Winnipeg Construction VIII

[headhorse]

a couple of smaller projects of questionable design..

174 Isabel St.

from realtor.ca

250 Marion St.

from realtor.ca

[Simplicity]

Ladies and Gentlemen, T-Squared!

Anyway, I see nothing wrong with this stuff. It's the only stuff one can feasibly build these days and it's better to have some less attractive housing than none at all.

It's the costs driving these designs and they still aren't leaving much for the risk and time they require...

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

That being said, I personally see no problem with this property being subdivided into multiple lots for 2 homes. Or rezoned R2 to allow for a duplex. Or (and judging from West End Dumpling's blog, it already was there) a secondary suite.

There has to be a point where you can't believe what you're saying here. Nobody could honestly say this land is ripe for two duplex houses to come up beside the most historic house in the city...

[Winnipeg Architect]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Ladies and Gentlemen, T-Squared!

Anyway, I see nothing wrong with this stuff. It's the only stuff one can feasibly build these days and it's better to have some less attractive housing than none at all.

It's the costs driving these designs and they still aren't leaving much for the risk and time they require...

100% Correct.

[rypinion]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Anyway, I see nothing wrong with this stuff. It's the only stuff one can feasibly build these days and it's better to have some less attractive housing than none at all.

So, let developers build whatever the heck they want.

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Nobody could honestly say this land is ripe for two duplex houses to come up beside the most historic house in the city...

Oh, guess not.

Sorry, it's just your reactions to the two situations seem contradictory. Should or shouldn't the city place restrictions on what can and can't be built?

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Anyway, I see nothing wrong with this stuff. It's the only stuff one can feasibly build these days and it's better to have some less attractive housing than none at all.

Perhaps instead of saying "oh well, this is all that can get built." we ask why it's the only stuff that can get built. You say it's costs, and I agree, but ask any marginally good property developer and the #1 risk to any development is entitlement. Entitlement is the reason they require so much return, because they take all the risk.

Make it easier to build something good, more good stuff gets built. Instead, when zoning changes come to council to bring their codes in line with OurWinnipeg we get councillors amending the by-law to whatever the hell they feel like, [SARCASM] because god knows they know more than the actual planners. [/SARCASM]

When your zoning code doesn't fall in line with the City's plan as a whole developers need to take out variances to actually follow the plan! This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

There has to be a point where you can't believe what you're saying here. Nobody could honestly say this land is ripe for two duplex houses to come up beside the most historic house in the city...

Perhaps a duplex might be a bit of a stretch, but as long as whatever gets built there is of the same context and form as the rest then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

[Biff]

Enough with the talk of building a duplex or highrise on the Wellington Cresent property. It will never happen. That street has been and always will be a street of overly large mansions. People have been buying up $1 and $2 million dollar older homes on this street and tearing them down for bigger and newer mansions. I am sure the owners will rebuild and if they don't I would bet my pay cheque there will be a line up of people willing to buy the land and build a $3 to $5 million new home. This, especially river front property is some of the most desirable land in the city for wealthy home builders.

We might as well start a conversation about rezoning the gravel site next to 201 Portage so someone can build a single family home with a driveway onto Main St.

[esquire]

I see steveosnyder's point, but I think it's actually in the interest of combatting sprawl to maintain the current character of the Wellington Crescent area as a relatively exclusive area of grand homes and estates. If the only place you can live in a neighbourhood of those types of residences is in newer posh subdivisions outside the city like the enclaves in Headingley or East St. Paul, then it's likely that's where anyone with big money to spend on a home will end up going... and once they're out there, it becomes a marketing tool to sell large numbers of more modest subdivision homes to the middle class. After all, this is how suburbia got started... it became a way to sell the dream of living like the landed gentry on posh country estates to the masses.

I know it sounds strange, but I'd argue it's worth it to maintain one of the city's few truly prestigious neighbourhoods in its current form to prevent the city's still rather small exurbs from exploding.

