Winnipeg Construction VIII

[Simplicity]

I couldn't even tell you why this is on the table. Waterford Green is barely moving units at the moment. North Point Village is just up McPhillips.

Where is all this demand in the North End supposed to arise from?

[Bdog]

Just to play devil's advocate for a second, because we already know how the Biguc's and Steve-o's of the board feel about any type of development that's not mixed-use, inner-city infill:

The development, as proposed, has a density of over 10 units per gross acre (1,800 units on 170 acres) - that's upwards of 12 to 15 units per acre if you're talking net density (taking out retention ponds, roads, etc. from the calc). This is substantially higher than almost any neighbourhood built in Winnipeg post WW2. The article also says that 1200 of the 1800 will be multi-family units (2/3rds). That's huge! Also, technically, it could be considered infill, because it is bound by developed areas on 3 sides (or at the very least, 2 and a half).

For the costs argument, it's the developer who will be paying for 100% of local roads, collectors, sewers, water mains, lighting, etc. etc. etc - not the City. Further, that infrastructure must all be built to City specs, usually by approved contractors. What exactly about this development (if built as proposed) would make it such a drain on the City's coffers, than say an infill in an even less dense neighbourhood 2 kms further south.

Infill projects, which I'm also hugely in favour of, aren't without their infrastructure and servicing costs either. Some people talk like "oh, well the road's already there, no extra cost to the city whatsoever!". What about costly sewer upgrades and separations? Water and substation capacity issues? Need for more bus/emergency services? Etc. Just because a project isn't being built on the "fringe" doesn't mean it's not without similar infrastructure challenges...

[biguc]

Only a fool would say infill is free. But sprawl incurs all the costs of infill, plus. For example, sprawl's sewer lines don't just end at their development--the city has to improve existing sewer lines to take on the sprawl's capacity, just like with infill. The developer may build their own roads inside the development, but they aren't upgrading any roads outside the development to handle the capacity. The city will still have to expand bus and emergency service to sprawl, but instead of doing it in a smaller, more efficient footprint, it has to send it further out, meaning trips take longer, vehicles suffer more wear, and employees log more hours travelling to accomplish the same amount of work. Not to mention that the city will be on the hook for maintaining all the infrastructure in the precinct once it starts breaking down.

The potential density of this development is ok. It could amount to about 5000 people a square km, which isn't amazing but isn't too bad, either. Who's to say they'll build to that though? Simplicity suggests there isn't much demand in that part of town, so who's going to live in 1200 multi-family units in one of the dumpier corners of the suburbs? My point is, when, if ever, will this development reach the density they're claiming?

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by Riverman

We want the city to grow, don't we? People need houses for growing families, especially the demographic in that area.

Some see living in blocks as degrading. A house is what most people want and as the city grows we need more houses.

Is there actually demand for these?

I've been shocked in the last year or so by the number of houses for sale in my parents neighborhood and how long they have stayed on the market. There are two newly renovated houses on the next street over from their street, real quiet neighborhood right next to schools and a community centre, and they have been listed for over 6 months, asking price reduced twice. Anecdotal for sure, but I'm not convinced that there is any drastic shortage of good housing available for younger families. I think a bigger upcoming problem will be people taking a bath on their pre-family condo purchases and having to purchase a home from that position.

[Wigglez]

Originally Posted by biguc

The potential density of this development is ok. It could amount to about 5000 people a square km, which isn't amazing but isn't too bad, either. Who's to say they'll build to that though? Simplicity suggests there isn't much demand in that part of town, so who's going to live in 1200 multi-family units in one of the dumpier corners of the suburbs? My point is, when, if ever, will this development reach the density they're claiming?

I remember when Waverley West was being marketed as a massive 'green' neighbourhood utilizing geothermal for all of the houses. Its amazing what developers will claim in order to get things approved only to change back to the most basic of developments once they start.

This may be our mayors first big test. If he lets this pass then I hope he forces the developers to stick to their density claims.

[Wigglez]

Originally Posted by Riverman

We want the city to grow, don't we? People need houses for growing families, especially the demographic in that area.

