Winnipeg Construction VIII

[robertocarlos]

I don't think the Jets are going to make the playoffs.

They will beat the Habs in the Cup finals.

What difference does it make?

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by Pinus

I have my own issues with how this city has developed, believe me. I have several friends and family that work for both the city and province and I could tell you stories that would make you cringe. I agree that we have a ways to go. But there is a difference in constructive criticism vs. immature commentary. Your response to me, for instance.

There is a clear snide attitude where there doesn't need to be. What's the point in that? What does it accomplish? Perhaps a personal victory for yourself, but nothing more for anyone else. You can disagree with me but without getting personal.

Myself, I was very negative for a long time. But I'm choosing to focus on the positive while still being aware of the downfalls that still occur. We can have a dialogue with both positive and negative constructive criticism without getting personal. Don't you think that would make for a more enjoyable forum experience? That is all I'm saying.

That's the thing: I don't consider it negativity. I find the naivete inherent in the opinions exhibited by some to be obnoxious in its ignorance. There's no willing this city to the next level - it won't happen. The vast, vast majority of citizens live their lives in this city in the ways that are evident; they're not much for transit, they only go downtown when they absolutely have to, their preferences are largely for suburban amenities, they will never consider commuting by bike, etc. These are the values in our city and our city reflects them well. And there is nothing wrong with these values. It's also worth noting that people generally gravitate back to the values they were raised with, so this is something that's unlikely to change barring total catastrophe.

But there is a vocal and tiny, tiny minority of people in this city who pay a lot of lip service to the concept of a more urban environment. Most of those people don't actually live their lives that way and the ones who do won't for more than a couple years, but we pretend that's the city we're trying to build even though nobody has any real interest in that city excepting the photo ops it offers.

The Rapid Transit issue is a very good example. "Modern cities have Rapid Transit". Yeah, so? Winnipeg isn't a modern city and it never has been. It's the same shell of a failed boom town that existed 95 years ago that's happened to annex a few communities along the way. And the only reason we're even building rapid transit is because somebody failed to 50 years ago. So a few politicians acquiesce and agree to put a rapid transit line in the middle of a field where it will be surrounded by parked cars and half vacant condos continually changing hands if they're ever even built. But we have no actual need for it. We're just in this mindset that, damn the last 95 years, the boom is coming, man. It's just around the corner. And we'd better plan now because when it comes... And in the meantime, people will still be buying houses in the suburbs, downtown will continue to be its usual self, and we'll be the city we always have been.

That's not negativity. That's the only thing we can prove. Everything else is mostly dishonest boosterism because there's some incentive for the party (see: every single downtown development), or it's a swindle (see: SkyCity). I'm of the opinion that we deal with reality because we can actually analyze that.

[Pinus]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

That's the thing: I don't consider it negativity. I find the naivete inherent in the opinions exhibited by some to be obnoxious in its ignorance. There's no willing this city to the next level - it won't happen. The vast, vast majority of citizens live their lives in this city in the ways that are evident; they're not much for transit, they only go downtown when they absolutely have to, their preferences are largely for suburban amenities, they will never consider commuting by bike, etc. These are the values in our city and our city reflects them well. And there is nothing wrong with these values. It's also worth noting that people generally gravitate back to the values they were raised with, so this is something that's unlikely to change barring total catastrophe.

But there is a vocal and tiny, tiny minority of people in this city who pay a lot of lip service to the concept of a more urban environment. Most of those people don't actually live their lives that way and the ones who do won't for more than a couple years, but we pretend that's the city we're trying to build even though nobody has any real interest in that city excepting the photo ops it offers.