[Simplicity]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simplicity View Post
Anyway, I see nothing wrong with this stuff. It's the only stuff one can feasibly build these days and it's better to have some less attractive housing than none at all.
So, let developers build whatever the heck they want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simplicity View Post
Nobody could honestly say this land is ripe for two duplex houses to come up beside the most historic house in the city...
Oh, guess not.

Sorry, it's just your reactions to the two situations seem contradictory. Should or shouldn't the city place restrictions on what can and can't be built?
Reply With Quote





The two aren't in any way related. One is an answer to somebody's indignant reaction to design and the other is a response to somebody's ridiculous suggestion that somebody put multi-unit mid-block of Wellington Crescent...

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Great shot!

I'll second that (looks like Mr. 1ajs got his camera back)!

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

Perhaps instead of saying "oh well, this is all that can get built." we ask why it's the only stuff that can get built. You say it's costs, and I agree, but ask any marginally good property developer and the #1 risk to any development is entitlement. Entitlement is the reason they require so much return, because they take all the risk.

Make it easier to build something good, more good stuff gets built. Instead, when zoning changes come to council to bring their codes in line with OurWinnipeg we get councillors amending the by-law to whatever the hell they feel like, [SARCASM] because god knows they know more than the actual planners. [/SARCASM]

When your zoning code doesn't fall in line with the City's plan as a whole developers need to take out variances to actually follow the plan! This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.

Why does everybody want to talk urban planning when the issue couldn't be any further removed?

Urban planning is an irrelevant issue. It's a nice little theoretical concept that gets all the attention paid that it should, which is to say none. Money drives this. The average return on a small apartment complex in the City of Winnipeg is below 6%. On larger buildings, it's barely above 5%. Condo projects present something along the lines of 25%-40% ROE (return on equity, not total return) which is extremely low when you consider how much risk is associated and how quickly costs pile up, not to mention the risk of your personal guarantee and the millions of dollars in escrow and the borrowed funds you owe. Whatever you're saying about entitlements just simply isn't true. Construction costs are driving designs in a way that justifies the risk. The building is the *last* consideration. Budgets are determined and the building is slotted in where it fits. Design is considered only in terms of its simplicity because extraneous elements render projects immediately unprofitable and a couple of small flares are added just to ensure it isn't banal to the point of being oppressive. So who cares what the city's plan says? I can plan to drive a Ferrari but if the market in my house says Dodge Caravan, that's what I get.

The councilors know exactly what they're doing. They have a mandate to ensure the city is properly housed. If they forced everybody to comply with some airy-fairy concepts in a planning document, nobody could afford to build anything and nor would there be any demand for most of it. The planners aren't elected and not one of them has ever developed a thing. Their experience and training comes straight out of a university classroom. It's worth remembering this when commenting on something as complex as development.

It's probably a good rule of thumb when commenting on the prospects of a project somewhere to provide some commentary on the financial justification of it. You wouldn't tell *yourself* to build something if you couldn't afford it...

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

Perhaps a duplex might be a bit of a stretch, but as long as whatever gets built there is of the same context and form as the rest then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Do you live in the immediate vicinity? Do you pay $40K in property taxes every year and have millions into your home that would become less valuable if you put some form of multi-unit residential next door?

I'm not sure the question was 'do *you* have an issue with it'. You have no standing here.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by Biff

Enough with the talk of building a duplex or highrise on the Wellington Cresent property. It will never happen. That street has been and always will be a street of overly large mansions. People have been buying up $1 and $2 million dollar older homes on this street and tearing them down for bigger and newer mansions. I am sure the owners will rebuild and if they don't I would bet my pay cheque there will be a line up of people willing to buy the land and build a $3 to $5 million new home. This, especially river front property is some of the most desirable land in the city for wealthy home builders.

We might as well start a conversation about rezoning the gravel site next to 201 Portage so someone can build a single family home with a driveway onto Main St.

Yeah, but how is everybody going to know just how progressive you are if you don't go on record talking about high-density living at every turn!?

