Winnipeg Construction VIII

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

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

Add Transcona,Crescent Wood as well.

[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?

What is my solution? True mixed use, eliminate a lot of the current Zoning requirements that make residential and commercial mixes a conditional use. Eeliminate a lot of the varience requirements and have a form based code. Cut the red tape that comes with entitlement so that good projects can't get NIMBY committeed to death. Subdivide large lots like this to smaller ones so organic growth can happen -- when you have large lots the developer has to build large (automobile) scale to mitigate risk.

Did you want me to keep going?

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

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.

The difference is that there isn't a number of municipally maintained tables adjacent to the restaurant that can be used for free. Not exactly the best analogy, but you didn't exactly give me a good one to start with.

When I was living in the Calgary beltline there were many apartment blocks that had more units than parking spots, but the streets were constantly packed with cars that would stay in the same spot often for weeks without moving.

So while getting rid of the minimum parking requirement seems like a good idea in and of itself, one must also figure out a way to properly handle the street parking (which in many cases is free) without crippling the ability to visit the area with a car.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by h0twired

The difference is that there isn't a number of municipally maintained tables adjacent to the restaurant that can be used for free. Not exactly the best analogy, but you didn't exactly give me a good one to start with.

When I was living in the Calgary beltline there were many apartment blocks that had more units than parking spots, but the streets were constantly packed with cars that would stay in the same spot often for weeks without moving.

So while getting rid of the minimum parking requirement seems like a good idea in and of itself, one must also figure out a way to properly handle the street parking (which in many cases is free) without crippling the ability to visit the area with a car.

And I agree -- we do need to do something about the commons being made available for free parking. Charge for on-street parking. It costs the developers and the City to build these things, but people seem to take advantage of it.

The way we could sell it is paramount, because businesses wouldn't want this to happen. We do it by saying that ALL money raised (above the original capital costs of the meters) goes to improving the business environment in the area. Funds going to the BIZ, funds going to repairing sidewalks in the area, creating a special economic zone where the funds go towards reducing business taxes in the area.

[bomberjet]

Looks like September 6 is the date.

FortressDevelopments ‏@FortressRDI 23 Aug
Something very exciting is coming to the #Winnipeg skyline... @KirkorArchitect @CMadyToronto #TeamFortress pic.twitter.com/fRjDrB7gcu
View photo Reply Retweet Favourite More

Jason Searcy ‏@jasondsearcy 23 Aug
@FortressRDI have you decided on a date in September for the next announcement? I think we are all dying to see more!
Expand

FortressDevelopments ‏@FortressRDI 23 Aug
@jasondsearcy , stay tuned.... September 6th :-)
Hide conversation Reply Retweet Favourite More
11:27 AM - 23 Aug 13 · Details

https://twitter.com/FortressRDI/

[esquire]

^ I propose a moratorium on posting Fortress hype tweets, i.e., ones in which nothing is actually announced (as above).

[DonaldSmith]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ I propose a moratorium on posting Fortress hype tweets, i.e., ones in which nothing is actually announced (as above).

I think the last tweet was relevant, it stated a date.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by DonaldSmith

I think the last tweet was relevant, it stated a date.

September 6!!!!!

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

Cut the red tape that comes with entitlement so that good projects can't get NIMBY committeed to death.

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Looks like September 6 is the date.

Originally Posted by esquire

^ I propose a moratorium on posting Fortress hype tweets, i.e., ones in which nothing is actually announced (as above).

All of these posts sound so good..." I had a dream", but I woke up, "It was only a dream"

[trueviking]

just more hype....don't get hopes up for an image....im betting its something like they have purchased the property.

[bomberjet]

So nobody will pay attention on September 6th to whatever Fortress announces? I doubt that. Just passing along the info as it becomes available. Isn't that what these sites are for?

[DonaldSmith]

In the same area, 252 Fort St, the lot on Graham directly east from Fortress's was sold this year from 2311577 MB Ltd (Directors Alan Borger(Ladco) & Murray Mitchell) to 225 Graham Avenue Development Inc. Does anyone know if this was a reorganization or was it sold to a group that legitimately wants to redevelop it?

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by DonaldSmith

In the same area, 252 Fort St, the lot on Graham directly east from Fortress's was sold this year from 2311577 MB Ltd (Directors Alan Borger(Ladco) & Murray Mitchell) to 225 Graham Avenue Development Inc. Does anyone know if this was a reorganization or was it sold to a group that legitimately wants to redevelop it?