Some see living in blocks as degrading. A house is what most people want and as the city grows we need more houses.

Yes we want to see the city grow, but we want to see it grow up not out, the city is spread out enough as it is.

Some may see living in blocks as degrading but I see letting older neighbourhoods decay further as disgusting... There is no incentive to rebuild/repair old houses if you can just bail and get a new one. If you want a brand new house you could look at one of the several other suburban neighbourhood developments already in progress that the city has dedicated money to infrastructure for.

And this isn't an infill project... When the only thing between you and the perimeter is farmers fields its not infill.

[Simplicity]

It's worth noting that these secondary plans - otherwise known as 'precinct' plans - are good forever. Unless they're amended, what they set forward now is how this area is going to have to develop.

And that's not to say that it won't be amended at some point because if the demand is for single-family, the city will take the build out over nothing. But it's isn't going to be up to Bowman to see that through. It would be surprising to see any of the servicing work even done within the next few years given how many different owners there are how complex all the financial and legal arrangements are going to be.

But the city has tools to deal with what Biguc is speaking of. If a development or even single developer proposes a project that is going to breach the capacity of any major infrastructure in the area, the city can use a servicing agreement to condition the development. They can make a developer widen a road or upgrade a trunk line or even install a massive interceptor somewhere if that's what's required. The issue up until now is that the city isn't properly valuing out the economic life of the infrastructure upgrades - whether it be hard infrastructure like roads and sewers or soft infrastructure like police, fire, and schools - and that's making it impossible to pass those costs along.

And this really shouldn't be completely up to the developers. The city should be paying a lot of the freight too given that it's also benefiting through increased revenues and growth. But somebody needs to at least know to what point the city is partaking in an investment and at what point it's lighting money on fire.

Then, of course, there's the issue of infrastructure fees in new developments that everywhere else seems to be able to charge. But after the NDP was done covering their ineptitude with a PST increase, they knee-capped city hall by refusing to allow the only other means for trying to break even on these suburban commitments.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by biguc

Only a fool would say infill is free. But sprawl incurs all the costs of infill, plus.

Not necessarily. The key to sprawl is size. Infill is small and has to fit in with existing constraints that can be problematic and require costly customized solutions. I don't know, but I'd guess that there are usually significant economies of scale in building "sprawl".

It's similar to the dubious but highly "intuitive" idea that renovating an existing building must be cheaper than building a new one (because fixing an old building is the same as building a new one, except you don't have to pay for walls and the foundation!) This doesn't take into account the fact that efficient "mass production" construction processes have to be replaced with specialized one-off construction processes.

I don't see much correlation between cities with sprawl and poor cities. If anything, it's likely a negative correlation.

[wags_in_the_peg]

there may not be current demand for this, but I'm sure there will be in 6-8 years which is when this will be ready. it takes years to bring in services. also this area has high ethnic population and immigration is continuing.

[wags_in_the_peg]

i agree with density, more high rises and condos in downtown, exchange, osborn village, etc, HOWEVER there is much demand for new houses. it's a fact of life that many young families want exactly that. How many of you have driven 5 minutes outside the city and seen all these new developments? families are leaving the city but using city roads or driving in and using city bus services , pools, libraries, etc. I'm involved in minor hockey and there's been unprecendented requests to have kids transfer to a hockey team in the city (as they are 5 minutes away from city) instead of playing in a rural league and driving to all the small towns. thankfully majority have been declined and hte message has been sent that if you live out there yu dont play hockeyin the city. however at the same time, they are allowing SOME teams from outside the city to play in city league (stonewall, oakbank, selkirk, east st.paul, etc)

all i'm saying is that if you give the people a choice to stay in the city, they may. i would rather see them living in MY city, rather than being parasites living 5 minutes away.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by wags_in_the_peg

Also this area has high ethnic population and immigration is continuing.

