Winnipeg Construction VIII

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by Wigglez

So if it takes "my dad can beat up your dad" comments, have at it!

No place for it in the thread, no matter how right or wrong one poster may be. If a poster wants to take it to the next level, regardless of the debate it creates we tell them to take a hike. This post is not directed at you, but about the last 2 posts. I friggin hate _____ bull crap personal attacks on others.

[Wigglez]

Originally Posted by Cyro

No place for it in the thread, no matter how right or wrong one poster may be. If a poster wants to take it to the next level, regardless of the debate it creates we tell them to take a hike. This post is not directed at you, but about the last 2 posts. I friggin hate _____ bull crap personal attacks on others.

Ahhh terribly sorry, I forgot to place the sarcasm emote at the end. I sometimes forget how any amount of sarcasm can be hard to translate over the ol interwebs!

Sadly for years the only debate here has started off fairly good but then people feel the need to add 1 last sentence to their responses that are of a personal nature and ruin the spirit of the debate. Its not shocking that the Winnipeg thread is in the state it is.

Anyways Cyro, I'm like.... 90% sure my dad can totally beat up your dad...

[Wigglez]

As a side note, I understand some of the tension and frustration for Winnipegers.

For years we've been waiting through really boring times... Piss poor developments, promises of amazing things that never seem to happen, and the yearly classic "were almost there" line of thought that Winnipeg is about to turn it around in a big way and we will see tons of new developments everywhere.


As for Rapid Transit (to attempt to keep that debate going) I think in its current state its fairly useless and only serves as an advertisement for "what we can do". It needs to be expanded in any way possible to be of any real value. And this is coming from someone that took it every weekday for 2 years.

I fear Winnipeg will do what its done a number of times before, and let this sit as is for decades as they make newer and more random decisions that go nowhere every year on what to do with it.

[Winnipeg Architect]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

A couple weeks ago you wrote with certitude that nothing is built at $150/sq ft. You backed up that assertion by suggesting that almost nothing is constructed at twice that. If that's your input, you're far better off on the sidelines.

That is true. I did apartments for myself in 2009 and finished at $75 per square foot including appliances but less land cost.

Did a condo in 2011 for $80 per square foot less appliances and land cost.

Did one apartment last year for $115 psf less appliances and land.

My framers built a condo for less than $100 psf less appliances and land for themselves.

Depending who you are and if you control your money it is easy.

Architects not involved on 2 out of 3 of my projects.

Fire walls are a good thing!!!!!!

If you have not built from scratch for yourself, keep you mouth shut.

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by Wigglez

As a side note, I understand some of the tension and frustration for Winnipegers.

For years we've been waiting through really boring times... Piss poor developments, promises of amazing things that never seem to happen, and the yearly classic "were almost there" line of thought that Winnipeg is about to turn it around in a big way and we will see tons of new developments everywhere.


As for Rapid Transit (to attempt to keep that debate going) I think in its current state its fairly useless and only serves as an advertisement for "what we can do". It needs to be expanded in any way possible to be of any real value. And this is coming from someone that took it every weekday for 2 years.

I fear Winnipeg will do what its done a number of times before, and let this sit as is for decades as they make newer and more random decisions that go nowhere every year on what to do with it.

Probably take him 100% of the time Wigs..

This is the feeling I've been experiencing as well. It's reached a point where it must proceed in one form or another, It will not be palatable to some, in one form or the other. It has to move forward, even though some will agree/disagree on where it is finally placed
or the developments surrounding it's future.

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by Winnipeg Architect

If you have not built from scratch for yourself, keep you mouth shut.

Is this a general expert opinion on construction practices and who should do what or when ?

Or are you directing this to a specific someone to shut their mouth?

Your initial comments on builds were informative, what exactly are you trying to say with this sentence and to who. Thanks for the clarification.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by trueviking

Fort Rouge has some very significant investors lining up to back them...

