Winnipeg Construction VIII

[CoryB]

^^ Not sure, just noticed the variance notices they have posted and took a quick glance.

[wags_in_the_peg]

Originally Posted by Kirk

Does anyone know what is going on at the northwest corner of Lyndale & St. Mary's, where the Husky station used to be? It looks like some foundation work is being done on a very small footprint.

Well it turns out it's some type of repair shop. 2 loading doors on a butt ugly metal building. Brutal, I know this use to be a Gas station but with being at the entrance to Norwood Flats on Lyndale, it looks brutal.

[wags_in_the_peg]

Originally Posted by esquire

Is that in reference to the sign going up along Main Street just south of the building entrance?

I've seen the frame, it's not big at all

[cllew]

there is a limit of how many square feet of signage for a building and that included the signs at the top of the building.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Well, as per RAIC, building category 3.7 of an average build complexity for a build cost between $2-$5MM runs at 9.4% of construction cost with basic engineering. That's a lot of money.

in the real world though, that building is a 2-3% fee for an architect.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by trueviking

in the real world though, that building is a 2-3% fee for an architect.

Huh. That's good to know. Over the past couple of years I've only been negotiating flat rate fees, so I've gone way off guideline.

[oftheMoon]

Originally Posted by wags_in_the_peg

Well it turns out it's some type of repair shop. 2 loading doors on a butt ugly metal building. Brutal, I know this use to be a Gas station but with being at the entrance to Norwood Flats on Lyndale, it looks brutal.

But is has a really nice gravel parking lot in front of it!

[Simplicity]

Here's a good one. The planning department is now saying that Independent Jewelers isn't just in violation of the secondary plan for the area, but they've now discovered a caveat on title that allows the city to expropriate 4.2 metres on either side of Isabel for a future Isabel widening.

Let's follow the logic of the ever-erudite planning department. They drafted and enacted a secondary plan that calls for buildings to be built to the sidewalk in that particular location. Except that anything built to the sidewalk is eligible for expropriation at a point in the future deemed necessary, especially in this case where the whole building would practically have to come down. So they have fought tooth and nail to have the building built to the sidewalk because of the secondary plan, but they want to recommend rejection of the plans because at some point they may need to expropriate the parking lot.

In other words, the planning department is so detached and clued-out from the everyday reality certain risks pose on enterprise that their preference is to have the owner put at risk his entire business rather than the parking lot. To them this makes sense.

Is it any wonder that the planning department needs to be told to sit down and keep quiet every now and then? This is unconscionably indefensible at this point. The planning department has crossed into having a pissing contest with the owners of Independent Jewelers at this point. They are openly suggesting the area and its plan are so sacrosanct that a 3rd generation business in the area with a parking lot out front is somehow so egregious it can't be allowed to happen. But they will support running a highway through it.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/jewelry-store-owners-face-another-battle-318750041.html

[esquire]

^ If the goal is to kill off Independent Jewellers on Notre Dame, PP&D seems to be doing a fine job of getting there.

Although that said, if they build right up to the 4.2 metre setback line, would that give them enough room for a parking lot between the building and the lot line? Maybe that could work... a 4.2 metre setback would not be ideal given that it will mean a gaping open space for the next 80 years until the city is ready to widen Isabel, but it would certainly reduce the number of cars smashing into the building.

[rypinion]

I still fail to see the value that Independent Jewellers adds to that particular area that we're willing to bend rules for them.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by rypinion

I still fail to see the value that Independent Jewellers adds to that particular area that we're willing to bend rules for them.

Prosperous, long-standing business selling products not easily found in Winnipeg?

I realize this is a socioeconomically/racially divided city, but do we really have to stand by while every nice thing in town gets chased south of Portage Avenue?

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by rypinion

I still fail to see the value that Independent Jewellers adds to that particular area that we're willing to bend rules for them.

I realize you're only making this comment in the interests of subversion, but would you prefer a gaping vacancy for an indefinite but long-term period all because of a few parking spaces?

City planning does not solve the issues that underpin this area. It's naive to think it does. The only thing this area can hope for is that its existing commercial residents don't abandon it entirely, even though they probably should.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ If the goal is to kill off Independent Jewellers on Notre Dame, PP&D seems to be doing a fine job of getting there.

Although that said, if they build right up to the 4.2 metre setback line, would that give them enough room for a parking lot between the building and the lot line? Maybe that could work... a 4.2 metre setback would not be ideal given that it will mean a gaping open space for the next 80 years until the city is ready to widen Isabel, but it would certainly reduce the number of cars smashing into the building.

It's still outside the plan. If you allowed that to happen you'd effectively remove any parking from the site, and you'd have a building that sits like an island in the middle of the lot. The whole thing is dumb.

If the city wants to hang their hat on this caveat, then the owners of the properties affected should band together and force them to exercise their rights. If they want to hold this out as rationale for stifling all future development, then they need to bear the cost for that. They're essentially going to publicly declare all of these properties one better than worthless.

[rypinion]

I don't know - I just find, especially when I walk by it, that it just doesn't fit. If they are catering to the drive in/drive out crowd there's got to be a better spot for it in the city.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by rypinion

I don't know - I just find, especially when I walk by it, that it just doesn't fit. If they are catering to the drive in/drive out crowd there's got to be a better spot for it in the city.

Of course there's a better spot for it in the city. That's really the point, isn't it? There's a better spot in the city for virtually anything of any value to the area outside of the beer vendor, laundromat, and cheque-cashing facility. The fact that they are not completely abandoning the area is exactly why they should be supported. Vacancies are more detrimental to an area than a few cars that come in and out.