The Rapid Transit issue is a very good example. "Modern cities have Rapid Transit". Yeah, so? Winnipeg isn't a modern city and it never has been. It's the same shell of a failed boom town that existed 95 years ago that's happened to annex a few communities along the way. And the only reason we're even building rapid transit is because somebody failed to 50 years ago. So a few politicians acquiesce and agree to put a rapid transit line in the middle of a field where it will be surrounded by parked cars and half vacant condos continually changing hands if they're ever even built. But we have no actual need for it. We're just in this mindset that, damn the last 95 years, the boom is coming, man. It's just around the corner. And we'd better plan now because when it comes... And in the meantime, people will still be buying houses in the suburbs, downtown will continue to be its usual self, and we'll be the city we always have been.

That's not negativity. That's the only thing we can prove. Everything else is mostly dishonest boosterism because there's some incentive for the party (see: every single downtown development), or it's a swindle (see: SkyCity). I'm of the opinion that we deal with reality because we can actually analyze that.

I do agree that for the longest time the mentality of this city has been what you described. I was like that myself so I do know it very well. However, I do see a change in people's mindsets. I do still see it very prevalent in middle-aged and seniors because that is all they know. Change is bad for them for their own personal reasons, and that is fine for them. But the younger generation is seeing what the rest of the country's cities are achieving, and they are wanting that for this city as well. I am part of that generation and I am part of that change. It won't happen overnight in a big way, but one by one small changes add up and make the bigger changes we want to see.

You can't say "it will never happen in Winnipeg because it's Winnipeg". A city is an inadiment object; it's the people that make it what it is. And people's attitudes are changing. I am very positive and outspoken about this city in many ways; it's just that I'm choosing to be part of the positive side instead of the "it will never happen here" mindset. I just can't shroud myself in that kind of mentality anymore; it's depressing, soul-sucking and utterly lifeless. And I'm encouraged by the people I know who are choosing to make positive changes to make this city better in every facet of life.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by Pinus

A city is an inadiment object; it's the people that make it what it is. And people's attitudes are changing. I am very positive and outspoken about this city in many ways; it's just that I'm choosing to be part of the positive side instead of the "it will never happen here" mindset. I just can't shroud myself in that kind of mentality anymore; it's depressing, soul-sucking and utterly lifeless. And I'm encouraged by the people I know who are choosing to make positive changes to make this city better in every facet of life.

I'll presume you meant inanimate, but I think you're missing my point entirely. You keep referring to your choices and those of your like-minded friends as 'positive'. That's your opinion of things. In your mind, you have different - not progressive - thoughts on how cities should be run. That's an opinion. I'm trying to explain to you that these are the opinions held by an extremely small minority of the population. You might think that this is the way of the future, but what you are describing is actually the statistical minority by a significant margin and actually shrinking. Believe it or not, when you look at the development patterns and population movement of the average North American city, we are now more suburban-minded than ever. And that's out of choice.

What you are experiencing is a combination of bias' that make you think otherwise. To begin, you have your own conception of what makes a 'better life' and that's going to color your worldview pretty heavily. Judging by your commentary, you're also surrounding yourself with like-minded people which humans are wont do to. As much as you might think this is a reliable sample, it's evidently not. And even more significantly is the bias in what you take note of and consume. If you believe something to be true, you will look for things that confirm it. This is all normal behaviour. And it goes for me too. The difference for me is that I'm in it for a living. If I thought it would benefit me to build high-rise condos with no parking in the Village or West Broadway, I assuredly would because I most certainly don't discriminate against money. But that market really doesn't exist. And so when I research housing data and the choices people are making, the numbers are very clear.

And don't take this to suggest that there is nobody thinking like you do, because there are. But there have always been people who thought like this. It's only that today people have the tools to be activists from their twitter account instead of what used to be involved. And great things have been accomplished around active transport in newer neighbourhoods; if we can make cycling safer and more attractive, I'm not in any way opposed to that. But we're not on the verge of something because nobody's really complaining. There's just a small minority that has taken on the role of special interest and they're pushing a few things. But this city is happy the way its developed. It's really people like you who are dissatisfied.

