Winnipeg | Exchange District | Developments & Discussions

[oftheMoon]

Originally Posted by rypinion

To be taken with a grain of salt since they are also actively tweeting about D Condo going up shortly, but:

https://twitter.com/SandhuDevelpmts/status/601415263284695040

Any ideas what Sandhu might be hinting at?

[oftheMoon]

Originally Posted by rypinion

Calgary just approved a 15-storey condo with absolutely no parking stalls. Hopefully it's a sign of things to come in Winnipeg (and cities all over).

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news...cil-approves-car-free-east-village-tower

I know that a bike, bus, and Peg City Car Co-op has been more than sufficient for me, even with 5 times weekly evening sports.

I recently ditched my car and am also using Peg City Car Co-op which means I no longer have to lease a spot for $200/month in the East Exchange. Not owning a car has been completely liberating. I know this doesn't work for everyone, but it's working really well for me.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Parking in the Exchange was challenging when all the venues had events on the same night even before the current condo boom in the area. The increased parking challenges are exactly what I talk about when I say Winnipeg needs to stop approving developments that either reduce previously available parking or do not fully address the parking demand they will create. Now instead of more condos being built in the area we have buildings being put "on hold" while the developer waits for someone else to step up and take ownership of building them the parking their project needs. Doesn't anyway else see this is a backwards approach?

This is kinda funny if you ask me. But at the same time it was the government that promised ~5 million from the sale of Winnipeg Square Parkade will go to building it, so you can't blame the developer.

Just a quick plug for my post on rgalston's old blog... It's been over 2 (scratch that... 3 years) years since this post, and since the agreement by the province/city was put in place, and still nothing has been done.

http://riseandsprawl.tumblr.com/post/31072072799/guest-post-breaking-out-of-the-parking-structure

[Biff]

Originally Posted by oftheMoon

Any ideas what Sandhu might be hinting at?

I know they have a project at 49 Adelaide St called Stables on Adelaide Apartments. 50 units in an old 5 storey warehouse building. I assumed it was public already but maybe it hasn't been announced. It could be something else though. I believe it is under construction though.

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Parking in the Exchange was challenging when all the venues had events on the same night even before the current condo boom in the area. The increased parking challenges are exactly what I talk about when I say Winnipeg needs to stop approving developments that either reduce previously available parking or do not fully address the parking demand they will create. Now instead of more condos being built in the area we have buildings being put "on hold" while the developer waits for someone else to step up and take ownership of building them the parking their project needs. Doesn't anyway else see this is a backwards approach?

I think there are very few nights a year the East Exchange is at 100% capacity.
There is a lot on Galt and Edwin that is never parked any evening. People just do not want to walk down town. To put the distance in perspective its farther to walk from the mid point of a Walmart lot than to Lily and Galt! It's really about suburban perceptions vs. true urban reality...

I can think of two or three 30 storey residental projects in d/t Toronto
with ZERO tennant parking. Many new projects are only offering 60% parking.
The cost of providing parking is huge and many people are prepared to do without.

Forcing developers to provide 1/1 parking is very old fashioned thinking and actually hinders development from my experience and I have developed in both down town Toronto and down town Winnipeg.

The two heritage buildings being put on "hold" until parking is built is a market driven issue. Perhaps the space may become office retail instead? The last thing James Street or the buildings on it need is a huge parkade turning the area into the back of the concert hall instead of the front or gateway to Waterfront Drive / Park or River Walk.

People need to put on a pair of warm boots instead of little black shoes and walk a little more...

It's good for their health and the vitality of the Exchange!

[esquire]

^ I don't think there needs to be 1/1 parking in the Exchange, but at some point we have to recognize that there are far more people in the area now than there were 20 years ago... more residents, workers, students, restaurant patrons, the whole nine yards. Theatres and entertainment venues are busy. Parking is at a premium.

I realize that I can park to the north, but this area is a bit different from other parts of downtown in that the character of the area changes once you go a bit farther to the north... streets are deader and I've had experiences with car break-ins in those types of desolate areas on the edge of downtown.

One parkade will do a lot to alleviate the crush of parking around the Lily and James intersection. It won't change the character of the area.

[NK59]

Originally Posted by Labroco

The two heritage buildings being put on "hold" until parking is built is a market driven issue. Perhaps the space may become office retail instead? The last thing James Street or the buildings on it need is a huge parkade turning the area into the back of the concert hall instead of the front or gateway to Waterfront Drive / Park or River Walk.

