Quote:
Originally Posted by goldenboi
Yeah I totally agree, that is the dream. But Winnipeg isn't Toronto or Vancouver so we must build on a smaller scale simply because of economic limitations. As buzzg said, if Skycity goes up it may oversaturate the market.
This doesn't necessarily mean we can't have a great city or a boring skyline. Height isn't the only factor in an aesthetically pleasing skyline in my opinion. I think it is much more about relative scale. Take the four buildings around portage and main for example. If we put them in the middle of Hong Kong it would be completely underwhelming. But when you're driving over the Disraeli bridge and you see them all bunched up together, not dwarfed by some 300m tower, it's magical!
Glasshouse and the Alt Hotel are a great example of what I think fits Winnipeg. They add to the skyline not in height but in relative scale to the rest of the city, they sit atop podiums that interact with the street, and they are also more realistic in terms of supply and demand. I would much prefer it if we got two buildings half the height of skycity, but if they also filled up the lot between Garry and Fort. Although I won't complain if we get skycity.  |
Quote:
Originally Posted by roccerfeller
I know it's "skyscraperpage" and we all deep down like seeing high rises that can notably contribute to skylines...
...but smaller 6-10 storey buildings would be much better for downtown Winnipeg if we want to see such 100m+ buildings become the norm for development rather than the lone proposal that comes once or twice a decade...
Not only would a relatively steady stream of 6-10 story buildings be more feasible financially, more realistic, and contribute more quicker, it would densify downtown so much so that it could make these taller towers more feasible out of necessity
If all these empty lots are developed on with smaller scale buildings, densify the proportionally large downtown, suddenly the lots that aren't developed downtown become more scarce, more valuable, and it becomes more feasible to build taller buildings simply due to space constraints.
At least, in an ideal sense, it could work like that.
|
I've been breezing through the pages I've missed the last few days, so maybe the appropriate response has already been voiced...
- In regards to building for the rights size for our market...
I agree. In terms of livelihood, small to midrise would go great lengths to bring life to downtown. While skyscrapers are the be-all-end-all, assuming a downtown has the choice between 2 towers and 8 midrise projects, it should choose midrise.
But that's not how it works. The landowner makes the decisions, and they have to do what's best for their property, not for the entire neighbourhood spanning many blocks.
- This begs the question... why are some builders/developers electing to build larger projects rather than several small ones? Why are developers building up despite alledged risk of filling the building too slowly?
Cost. Cost cost cost.
The cheapest way to add residential to downtown is to refurbish and repurpose an existing structure, assuming the work isn't to speculative. The exchange has shown this to be a successful approach, and those who deem it worth it, are snapping up viable properties.
Next cheapest to build is wood frame. Some frown upon this, but our construction costs are absurdly high, so you go wood frame to keep price low.
So why isn't this happening? If concrete or structural steel + concrete core/slab is more expensive, why aren't we seeing loads of 4 storey wood frame projects? It would definitely spruce up downtown.
Cost. Land cost, to be exact. If you build a tower, you buy the land once. If you want to build one tower worth of 4 storey wood frame buildings, that's 4 LARGE, or 7 moderately sized building to make up for ONE 300M tower.
You have to pay for land SEVEN TIMES. Millions of dollars, SEVEN TIMES. That's whay SkyCity is 44 storeys... the land was 9M (yes overpriced). That's why 300 Main is a viable project... land already paid for and foundation in place.
if you're making x% annual return per unit in a 4 story wood frame, it looks like a good return, because your costs are low and rents are market rate. Clearly the cost of land in addition to construction has persuaded developers that they need more units to offset land costs.
Problem is that now you're into concrete construction, which is noticeably more expensive. In order to offset the land cost and now further offset the increased construction costs... you need to build MORE units.
So Developers are going as high as possible, as high as they think they can go while filling the building.
If our construction costs were lower, we'd see way more 6-10 storey projects, but those cost increases versus lower market rents are making it unviable. So it pays to build tall.
That brings up the next problem; There are very few big fish in this pond, as the only ones who can afford to build big are the more seasoned and financially equipped developers.
The next problem is a doubtful public. If a a more confident public displayed a stronger appetite to participate in downtown's residential growth, rents would go up and developers would invest more.
In short. go small, wood frame if land is cheap enough, or if land ain't cheap and you have the money, go as big as possible and fight like hell to fill your building.
Prev
Linear Mode