Is that on the northwest corner of Fort and Graham, the gravel parking lot? If so I think that would be part of the Fortress project. Across the street from that is Winnipeg Square parkade.

[scoots82]

long time reader, first time poster

the building at 289 garry (between garrick hotel and inglis building) is currently undergoing interior reno's for multi-tenant office space, should be occupied by the first tenants by mid-october. also, excavation for d condos should be starting in january

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

What is my solution? True mixed use, eliminate a lot of the current Zoning requirements that make residential and commercial mixes a conditional use. Eeliminate a lot of the varience requirements and have a form based code. Cut the red tape that comes with entitlement so that good projects can't get NIMBY committeed to death. Subdivide large lots like this to smaller ones so organic growth can happen -- when you have large lots the developer has to build large (automobile) scale to mitigate risk.

Did you want me to keep going?

I definitely agree with you on a lot of these points. When the city updates it's zoning bylaw, I'm sure the planning department will be pushing to incorporate things like eliminating the need for variances/conditional uses on some types of development.

However, I think you're overestimating the impact of parking requirements - There are no parking requirements in the Exchange, and look at the state of affairs.

I think a lot of people forget is that it takes time for tastes, and eventually, the market, to change. You could eliminate parking requirements, subdivide parcels as small as you want, remove all zoning requirements, etc. If the market isn't there yet, developers are not going to take the risk.

I completely agree with you on leveling the playing field (between urban/suburban, infill/greenfield). The shift of empty nesters, students, young professionals, etc. wanting to live in urban environments has begun (and the market is responding). However, as that shift happens, I'll welcome suburban density and infill development as a step in the right direction, even if Season's of Tuxedo isn't Osborne Village overnight...

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Bdog

However, I think you're overestimating the impact of parking requirements - There are no parking requirements in the Exchange, and look at the state of affairs.

This is a whole different kettle of fish. The exchange and downtown has a market for paid parking. I am talking about areas that don't have a market for paid parking. In my Riverbend example (rough numbers), we say the developer built to code and has around 30% actual building, 10% land dedication, and 60% for parking/driving/shipping/receiving. If having that 60% area for cars is making a net-ROI of a negative amount (and it is considering most of the lot is empty, even on the busiest days of the year), then the developer would be smart to expand the business space and decrease the parking space. But currently they are not allowed to because of parking requirements. If, on the other hand, people refused to go there because they don't have enough parking, then they would be intelligent to increase that amount.

Originally Posted by Bdog

I completely agree with you on leveling the playing field (between urban/suburban, infill/greenfield). The shift of empty nesters, students, young professionals, etc. wanting to live in urban environments has begun (and the market is responding). However, as that shift happens, I'll welcome suburban density and infill development as a step in the right direction, even if Season's of Tuxedo isn't Osborne Village overnight...

I agree that a lot of people are shifting their thinking, but I don't think it's just these people who want to leave the suburbs -- I have a family and would buy in the Exchange in a second if it had a good school and other amenities for a family. I think any area needs diversity, both in their economic mix, housing mix and age/demographic mix.

EDIT: This is my last post on this subject -- I think most people here know my views on automobile centric development. You can all do a collective sigh of relief.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by scoots82

long time reader, first time poster

the building at 289 garry (between garrick hotel and inglis building) is currently undergoing interior reno's for multi-tenant office space, should be occupied by the first tenants by mid-october. also, excavation for d condos should be starting in january

Welcome!

Great news on both accounts.

[armorand93]

Went to Unicity last night, seems construction on the extra stores is WELL underway... two are already completed, the one just north of the Domo is now beginning framework.

[esquire]

Welcome scoots82, and thanks for the good news. I always liked that building at 289 Garry and I'm glad to see that things may be moving forward there. The NWCTA Building immediately to the north also appears to be occupied now, so it's great to see a little more life on that block.

On another note, and although I don't have pictures, I have to say that I'm impressed by how quickly the RBCWCC expansion project is barreling ahead. There are lots of pieces of equipment on site and it looks like they are making great progress with the excavation stage. It seems to be proceeding much more quickly than even much smaller projects.

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

So nobody will pay attention on September 6th to whatever Fortress announces? I doubt that. Just passing along the info as it becomes available. Isn't that what these sites are for?

Your quite right, a firm date will have most posters tuneing in for any announcement.
Even if it's the purchase of the land needed for the proposed dev. or the announcement thier sales office is to be constructed? Wasn't it a 1$ million complex?

And you're also right on the money, this site is for passing along info./opinions/ speculatiions etc...sometimes what I feel is important or interesting in the countless threads on the forum may not even be a passing thought for other posters.