A market driven issue directly related to parking availability. Personally I wouldn't buy a Streetside condo because I can not buy a parking spot with, and $200/mo is too much of a monthly expense for me to rent a spot. Our downtown is not advanced enough to live without a parking spot (for most).
While building a parkade in that location would be sad, unfortunately it is actually needed for the area to grow because we are so dependant on our vehicles in this city.

[headhorse]

Originally Posted by oftheMoon

Any ideas what Sandhu might be hinting at?

fairly certain they own the empty lot on the SE corner of Princess and Logan, I think they had something planned there?

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by NK59

A market driven issue directly related to parking availability. Personally I wouldn't buy a Streetside condo because I can not buy a parking spot with, and $200/mo is too much of a monthly expense for me to rent a spot. Our downtown is not advanced enough to live without a parking spot (for most).
While building a parkade in that location would be sad, unfortunately it is actually needed for the area to grow because we are so dependant on our vehicles in this city.

If this is a market driven issue, perhaps we should charge market rates for parking? If I'm not mistaken rypinion paid $20k for his underground parking stall when he purchased at Sky -- far far less than what it cost to build that sort of thing. I'm guessing they only charged that because they wouldn't think people would pay more (because of the fact that all street parking is free after people get home from work).

If we actually charged what people would willingly pay for parking on street this could solve some of these problems. It would also mean more money for the City to fix things in the Exchange.

[rypinion]

Originally Posted by NK59

Personally I wouldn't buy a Streetside condo because I can not buy a parking spot with, and $200/mo is too much of a monthly expense for me to rent a spot. Our downtown is not advanced enough to live without a parking spot (for most).

A downtown condo that includes parking will have a $20,000 premium. So you'll be paying regardless - either $200/month or an extra $20K on your mortgage (or $20K less that you can invest).

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by NK59

A market driven issue directly related to parking availability. Personally I wouldn't buy a Streetside condo because I can not buy a parking spot with, and $200/mo is too much of a monthly expense for me to rent a spot. Our downtown is not advanced enough to live without a parking spot (for most).
While building a parkade in that location would be sad, unfortunately it is actually needed for the area to grow because we are so dependant on our vehicles in this city.

A stand alone parking garage will not lead to growth in the area but rather it's death. The James avenue bldgs are already renovated and are or will be occupied by people who can live without a parking spot within 100 feet of their front door.

When the provincal building and parking lot are ultimately sold and developed it may incorporate additional stalls. The city can also rebuild the civic parking lot as a stand alone structure.

Sports manitoba is building parking within its new structure. Ukranian cultural centre has their own parking. Museum and concert hall have a block long parking lot to the north and underground parking. Eatons/ nutty club bldg have their own parking to the north as do the tennants of Pacific / Alexander. Great west metal do not have parking needs either. Mere and Chibo have parking as do sky condos...

These lands are needed for real development and NOT a parkade for others.
I have seen two great mixed use proposals for the site and have proposed but they have been unable to interest the city or centre ventures. I have been told again something is in the works so we will see in the next month or two if it comes to fruition.

[rypinion]

Ha, Steveo beat me to it.

I didn't personally pay $20K, I got in before paying extra for parking was a thing in downtown Winnipeg. People who bought in Sky 2 though did pay that much and I think it is now the norm.

[CoryB]

Agree that parking does not need to be 1 spot per 1 residential unit. The overall needs of the building need to be taken into account. For example, MTS Centre does not have any real on site parking. There is a transportation plan in place for the needs of MTS Centre including where people will park and for how long. My point is we need to look at the overall big picture and stop being a bunch of car haters that oppose the development of new infrastructure required to support continued growth downtown.

[rypinion]

Originally Posted by CoryB

My point is we need to look at the overall big picture and stop being a bunch of car haters that oppose the development of new infrastructure required to support continued growth downtown.

I wouldn't necessarily say "car haters". I'd suggest that those that you are referring to feel that the useful/beneficial growth downtown is that which doesn't require additional parking.

Setting aside a 2,000 cubic foot box of space for every couple of people frequenting downtown is not a sustainable situation.

[cllew]

the only reason for the Concert Hall parking lot on Pacific is that was suppose to be the new home of MPI and DDVL back in the late 1970's as part of the NDP improve North Main scheme.

