Winnipeg Construction VIII

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by Winnipeg Grump

from this morning:

The lot does not have permission to be used for parking ever since the building on the site came down. Ever few years there is parking creep until the city steps in again. There is not even a conditional use or temp parking permit in place. Similar condition to space beside St Charles in front of their parking lot. No building then no temp parking..

Unless your a government agency.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by Cyro

^ As per this older post from the Village thread, Sept, last year, It's a size 7 now, green is different..
At least it's not 6 floors, seems to be an ongoing theme around here, 4-6 every where, the market speaks...

TV might now where this stands now..

Well, 4-6 is much more cost effective due to wood construction. Until now, you could only go 4 storeys up with wood, but I believe the code has been amended for 5 storeys. 5 storeys still paid off as long as the main floor was a concrete parking garage with a 4 (or now 5 storey) wood structure overtop.

7 storeys? Doesn't quite pay off as it's now pretty much an expensive concrete building and the only way to make it worthwhile financially is to increase density and build taller. Except the demand to build taller in areas like Osborne may not be there.

Originally Posted by trueviking

Yup. Those Prodema panels failed everywhere all across the world. Looks like hell. Investigating their replacement right now. Brutal. They were expensive. Supposed to last 100 years.

They are real wood laminated into a polymer. They are beautiful but the technology failed.

It's a shame, as Prodema made some pretty products. However, composite panels such as BrockWhite AL13 and Longboard come in nice wood-look finishes. And are much cheaper.

Originally Posted by 14NM

I'm not sure as to why no developer is ballsy enough to make something like this happen. This kind of project (with some street level component) would do very well in the Village.

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

The city needs to demand better designs, and cease passing any proposal that comes along.

Originally Posted by pegcityfan

In general Winnipeg / Manitoba developers, governments & building owners have extremely low standards when it comes to shape, design, exterior materials, lighting & landscaping. Whether in the suburbs or downtown.

Our ridiculously & needlessly "suburban" city has to have the ugliest & cheapest looking strip malls in North America. Even going to small cities in our weather climate like Grand Forks & Fargo, you notice higher standards.

Not to be cynical but I have to state the obvious: It's too expensive otherwise. Concrete costs in Alberta were (when I last checked 2 years ago) almost 1/2 the price in similar projects. Beyond that, Alberta has the most similarly harsh climates to compare construction demands with. Winnipeg is simply the most expensive City in North America to build in (not including land costs). Furthermore, we obviously cannot command similar rents or condo pricing to other markets either. More costs, less revenue. For example, Toronto can build Glasshouse for 33% LESS. How much do you think they'd charge for their units in TO?

Every developer, owner, or builder would love to build shinier things, but the costs are too high. There isn't enough profit in the margins to demand more from a developer, because they surely would class their projects up a little if it meant sacrificing a couple grand... but in Winnipeg that little extra money means sacrificing the viability of an entire project.

If the city wants to demand more, then they should help more. But then the usually naive "politicians lining up the pockets of their developer cronies" narrative returns.

To specifically address that sexy rendering, it costs SO much more than a typically "boring" Winnipeg comparable.

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

I encourage some of you to read "Good to Great". It is a wonderful look at mediocrity vs propelling to become so much better.

To live in a bubble, and to NOT look at what other cities are doing, is why Winnipeg is still struggling to reinvent its core after decades of schemes. The city needs to curtail approving new subdivisions, and focus on redeveloping the numerous sites within the older parts of the city. I think we are only now starting to make progress because of private dollars now being invested in downtown.

Smart spending by government to maximize spin off benefits is crucial. Investments in student housing, culture (WAG expansion, Manitoba Museum expansion) and heritage (the Bay building) will yield great results.

I also agree... don't misunderstand my "defense" of Wpg's boring development above, I too wish the City tried more. However, the reasons they haven't aren't entirely due to a lack of ambition. However, the only ones shrewd enough to make it work tend to be the big ones ie TNS and Artis, who happen to have tons of money.

[esquire]

I walked by the Masonic Temple today and noticed work taking place on the roof. I saw some large I beams sitting beside the building last week too, not sure where they ended up. At any rate, looks like there's a fair bit happening in there.

