Winnipeg Construction VIII

[robertocarlos]

I've lived downtown for almost 30 years and the rules are constantly ignored. I had to go out at 6am on a Sunday and explain to the man operating a chainsaw that there are people living downtown across the street and it is illegal to make that much noise before 7am at best. He claimed he had no idea people lived nearby. He lied, and it is still illegal except for some exceptions I'm sure. He didn't stop using the chainsaw. I did not call the cops. I did call the cops once though because some trucker thought it would be OK to let his truck idle all night. The trash truck guy makes as much noise as possible at 4am but what can you do against the mafia?

[esquire]

^ I'm assuming you must be in the Exchange/Waterfront areas?

I lived in Bro/— for a while which is almost exclusively residential, and it was surprisingly quiet... almost suburbia-like in that regard. Didn't really hear much noise at all.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by esquire

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.

It's just population density. But the horse is already out of the barn in this and most other North American cities. Unless you are going to quadruple the population in this city overnight and demand that everybody live within close proximity, you don't have the denominator required to divide the services out on a reasonably cost effective basis.

Our city is growing through immigration. Albeit slowly, but nevertheless. And we are generally relying upon people who come from places that are 'dense' by any North American standard. But the really interesting thing about this is that these people overwhelmingly choose to settle in the suburbs! And they may do it by putting 7 people in a house, but they are really most interested in living a different way than what they were accustomed to because living on top of one another is really a poor way to live if you can help it.

So I really don't even know how you solve this problem given that part of what makes us so attractive is the space that we can provide.

[robertocarlos]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ I'm assuming you must be in the Exchange/Waterfront areas?

I lived in Bro/— for a while which is almost exclusively residential, and it was surprisingly quiet... almost suburbia-like in that regard. Didn't really hear much noise at all.

I live on the bad side of Broadway. It can be quiet here sometimes. I was in the Bro/— area yesterday and it is much quieter there. It was almost Lindenwoods quiet except the people in Bro/— are not that afraid of downtown looking people. What? I came out to Lindenwoods to beg for change? No, I only need directions cause I'm lost.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by buzzg

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.

It is actually quite possible to not be aware of the requirement to mow the city owned boulevard. Unless you have stumbled across that requirement for some reason it is not exactly something a developer, real estate agent or seller is going to tell you. It is just assumed you will know and act accordingly. It is actually a little funny to watch the street I live on as it has a small patch of dirt in the middle, aka boulevard, and no one really takes ownership of looking after it, not even the city.

Originally Posted by wags_in_the_peg

Have you been to Phonenix and surrounding areas? totally different, barely a billboard to be found.

Maybe we were looking in different places but there are lots of billboards in the Phoenix area, granted I didn't spend much time in "Phoenix" but rather many of the attached suburbs. For those that don't know it would be as if Winnipeg was never amalgamated and St Vital, Charleswood, Transcona, etc were all independent local governments. That could mean that one part of town allows billboards and a different one does not.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

So I really don't even know how you solve this problem given that part of what makes us so attractive is the space that we can provide.

The only way would be to put a moratorium on sprawling further and forcing infill and more dense developments... but we know that won't happen in the next 30 years.

Originally Posted by CoryB

It is actually quite possible to not be aware of the requirement to mow the city owned boulevard. Unless you have stumbled across that requirement for some reason it is not exactly something a developer, real estate agent or seller is going to tell you. It is just assumed you will know and act accordingly. It is actually a little funny to watch the street I live on as it has a small patch of dirt in the middle, aka boulevard, and no one really takes ownership of looking after it, not even the city.

I'm not really sure how you could not know that unless you're not from Winnipeg. And if you didn't, whether it's your fault or the agents... someone didn't do due diligence and you gotta deal with that. It's a rule.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by buzzg

The only way would be to put a moratorium on sprawling further and forcing infill and more dense developments... but we know that won't happen in the next 30 years.

This is the equivalent of a green belt and green belts have more or less been determined to be terrible economic policy much in the same way that rent controls seem like a good idea but for the reality of them in action.