I just had to cherry-pick this line. Then I had to include an article about an unprecedented $10MM loan guarantee the city had to provide for the developer because the bank wouldn't go near the deal.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/loan-guarantee-not-zero-risk-139271163.html


The article only gets more hilarious from there where Deepak Joshi starts yammering on about how he approached a 'large developer' who he said would 'pick up the pieces' if the developer went into default. Sounds promising. That's the sort of handshake agreement cities everywhere should be using to justify backing developers who don't have two nickels to rub together and have left a trail of lawsuits on every single one of their developments.

Sounds like it's strictly market conditions driving these developments.

[roccerfeller]

Some interesting discussion here, I enjoy reading the debate but not the bashing

I do hope the discussion continues, but the personal jabs are childish

[biguc]

As an investor, would you touch anything with Marques's stink on it?

Katz had to hook his buddy up because Marques is a failure who, at the time, owned a handful of derelict buildings and nothing else. That doesn't mean the project is somehow faulty. Investors pass on good investments ideas championed by bums all the time because people like Marques find a way to fuck things up.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by Cyro

Probably take him 100% of the time Wigs..

This is the feeling I've been experiencing as well. It's reached a point where it must proceed in one form or another, It will not be palatable to some, in one form or the other. It has to move forward, even though some will agree/disagree on where it is finally placed
or the developments surrounding it's future.

So... your suggestion is that we reward incompetence and graft by allowing more of it to proceed?

Yeah, I mean, this administration has done such a bang up job managing the city's capital, we'd may as well let them have this one last pay day on the way out before they're shipped out of office on the 22nd of October.

What kind of mentality is this??

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by biguc

As an investor, would you touch anything with Marques's stink on it?

Katz had to hook his buddy up because Marques is a failure who, at the time, owned a handful of derelict buildings and nothing else. That doesn't mean the project is somehow faulty. Investors pass on good investments ideas championed by bums all the time because people like Marques find a way to fuck things up.

As an investor I wouldn't give a shit *who* was championing the idea that came with a $10MM loan guarantee. Generally, investors deal with something called default risk. When the city decides that's for the tax payers to bear, I'm all over that shit. And if I'm the developer, shit, I'll take 6%-12% of those funds all day long. That's better return than the schmucks who are investing with me are getting. Not to mention the real estate commissions Marquess has his hands into also...

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

So... your suggestion is that we reward incompetence and graft by allowing more of it to proceed?

Yeah, I mean, this administration has done such a bang up job managing the city's capital, we'd may as well let them have this one last pay day on the way out before they're shipped out of office on the 22nd of October.

What kind of mentality is this??

You don't have to like or agree with my post to another poster , just live with it and realize, your particular opinion in this situation means nothing to me. Accept it or not, be it your comments about alleged political corruption or when new political representatives will be voted in. My mentality on these issues, thankfully is not yours. Let it be. Acceptance of this is the 1st step in the process.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Wigglez

As a side note, I understand some of the tension and frustration for Winnipegers.

For years we've been waiting through really boring times... Piss poor developments, promises of amazing things that never seem to happen, and the yearly classic "were almost there" line of thought that Winnipeg is about to turn it around in a big way and we will see tons of new developments everywhere.


As for Rapid Transit (to attempt to keep that debate going) I think in its current state its fairly useless and only serves as an advertisement for "what we can do". It needs to be expanded in any way possible to be of any real value. And this is coming from someone that took it every weekday for 2 years.

I fear Winnipeg will do what its done a number of times before, and let this sit as is for decades as they make newer and more random decisions that go nowhere every year on what to do with it.

Ain't that the truth. Preach, sista!

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by roccerfeller

Some interesting discussion here, I enjoy reading the debate but not the bashing

I do hope the discussion continues, but the personal jabs are childish

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by trueviking

I don't agree with your assertion that there is no demand....it will take years to develop fort rouge, parker, this thing....they will all sell.

To this, I would like to point to a graph from a group I think everyone here should be reading.



While he's talking about automobile investment the same could be said about any investment, including TOD. What's the point of Public investment leading private investment -- other than to make a few land-owners even more wealthy?