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by headhorse

a couple of smaller projects of questionable design..


250 Marion St.

from realtor.ca

Have no problem with the 250 Marion proposal, not the prettiest of design's but it serves the area well. Good mixed used infill project.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Cyro

Have no problem with the 250 Marion proposal, not the prettiest of design's but it serves the area well. Good mixed used infill project.

It's nice to see an old service station lot get filled in, even if it isn't the best looking project. Many such sites around town have sat vacant for years, if not decades.

It would be great to see more such infill on Marion to fill the remaining gaps in the streetscape.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Condo projects present something along the lines of 25%-40% ROE (return on equity, not total return) which is extremely low when you consider how much risk is associated and how quickly costs pile up, not to mention the risk of your personal guarantee and the millions of dollars in escrow and the borrowed funds you owe. Whatever you're saying about entitlements just simply isn't true. Construction costs are driving designs in a way that justifies the risk. The building is the *last* consideration. Budgets are determined and the building is slotted in where it fits. Design is considered only in terms of its simplicity because extraneous elements render projects immediately unprofitable and a couple of small flares are added just to ensure it isn't banal to the point of being oppressive. So who cares what the city's plan says? I can plan to drive a Ferrari but if the market in my house says Dodge Caravan, that's what I get.

So you're saying that a reduction in the parking requirement isn't necessary? That developers of 300 acre commercial lots wouldn't want to develop more than 1/4 of the total land area?

I am trying to make it easier for them to build on their land something that actually makes them money -- more leasable space. This is a good thing for both the developers and the city.

And if you don't think the risk associated with entitlement isn't the biggest in land development I should just stop replying to you.

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Do you live in the immediate vicinity? Do you pay $40K in property taxes every year and have millions into your home that would become less valuable if you put some form of multi-unit residential next door?

I'm not sure the question was 'do *you* have an issue with it'. You have no standing here.

Show me proof that building something in the exact context of the neighbourhood reduces property value, one place where you built a building of the exact same form and quality as those around you and the property value dropped strictly because that building was added.

[bomberjet]

Look at all that green space on Marion! Wow!

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

I'll second that (looks like Mr. 1ajs got his camera back)!

its the same old d70 its sensor is slowly dieing


tried a gofundme crowed funding thing see if i coulda raised some funds but got no responces so gone back to the drawing board

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

So you're saying that a reduction in the parking requirement isn't necessary? That developers of 300 acre commercial lots wouldn't want to develop more than 1/4 of the total land area?

I am trying to make it easier for them to build on their land something that actually makes them money -- more leasable space. This is a good thing for both the developers and the city.

And if you don't think the risk associated with entitlement isn't the biggest in land development I should just stop replying to you.

You and I are speaking of very different things. Developers call these things rezoning and variance risk. The way you framed your argument was in such a way that you made out returns to equate "entitlements" and that's the disconnect.

The original comments made by the poster of the designs were speaking to the milquetoast, drab design of the actual buildings. I'm doubtful he was speaking of the building relative to the site, but it's not really important. I was referring to those comments and the fact that the same designs over and over are what we see because of the financial metrics of construction these days.

What you're saying is somewhat important, but it's not as risky as you think. Yes, it adds unnecessarily long time lines in some cases, but the city will more or less vary anything and everything as long as the neighbourhood doesn't come out in droves against the idea.

I'm with you to a degree that developers should be able to maximize their footprint, but the fact is, the way the by-laws are currently set up allows for review. If things were just rewritten, developers would do as they choose without having to consult the city or public. That works for me, but I doubt it would for you...

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

Show me proof that building something in the exact context of the neighbourhood reduces property value, one place where you built a building of the exact same form and quality as those around you and the property value dropped strictly because that building was added.

I honestly don't think you need proof that putting multi-unit residential next to 1015 Wellington Crescent would put off potential purchasers in the area. I don't care if it was the nicest building on the street, it's unwanted density. I can't even believe you're still on this point...