The reality of it is that even if somebody can trot out a few facts about average temperatures and snowfalls and everything else that could be used to imply that we're no different than a lot of other places, that isn't going to convince people to walk a mile to a bus stop or take an unnecessarily inconvenient and potentially dangerous 40 minute bike ride in the middle of winter. And so long as they see their car as the best option, we're exactly the city most of the people want.

[esquire]

^ Well, yes, Winnipeggers may be suburban-minded, but we've basically stacked the deck in favour of suburban living by spending immense amounts of money over the last 75 years to make it so. New infrastructure everywhere, de facto social segregation by keeping the poor and mentally ill in the inner city areas for the most part, zoning and tax systems that minimize the value of urbanity, failure to properly develop transit... these things have pushed people out into suburbia.

I think you and Pinus are on two entirely different wavelengths. You see the city as it is (and to some degree you have to, to make a living... you'd be out of business tomorrow if you began to entertain pie in the sky notions of Winnipeg as urban dreamworld), but Pinus sees what could be. And we need to have that vision because cities change over time. Look around us at other Canadian cities... most have changed for the better, with healthier, more populated central cities than was the case 25 years ago. There is nothing inherently different about Winnipeg that it couldn't move in that direction either.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Well, yes, Winnipeggers may be suburban-minded, but we've basically stacked the deck in favour of suburban living by spending immense amounts of money over the last 75 years to make it so. New infrastructure everywhere, de facto social segregation by keeping the poor and mentally ill in the inner city areas for the most part, zoning and tax systems that minimize the value of urbanity, failure to properly develop transit... these things have pushed people out into suburbia.

I think you have that backwards. Nobody is pushing anybody anywhere, it is quite the opposite. The city was developed that way because that is the way people wanted it.

I visited an old friend this weekend in Bridgewater Forest. I thought the same as everybody here that such a huge suburb was perhaps not the best idea. But after spending a evening, night and morning there I found myself really enjoying the place and rethinking my current situation. It is quite nice. Especially the absence of sirens.

[esquire]

^ It's a question of resource allocation. If the central city got as much as the suburbs did and suburbia was starved of money, we'd have the opposite of what we have.

For whatever reason we've just chosen to develop in such a way that promotes suburban development.

[LilZebra]

...

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by esquire

If the central city got as much as the suburbs did and suburbia was starved of money,

Could you explain this please? Starved where? Same fire and police service. Lots of road repair in the inner city. Same health and social services.

[LilZebra]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

That's the thing: I don't consider it negativity. I find the naivete inherent in the opinions exhibited by some to be obnoxious in its ignorance. There's no willing this city to the next level - it won't happen. The vast, vast majority of citizens live their lives in this city in the ways that are evident; they're not much for transit, they only go downtown when they absolutely have to, their preferences are largely for suburban amenities, they will never consider commuting by bike, etc. These are the values in our city and our city reflects them well. And there is nothing wrong with these values. It's also worth noting that people generally gravitate back to the values they were raised with, so this is something that's unlikely to change barring total catastrophe.


The Rapid Transit issue is a very good example. "Modern cities have Rapid Transit". Yeah, so? Winnipeg isn't a modern city and it never has been. It's the same shell of a failed boom town that existed 95 years ago that's happened to annex a few communities along the way.

But that last paragraph, you're being negative.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

I'll presume you meant inanimate, but I think you're missing my point entirely. You keep referring to your choices and those of your like-minded friends as 'positive'. That's your opinion of things. In your mind, you have different - not progressive - thoughts on how cities should be run. That's an opinion. I'm trying to explain to you that these are the opinions held by an extremely small minority of the population. You might think that this is the way of the future, but what you are describing is actually the statistical minority by a significant margin and actually shrinking. Believe it or not, when you look at the development patterns and population movement of the average North American city, we are now more suburban-minded than ever. And that's out of choice.

