Winnipeg Construction IX

[wardlow]

Originally Posted by Biff

The only issue I have with this argument for this project is the complete lack of anything at all on this block - both sides. I agree in an ideal world it is how it should be, but CRU's in this building might sit vacant for a very, very long time.
I think a better fit would be to have some office space on the first floor even if only on the street half.

Sure. And I do admit the example I used (the parkade at the corner of Bannatyne and King) is in a location where commercial makes more sense. I think any kind of use, even if it's office or something that doesn't 'animate' the street as much as commercial would, is still better than basically nothing but parked cars buffered by a wall and some emaciated landscaping.

[drew]

Originally Posted by WpG_GuY

Disagree, The Excelsior on Waterfront sat empty for years, again would rather the cru's are there and empty rather than eliminating that potential forever.

But what about the owner that is paying to develop this site?

If you are trying to attract development, but then put requirements on the development that include building and maintaining essentially unleasable space - how should we really expect anything to get developed?

I get the example of the parkade near Old Market Square - but in that case, we had a delinquent owner, who deserved to get some rather unreasonable requirements. It worked out well eventually, but the urban environment between these two sites is effectively not comparable.

In this, case - it's an empty lot on an otherwise bleak street. I am honestly surprised anyone is looking to develop this particular site, when its twin on Bannatyne, which seems much more attractive continues to sit empty.

[Authentic_City]

Originally Posted by wardlow

Do you think most arts groups and restaurants in the Exchange actually depend on SUV-driving suburbanites who have unrealistic expectations about parking in an urban environment? I doubt it. If you're already living that much of a car-oriented life, you're not coming downtown for anything but Jets games anyway.

Not sure about most arts groups, but certainly MTC Mainstage relies heavily on a fairly well-heeled, suburban clientele who predominantly drive and park in the Exchange. I don't think the MTC crowd is demanding free parking, but attendance would certainly suffer if there wasn't ample (pay) parking close by. Also, the free parking at Portage Place for PTE patrons is a huge selling feature. I think it's just a Winnipeg thing. People prefer to drive and park close to their destinations. I don't think the Arts crowd is all that different in this respect.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by trueviking

It’s not real. Was a proposal for an rfp. Maybe MLCC?

Phew.

Originally Posted by trueviking

Yeah. Better than a photo of a parking lot maybe. I can’t imagine anyone buying the site and building a rendering.

Just saw it being marketed in the summer 2018 Winnipeg commercial real estate magazine. It's for lease, not for sale, so it does seem like someone has the intention to build it. Although it does note "multiple development options."

Originally Posted by drew

But what about the owner that is paying to develop this site?

If you are trying to attract development, but then put requirements on the development that include building and maintaining essentially unleasable space - how should we really expect anything to get developed?

I get the example of the parkade near Old Market Square - but in that case, we had a delinquent owner, who deserved to get some rather unreasonable requirements. It worked out well eventually, but the urban environment between these two sites is effectively not comparable.

In this, case - it's an empty lot on an otherwise bleak street. I am honestly surprised anyone is looking to develop this particular site, when its twin on Bannatyne, which seems much more attractive continues to sit empty.

Everyone thought many of the mentioned units were "unleasable space" when they were built – now they're leased. It takes time. How was the owner of Bedford any more "delinquent" than a giant Exchange surface parking lot owner?

[bomberjet]

CRU's shouldn't be leased to things like architectural firms. It should be service based. Like restaurants, and hairdressers. Filling CRU's with accounting offices and such really isn't the intent of those spaces.

But I guess if they're leased that's something.

[buzzg]

Yeah it's obviously not ideal, but it's better than parking, and down the road can always change to something else as demand changes.

[headhorse]

developers not making enough money is not a reason to approve bad designs. developers need to be more creative. have ground floor units that are easily convertible between residential and commercial use, depending on demand. they're only putting ground floor parking in these developments because it maximizes profit and the city isn't stopping them. no street downtown should given to developers as a public driveway for their parking garages.

[drew]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Everyone thought many of the mentioned units were "unleasable space" when they were built – now they're leased. It takes time. How was the owner of Bedford any more "delinquent" than a giant Exchange surface parking lot owner?

