Winnipeg | Downtown | True North Square | U/C

[bomberjet]

So are there any lower levels to this development, below grade? I guess we don't know yet since they'll be releasing more info next month.

I ask because I noticed there was a concrete truck on site just now, at the NE corner. Are they pouring caissons in there already? I notice the drill rig has an auger bit, and there's round tubing on site. So that would make sense.

[Portmanteau]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/q...-plaza-be-planning-expert-asks-1.3409951

"The criticisms that are levelled against privately owned public spaces is that people's rights are quite controlled in those spaces in a way that they aren't in other public spaces."

What's he getting at here? That public drunkenness and loitering will be dealt with? Seems like a good thing given the WPG general public's overwhelming "fear" of downtown.

[bomberjet]

It's just like all the public space within MTS Centre for the skywalk. Likely less controlled since it's outside. Will you be able to go there and get hammered, probably not. Just like you can't go sit on the sidewalk on Portage and openly be drinking. Or like any City park. You're not supposed to be in there riding your dirt bikes around. So I'm not sure what that guy expects.

It's typical uninformed public opinion.

On another note and to answer my own question. There are 3 steel sleeves sticking out of the ground at that NE corner. So looks like they are indeed installing some sort of caisson or pile, I would assume.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by Portmanteau

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/q...-plaza-be-planning-expert-asks-1.3409951

"The criticisms that are levelled against privately owned public spaces is that people's rights are quite controlled in those spaces in a way that they aren't in other public spaces."

What's he getting at here? That public drunkenness and loitering will be dealt with? Seems like a good thing given the WPG general public's overwhelming "fear" of downtown.

Yeah not quite sure what controlled aspects he's referring to that aren't controlled in other public spaces. It's not like you're allowed to run around naked drinking beers in a public park.

[esquire]

^ People said the same thing about Portage Place back in the 80s, e.g. that it was essentially privatizing a part of Edmonton Street.

I get the concern, but the reality is that there are nice publicly-owned spaces too... just because a developer wants to build one of their own for their project is not really a reason to regard it as some kind of assault on the commons.

Maybe some won't like the apparent mall-like feeling that TNS will have, but some might. I don't see a downside, as long as the project is not a fortress that fails to engage with the street. However, I did appreciate one concern Milgrom raised:

Phasing in itself isn't a bad thing. Winnipeg Square was supposed to be a project that included an underground shopping centre, two towers and another hotel block. Only one of those towers got built and the result has been a very incomplete-looking project.

The way the square is designed now, if only one side of it is built, what defines the square for the rest of the time? The skywalk system as they're proposing and the sort of improbable structures that are in the renderings can only be there when all of those buildings are also there.

It's a project that requires all three phases right now, I think, to look like it's complete.

It would be a tragedy if only phase 1 were built and we were stuck with a half baked complex until the end of time.

[bomberjet]

I'm curious to see what kind of street presence the development will have along Graham, Hargrave and Carlton. I'm assuming there will be restaurants and other retail. Not blank walls. That would be a disaster if the development was completely inward focused to the square.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I'm curious to see what kind of street presence the development will have along Graham, Hargrave and Carlton. I'm assuming there will be restaurants and other retail. Not blank walls. That would be a disaster if the development was completely inward focused to the square.

I agree. I'm looking forward to the revised renderings in February to see exactly how it'll look.

I would think the complex will engage well with the two corners along Graham and the southwestern corner nearest to the RBCCC. Hopefully the rest won't just be walled off.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by esquire

Maybe some won't like the apparent mall-like feeling that TNS will have, but some might. I don't see a downside, as long as the project is not a fortress that fails to engage with the street.

Render 1, aka SoPo Square - minimal street engagement with activity fronting onto the square.

Render 2, aka first TNS - square has become more isolated from the street, again all activity fronts onto the square. Reduced access to the square from the street.

With the trend in the renders we have seen I think there will intentionally be minimal interaction with the street, both for good and for bad. The Carlton side in the render seems to have minimal buffering and that is actually where the most buffering is needed as it is across the street from a student residence. Don't want those parents calling and complaining about activity in the square. Also having the square more open on the Hargrave and Graham corner could spur development of the CityPlace street level, tie in nicely with the arena entrance and even engage with Tavern United.

[windypeg]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

It's just like all the public space within MTS Centre for the skywalk. Likely less controlled since it's outside. Will you be able to go there and get hammered, probably not. Just like you can't go sit on the sidewalk on Portage and openly be drinking. Or like any City park. You're not supposed to be in there riding your dirt bikes around. So I'm not sure what that guy expects.

It's typical uninformed public opinion.

Not so much "uninformed public" so much as an academic with an anti-private sector agenda. If you take the Naomi Klein perspective this is privately controlled space and thus the end of democracy as we know it

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by windypeg

Not so much "uninformed public" so much as an academic with an anti-private sector agenda. If you take the Naomi Klein perspective this is privately controlled space and thus the end of democracy as we know it

Fretting publicly about "private spaces" is probably a U of W tenure requirement.

