SkyCity Centre Winnipeg | 45F | 575 Ft | 175.26 M | Cancelled

[Simplicity]

Why should diversity be important to people who don't care? Families in Whyte Ridge or Lindenwoods or East Ft. Garry are quite happy about the ways in which their neighbourhoods have taken shape.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Why should diversity be important to people who don't care? Families in Whyte Ridge or Lindenwoods or East Ft. Garry are quite happy about the ways in which their neighbourhoods have taken shape.

Simply put, it isn't all about them. I'm sure there are many people in every city who would be OK with not having anyone who makes less money than them in their neighbourhood... I wouldn't build a housing policy on that, though.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by esquire

Simply put, it isn't all about them. I'm sure there are many people in every city who would be OK with not having anyone who makes less money than them in their neighbourhood... I wouldn't build a housing policy on that, though.

Well, that's nice sentiment, but generally those who pay for the privilege of something are entitled to the benefits.

I'll be more interested when governments are able to handle the housing the issues they have - that is, securing housing for those who need it - before turning their focus to socially engineering entrenched proclivities towards tribalism of the like-minded out of people after thousands of years. I'd say one is worth working on and the other is primarily good for meaningless-but-heartfelt soundbites.

[esquire]

^ Governments haven't just been building public housing in suburban areas for the fun of it. There is a demand for that kind of space and it can't all go in a small box in the North End. If a good, reasonably priced site that meets the needs of their clients becomes available at a suburban location, why shouldn't Manitoba Housing seek it out?

As for suburban residents (or any residents, for that matter)... you're entitled to pick your neighbourhood, but you don't get to pick your neighbours.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Governments haven't just been building public housing in suburban areas for the fun of it. There is a demand for that kind of space and it can't all go in a small box in the North End. If a good, reasonably priced site that meets the needs of their clients becomes available at a suburban location, why shouldn't Manitoba Housing seek it out?

As for suburban residents (or any residents, for that matter)... you're entitled to pick your neighbourhood, but you don't get to pick your neighbours.

They're welcome to seek out whatever they like. But good multi-family lands in the suburbs at fair-market value are well beyond what Manitoba Housing has the budget to actually acquire in a way that squares with their mandate. Just think about the mechanics of that proposition: Manitoba Housing is going to compete with private developers for prime suburban land at $30-$50k per door in land cost where they could otherwise pay $12-$15k in the north end, housing people at a rate of a 25-50% for the dubious proposition of hoping that the values of their suburban neighbours - of which they have little to nothing in common - will rub off on their lucky few recipients? Housing is more important than the neighbourhood. Again, quantity is the mandate - not quality.

And people pick neighbourhoods as a means for picking neighbours. That's generally the bargain. If that neighbourhood of like-minded people - all thousands of them - decide that a Manitoba Housing complex is counter to their best interests - in whatever form that may take - they have the rights to protest that decision and ultimately affect it. They have invested a lot of money in their neighbourhood.

There are all kinds of social needs out there that make people uncomfortable. Just to illustrate the point, there are needs for group homes for child sex offenders and halfway houses for habitually-recidivist criminal offenders. They form part of the fabric of the broader neighbourhood too. That doesn't mean you're going to want one on your block. Manitoba Housing blocks are generally troublesome. People have legitimate issues with living next to them. I don't begrudge anybody who spent a half-million dollars on their home having an issue with suddenly residing in close proximity to a complex that is going to churn the troublesomely impoverished for the rest of time. These aren't growing pains.

If you move within close proximity to a Manitoba Housing complex, then I'm not sympathetic. If one is thrust upon you, then it's an undue hardship. Like it or not, it has a material impact upon your property value. And you can write that off as integral to the greater good, but it's easy to comment on situations you're not in.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Governments haven't just been building public housing in suburban areas for the fun of it. There is a demand for that kind of space and it can't all go in a small box in the North End. If a good, reasonably priced site that meets the needs of their clients becomes available at a suburban location, why shouldn't Manitoba Housing seek it out?

This has me thinking that if MB Housing is going to continue with its own buildings it might make sense that the school land reserve from new developments passes to MB Housing for evaluation when it is released from its school designation. MB Housing could then decide to construct on the site or release it back to developer.

That would really change the dynamics of new housing sales. "See that empty field across the street from this show home? We are not sure what it will be, it could be an elementary school, social assistance housing, a five story condo or single family residential. That doesn't change your interest in buying this property, right?"

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by CoryB

This has me thinking that if MB Housing is going to continue with its own buildings it might make sense that the school land reserve from new developments passes to MB Housing for evaluation when it is released from its school designation. MB Housing could then decide to construct on the site or release it back to developer.

That would really change the dynamics of new housing sales. "See that empty field across the street from this show home? We are not sure what it will be, it could be an elementary school, social assistance housing, a five story condo or single family residential. That doesn't change your interest in buying this property, right?"

It would also contravene the area plan and need to go back for amendment at a public hearing where it would die a quick death.

[Pegoise]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

It would also contravene the area plan and need to go back for amendment at a public hearing where it would die a quick death.

Not necessarily, most school sites have an RM zoning as a back-up in case the School Division does not exercise their option. No public hearing required.
Having MB Housing have first crack at the land after the school division would have to be negotiated in the Development Agreement - Developers would have to be blackmailed to accept that I would think

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by Pegoise

Not necessarily, most school sites have an RM zoning as a back-up in case the School Division does not exercise their option. No public hearing required.
Having MB Housing have first crack at the land after the school division would have to be negotiated in the Development Agreement - Developers would have to be blackmailed to accept that I would think

I've never heard of that, but interesting.