Anything that serves as an artificial cap on something will only serve to drive the value of the existing supply higher. Which is fine, except that the same people who are opposed to sprawl are generally those who care a great deal about access to reasonably affordable housing. If we start arbitrarily constraining the development of land at 'X' boundary, then we'll start having to deal with issues of greater social impact.

Further, the logistics of a green belt in a city like Winnipeg are a bit strange. for one, we're not even built out to our borders in most cases, so where do you draw the line? The province certainly won't hamstring the city by arbitrarily drawing a boundary on the interior of the city's borders. Another consideration would be that the city doesn't have the authority to put development constraints on the surrounding municipalities, so would the province step in and start arbitrarily deciding that Macdonald, Springfield, Rockwood, etc... are now forced to accept a total moratorium on development. How far out with the green belt extend? If you initiate one that's too small, you risk having a lot of people decide that they'll just move slightly beyond and utilize the city's infrastructure at no cost to them moreso than those in the exurbs already do. And if you draw it too big, you'll kneecap entire municipalities.

The ship has sailed. This city sprawled when it amalgamated.

[windypeg]

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.

Smoking is a poor analogy. Fast food is a better one. People love to eat — that makes them fat and sick and compromises their quality of life. So do we just let them run amok doing this or do we try to encourage better choices?

In the same way we know that the more people drive the greater toll it takes on physical health and mental well-being. Not to mention piles on to our infrastructure deficit and drives us to financial ruin. So, knowing these detrimental forces are at work we're just supposed to step aside and say "well that's what people want"?

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

This is the equivalent of a green belt and green belts have more or less been determined to be terrible economic policy much in the same way that rent controls seem like a good idea but for the reality of them in action.

Anything that serves as an artificial cap on something will only serve to drive the value of the existing supply higher. Which is fine, except that the same people who are opposed to sprawl are generally those who care a great deal about access to reasonably affordable housing. If we start arbitrarily constraining the development of land at 'X' boundary, then we'll start having to deal with issues of greater social impact.

Further, the logistics of a green belt in a city like Winnipeg are a bit strange. for one, we're not even built out to our borders in most cases, so where do you draw the line? The province certainly won't hamstring the city by arbitrarily drawing a boundary on the interior of the city's borders. Another consideration would be that the city doesn't have the authority to put development constraints on the surrounding municipalities, so would the province step in and start arbitrarily deciding that Macdonald, Springfield, Rockwood, etc... are now forced to accept a total moratorium on development. How far out with the green belt extend? If you initiate one that's too small, you risk having a lot of people decide that they'll just move slightly beyond and utilize the city's infrastructure at no cost to them moreso than those in the exurbs already do. And if you draw it too big, you'll kneecap entire municipalities.

The ship has sailed. This city sprawled when it amalgamated.

The bolded part infriates me. I'm opposed to sprawl, and all for affordable housing. It's not so much a need for a green belt, but a need for less land for roads.

CPT extension west, if we go by the planning that has taken place in the community, will "require" 100 meters of ROW. From Main to McPhillips is about 2.5 kilometers... That's almost 70 acres of land "required" for a street to save us 5 minutes. Not only that, they expropriated and tore down affordable houses to do it.

Better transportation/land use policy can do a lot for both sprawl and affordable housing.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

CPT extension west, if we go by the planning that has taken place in the community, will "require" 100 meters of ROW. From Main to McPhillips is about 2.5 kilometers... That's almost 70 acres of land "required" for a street to save us 5 minutes. Not only that, they expropriated and tore down affordable houses to do it.

So what? Go stand in the field where is will be built. The only thing obscuring the horizon is Stoney Mountain. There is plenty of room. The room is there, use it.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Riverman

So what? Go stand in the field where is will be built. The only thing obscuring the horizon is Stoney Mountain. There is plenty of room. The room is there, use it.

Simplicity's original statement was reducing the amount of developable land pushes property values up, reducing affordability. Part of the reason for this reduction in developable land is because of the "necessity" of CPT. While the land could be used to extend CPT to the West, it can also be used for many other things, like housing.