What you are experiencing is a combination of bias' that make you think otherwise. To begin, you have your own conception of what makes a 'better life' and that's going to color your worldview pretty heavily. Judging by your commentary, you're also surrounding yourself with like-minded people which humans are wont do to. As much as you might think this is a reliable sample, it's evidently not. And even more significantly is the bias in what you take note of and consume. If you believe something to be true, you will look for things that confirm it. This is all normal behaviour. And it goes for me too. The difference for me is that I'm in it for a living. If I thought it would benefit me to build high-rise condos with no parking in the Village or West Broadway, I assuredly would because I most certainly don't discriminate against money. But that market really doesn't exist. And so when I research housing data and the choices people are making, the numbers are very clear.

And don't take this to suggest that there is nobody thinking like you do, because there are. But there have always been people who thought like this. It's only that today people have the tools to be activists from their twitter account instead of what used to be involved. And great things have been accomplished around active transport in newer neighbourhoods; if we can make cycling safer and more attractive, I'm not in any way opposed to that. But we're not on the verge of something because nobody's really complaining. There's just a small minority that has taken on the role of special interest and they're pushing a few things. But this city is happy the way its developed. It's really people like you who are dissatisfied.

The reality of it is that even if somebody can trot out a few facts about average temperatures and snowfalls and everything else that could be used to imply that we're no different than a lot of other places, that isn't going to convince people to walk a mile to a bus stop or take an unnecessarily inconvenient and potentially dangerous 40 minute bike ride in the middle of winter. And so long as they see their car as the best option, we're exactly the city most of the people want.

I presume you meant biases.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by jimj_wpg

But that last paragraph, you're being negative.

The last paragraph isn't negative - That's exactly what our city is. It boomed a hundred years ago resulting in over-investment and its status as a transportation hub never manifested. And then came Unicity. Winnipeg didn't organically sprawl - 5 different parishes joined hands.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Well, yes, Winnipeggers may be suburban-minded, but we've basically stacked the deck in favour of suburban living by spending immense amounts of money over the last 75 years to make it so. New infrastructure everywhere, de facto social segregation by keeping the poor and mentally ill in the inner city areas for the most part, zoning and tax systems that minimize the value of urbanity, failure to properly develop transit... these things have pushed people out into suburbia.

I think you and Pinus are on two entirely different wavelengths. You see the city as it is (and to some degree you have to, to make a living... you'd be out of business tomorrow if you began to entertain pie in the sky notions of Winnipeg as urban dreamworld), but Pinus sees what could be. And we need to have that vision because cities change over time. Look around us at other Canadian cities... most have changed for the better, with healthier, more populated central cities than was the case 25 years ago. There is nothing inherently different about Winnipeg that it couldn't move in that direction either.

The deck wasn't stacked that way for any other reason than that everybody wanted the deck stacked that way. Living on tiny lots in rickety houses in the inner city has always been seen as the poor man's way of life in this city. So when peace time rolled around and the government was initiating a housing boom for both the purposes of stimulus and as a way to remunerate veterans, the choices were very clear. People wanted into what were the suburbs at the time - River heights, Riverview, East. Ft. Garry, Garden City, etc... And they surveyed out 50' lots and they built primarily single family homes. Remember, we're talking about the mid-40's and 50's here. A lot of these veterans were people who only knew the poverty of the 30's and eventually war time. They weren't spoiled suburbanites who wanted their old lives. They grew up on Atlantic or something equally as undesirable.

I've said it before, but there is almost nothing new under the sun. What I mentioned above actually signaled the death knell of the well-developed electric trolley system that used to serve Winnipeg. And it was starved because good economic times allowed for people to purchase vehicles - 2 usually - and live on sizable lots in places they could easily commute. And that was even as the CBD in Winnipeg was more important than ever. People still chose to drive.

The thing that's different about Winnipeg is that it doesn't have any hope for any sort of boom. It's also not a politically strategic province in any capacity so it will never be the favoured son reaping the benefits of a federal government in search of votes. And those are the only two ways you get significant changes to a city because our population can't afford it on its own. There are only 1.2MM of us. And since there are no significant issues now or likely pending in the future, people will most likely continue to opt into the way of life that most do in reasonably successful Western economies. Public transit and dense populations are what happens when the values of luxuries (land, vehicles, etc...) start to outstrip the average population. We're a long ways from ever needing those and nobody is settling for them otherwise.