This. Established, well off Filipinos want new homes in a new 'hood, in the same area.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by wags_in_the_peg

i agree with density, more high rises and condos in downtown, exchange, osborn village, etc, HOWEVER there is much demand for new houses. it's a fact of life that many young families want exactly that. How many of you have driven 5 minutes outside the city and seen all these new developments? families are leaving the city but using city roads or driving in and using city bus services , pools, libraries, etc. I'm involved in minor hockey and there's been unprecendented requests to have kids transfer to a hockey team in the city (as they are 5 minutes away from city) instead of playing in a rural league and driving to all the small towns. thankfully majority have been declined and hte message has been sent that if you live out there yu dont play hockeyin the city. however at the same time, they are allowing SOME teams from outside the city to play in city league (stonewall, oakbank, selkirk, east st.paul, etc)

all i'm saying is that if you give the people a choice to stay in the city, they may. i would rather see them living in MY city, rather than being parasites living 5 minutes away.

While I agree that the solution to urban sprawl is far more complicated then not approving projects like this cause people will just start moving 15 mins away to bordering communities. Its not like non-residents can use the city services as if they are residents. A library card is $139 a year for non-residents. Registration for swimming lessons (which from my understanding is difficult to find a spot) has a period where its limited to residents to register before being opened up to non-residents.

A true solution has to come from both in the civic and provincial levels. I think someone mentioned before that for certain municipalites in Ontario, the provincial government designates a large swath of territory around the city limits where development cannot occur.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Bdog

The development, as proposed, has a density of over 10 units per gross acre (1,800 units on 170 acres) - that's upwards of 12 to 15 units per acre if you're talking net density (taking out retention ponds, roads, etc. from the calc). This is substantially higher than almost any neighbourhood built in Winnipeg post WW2. The article also says that 1200 of the 1800 will be multi-family units (2/3rds). That's huge! Also, technically, it could be considered infill, because it is bound by developed areas on 3 sides (or at the very least, 2 and a half).

Originally Posted by biguc

The potential density of this development is ok. It could amount to about 5000 people a square km, which isn't amazing but isn't too bad, either. Who's to say they'll build to that though? Simplicity suggests there isn't much demand in that part of town, so who's going to live in 1200 multi-family units in one of the dumpier corners of the suburbs? My point is, when, if ever, will this development reach the density they're claiming?

I have never said I am against a growing City, but I can say that I'm against this precinct plan.

Not all "sprawl" is bad. I don't mind greenfield development as long as it is complete. This development includes exactly 0 locations for local commerce and will necessitate that every single one of those 5000 people will require a car to get everywhere. They won't be walking over to Walmart any time soon. I said it when I went for a ride through Waverley West, it's fairly dense, but that density isn't really that good when everyone has to drive. And judging from the look of the streets surrounding Bridgwater Centre, everyone will have to drive there, much like in this development; everyone will be driving.

You can build good suburbs, but this isn't one of them.

[CoryB]

My thinking is the definition of "sprawl" on this forum is really far to one extreme. Essentially if it is not a 20+ store condo in downtown it is "sprawl". For perspective, the proposed development in northwest Winnipeg is a very short walk from Garden City Shopping Centre opened in 1970 (44 years ago) and Seven Oaks General Hospital opened in 1981 (34 years ago). Winnipeg will continue to grow regardless of what people on these forums think. This is a well thought out addition that is placed close to long established neighbourhoods. There is existing bus service and fire halls near by that will be used to provide service. Overall, this is not just another neighbourhood just outside the boundaries, instead it is a logical expansion of an established neighbourhood that continues to have a strong attraction to specific subsections of Winnipeg.

[esquire]

I can live with this subdivision as it does build on what is already in the surrounding areas, as opposed to totally new standalone subdivisions that require pretty much new everything (schools, rec centres, transit routes, fire stations). Sage Creek and Waverley West are the prime offenders in that regard. Also it does help to direct some of the suburban growth to the northern part of the city which could help to take some of the stress off the infrastructure in the southern parts of town where most of the growth has been focused. (I occasionally wonder why people who like to complain about tiresome commutes to River Park South or wherever don't buy a house in Amber Trails instead where you get the same suburbia but with half the driving...)

