Winnipeg Construction VIII

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

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.

It's a economic advantage to the city. It happens to be an economic advantage to them because they've been there for 70 years. Should they be punished for their success? This is ridiculous. Is there an area in the city that you guys might accept doesn't require that every building be mixed use and built to the curb? Come on already. There's ideology and then there's reality. Let's not get hung up on what you read in a textbook somewhere. If this built form was so transformative and fail-safe, these areas never would have declined into the state they're in. We're talking about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic at this point.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by 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

The two on Roslyn are dead and they've both been killed by heritage advocates. The Gas Station one is still a figment of their collective imagination. The Paintbox project on Stradbrook has long been dead and the land was sold to the guys who built the project across the street. The one on Nassau has also long been dead along with the developer and being actively marketed. So far no interested parties. The one on Wardlaw is finished with 13 units, not a single one of which has been sold. And the Ventura property on River is actively being shopped to be unloaded.

Osborne Village is where good money goes to die.

[CoryB]

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.

Or perhaps in Headingley or Oak Bank outside the bureaucratic nightmare that is the Winnipeg planning and development department.

I get the whole idea of "build to the curb" but if there is a caveat on the property covering the exact area their new development plan wants as a parking lot why is this even been discussed as an issue?

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

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.

Originally Posted by Simplicity

It's a economic advantage to the city. It happens to be an economic advantage to them because they've been there for 70 years. Should they be punished for their success? This is ridiculous. Is there an area in the city that you guys might accept doesn't require that every building be mixed use and built to the curb? Come on already. There's ideology and then there's reality. Let's not get hung up on what you read in a textbook somewhere. If this built form was so transformative and fail-safe, these areas never would have declined into the state they're in. We're talking about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic at this point.

Again, I am not saying I agree with the secondary plan, just that it is foolhardy to allow a development to go against it.

If people didn't want this sort of thing it would have never got in the secondary plan. Either adjust the secondary plan to reflect the realities of the neighbourhood or don't allow this develoment. Allowing someone to go against the plan for the neighbourhood undermines our whole political process. Why have a zoning code or plan if this is all it takes to adjust it?

I don't think them relocating is a threat to their business, I want them to do well. I don't want their history, or some other intangable thing, to give them a leg up on other developers strictly because of their goodwill.

I really don't care (or to say, I have no problems with the building they are asking for, I do care if they follow the correct process) if they allow this development or not, what I care about is people getting special privilege that others would not.

EDIT: And now you will more than likely reply with the fact that developers aren't knocking down any walls to build here completely missing the point.

[robertocarlos]

If the politicians are ignoring rules they put in place themselves then I can only speculate that they break the rules for their friends or those who have paid them under the table.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

Either adjust the secondary plan to reflect the realities of the neighbourhood or don't allow this develoment. Allowing someone to go against the plan for the neighbourhood undermines our whole political process. Why have a zoning code or plan if this is all it takes to adjust it?

Fair comment.

The problem with broad secondary plans is that they don't really account for one-off idiosyncrasies like this one. Between the configuration of this intersection (and the resulting accidents) and the nature of the business in question, there is a decent case to be made for an exception here.

Of course, you wouldn't want to allow this type of proposed development anywhere in the area as of right because before long Notre Dame will be lined with parking lots and setbacks and drive through restaurants (kind of like it is a couple of kilometres to the west). But in this case, saying no to the exception means losing one of the most prestigious businesses in the entire West End.

But then, maybe it is folly to bend the rules to accommodate this jewelry shop that is frankly irrelevant to the area's residents and whose location is probably repelling to most of its customers. Force IJ out to more moneyed parts, watch the store become a Laundromat/99 cent pizza shop and perhaps everyone will be better off as a result.

