Winnipeg | Exchange District | Developments & Discussions

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by Labroco

There is proportionally more parking in downtown winnipeg than any other major city in Canada. I think there are over 130 surface parking lots

Determining if Winnipeg has proportionally more parking downtown than other cities can not be determined by counting the number of surface lots, instead you need to look at the number of spots in surface lots and parkades.

We need to work towards more models like Portage Place (underground parking), the Radission (parking above street level presence) or the parkade at King and Bannatyne that is starting to gain traction with its ground floor units.

PS Simplicity, nice to see someone that gets Winnipeg will never be NYC regardless of what those city planning text books say.

[cutchemist42]

So 125 Pacific is going to be a brewpub by Nikki who recently settled her legal issues with Half-Pints? GF has some losee relation to her (have seen her at a family gathering before) and she mentioned she was thinking of a brewpub so maybe this is it?

[TimeFadesAway]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

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.

I think that this is the reality we are dealing with here. I've been a resident of Sky for the last year, as have my in-laws, and my parents have been in Sky since it opened (I know, hahaha). None of us would have bought if parking wasn't available (for us it was all included, but it's the availability to own that was the most important factor). Certainly, I use my car far less than I used to (previously daily, now weekly) and car-share would work for everything except going to the lake in the summer. Sure, this is more anecdotal evidence, but the market of car-owners (and want to keepers) is much larger than that of the willing to ditch the car crowd.

There are people who will buy without parking, and certainly a 1:1 ratio is unnecessary, but the proof is in the pudding, as they say. The condos in the area that don't include parking have proven themselves to be much more difficult to market. 132 James took a long time to sell and there's still some left. 128 James had to convert to rentals for a while at least, and 110 James is still 50% empty. The other difficulty is the lack of parking means the target market is younger, and thus 'lower-end' from a margins, not class, perspective. I think that's likely why 110 didn't sell as well as 132. I'm no developer, but I think that margins matter in all business, and even more so in heritage conversions where surprises are the norm, not the exception.

That being said, I agree that a stand-alone parkade would be a sub-optimal use of that space. Perhaps some sort of mixed-use development featuring a significant amount of parking at from floors 2 to whatever is needed, but no real public access, instead mostly sold, reserved spots for those who live above and across the street.

The answer to so many of the difficulties that people complain about downtown (most of which, I think, is more perception than reality) is residents...people who live there 24/7. To some degree this will require getting people to change their lifestyles and to change their perception of how they need to live. It's enough of a sea change to try to get folks to think of living centrally and smaller, getting them to ditch their car on top of it all will make it a non-starter for most. And Winnipeg's market is just too small to ignore the 'most.'

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Determining if Winnipeg has proportionally more parking downtown than other cities can not be determined by counting the number of surface lots, instead you need to look at the number of spots in surface lots and parkades.

We need to work towards more models like Portage Place (underground parking), the Radission (parking above street level presence) or the parkade at King and Bannatyne that is starting to gain traction with its ground floor units.

PS Simplicity, nice to see someone that gets Winnipeg will never be NYC regardless of what those city planning text books say.

I just think it's funny that people just selectively ignore the influence consumers exert in places that fit within their narrative.

Living downtown and living in the suburbs isn't a binary decision on the basis of the same variables. Nobody is deciding to live in the Exchange over Charleswood while going through a list of their needs - each has their own. I saw a post earlier from Rypinion about playing sports 5 days a week and being able to accommodate that through car-sharing, bike-riding, etc.

Notwithstanding the fact that he has the time and flexibility to play sports 5 days a week and the likelihood that this lifestyle applies to, oh , I don't know, maybe 5% of the population, how does this even remotely to apply to anybody else? What if your kids play hockey? What if they don't play ultimate exclusively in Assiniboine Park? This is partially why these discussions always end up going nowhere. Let's leave aside winter for a moment because that's too easy. But what if your kid is playing baseball and he has a game on the opposite side of the city at 6:45 which is pretty common. If you're working, you're lucky to be home at 5:30 which doesn't leave much time to eat and be out the door. Why would anybody add the nonsense of busing, biking, or the anxiety of a car share program where, a) you have to walk like ten blocks to get to it, and b) the insane charges that start piling up when you're late. They wouldn't, so they don't. And this is more reflective of the life of somebody for a longer period than being single, childless, living in a one or two bedroom apartment unit and playing ultimate 5 days a week.

And that's why very little changes. Eventually the people demanding a better urban environment end up on the other side of the fence and somebody needs to take up the mantle again. We've been having these discussions for like 50 years - I don't even take them seriously anymore. If anything, I'm at least happy to see that bike infrastructure is improving because that benefits everybody, but this isn't a zero sum game. I'm always going to ride my bike for sport and leisure and I'm always going to take my car for everything else.

[esquire]

^ I get what you're saying in general terms, but the commonly-cited "I can't take my kid to his hockey game on the bus" example overlooks the fact that this scenario typically applies to a fairly short window of a person's life. The reality for most people with 1 to 3 kids is that it's really from about the time that the oldest is around 4 until the youngest gets his drivers' license that parents do the mom & dad taxi thing. So you're basically talking about at least 14 years, at most about 20 years. But that still leaves nearly 40 years of adult life where you aren't shuttling kids around from the arena to the pool.