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

To this, I would like to point to a graph from a group I think everyone here should be reading.



While he's talking about automobile investment the same could be said about any investment, including TOD. What's the point of Public investment leading private investment -- other than to make a few land-owners even more wealthy?

Pass on the group if you would...

This is a very interesting graph. I'd also be curious to see what necessary reinvestment looks like on that graph. It seems more likely that over the timelines required to project this investment, the top line probably holds steady for a fairly long period - say 15 years - but then begins to gradually start back into an incline period as maintenance expenses continue to be rolled into it. This, as private investment continues to lag.

More insidiously yet, that top line needs to include any further build out and public subsidy. If it does end up being true that the TDA is formed to create TIF zones in the TOD development sites, that line is going to grow even further away from the return side of the ledger and that's at today's dollars. The Time Value of Money tells us that any property tax, business tax, and levy income has to account for decreasing purchasing power over time and that will have to be compounded with the city and province's borrowing rate to get a true measure of return.

None of this takes into account something like market devaluation. Since the city sets property and business taxes on the basis of market value lagging two years, unless the mill rates are increased to account for a dip in property values, projecting out returns at today's values in perpetuity is exceptionally risky given everything we know about interest rates, employment, and overall market conditions and their effects on the housing market.

I'm all for a line of some sort because there's probably a positive net present value argument to be made for infrastructure renewal over the long term if we're able to change behaviours - something I think we could probably do - but if we're just saying build it to build it, we're making what's evidently a poor fiscal decision that doesn't do anything to account for risk.

[bomberjet]

I'll probably get hanged for this.

But what are you supposed to do? Don't build roads? So there is nowhere for anybody to set-up anything? So there are literally no cities for anyone to live in? We should go back to cave men because it doesn't make economic sense to build a road?

Everybody hails the US Interstate system. Which is a multi billion dollar annual expense. But going by that table, it's not economically feasible to build the highway interchange. So there's no point in any of it, right? So everybody should just walk, like they did 1000 years ago, because it won't cost money.

If we're till talking BRT and trying to justify the expense. It's a transit system. All transit systems in the world are publicly subsidized. I get all the hoopla about GEM and conspiracies. But seriously. If this is how you all see the world, nothing will ever get built because it's too risky.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I'll probably get hanged for this.

But what are you supposed to do? Don't build roads? So there is nowhere for anybody to set-up anything? So there are literally no cities for anyone to live in? We should go back to cave men because it doesn't make economic sense to build a road?

Everybody hails the US Interstate system. Which is a multi billion dollar annual expense. But going by that table, it's not economically feasible to build the highway interchange. So there's no point in any of it, right? So everybody should just walk, like they did 1000 years ago, because it won't cost money.

If we're till talking BRT and trying to justify the expense. It's a transit system. All transit systems in the world are publicly subsidized. I get all the hoopla about GEM and conspiracies. But seriously. If this is how you all see the world, nothing will ever get built because it's too risky.

Well, fair enough points, but this may be the extreme. Don't forget that the US Interstate System was built as an ode to Keynesian economics - it was strictly meant to a be fiscal stimulus. I couldn't tell you whether it worked.

The conversation around BRT really comes down to the strange alignment. There's no conspiracy afoot here; this is just ham-fisted cronyism engineered by the administration and they're not shy about it. The argument being made by both Steveo and me is that there's unnecessary risk being assumed at the expense of the taxpayer in the interest of servicing the Parker lands. Nobody is suggesting we do away with the second leg, just that it take on a more realistic alignment. The city is more likely to successfully evolve slowly over time through infill redevelopment rather than through rapid, white-hot development in areas nobody has ever expressed any interest in living. Again, leaving aside the engineering of it, the city is more likely to be able to realize a greater investment return by running through populated areas that are already mature and ripe for some form of redevelopment. Like Pembina Highway. If one day it turns out that the Parker lands has been incredibly fruitful in its development, then run a spur line to accommodate it.