[Simplicity]

@Steveosnyder

It doesn't undermine the political process; it fortifies it. It's undermining the bureaucratic process in this case. The only reason this secondary plan was ever enacted was to keep the U of M, Health Sciences Centre, and Red River from continuing to expand with little regard for the surrounding residential neighbourhood. There's a small but vocal tract of residents known as the McDermot Sherbrook Residents association who inhabit a small enclave behind the hospital that is the exception in the area. These people were absolutely not concerned with a parking lot abutting a main thoroughfare in their neighbourhood; they were worried about the city and province exercising eminent domain to start expropriating their homes for the unmitigated expansion of these institutions.

Of course, that opened the opportunity to plan the entire area because you can't just slap restrictions on a few parties and end it there. So the planning department started planning the area as if its density of population had anything to do with its capacity to support commercial enterprise. That means the same thing it always does when it comes to urban environments. It's now predictable to the point of just being broadly and ignorantly applied wherever somebody gets the whiff of a mature neighbourhood with any sort of density at all. Of course, here we are 10 years later and the only things that continue to expand are the hospital, the U of M, and the Red River Campus while everything else continues to decline.

That plan is simply not applicable. An application for a secondary plan amendment is over $8,000, and that's just the application fee. That plan has proven to be an exercise in futility and wholesale changes will need to be made before it ever becomes relevant. The city only consulted 3 businesses when it did this plan: one is out of business (Reidigers), one has since won the right for a surface lot right on Isabel (Young's), and Meyers was the only other. Since that's not a very good sample, we have an opportunity with this public hearing to determine who now thinks this sort of development in the area is just simply so detrimental it can't be allowed to happen. That has amounted to nobody.

Case closed.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by robertocarlos

If the politicians are ignoring rules they put in place themselves then I can only speculate that they break the rules for their friends or those who have paid them under the table.

They aren't ignoring them. They're altering them where they have been deemed injurious to both the city and the property owner.

[robertocarlos]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

They aren't ignoring them. They're altering them where they have been deemed injurious to both the city and the property owner.

That's reasonable. They really should move that bus-stop on the corner though.

If the planners are out to get the Epps could the city put in a turning lane?

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

@Steveosnyder

It doesn't undermine the political process; it fortifies it. It's undermining the bureaucratic process in this case. The only reason this secondary plan was ever enacted was to keep the U of M, Health Sciences Centre, and Red River from continuing to expand with little regard for the surrounding residential neighbourhood. There's a small but vocal tract of residents known as the McDermot Sherbrook Residents association who inhabit a small enclave behind the hospital that is the exception in the area. These people were absolutely not concerned with a parking lot abutting a main thoroughfare in their neighbourhood; they were worried about the city and province exercising eminent domain to start expropriating their homes for the unmitigated expansion of these institutions.

Of course, that opened the opportunity to plan the entire area because you can't just slap restrictions on a few parties and end it there. So the planning department started planning the area as if its density of population had anything to do with its capacity to support commercial enterprise. That means the same thing it always does when it comes to urban environments. It's now predictable to the point of just being broadly and ignorantly applied wherever somebody gets the whiff of a mature neighbourhood with any sort of density at all. Of course, here we are 10 years later and the only things that continue to expand are the hospital, the U of M, and the Red River Campus while everything else continues to decline.

That plan is simply not applicable. An application for a secondary plan amendment is over $8,000, and that's just the application fee. That plan has proven to be an exercise in futility and wholesale changes will need to be made before it ever becomes relevant. The city only consulted 3 businesses when it did this plan: one is out of business (Reidigers), one has since won the right for a surface lot right on Isabel (Young's), and Meyers was the only other. Since that's not a very good sample, we have an opportunity with this public hearing to determine who now thinks this sort of development in the area is just simply so detrimental it can't be allowed to happen. That has amounted to nobody.

Case closed.

If this is the case, and I'll admit I don't know the background to the secondary plan, then in my opinion the whole plan should be scrapped. If this is the sort of development we want in that neighbourhood then anyone should be allowed to build it, I'm not disagreeing with you in that regard. But I do disagree that this is injurious to the political process if this is approved, right in the City of Winnipeg Charter, and also in the governing documents to the Board of Adjustments, they can't allow a variance/conditional use that is inconsistant with Plan Winnipeg or any other Secondary Plan.