No matter what happens there, the Exchange will probably never be the first choice for young families in much the same way that even an uber-vibrant and desirable urban neighbourhood like Yaletown probably won't have more than just a handful of families either, relatively speaking. But that's OK... that's not really the target market. Even if you remove the families from the equation, you still have tons of young people 18-35, singles in the 35-60 range and empty nesters from 60 and up. We built a pretty damn solid urban neighbourhood in Osborne Village (and its relative lack of parking) on the backs of those demographics; I'm not sure why it couldn't be duplicated in the Exchange.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Determining if Winnipeg has proportionally more parking downtown than other cities can not be determined by counting the number of surface lots, instead you need to look at the number of spots in surface lots and parkades.

We need to work towards more models like Portage Place (underground parking), the Radission (parking above street level presence) or the parkade at King and Bannatyne that is starting to gain traction with its ground floor units.

PS Simplicity, nice to see someone that gets Winnipeg will never be NYC regardless of what those city planning text books say.

Wasabi is going into the space beside Bronuts, so all the spaces are taken now. Crazy how it took so long for anything and within 6 months it's now going to be full.

Was talking to owner of King + Bannatyne and he said business has actually picked up since it's been nice, which (since I've worked for a while around here) is a change... Ppl seem to be coming to the area as a destination now as opposed to just one place. It used to be very quiet around here in summer when there was no festivals.

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Determining if Winnipeg has proportionally more parking downtown than other cities can not be determined by counting the number of surface lots, instead you need to look at the number of spots in surface lots and parkades.

We need to work towards more models like Portage Place (underground parking), the Radission (parking above street level presence) or the parkade at King and Bannatyne that is starting to gain traction with its ground floor units.

PS Simplicity, nice to see someone that gets Winnipeg will never be NYC regardless of what those city planning text books say.

I'm not saying parking is not required for D/ T development but rather how and where it's located needs to be carfully considered. I believe new development should determine their own parking needs and build accordingly. I can tell you it does not make economic sence to build a parking garage on a parking lot and expect to make a return as oppose to leaving it as it is. That's just the reality of things right now in Winnipeg and the price of steel and concrete. That's why you see parking lots and not garages. To even purchase a lot today the cap rate is approaching 5%

The Exchange might not be a place for young families with suburban needs but that's not to say all family lifestyle includes hockey and football. ( My active young children are involved in gymnastics swimming etc all done downtown and at the university).

What I'm really trying to say again specifically is a stand alone parkade is an obnoxious idea on James Avenue as opposed to a great mixed use project with a little extra parking if a need is there...

The Exchange buildings I am very familiar with may be old... none of them are rotting. They are filled with very exciting people and businesses with surprisingly few cars!

Simplicity welcome back! It's no fun without you! I hope you have enjoyed a cup of coffee at Joe and Lily... The people there will tell you it is a neighborhood and it's theirs even if they sleep someplace else.

Everything is not always about $$...
If that was the case 125 Pacific would have been torn down and a very profitable parking lot would be in its place for those complaining about parking and travel distance to their condos or entertainment venues.
Some times one follows their heart and tries to decide what's best for a neighbourhood as opposed to those afraid to walk and complain about it...

I'm humbled to be in a position to do that sometimes...

(Great espresso machine and beans / hope everyone tries it out!)

Enough about parking! Let's complain a little more about the state of the Alexander docks!

[TimeFadesAway]

Originally Posted by Labroco

What I'm really trying to say again specifically is a stand alone parkade is an obnoxious idea on James Avenue as opposed to a great mixed use project with a little extra parking if a need is there...

While we are on the topic of that lot on James, does anyone know how the province (as opposed to the city) ended up owning that lot? There used to be a couple of houses and a 10 unit terrace block on the property... Was the land assembly for the Centennial project done by the province?

Originally Posted by Labroco

Enough about parking! Let's complain a little more about the state of the Alexander docks!

You mean the docks with the 50 year life that lasted 10?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Labroco

What I'm really trying to say again specifically is a stand alone parkade is an obnoxious idea on James Avenue as opposed to a great mixed use project with a little extra parking if a need is there...

Forgive me, I'm going to keep the focus on parking for a bit longer...

What would you say to something like the Reiss parkade going up on James St.? A main floor lined with CRUs that generate some traffic and activity and keep the sidewalk from feeling too forlorn or desolate.

I agree that parking fronting the sidewalk sucks, but the nice thing about the Reiss parkade is that it hides its function a bit... to passers-by who aren't paying close attention, they might not even realize that 90% of the structure is parking.

[Cyro]

You know looking back at the Exchange District just before RRC added their campus I never had a parking problem, day or night? Visiting or living. Damn development has just screwed everything up...

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by Labroco

I'm not saying parking is not required for D/ T development but rather how and where it's located needs to be carfully considered.