I'm sorry to say, but the logic is absurd. The store is detrimental to the area because it's utilized by those who drive there? That's not better than a tagged up vacancy with a few broken windows? Let's not get too strictly ideological about this. Areas like this have to be careful about not planning themselves into the ground. You start refusing development because it's not within a very prescribed format and that will drive values lower, not higher.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Of course there's a better spot for it in the city. That's really the point, isn't it? There's a better spot in the city for virtually anything of any value to the area outside of the beer vendor, laundromat, and cheque-cashing facility. The fact that they are not completely abandoning the area is exactly why they should be supported. Vacancies are more detrimental to an area than a few cars that come in and out.

I'm sorry to say, but the logic is absurd. The store is detrimental to the area because it's utilized by those who drive there? That's not better than a tagged up vacancy with a few broken windows? Let's not get too strictly ideological about this. Areas like this have to be careful about not planning themselves into the ground. You start refusing development because it's not within a very prescribed format and that will drive values lower, not higher.

First, I would argue that it is abandoning the area by building a parking lot to front the street, but that's just me...

Aside from that is the fact is the City has a plan in place (whether you agree with the plan or not is not an issue here) for this area. We can't bend our plan strictly because of the whim of a local land owner. If they want to build this building here they should apply to make adjustments to the secondary plan, or pick a new location.

They are trying to cut corners for economic gain because it's to their benefit. The City isn't a charity, we for one thing legally can't, and for second shouldn't, approve a building that is strictly against the secondary plan just because the building owner doesn't want to do the hard work of either selling their hard asset (as an aside I question why a jeweler would own the building they operate in), or go to a public hearing to adjust the secondary plan.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

If they want to build this building here they should apply to make adjustments to the secondary plan, or pick a new location.

The way this is shaking out, I can see exactly that happening... perhaps a new location with a big parking lot out on Kenaston or St. Mary's.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by esquire

The way this is shaking out, I can see exactly that happening... perhaps a new location with a big parking lot out on Kenaston or St. Mary's.

And there is nothing wrong with that. As a City we shouldn't bend over backwards for someone to build strictly because it's an economic advantage to them. Especially when we have policy documents that say the exact opposite of this should be build... Again, this isn't to say the policy is good.

[headhorse]

this was posted on twitter last night by Brent Bellamy... anyone have any info on the two Roslyn projects or the one on Wellington?

Osborne Village projects U/C or in development

from https://twitter.com/brent_bellamy

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

First, I would argue that it is abandoning the area by building a parking lot to front the street, but that's just me...

Aside from that is the fact is the City has a plan in place (whether you agree with the plan or not is not an issue here) for this area. We can't bend our plan strictly because of the whim of a local land owner. If they want to build this building here they should apply to make adjustments to the secondary plan, or pick a new location.

They are trying to cut corners for economic gain because it's to their benefit. The City isn't a charity, we for one thing legally can't, and for second shouldn't, approve a building that is strictly against the secondary plan just because the building owner doesn't want to do the hard work of either selling their hard asset (as an aside I question why a jeweler would own the building they operate in), or go to a public hearing to adjust the secondary plan.

This is what I mean by detachment from reality:

1) Your first comment about the area being abandoned by placing a parking lot at the front of the building is a little overwrought, don't you think? There are vacancies up to the sidewalk all over the area. If that sort of space was so integral to the success of the area, there wouldn't be any vacancy and the area wouldn't be amongst the worst in the city.

2) Why should they have to amend an entire secondary plan to alter a conditional and accessory use. A zoning district is understandable, but there is practically no difference in this case. There is still a public hearing and residents and other business owners can register their displeasure if they are inclined to do so. Instead, there's just the opportunity to avoid the ridiculous time and costs associated with this sort of endeavour. Incidentally, there isn't a single person in opposition to this development who actually has a stake in the development, and all of the other local business owners - along with the head of the local BIZ - have registered in support. Perhaps one resident of Riverbend and another of the East Exchange can attend the meeting and oppose the neighbourhood's desire to have actual services instead of hollowed out buildings that resemble the model of what a 'successful' city might look like.

3) Regarding a new location, you seem to see this as a threat to their business. At the end of the day, Independent Jewelers would be fine. They would get their wish to stay open during construction and they would reopen with their same exclusive lines in a better part of the city. Sure, it would cost them a few more dollars. But this is a family with generational wealth. It's a slight discomfort to them, and a huge hit to the area. Independent has nothing to lose. In fact, they would very likely do better business in a better part of town. And I suppose it's fair to say this area has nothing to lose either given it's already lost almost everything, but marginally this is a much bigger loss to the area.

4) Lastly, why wouldn't the jeweler own the premises? Outside of the inventory, it's the one asset that has real value to the business. It can be leveraged to create cash flow, it can be altered to accommodate changes to the business, and it can be used as a means to create both capital appreciation for the company that holds the real estate and a sizable expense for the operating company within. The technical truth is that Independent very likely doesn't own the premises - a holding company controlled by the family likely does.

Who shopping at Independent Jewelers wouldn't prefer not to have to drive to Notre Dame and Isabel to do their jewelry shopping of all things? The answer is probably everybody. But you're right: the city isn't a charity. It should not be giving developers incentives to build in areas of downtown that the market has shown no desire to pay market rates to live in. But that's quite a bit of nerve suggesting a downtown commercial resident is looking for a handout because they want a parking lot in front of their building.