[TimeFadesAway]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

Not to be cynical but I have to state the obvious: It's too expensive otherwise. Concrete costs in Alberta were (when I last checked 2 years ago) almost 1/2 the price in similar projects. Beyond that, Alberta has the most similarly harsh climates to compare construction demands with. Winnipeg is simply the most expensive City in North America to build in (not including land costs). Furthermore, we obviously cannot command similar rents or condo pricing to other markets either. More costs, less revenue. For example, Toronto can build Glasshouse for 33% LESS. How much do you think they'd charge for their units in TO?

Out of curiosity, why are these costs so much higher in Winnipeg?

Your argument about costs is spot on...it all comes down to margins. Prettier stuff costs more and the bottom line matters to those making the decisions.

[Urban recluse]

I want to see that building occupied, so badly.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by TimeFadesAway

Out of curiosity, why are these costs so much higher in Winnipeg?

Good question, I'd like to know too. We're on the same highways and rail lines as everywhere else, yet somehow we have construction costs supposedly rivalling the high arctic or other fly in locales?

If costs are that high, how are out of town builders not coming in to undercut all of the local players?

[bomberjet]

I think it's more to do with what you need to build, than the labour. From my understanding, foundations here cost more than elsewhere due to the shitty clay. Concrete is relatively expensive here. Seems there is a bit of a monopoly on the concrete here, or maybe lack of suppliers. Who can then charge what they want or you don't get. On the flip side, gravel is cheap here compared to say Saskatchewan. But you don't really use much gravel for a building.

But maybe I'm missing something more there.

For roads, we need more gravel to make up for the shitty clay again. So price is a bit higher than say Ontario, where you can build on rock and then use the rock you just blasted to make your gravel.

[Urban recluse]

I would need to see numbers, as I tend to believe this argument is made by developers to continue the incentives given by government. Conspiracy? Perhaps. Concrete, for instance, is pricey anywhere, as the cost of it has increased.

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

Well, 4-6 is much more cost effective due to wood construction. Until now, you could only go 4 storeys up with wood, but I believe the code has been amended for 5 storeys. 5 storeys still paid off as long as the main floor was a concrete parking garage with a 4 (or now 5 storey) wood structure overtop.

7 storeys? Doesn't quite pay off as it's now pretty much an expensive concrete building and the only way to make it worthwhile financially is to increase density and build taller. Except the demand to build taller in areas like Osborne may not be there.
.

Thanks for the multi-post opinion/perspective. I enjoy someone who looks at the realities of builds in Man./Winnipeg., Your located in Quebec, if I may hazard a guess? Probably way off the mark..lol..

There are multi-storey builds in the area in question, concrete, not strictly wood, but as the market here dictates, they are more cost effective in the end for developers, which will have the final say whether a project moves forward in this or any given area. Demand/Cost/Price?, is the Village quite ready for it and are individuals ready to pay the price here..not quite yet. It'll come. There's cheaper ways of doing it, so they will be taken first. I would, if interested in investing in the market at present.

Either way, maybe we can take some of this discussion here, for those that really enjoy the economics of building in Winnipeg..

Heavy thread, for those that dare to enter...hahah..

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=211226

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I think it's more to do with what you need to build, than the labour. From my understanding, foundations here cost more than elsewhere due to the shitty clay. Concrete is relatively expensive here. Seems there is a bit of a monopoly on the concrete here, or maybe lack of suppliers. Who can then charge what they want or you don't get. On the flip side, gravel is cheap here compared to say Saskatchewan. But you don't really use much gravel for a building.

But maybe I'm missing something more there.

For roads, we need more gravel to make up for the shitty clay again. So price is a bit higher than say Ontario, where you can build on rock and then use the rock you just blasted to make your gravel.

Kind of irks me that the city cheaps out on some new roadways going right away with asphalt, Transcona Boulevard and Peguis St. are examples that come to mind.

Guess the 30 year warranty Hardie gives on it's product isn't worth the paper it's printed on, every where I see the so-called never paint for 30 years product installed the finish is failing within 4-7 years.

[Urban recluse]

Garrick Hotel is up for sale. Sadly, the greedy owners want $1.75 million. True.