The fact that there is some density beyond just SFHs is encouraging too.

I wouldn't lead a parade over this subdivision, but it's a far sight better than the large new ones popping up in the southern parts of Winnipeg.

[windypeg]

Maybe I'm alone on this, but as far as sprawl goes I'm more bothered by the heavily car-oriented, big box, sea-of-parking style retail developments that just seem to keep getting rubber-stamped here. Seasons of Tuxedo, Grant Park Pavilions, Westport Festival, etc...

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by CoryB

My thinking is the definition of "sprawl" on this forum is really far to one extreme. Essentially if it is not a 20+ store condo in downtown it is "sprawl". For perspective, the proposed development in northwest Winnipeg is a very short walk from Garden City Shopping Centre opened in 1970 (44 years ago) and Seven Oaks General Hospital opened in 1981 (34 years ago). Winnipeg will continue to grow regardless of what people on these forums think. This is a well thought out addition that is placed close to long established neighbourhoods. There is existing bus service and fire halls near by that will be used to provide service. Overall, this is not just another neighbourhood just outside the boundaries, instead it is a logical expansion of an established neighbourhood that continues to have a strong attraction to specific subsections of Winnipeg.

The problem with this line of thinking is that no one in their right mind will ever walk to Garden City Shopping Centre from this development. They won't even walk to Walmart.

I live in Riverbend and 70-80% of the time I walk/bike to Sobey's at Red River and Main. And 100% (ok, maybe 99.5%) of the time I am the only person who does this, even though a lot of the people I see there are the same people I live beside, most of which live within a 10-15 minute walk.

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by biguc

Because the city can't afford to service them.

I've read a page of responses to this proposed development already and in this particular case I still feel as I did with my 1st post, Why not this location in NW Winnipeg? I have no real problem with it.

As discussed already a build out in an already established neighborhood, with most services and surrounding infrastructure already in place, close to a hospital, malls, restaurants, schools, fire etc..a 8+ year timetable working within the demand as is needed in the categories of low, medium and higher density structures.
You know I prefer high density urban development and the benefits it provides to costs of servicing vs.more suburban oriented developments but I don't have any real issue with this one in comparison to mass of Southern developments taking place in the city.
It's a good boost for this somewhat forgotten area of Winnipeg.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

I live in Riverbend and 70-80% of the time I walk/bike to Sobey's at Red River and Main. And 100% (ok, maybe 99.5%) of the time I am the only person who does this, even though a lot of the people I see there are the same people I live beside, most of which live within a 10-15 minute walk.

In fairness, I honestly wonder how many people in an area like yours or like this proposed area, apart from maybe retirees with time on their hands, could realistically be expected to walk to supermarkets on a regular basis. I live in a very walkable urban neighbourhood with a supermarket that is no more than 15 minutes away by foot, but it would be a pretty big pain to have to drag my family's groceries so I drive despite the fact that I typically walk to other places in the area.

Walking might be more common in areas where you have lots of single people with more manageable grocery loads, e.g. Osborne Village. For a family to willingly do its grocery shopping that way you would need population densities and store proximities that generally don't exist in suburban Canada.

[bomberjet]

There's this fallacy that if you make it so people can walk to the grocery store, like they do in say Asian or Middle Eastern towns, that people will just drop there cars. In places like those, people will walk to the market and get the fresh meat or fish daily. In Canada, or really any western nation, where can you go to the market and get meat slaughtered right there on a daily basis? Really nowhere, unless you want to pay the price for it. Here people buy bulk groceries for a week or so. I'm not trudging through minus 30 weather to go to the store daily. I'll take my car once a week thanks.

If you want to live in an environment like that, the West is not the place to live. Move to Japan maybe. This is the new world, where everything is designed to eliminate those exact issues. We don't need to go to market daily because we have refrigerators. Go to Gaza or something and see how many fridges there are? Or if they have fridges, they might not have the power to run them. That's how the world works bub. Don't get me wrong, I'm a supporter of a high density, vibrant downtown. But like others have said, people need a place to live.