density is needed if we want transit to be viable, walkable neighbourhoods to be viable, etc...

I don't know if they are counted as housing starts, but there sure a lot of infill building going on. On the streets of Elmwood from Harbison to the river there are several infill homes being built on each street.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Riverman

I don't know if they are counted as housing starts, but there sure a lot of infill building going on. On the streets of Elmwood from Harbison to the river there are several infill homes being built on each street.

Quite a few in EK as well, and probably the most in such a short period of time ever.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Bdog

So what would your solution be? Push these units up to Sterling Lyon, add some streetscaping, cut parking requirements in half, and then voila, urban utopia?

Nearly 50% of housing starts these past couple years have been multi-family. Isn't that something to be lauded? Especially since most of it is happening in the suburbs, which is exactly where density is needed if we want transit to be viable, walkable neighbourhoods to be viable, etc...

My solution? Eliminate parking requirements. Let the developer decide how many parking spots to build.

Do we tell restaurants how many tables they have to have? No, it's a business decision.

Developers are more than capable of supplying a correct number of parking stalls. Do you think any developer wouldn't love to put more units at the cost of additional parking? Nope! They make more money the more land-area they can develop. If that additional land area would cost them more because the people who live there need the parking let them decide.

For example (again I use a north Winnipeg example because I am the most fimilar with it, but you can find others in your area I am sure), Sobey's at Main and Red River -- parking capacity is > 600 cars, developed land area is around 35%. Number of cars that are in the spot on the busiest days? (usually Sunday or the days before/after a long weekend) around 350. On most normal days this parking lot has around 200 - 250 cars in it. that means we have at least 200 too many spots, and even if it ever did get to capacity people can park on the street and walk (sometimes this is actually closer then spots in the lot).

Do you think the lot owner wouldn't love to develop some extra land because they can show that the parking isn't ever near capacity? Now do you think the City would let them?

TL/DR: Don't cut parking requirements, eliminate them.