[1ajs]

well i now live on graham ave in a 2 bedroom apartment

[Tacheguy]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

well i now live on graham ave in a 2 bedroom apartment

Well, if you ever need a bus you are in the right place. Hope you like it there!

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

Not only that, they expropriated and tore down affordable houses to do it.

1. The "affordable houses" we being rented from the City when they were torn down. Further, they were almost inside the north end sewage treatment plan and were not exactly desirable homes.

2. While the ROW for the CPT might be "large" on paper look at how much space needs to be set aside for proper grade separations with actually workable acceleration and decelerations lanes.

3. As a community we either want grade separated, high speed routes in all areas of the city or we don't want them in any areas of the city including Bishop, Kenaston and Waverly.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

Simplicity's original statement was reducing the amount of developable land pushes property values up, reducing affordability. Part of the reason for this reduction in developable land is because of the "necessity" of CPT. While the land could be used to extend CPT to the West, it can also be used for many other things, like housing.

While 70 acres might seem like a lot, it's really not. Notwithstanding, of course, that people need to be able to get in and out of these areas fairly expeditiously, so chalk this up to the cost of doing business.

The market won't turn on 70 acres. But it will definitely turn on a belt that specifically forbids development around an entire city comprising what would ultimate be 10s to 100s of thousands of acres and will immediately send up the value of the land within the belt while encouraging more development outside of it.

Comparing rights-of-way isn't reasonably analogous or we'd start tipping rail cars and laser cutting hydro towers in protest.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by CoryB

1. The "affordable houses" we being rented from the City when they were torn down. Further, they were almost inside the north end sewage treatment plan and were not exactly desirable homes.

2. While the ROW for the CPT might be "large" on paper look at how much space needs to be set aside for proper grade separations with actually workable acceleration and decelerations lanes.

3. As a community we either want grade separated, high speed routes in all areas of the city or we don't want them in any areas of the city including Bishop, Kenaston and Waverly.

1. People were still willing to pay rent for the houses, so someone wanted to live there. Any time you tear down a perfectly rentable house to make way for automobiles you are making the choice that cars are more important than people.

2 & 3. I am in that boat. I don't want high speed routes in and around my neighbourhood, and I wouldn't wish it upon anyone else. Building high speed routes assumes that mobility is the most important thing, but I don't think that's the case.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

While 70 acres might seem like a lot, it's really not. Notwithstanding, of course, that people need to be able to get in and out of these areas fairly expeditiously, so chalk this up to the cost of doing business.

The market won't turn on 70 acres. But it will definitely turn on a belt that specifically forbids development around an entire city comprising what would ultimate be 10s to 100s of thousands of acres and will immediately send up the value of the land within the belt while encouraging more development outside of it.

Comparing rights-of-way isn't reasonably analogous or we'd start tipping rail cars and laser cutting hydro towers in protest.

Oh, I agree that 70 acres in terms of a whole city won't make much difference, but it does speak to the priorities when low income housing gets destroyed to make way for an expressway.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

Any time you tear down a perfectly rentable house to make way for automobiles you are making the choice that cars are more important than people.

There are people in the cars. The cars are for the use of the people. Therefore cars=people.

Sorry. RIP your arguement.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

Oh, I agree that 70 acres in terms of a whole city won't make much difference, but it does speak to the priorities when low income housing gets destroyed to make way for an expressway.

Only if you disregard the fact that this is an investment in opening up development lands that were otherwise uninhabitable at any sort of density. There are no fewer than 7 precincts that are to be serviced by the CPT extension which will ultimately create more supply leading to more affordability.

You don't keep an inconsequential number of low-income housing units in an effort to stymie the addition of thousands more units. There's an aggregate effect here that's going ignored.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

There are no fewer than 7 precincts that are to be serviced by the CPT extension which will ultimately create more supply leading to more affordability.

This strikes me as a pretty optimistic take on things. Housing supply has exploded locally over the past decade (well, compared to the relatively stagnant 1994-2004 period), but affordability has nevertheless declined.