The city cobbles together servicing agreements for developments all the time. They have the capacity to ensure the costs of upgrades are borne by the developers and they'll horse-trade to a degree if it's for the greater good. But to run a line straight into the Parker lands for the purposes of one development only to re-emerge just South of Chevrier places the full cost of that trajectory and all the associated and unnecessary risk at the foot of the taxpayer. And the graph shows just how long it takes to recoup that investment, if it ever even happens. At least running it down Pembina gives you an existing tax base where you're likely to get a small spike in value and where the other services are already run. Isn't the point of this to ensure we're servicing existing infrastructure at a more efficient rate? Since when did BRT become about creating more infrastructure that doesn't make a convincing positive net present value argument?

Yes, the city is already out on a limb and you're right, most transit is already subsidized. But what's the point in exacerbating the risk when it's clear the beneficiaries are a select group of people who aren't even invested for the long term?

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I'll probably get hanged for this.

But what are you supposed to do? Don't build roads? So there is nowhere for anybody to set-up anything? So there are literally no cities for anyone to live in? We should go back to cave men because it doesn't make economic sense to build a road?

Everybody hails the US Interstate system. Which is a multi billion dollar annual expense. But going by that table, it's not economically feasible to build the highway interchange. So there's no point in any of it, right? So everybody should just walk, like they did 1000 years ago, because it won't cost money.

If we're till talking BRT and trying to justify the expense. It's a transit system. All transit systems in the world are publicly subsidized. I get all the hoopla about GEM and conspiracies. But seriously. If this is how you all see the world, nothing will ever get built because it's too risky.

I suggest you read the whole series -- http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2014/3/26/day-6-a-world-class-transportation-system.html

This is the last installment, but it links to the other 5 pieces...

And as for the conspiracy, I don't see a conspiracy, I see people looking after their own self interest. Good for them, but they are using confirmation bias (they have a solution that benefits them that they want to confirm) because they are looking at the problem with their interests in mind, as well as the City's. I'm not saying that BRT through Parker is a bad thing, any rapid transit at this point would be good, but I am saying that asking people who will be paid handsomly for work they will be doing as a result to find the solution to the problem is stupid.

Stevenson, Dillon, McGowan Russell and Stantec will all be making money from the subdivision plans, infrastructure, etc. etc. as a result of the BRT, so asking them for their opinion will always be rife with bias.

[bomberjet]

Thanks for all the info everyone. I'll take a read through the articles.

I see all the points everyone's making about the BRT and surrounding TOD being incestuous. And I don't disagree with that. But I don't fully agree either. Stantec has nothing to do with BRT, so they're out. Is Stevenson involved with the Transitway at all? I didn't think so. Dillon and McGowan Russell, okay.

Maybe should move this to the transit thread, but let's discuss. What are the alternatives to the selected route? Letellier route, any others? Are there any other feasible routes? Why is it such an issue that the City is trying to develop vacant lands into taxable, income making properties. The BRT is going in at great cost no matter where it's located. Will the city be on the hook for developing the land? That should be on GEM's dollar. Is Dillon or McGowan involved in developing those lands for GEM?

And to say that routing the BRT down the Hydro corridor brings it closer to the Dillon office is a bit of a stretch. There's a reason why their office is located suburbanly, as are most engineering offices. Because they like to drive their cars from their suburban homes. Most do not take buses. And likely will not take buses.

As someone else posted, the Sugar Beat Lands are located next to the BRT no matter what route you choose. Unless it's a completely different location, which I can't see anywhere. That route has been planned for decades. So I don't see how any of that can really be seen as a problem.

Shindico has no play in any of this, so they're out. Sure there may have been shady land swap deals, that included the Parker lands. That's a whole separate topic. I think everyone has their own views on the topic, which is fine. That's healthy for society. But it seems like we keep coming back full circle and restarting the discussion on rapid transit. This is the exact type of thing that's put Winnipeg decades behind other cities. To get things done, especially on this magnitude, there are always things that will look bad. Sometimes things need to be pushed through to get anything done.