The potential of this block.

http://www.collierscanada.com/19246#.VyBClWQrK2w

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Kind of irks me that the city cheaps out on some new roadways going right away with asphalt, Transcona Boulevard and Peguis St. are examples that come to mind.

Different levels of traffic warrant a different surface. I also have to wonder if they're asphalt (actually bituminous - there are no asphalt roads in Winnipeg. Those are the thin crappy roads you see in very rural areas) or concrete coated in bituminous.

[trueviking]

Construction costs are higher in Winnipeg for a few reasons. Biggest reason is soil conditions. We have to build much more foundation than most other places. Our climate also plays a factor. We have higher insulation requirements and building design standards. In Vancouver and Toronto a balcony is an extension of the floor. Here it is a series of gymnastics to reduce the heat transfer. This cascades throughout the construction. Every detail is more complex and labour intensive. We are also a small isolated market. There is not a lot of competition between contractors. There is also a shortage of skilled trades, driving up the cost of many components of construction. There is also a monopoly in the concrete industry. Our concrete is significantly higher cost here than in the rest of the country.

The challenge isn't only construction costs. Winnipeg also has the lowest rental and purchase rates for hotel, office and housing of the major cities. This is a development double whammy. Construction costs wouldn't be such a big issue if the payback was there in sales.

[Urban recluse]

Some interesting info:

http://journalofcommerce.com/Home/News/2...ad-to-innovation-in-Winnipeg-JOC050567W/

[1ajs]

the loss of the cement plant on keniston screwed us.

[bomberjet]

All good info. Thanks.

On the roads side, Winnipeg is a bit of an oddity. Concrete roads here are the norm. Not so in most other places. Asphalt is the go to road surface. Working with some folks from Edmonton recently and they couldn't understand the widespread use of concrete.

You can make two arguments.

Asphalt is what's known as a flexible road surface. Take Transcona Boulevard and Chief Peguis Trail. If you've driven either, you know it's up and down allover the place. The gravel below has settled out and the asphalt has moved with it. This is good in one way and bad in another.

With concrete pavement, it wouldn;t move as much with the settling gravel. So the road would stay in near smooth condition for the first few years. But then the concrete starts to crack as it settles into the void space created below by the settling gravel. The panels then break-up even more due to the cracks.

So do you go with asphalt that will provide a smoother surface for a longer period? Or go with concrete than can span the voids in the gravel below, but may end up failing earlier? Not sure if there's an answer. the solution would be to have no settlement in the gravel. But that's not always possible when the clay bottom is moving around with frost.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

So do you go with asphalt that will provide a smoother surface for a longer period? Or go with concrete than can span the voids in the gravel below, but may end up failing earlier? Not sure if there's an answer. the solution would be to have no settlement in the gravel. But that's not always possible when the clay bottom is moving around with frost.

Well the argument could be made that the material we use as base (limestone) is totally useless seeing it is susceptible to chemical break down. If you build a base down below the frost line it shouldn't be moving around too much if at all. Solution: granite base that extends to the frost line.

[bomberjet]

While I agree, that is quite expensive. You'd need to go down 6' ish and haul granite from Kenora. You'd also be running into conflicts with utilities everywhere. Water lines are usually installed somewhere around 6' down. Cables, gas lines, etc are higher than this. Something that could be dealt with I guess.

If you did that with limestone, I'm sure the rock would outlast the pavement above. Especially if it's sealed properly to keep out as much moisture as possible.

One solution could be to install insulating panels in some configuration, to prevent the soil below the road from freezing. These are innovations that should be looked at, but not sure how much the City looks into innovations. I think MIT has some test projects, but not sure what they're up to.

[optimusREIM]

I'm curious then how they keep I29 in such good shape.

[bomberjet]

Funding. The interstate system in the US is a federal program. You really can't compare anything in the US federal system to our rinky dink network of roads.

But yes, I would agree that MIT should be investigating all of their options. Going back to my innovation comments. In the private sector, innovation, improvement, all that is the name of the game. You need to be at the leading edge to be successful in whatever you;re doing. The government just says this is what we've done, so we'll keep doing it.