Change the plan if you want to allow the development.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

they can't allow a variance/conditional use that is inconsistant with Plan Winnipeg or any other Secondary Plan.

That's the thing. The Board of Adjustment and the various community committees have the discretion to determine this. If they say it's consistent with the plan, then it's consistent with the plan. This is where that awful thing we know as democracy comes into play (and I say that seriously because everybody knows my feelings on community committees). The bureaucracy can't unilaterally impose the rules without opportunity for a reconsideration of them because they aren't elected.

[buzzg]

On another topic, the Federal Gas Tax funding announcement today... seems a little fishy to me. I don't think this is new money or money the city didn't know was coming, but more likely another pre-election vote garnering tactic by the Conservatives. This line in the announcement is the weird one:

"In addition, 35 local road improvement projects were scheduled for work this summer."

...which clearly implies it's money funding projects that already exist. So it seems like a delayed announcement on purpose to me. If this was unforseen additional money, you bet your ass they would have said it'll allow them to do extra projects next year. Thoughts?

Release

[esquire]

Today's Freep reports that the Board of Adjustment okayed the Independent Jewellers proposal. Work is to start in January or February.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by esquire

Today's Freep reports that the Board of Adjustment okayed the Independent Jewellers proposal. Work is to start in January or February.

Interesting precedent here. The board held that secondary plans are merely guidelines in the direction of development.

Apparently the only people bound by the documents are those in the planning department which seems a bit rigid to me. There's very little interest represented by the notion that the planners have literally no latitude in the interpretation of the documents for the purposes of creating reports. We don't need automatons filing reports that specifically rebut the public interest simply for the purposes of rebutting the public interest.

What a strange dynamic.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Interesting precedent here. The board held that secondary plans are merely guidelines in the direction of development.

Apparently the only people bound by the documents are those in the planning department which seems a bit rigid to me. There's very little interest represented by the notion that the planners have literally no latitude in the interpretation of the documents for the purposes of creating reports. We don't need automatons filing reports that specifically rebut the public interest simply for the purposes of rebutting the public interest.

What a strange dynamic.

I can appreciate their frustration... I'd say this speaks more to the shortcomings of the secondary plan than anything else, though. It's natural to expect that the planning department will be responsible for administering and enforcing the City's own official planning documents even if they don't necessarily agree.

It's a bit like a cop being assigned to write speeding tickets for a road with an artificially low speed limit (like the 60 zone on Pembina south of St. Norbert), even if he personally thinks the limit is asinine and possibly counterproductive. It's not really up to him to make judgment calls on it.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by esquire

I can appreciate their frustration... I'd say this speaks more to the shortcomings of the secondary plan than anything else, though. It's natural to expect that the planning department will be responsible for administering and enforcing the City's own official planning documents even if they don't necessarily agree.

It's a bit like a cop being assigned to write speeding tickets for a road with an artificially low speed limit (like the 60 zone on Pembina south of St. Norbert), even if he personally thinks the limit is asinine and possibly counterproductive. It's not really up to him to make judgment calls on it.

Yeah, that's probably an apt comparison.

[headhorse]

project under design at 90 Market Ave... looks like the parking lot north of the one storey brick building. three options:


from http://www.bldgoffice.com/architecture/


rom http://www.bldgoffice.com/architecture/


rom http://www.bldgoffice.com/architecture/

[rypinion]

That would be very exciting (although I don't like the at level parking).

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by headhorse

project under design at 90 Market Ave... looks like the parking lot north of the one storey brick building. three options:


from http://www.bldgoffice.com/architecture/


rom http://www.bldgoffice.com/architecture/


rom http://www.bldgoffice.com/architecture/

This looks amazing BUT: 90 Market Avenue IS the one storey building... It's an impark office. Unless they used the wrong address... I sincerely hope they don't plan on tearing down and rebuilding when there's a lot right beside it... That lot would likely be a Bertha address though.

[headhorse]

^the rendering makes it look like the one storey building is to the right with the co-op housing on the left. might just be a placeholder address.