Don't forget: a lot of Riverview would have once been thought of as a far flung suburb facing all of the same criticisms that things like River Park South and Bridgwater do today. And some of those lots in Riverview are a lot bigger than the average lot in Bridgwater.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

I've said it before, but there is almost nothing new under the sun. What I mentioned above actually signaled the death knell of the well-developed electric trolley system that used to serve Winnipeg. And it was starved because good economic times allowed for people to purchase vehicles - 2 usually - and live on sizable lots in places they could easily commute. And that was even as the CBD in Winnipeg was more important than ever. People still chose to drive.

This is part of the problem right here... Sure people could afford the upfront costs of owning a car, but the long term costs were so far out that the boomers didn't care. Now we are paying their price with crumbling roads and shitty city services all because the municipalities decided to "invest" in what can be thought of as consumer debt.

And now we are continuing on that path; personified in things like the Waverley underpass, the CPT extension, the Marion underpass -- "investing" even more money in these "improvements" when the city has little, if any, ability to capture the value added by these investments.

Hell, I don't really see a value to CPT and I use it on a semi-regular basis. The city flouts the fact that the CPT extension east is used as it being a success, and as a "need" for the west extension... well of course it's used -- it's essencially free, so why the hell wouldn't you.

[Tacheguy]

The growth of the burbs in my view has been driven by the strong preference most young people have for new homes. That is where the affordable new homes are. There is no inherent desire to live in a treeless farmer's field. It is the new house. I have done it twice, as have the vast majority of my contemporaries. Until recently there was really no choice other than undertaking some formidable addition/remodelling project.
I do believe that, given a choice, most young people would prefer to have their new home located more centrally. I have been quite struck by the number of young families moving into those infill home in North St. B. They can't seem to build them fast enough. And from what I understand the prices are very high. I think infill is going to become a much more prominent feature of this city in the future. And that to me is a very good thing. Mix the old with the new!

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Tacheguy

I do believe that, given a choice, most young people would prefer to have their new home located more centrally. I have been quite struck by the number of young families moving into those infill home in North St. B. They can't seem to build them fast enough. And from what I understand the prices are very high. I think infill is going to become a much more prominent feature of this city in the future. And that to me is a very good thing. Mix the old with the new!

Yes, you are right to some degree... the desire for a new home is certainly part of the appeal of suburbia. But infill homes are delivering the best of both worlds.

I have lived in Riverview for the past 6 years and during that period there has always been an infill house under construction (sometimes two or three at once) somewhere in the confines of my neighbourhood. In addition to that, quite a number of houses have been completely gutted and renovated to the point where they are practically as good as new.

This was relatively uncommon previously (not that many 80s and 90s homes in the area), but it is becoming a lot more popular now. It's a good way to get the benefits of a new suburban home but in a central established neighbourhood.

[Riverman]

Our home is an infill, burned in the 70s, rebuilt in the 80s with desireable features like an ensuite bath and attached garage. There are several in my neighbourhood as well.

[esquire]

^ Me too, mine is 2000s vintage. What's interesting is that it tends to be the middling neighbourhoods where you see a lot of this sort of development - at least as far as I can tell. Until recently, you could buy a run down old house in Riverview for not much more than $100K, making a demo and rebuild relatively economical.

[1ajs]

318 ross got its power cut off by the city today

the city is kinda being a dick but now im off hunting for a new roof and sadened by the loss of a community i was part off i called home for 2 yrs
as result it sounds like the residential project is now being forced to move forward with this building and frame will need to find a new place to call home

[Cyro]

The area has changed so much in the last decade, I used to live/play where the RRC campus is now located? Progress perhaps?