I think it's kinda obvious.

The Bedford owner let an existing heritage building rot away.

In this case, a parking lot owner should not be considered "delinquent" if they are actively trying to develop said lot..?

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by headhorse

developers not making enough money is not a reason to approve bad designs. developers need to be more creative. have ground floor units that are easily convertible between residential and commercial use, depending on demand. they're only putting ground floor parking in these developments because it maximizes profit and the city isn't stopping them. no street downtown should given to developers as a public driveway for their parking garages.

Nailed it.

Originally Posted by drew

I think it's kinda obvious.

The Bedford owner let an existing heritage building rot away.

In this case, a parking lot owner should not be considered "delinquent" if they are actively trying to develop said lot..?

Ahh, wasn't sure of the exact history of the building, considering most of that property was a parking lot. There's many other buildings currently being treated the same way with no action (St. Charles). And to be fair, that lot has been empty for decades.

[Wolf13]

Yiiiikes, some backlash about the McDermott proposal.

I'm all for cohesive and healthy collective downtown development, but I think everyone here knows I'd say we can't claim that our wants should trump the owner's rights.

This building will only help the neighbourhood. It's not 🞵🞵🞵🞵, and I wish it wouldn't have main floor parking, but it will bring hundreds of people to downtown who drive. That's ok, because once they park, they walk. and atleast they're not parking on the street. Right now it's a surface lot, and bringing nobody to downtown.

We're not in a position where we can make it difficult to operate businesses in Downtown, as business begets residential demand.

Originally Posted by ywgwalk

I think many of us are hoping for a reduction is the readily-available parking in that area.

tenants determine these things. Simply put, if desired parking isn't provided, as this is a destination office, the building doesn't get built. Many will say "I'll wait for something better", and I'd say that too if this was the last site available and the neighbourhood is booming. But it's not and there are plenty of surface lots left.

Originally Posted by drew

I think we need to get used to the idea of buildings over top of parking. U/G parking is quickly becoming a non-starter in this city due to costs.

Remember there are finalized drawings (just waiting for the owner to say go) for a new ~10 storey residential building going up on James that includes SEVERAL levels of parking from grade and residential on top.

Parking is a big issue in the exchange, especially that area. Any person building is going to want to control or provide on site parking, and it isn't realistic anymore to go below grade.

This x 10000000. Going underground is death fro any project. A reality that needs to be understood. It would be super completely totalitarian if we denied a landowner the right to make money off a property by only accepting the unaffordable.

Originally Posted by esquire

You are the prophet of doom, drew.

I get that parking is a must with new buildings, that's the reality of Winnipeg. But surely there must be a way to configure the parking part of things without making the entire length of sidewalk that runs past the building look into a parking lot.

If the market for CRUs were there, sure. but it isn't yet.

Originally Posted by ywgwalk

The worst thing about the east exchange right now is the amount of cars, parked and driving. As someone who lives and works there I'm all for increasing density, but I want nothing to do with anything but a decrease in cars.

More people can start carsharing, taking the bus, and using active transportation. Less available and more costly reserved parking spots would go a long way towards making that a reality.

Those suggestions are easy to meet for residents of the exchange. This isn't a residential project.

Originally Posted by Kris22

I personally would rather that lot stay surface parking until the end of time than have that atrocity go up. Other than being built to the sidewalk it will contribute NOTHING to the urban fabric of the east exchange. Yes that block is a little bleak right now but putting this there would condemn it to being bleak forever. Not to mention that just a block away is a thriving street...

At least with a surface lot we can hang on to some bit of hope or delusion!

What about what the owner would want? To just lose money?

Any building's primary purpose is to serve the owner within property lines, the community secondly. We don't always have to like that, but we have to understand that. It's their money.

I'm not a fan of the design, but it's going to bring foot traffic to the area, and that's a good thing

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

Exactly! CRUs could be built in every building that currently does not have. It is just a matter of demand. Accepting some nasty-🞵🞵🞵 parkade is not an option.

But then the project might die, and we lose the 200+ professionals who would work and spend money in the exchange, helping create demand.