[Authentic_City]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Fretting publicly about "private spaces" is probably a U of W tenure requirement.

Haha. Perhaps, except this guy is at the UM City Planning Department.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

Haha. Perhaps, except this guy is at the UM City Planning Department.

Didn't notice that! The sense I get of U of M from that alumni magazine they send me is one of steady decline, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by windypeg

Not so much "uninformed public" so much as an academic with an anti-private sector agenda. If you take the Naomi Klein perspective this is privately controlled space and thus the end of democracy as we know it

When you spend $17,000,000 of public money on private space that the public may use sometimes in someways it warrants a discussion...

We are defering realty taxes for a generation for the privilege of having this project built.

If that's what is happening l, I for one am more concerned how this private development will interact with Graham Avenue and other truely public space. If they get that wrong it effects everyone forever. The last thing we need is a streetscape that mimics Portage Place on Graham avenue.

We very much need to get the pedestrian aspect of Graham right!

[steveosnyder]

I never understand why we need to further fund these projects. It seems like the first few projects put together by TNSE, or rather Longboat and Woodbridge did rather well, so why are we funding it more. I thought the point of the original tax subsidies (for MTS, Centre Point and Glass House) was to create a tipping point...

As for the privately owned public space, I have issue with it, especially if public funds are going towards it. If it's publicly owned we have a lot more control. The public sector would rent out public space to any group that isn't considered a hate group.

In this quasi-public space, suppose a group who's values fall outside of the TNSE's morals; would they rent the space to them? Say the "Open Relationship club of Winnipeg". Would TNSE rent out the "public" space, or fear being associated with a group who is still seen as a bit hedonistic/faux pas?

[esquire]

^ Subsidies for private development is what we signed up for with the TIF program... in this case, it's going to mean $26.6 million in tax revenue kicked back for public amenities like streetscaping, sidewalks, etc. It amounts to a little more than 5% of the overall $400 million cost (assuming full build out). You can make the argument that this project might have happened without the TIF, but the reality is that it's like night and day around the MTS Centre compared to before the TIF... other than the arena itself, there was no construction around there. Now look at it. There's clearly some impact.

On a related note, Kathy Kennedy wrote a piece for CJOB noting that the north side of Portage and the south side are like two different worlds now, with the north side looking shabby while the south side gets all the high profile, glam developments.

Other than a few details, the article could have been written 35 years ago. I guess if anyone ever asks whether Portage Place was a success or a failure, point them to that article, because it's clear in hindsight that Portage Place, whose reason for existing was to clean up the North Portage area, didn't fix a damn thing.

http://www.cjob.com/2016/01/19/wmn-who-will-save-north-portage/

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by esquire

On a related note, Kathy Kennedy wrote a piece for CJOB noting that the north side of Portage and the south side are like two different worlds now, with the north side looking shabby while the south side gets all the high profile, glam developments.

I'm not sure I agree with that, considering where Glasshouse and Alt are.

[esquire]

^ When you consider that over the past 15 years north Portage got Centrepoint and the little Credit Union office building while the south side got MTS Centre, Hydro, True North Square, RBCCC expansion, the Millennium Library renos, possibly soon SkyCity, it's fair to say that there is a bit of an imbalance.

[Cyro]

I'm glad the explanation of the TIF zone funding was explained once again. It's a common mechanism used across North America to kick-start development and improvement in the designated area...... (over time)

On another note, I can't wait for the details and renders on this one. Going to be an exciting year for projects in this city.

"A five-star hotel, office, retail and residential spaces as well public art, terraces, cafe seating, skywalks, specialty lighting, streetscaping, street furniture, a water feature and a parkway along Carlton Street. The plaza will include a skating rink, public stage, public seating and green space."

Source:

Note: I understand it is a phased project, fingers crossed..

[bomberjet]

Can we clarify the funding sources and method. The City and Province are providing $26M. Is this up front? Or is this over time, like noted, through reimbursements from taxes?

If it's the later, and the one of the main points about TIF zones, is that money never existed without the development. As in, the City doesn't actually have that money to give away. Sure they're bringing in some taxes form the parking lot. Also, are they actually giving any money. Or just giving them tax breaks for a period of time?

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Can we clarify the funding sources and method. The City and Province are providing $26M. Is this up front? Or is this over time, like noted, through reimbursements from taxes?

If it's the later, and the one of the main points about TIF zones, is that money never existed without the development. As in, the City doesn't actually have that money to give away. Sure they're bringing in some taxes form the parking lot. Also, are they actually giving any money. Or just giving them tax breaks for a period of time?

I don't believe they're giving them any money. The $26M is going to be spent by the governments for the supporting infrastructure. Street lights, sky walk, roads, seating etc.

Future projected tax revenue from the site will pay for it. The whole idea is isn't unique to this project, it's what the SHED district is. The incremental tax revenues from new projects within the district will pay for these types of infrastructures.