This is what I am saying too. It doesn't mean that you need 500 parking spots in your development but it needs to be part of your plan how people are getting to your development, what happens with those cars or bikes and not leave it up to someone else to look after at some vague future time. We can't have 10 ten buildings showing up claiming to all use the same one stall of parking for their own needs. Transportation as a whole needs to be a significant part of any major development and included in their approval.

Originally Posted by Labroco

Enough about parking! Let's complain a little more about the state of the Alexander docks!

What an ugly mess that has turned into. Before it was "closed" I couldn't have even told you where it was but driving by now it is hard to miss. If the dock is permanently done let's collectively get started on making a downtown dog park on the site.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by CoryB

This is what I am saying too. It doesn't mean that you need 500 parking spots in your development but it needs to be part of your plan how people are getting to your development, what happens with those cars or bikes and not leave it up to someone else to look after at some vague future time. We can't have 10 ten buildings showing up claiming to all use the same one stall of parking for their own needs. Transportation as a whole needs to be a significant part of any major development and included in their approval.

Agree 100%. Parking has to be part of the bigger picture of transportation. You can't ignore it any more than you can ignore transit or AT.

Maybe the day will come when we can start entertaining the thought of economically feasible zero parking developments in downtown Winnipeg, but I think we're at least a decade away from that.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by esquire

Agree 100%. Parking has to be part of the bigger picture of transportation. You can't ignore it any more than you can ignore transit or AT.

Maybe the day will come when we can start entertaining the thought of economically feasible zero parking developments in downtown Winnipeg, but I think we're at least a decade away from that.

That's exactly why we need RT, some of the ppl that now say they need to have a car to go/live downtown may consider transit if there is RT, and then we can take a step toward 0-parking devs.

[Tacheguy]

Originally Posted by buzzg

That's exactly why we need RT, some of the ppl that now say they need to have a car to go/live downtown may consider transit if there is RT, and then we can take a step toward 0-parking devs.

As a stereotypical baby boomer whose kids are gone, I struggle with the car issue at times. I live in 500 Tache, and I love to walk. I am 15-20 minutes from anything i need, either on Marion, Goulet, Provencher or the Forks. Yet I still park a car underground, driving it around 4,000 k's a year. Probably makes no sense economically, but I am too much of a wuss to make that walk in the winter carrying groceries/booze. The bottom line for me, and a lot of my friends is that we want an urban lifestyle as well as a car. I think the next generation is going to be more flexible and innovative on that score, which is no doubt a good thing.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ I get what you're saying in general terms, but the commonly-cited "I can't take my kid to his hockey game on the bus" example overlooks the fact that this scenario typically applies to a fairly short window of a person's life. The reality for most people with 1 to 3 kids is that it's really from about the time that the oldest is around 4 until the youngest gets his drivers' license that parents do the mom & dad taxi thing. So you're basically talking about at least 14 years, at most about 20 years. But that still leaves nearly 40 years of adult life where you aren't shuttling kids around from the arena to the pool.

No matter what happens there, the Exchange will probably never be the first choice for young families in much the same way that even an uber-vibrant and desirable urban neighbourhood like Yaletown probably won't have more than just a handful of families either, relatively speaking. But that's OK... that's not really the target market. Even if you remove the families from the equation, you still have tons of young people 18-35, singles in the 35-60 range and empty nesters from 60 and up. We built a pretty damn solid urban neighbourhood in Osborne Village (and its relative lack of parking) on the backs of those demographics; I'm not sure why it couldn't be duplicated in the Exchange.

I agree with you on so much of this, and wish it to be true, but I worry that these customers currently aren't able to afford the type of development happening in the East Exchange, even with government subsidies. Perhaps the singles/DINK's in the 35-60 range, but the other 2 might have trouble. The economic realities in Winnipeg are that, without some sort of "in" a kid fresh out of university will not be in a position to afford one of these units. The other thing is that a lot of empty nesters are realizing their suburban homes are not the nest egg they once thought and can't afford to retire on the sales price of their home alone. The other consideration is that empty nests happen far later with children staying with their parents well into their 20's now-a-day (speaking from personal experience )

To consider is also that governments can no longer afford to carry the burden of subsidizing these developments; it's political suicide to recommend that sort of program when our car crazy city demands infrastructure repair.

While I hate to say it, I think the East Exchange is going to stay the way it is for a while.

[Labroco]

While I hate to say it, I think the East Exchange is going to stay the way it is for a while.[/QUOTE]

Well I can say you are about to see a lot of continued organic growth in the next few years!

Stayed tuned!

You will be surprised!

[1ajs]

We sure will see allot more growth

Real shame about the docks its a asset to the community a d downtownwould be amazing if people could boat to work

[CoryB]

^^ The challenge with people boating to work downtown is that the docks would need to reliably be available, ie not under a flood state without warning. We would then need similar dock infrastructure where people are coming from. Are private docks on the rivers even allowed inside city limits?

[pegcityfan]

Phat Daddy's...

[cllew]

If you apply for a waterways permit from the city and they approve the stamped Geotechnical Engineer drawing you should be able to get a dock built It all depends if the city staff think the dock would impact on the stability of the river bank.