Winnipeg Construction VIII

[rkspec]

i'm not alone!

yes i do remember the total buy in now, would have been great.

the rendering sold it for me

[The Unknown Poster]

Its a cool idea. Those signs were very expensive back in the day but my understanding is they are much cheaper. Might be worth looking into again.

[esquire]

Here are the details from the Downtown BIZ Lighting Strategy... from 2007 (has it been that long?)... PDF file is 5+ MB:

http://downtownwinnipegbiz.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Portage-Avenue-Lighting-Strategy-2007.pdf

A cool idea, but in retrospect it required too many different players with different agendas to buy in to make it work.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ I don't remember anything like that with billboards, but I do recall a building lighting plan from around that timeframe where the Downtown BIZ was trying to encourage property owners to put up lights to illuminate their facades. Some company from Quebec was brought in and there were renderings done. If you really dig deep on this forum you can probably find some discussion about it.

Personally I'd love to see more signs and billboards on major streets like Portage and Main. It could give downtown landlords a bit of a boost too... for instance, you could have a store like MEC make a few extra bucks with a billboard on the roof, that kind of thing.

It's funny I just read the lighting strategy a few weeks back. I think it's time for DT and Ex Biz to bring it up again.

I also don't remember ever having a billboard mandate. Is perhaps what you guys are talking about the Asper plan for 201 Portage/P&M that never happened?

[wags_in_the_peg]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ I don't remember anything like that with billboards, but I do recall a building lighting plan from around that timeframe where the Downtown BIZ was trying to encourage property owners to put up lights to illuminate their facades. Some company from Quebec was brought in and there were renderings done. If you really dig deep on this forum you can probably find some discussion about it.

Personally I'd love to see more signs and billboards on major streets like Portage and Main. It could give downtown landlords a bit of a boost too... for instance, you could have a store like MEC make a few extra bucks with a billboard on the roof, that kind of thing.

I recall former Mayor Glen Murray pushing for that. In the end, it's too distracting and "eye polution".

and yup, the Radisson awnings are red, no beige. the window cladding below them are still teal, those should be beige, anything but teal.

[robertocarlos]

Originally Posted by The Unknown Poster

Arent those electronic billboards regulated here where they cant have moving pictures? Because adult drivers in Winnipeg are too stupid to drive and see a billboard with a moving image on it? Which is odd since I dont think the Vegas strip or Times Square is over-run with car accidents.

I was distracted by one of those signs on Portage Ave. It flashed and I caught it in my rear-view mirror. I thought I'd be tagged by photo-radar and I couldn't figure it out for a couple of seconds. I only previously ran down one pedestrian though so what's another 500 dollar fine.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by wags_in_the_peg

I recall former Mayor Glen Murray pushing for that. In the end, it's too distracting and "eye polution".

and yup, the Radisson awnings are red, no beige. the window cladding below them are still teal, those should be beige, anything but teal.

Truth is, if you allowed owners to monetize those buildings in some greater capacity, you could easily cut rents or make other attractive improvements that may serve to provide incentives for prospective tenants. Not that I'm terribly bullish on that stretch of Portage, but like anything, you can capture demand at the margins if you can only get there. Signage is one way of the ways in which landlords can subsidize an area that creates poor rents.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Truth is, if you allowed owners to monetize those buildings in some greater capacity, you could easily cut rents or make other attractive improvements that may serve to provide incentives for prospective tenants. Not that I'm terribly bullish on that stretch of Portage, but like anything, you can capture demand at the margins if you can only get there. Signage is one way of the ways in which landlords can subsidize an area that creates poor rents.

The funny thing is that the city rarely ever says no to ugly suburban billboards, but somehow urban signage downtown is simply a non-starter even if it happens to be in a proper urban form.

I don't have any grandiose dreams about Portage Avenue becoming like Times Square, but a few billboards could liven things up while, as you noted, giving downtown landlords a bit of a hand. I'm thinking more along the lines of Union Square, with a couple of billboards here and there:



You'd think that if it was managed properly, it would improve the streetscape and be good for business.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by esquire

The funny thing is that the city rarely ever says no to ugly suburban billboards, but somehow urban signage downtown is simply a non-starter even if it happens to be in a proper urban form.

I don't have any grandiose dreams about Portage Avenue becoming like Times Square, but a few billboards could liven things up while, as you noted, giving downtown landlords a bit of a hand. I'm thinking more along the lines of Union Square, with a couple of billboards here and there:



You'd think that if it was managed properly, it would improve the streetscape and be good for business.

It's really the signage by-laws that drive this. In the 'burbs, you can put a sign up on a major artery and easily comply by being far enough away from any residential development. But downtown with its scattershot residential development, you're always close enough to something that you need the variances. And those people will show up and demand there be no signage allowed.

Take a look at a board of adjustment meeting schedule every now and again. Half the agenda is signage companies trying to have billboards installed in areas that are barely even proximal to residential development, but still have to comply with a nearly impossible set of by-laws.

[esquire]

^ Yeah, I've noticed the constant fights over billboards at the Board of Adjustment.