The NDP bought the hotel that was there, and leveled it, but before construction started they lost the election to the Lyon PC's who stopped the project and moved MPI into City Place in the fall of 1980.

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Agree that parking does not need to be 1 spot per 1 residential unit. The overall needs of the building need to be taken into account. For example, MTS Centre does not have any real on site parking. There is a transportation plan in place for the needs of MTS Centre including where people will park and for how long. My point is we need to look at the overall big picture and stop being a bunch of car haters that oppose the development of new infrastructure required to support continued growth downtown.

There is proportionally more parking in downtown winnipeg than any other major city in Canada. I think there are over 130 surface parking lots. I would think of myself as very pro development and not opposed to parking lots either. I just do not believe more multilevel parkades are required to stimulate growth downtown. In fact it's just the opposite...
The idea of the government subsidizing parkades is almost laughable.
I have NEVER thought of not going downtown because there was not enough parking!

Build anything other than a parkade on the James Street site and you stimulate an urban enviroment. It will create a place for people to live work and eat, not a place to store cars and then drive back to the suburbs at 5:00.

I love cars just not stand alone parkades that sap the life out of any streetscape forever...

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Agree that parking does not need to be 1 spot per 1 residential unit. The overall needs of the building need to be taken into account. For example, MTS Centre does not have any real on site parking. There is a transportation plan in place for the needs of MTS Centre including where people will park and for how long. My point is we need to look at the overall big picture and stop being a bunch of car haters that oppose the development of new infrastructure required to support continued growth downtown.

There is proportionally more parking in downtown winnipeg than any other major city in Canada. I think there are over 130 surface parking lots. I would think of myself as very pro development and not opposed to parking lots either. I just do not believe more multilevel parkades are required to stimulate growth downtown. In fact it's just the opposite...
The idea of the government subsidizing parkades is almost laughable.
I have NEVER thought of not going downtown because there was not enough parking!

Build anything other than a parkade on the James Street site and you stimulate an urban enviroment. It will create a place for people to live work and eat, not a place to store cars and then drive back to the suburbs at 5:00.

I love cars just not stand alone parkades that sap the life out of any streetscape forever...

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by Labroco

Forcing developers to provide 1/1 parking is very old fashioned thinking and actually hinders development from my experience and I have developed in both down town Toronto and down town Winnipeg.

As I'm sure you know, there are no parking space minimums in the Exchange (and downtown as a whole).

As to Rypinion's article, I think it will be a while before we see something like that in Winnipeg. I've used car2go in Calgary and it's awesome - park wherever you want (including metered spots, without paying), and there are literally hundreds of cars in the system, so finding one is never a problem. Until car-sharing (or rapid transit) reaches that level, we aren't going to see anything like that here - developers will not take the risk. Maybe in Osborne Village one day...

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by Bdog

As I'm sure you know, there are no parking space minimums in the Exchange (and downtown as a whole).

This fact always seems to go ignored in the discussion about downtown development. There's nothing stopping anybody from building anything, but I have personally been involved in deals that have fallen apart with the bank because of the parking issue; they're not convinced anybody will buy without parking and they've been proven right time and again.

This nonsense about car-sharing and transit needs to stop. Yes - of course - anybody can do anything. They can unicycle to work if there's a gun to their head. That doesn't make it convenient. Moving a single, childless person around this town is not reflective of real life for the vast majority of people in this city. It doesn't become a perfectly acceptable alternative because somebody whose almost exclusively responsible is to themselves pretends these hassles can't be mitigated through car ownership.

It's one thing to have a discussion. It's another to bring an anecdotal viewpoint to the table and pretend it's a meaningful sample. The East Exchange is barely a neighbourhood. It can best be described as warehousing a few people who aren't interested in having even remotely convenient basic services. And it's virtually *always* been this way even in its day as a true warehouse district. Without grant money, there'd be nothing left. And since the grant money has stopped, there hasn't been - it's still old, rotting warehouses and surface parking lots. And I get that Labroco has a personally vested interest in seeing it go the other way, but I'm not nearly as sanguine given that would see 50 years and growing worth of heavily pro-suburban sentiment turned on its head. That's a hell of a bet.

The city needs to stop pretending like the fate of itself rests within a vibrant Exchange district because it doesn't. And it especially doesn't when you're paying for the negative return its managed to generate.

[esquire]

^ Welcome back!