How would this really work, though? The division would be negotiating with a landowner for the value associated with a school. Being able to turn those lands into multi-family would significantly increase the value meaning one of three things: i) The land would have to be re-appraised and the difference paid to the previous owner, or; ii) The land itself would have to revert back to the ownership given that the province could be held to have misrepresented their position when they effectively forced the sale, or; iii) There's an option on the land that requires a continuous cash flow stream to the ownership until such time as the option is actually exercised, if ever. If it isn't, see i) and ii).

It's an interesting situation. And it still makes for the most expensive public housing you can conceivably erect.

[Pegoise]

Now that I think about it - it is not in the DA - it works like land dedication but under a Provincial statute - the school board identifies a potential school site during the subdivision process and has the option to acquire the land at the pre-improvement price when it is ready to build a school or it can pass on it and the option expires - developer moves on but (I'm pretty sure) has had to absorb all the costs of carrying the land while the SD makes up its mind. -(Those that don't think developers pay their own way think about that for a minute)
You may notice in new areas they will sign the site or have it on their subdivision plan School site or multi-family.
So if the province decided to add Mb Housing to that statute - that public housing wouldn't be that expensive - but I would be very surprised if any government went down that road - I think they would be starting a war with the development industry.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by Pegoise

Now that I think about it - it is not in the DA - it works like land dedication but under a Provincial statute - the school board identifies a potential school site during the subdivision process and has the option to acquire the land at the pre-improvement price when it is ready to build a school or it can pass on it and the option expires - developer moves on but (I'm pretty sure) has had to absorb all the costs of carrying the land while the SD makes up its mind. -(Those that don't think developers pay their own way think about that for a minute)
You may notice in new areas they will sign the site or have it on their subdivision plan School site or multi-family.
So if the province decided to add Mb Housing to that statute - that public housing wouldn't be that expensive - but I would be very surprised if any government went down that road - I think they would be starting a war with the development industry.

I would think that in the same way capital improvement levies are assessed to all of the ownership on a pro-rata basis, the same would go for the identified school site. It may not be the division that compensates the land owner, but the rest of the ownership in the development will.

It's very rare these days that a subdivision has one owner.

[GarryEllice]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

the dubious proposition of hoping that the values of their suburban neighbours - of which they have little to nothing in common - will rub off on their lucky few recipients?

The point of mixed-income developments is not to impress middle-class values on public housing tenants. It's to avoid creating huge areas of concentrated, ghettoized poverty.

[CoryB]

The rules covering land set aside, in my vision of things, could be tweaked so it is not any designated use at the start but set aside for "public interest" whether it be a school, community centre of MB Housing. The interested parties would then apply through their normal channels for the development to proceed. The reality has been that Winnipeg has lots of schools that are under used or completely unused. It is to the point more schools have been demolished in Winnipeg in the last 10 years than new ones have been built. The other reality is right now if there is land set aside for a school in a development it is a real gamble what will happen long term as it is designated for a school that is unlikely to ever be built. At some point that land will be released and there is little influence people will have over the process.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

The point of mixed-income developments is not to impress middle-class values on public housing tenants. It's to avoid creating huge areas of concentrated, ghettoized poverty.

Right, but the core objective is to somehow assimilate poverty with the middle or upper-middle class. It's done to affect values.

[Finessing]

Any progress on this thing? Any progress on anything that Fortress owns?

Is the sales centre done?

[buzzg]

Some of their Ontario projects are moving along. Some aren't at all. haha

[OakbluffMB]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Some of their Ontario projects are moving along. Some aren't at all. haha

Which ones are? Are they big condos like this one?

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by OakbluffMB

Which ones are? Are they big condos like this one?

Take a look at their Twitter @FortressRDI and website for some updates... the ones that are done/close to being done don't seem to be anything near this size.

However, they tweeted on July 30: "Final review of #SkyCity suite layouts & furniture plans w/ @UNION_31. Grand opening this September! #livedowntown " .... whatever that means/leads to.

[Arts]

Originally Posted by OakbluffMB

Which ones are? Are they big condos like this one?

If you look through the projects page on their website, anything that has been "completed" is existing buildings they renovated or else low-rise suburban strip malls. In the "under construction" category there are a couple highrises very near completion (an 11 storey and a 32 storey), a couple mid-rise towers close to occupancy and the rest are all still below grade (shoring, or excavating or prep) and mostly detached residential developments.

I think most of the ones close to completion were already in the process of construction when fortress acquired/absorbed the actual developer.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by Arts

If you look through the projects page on their website, anything that has been "completed" is existing buildings they renovated or else low-rise suburban strip malls. In the "under construction" category there are a couple highrises very near completion (an 11 storey and a 32 storey), a couple mid-rise towers close to occupancy and the rest are all still below grade (shoring, or excavating or prep) and mostly detached residential developments.

I think most of the ones close to completion were already in the process of construction when fortress acquired/absorbed the actual developer.

Just read the skycity write up on that page. Whoever wrote it seems to have trouble with geography.
Some highlights:
-Block north of MTS Centre (really a block east)
-Transit only street to the west (transit street to the south)
-Between Graham and Fort (Fort doesn't even border it, and graham and fort intersect)