Funny thing is you go to a big city, particularly any A-level global city, and the CBD is typically festooned with billboards in some areas... and those tend to be desirable places for hotel guests, for apartment/condo residents, etc. I've enjoyed staying in hotels by Times Square where you can look down and see the bustle below. And a good set of blackout curtains completely eliminates any unwanted light when it's time to go to sleep. But somehow Winnipeg is different...

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Yeah, I've noticed the constant fights over billboards at the Board of Adjustment.

Funny thing is you go to a big city, particularly any A-level global city, and the CBD is typically festooned with billboards in some areas... and those tend to be desirable places for hotel guests, for apartment/condo residents, etc. I've enjoyed staying in hotels by Times Square where you can look down and see the bustle below. And a good set of blackout curtains completely eliminates any unwanted light when it's time to go to sleep. But somehow Winnipeg is different...

Exactly. Suck it up you chose to be downtown.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

People are chemically dependent upon smoking. There's a disruption of agency required. Nobody is addicted to sprawl in anywhere the same capacity. They like to throw a ball with their kid in the back yard or have a deck where they can entertain. They are exercising a preference to what could very liberally be described to be to the detriment of the minority.

This is a really, really poor analogy.

While it might not be an addiction to sprawl, or an addiction at all, I would venture to say that we are dependent on automobiles whether chemically or otherwise. The City plans have always put mobility above all else.

Policy and planning in this city has been so automobile centric for the past however many years that in order to participate in anything meaningful in this city you are required to own a car. When you can't properly function, in an economic and/or social sense, in a city without owning an automobile then you are just as dependent as someone who smokes.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Exactly. Suck it up you chose to be downtown.

People living downtown deserve peace and quiet, but a billboard light is part of the ambience and can be easily blocked out by drapery.

I thought the seniors in Fred Douglas Lodge getting angry over the jumbotron on the Boyd Building a few years back was a huge overreaction, although I can't endorse that landlord's tactic of putting up a big screen without any permits whatsoever.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by esquire

People living downtown deserve peace and quiet, but a billboard light is part of the ambience and can be easily blocked out by drapery.

Oh yeah, that's what I mean. It's like that guy who made a big stink last year about having to mow his boulevard... It's not like the city sprang that on you out of nowhere... you knew that was gonna happen when you bought the house.

[BKB]

A Bud Light or Money Mart billboard is really going make our downtown feel vibrant.

[wags_in_the_peg]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Yeah, I've noticed the constant fights over billboards at the Board of Adjustment.

Funny thing is you go to a big city, particularly any A-level global city, and the CBD is typically festooned with billboards in some areas... and those tend to be desirable places for hotel guests, for apartment/condo residents, etc. I've enjoyed staying in hotels by Times Square where you can look down and see the bustle below. And a good set of blackout curtains completely eliminates any unwanted light when it's time to go to sleep. But somehow Winnipeg is different...

Have you been to Phonenix and surrounding areas? totally diferent, barely a billboard to be found. all signs in each development are same height, color, etc. I actually found it hard to find some places because of this.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

While it might not be an addiction to sprawl, or an addiction at all, I would venture to say that we are dependent on automobiles whether chemically or otherwise. The City plans have always put mobility above all else.

Policy and planning in this city has been so automobile centric for the past however many years that in order to participate in anything meaningful in this city you are required to own a car. When you can't properly function, in an economic and/or social sense, in a city without owning an automobile then you are just as dependent as someone who smokes.

That would only be true if there were absolutely no options available which is simply not true. If you're suggesting that there's a disadvantage, then you'd be correct. But that's life in nearly every respect. Not to mention that the more 'disadvantaged' in this city tend to live in the areas that would accommodate their way of life.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

That would only be true if there were absolutely no options available which is simply not true. If you're suggesting that there's a disadvantage, then you'd be correct. But that's life in nearly every respect. Not to mention that the more 'disadvantaged' in this city tend to live in the areas that would accommodate their way of life.

I would argue that it's not physically possible at all to be a fully functional member of society without an automobile in the vast majority of the City. Just as you have doctors that smoke knowing full well they shouldn't, you can have middle class people (like me) who don't want to drive, but are dependent on it. I am completely dependent on my autmobile for some things, strictly because of the design/policy of the city. This isn't a question of 'disadvantaged', and framing it that way is part of the problem.

[Riverman]

^ Just start to enjoy driving. Problem solved.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

I would argue that it's not physically possible at all to be a fully functional member of society without an automobile in the vast majority of the City. Just as you have doctors that smoke knowing full well they shouldn't, you can have middle class people (like me) who don't want to drive, but are dependent on it. I am completely dependent on my autmobile for some things, strictly because of the design/policy of the city. This isn't a question of 'disadvantaged', and framing it that way is part of the problem.

I agree. It blew my mind when I spent a summer as a student working in a tier-2 Chinese city some years back... that city went way beyond anything I had seen in North America in terms of being designed in such a way that owning an automobile would be completely superfluous. It was a huge eye opener (although I'm sure things have changed drastically in that city over the past decade and some).

By contrast, all of the alternatives to car ownership in North American cities are generally a compromise whose extent simply varies by city. A legitimate rapid transit system goes a long way toward alleviating the difficulties of life without a car, but in virtually every city in Canada or the US except for maybe NYC, not owning a car means missing out.