Originally Posted by WpG_GuY

Disagree, The Excelsior on Waterfront sat empty for years, again would rather the cru's are there and empty rather than eliminating that potential forever.

I'm not sure that's something you can reasonably ask of a property owner, who loses a lot of money for every day those sit empty.

I too prefer a CRU, but seasoned developers don't put something there if it's going to be empty. That's bad business. It's very rich for people to tell developers how much risk to take on.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

If the market for CRUs were there, sure. but it isn't yet.

I'm not saying it has to be a retail-specific CRU where bearded men sell coffee to hipsters. Pretty well anything would be an improvement over at-grade parking... just having some of the office space on the main floor would be better.

And why is underground parking out of the question anyway? It's still fairly common in new buildings, even if it's only one level as opposed to the multilevel basements of yore... think Credit Union Central, TNS, Hydro, etc.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by esquire

I'm not saying it has to be a retail-specific CRU where bearded men sell coffee to hipsters. Pretty well anything would be an improvement over at-grade parking... just having some of the office space on the main floor would be better.

And why is underground parking out of the question anyway? It's still fairly common in new buildings, even if it's only one level as opposed to the multilevel basements of yore... think Credit Union Central, TNS, Hydro, etc.

Parking makes less money than CRUs... unfortunately, they clearly need one and there is no market for the other. I agree with you however.

As for underground parking, it is simply too expensive to build. Building underground is approximately $40k per stall or more, so if you have 100 spots, BAM, $400k extra, just like that. Kills projects quickly.

TNS is huge, and you need the stalls. Same with Hydro. Hydro is public, so they can run up costs however they want, and TNS has loads of funding. They limited their underground parking due to cost, however.

Basically, it's common where buildings of significant scale simply require it to service their tenants. Scale mitigates the financial impact, as obviously a 100M project with a 1M parkade can handle that upcharge than a 20M project and a 400k parkade.

[drew]

^^^ the water table is creeping up slowly across the City because industry is no longer drawing large quantities of well water for their operations.

And besides that, just Winnipeg related stuff. Expensive construction costs, generally bad soil for foundations, etc. etc.

If you are working on razor thin margins, U/G parking is not going to make the cut, in general.

[buzzg]

They could build this building as is but flip it so the first 2 storeys are commercial and top 2 are parking. Infinitely better. People keep mentioning that there's no market for these commercial spaces, when this is predominantly a commercial building – it's not what's in the building that's the issue, it's where it is in the building.

I'd be willing to bet most tenants would rather be on the first floor than third floor above a parkade anyway.

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by drew

^^^ the water table is creeping up slowly across the City because industry is no longer drawing large quantities of well water for their operations.

Over the last few years my sump pump started running all year round, right through the winter, caused major problems with freezing water, its rigged up now to pump directly into the sewer.

[WolselyMan]

It's discussions like this which illustrate perfectly I will never shut up about the destruction the private automobile has done to our cities in the past 60 years.

People always seem to think it's pollution that's the single worst effect the car has had on the city, but I'm really not convinced. Pollution is horrible, yes, but a car is nowhere near the only way to create pollution, and it's not even necessarily an intrinsic property of the automobile so much as it's just the way that we implement that said tech. For all I care every single car in the world could be electrically run with the electricity generated only from the power of love and it still wouldn't do a damn thing to solve the exchange districts parking problems.

It's the fact that you eventually have find a place to store every single car when it's not being used, and not just one storage space but multiple redundant spaces for every possible destination that your car could go to that has completely lobotomized cities in the developed new world from the inside out. This means parking lot, upon parking lot, upon parking lot to serve an oversized creature who's idea of the perfect urban living environment is completely at odds with a human beings preferable version of what a city should look like.

No matter what you do, the exchange district will NEVER be the patio filled buzzing European streetscape that we all want it to be if we keep assuming cars to be the main form of transportation to and from the area. No matter how much we're willing throw the aesthetic integrity of the exchange under the truck, it will never have parking as easy and convenient as polo park. Ever. And you know what? That's OK, as the exchange district was built during a time when developers didn't have to worry about where all their customers would be able to park, because half of all people (probably much more) got around Winnipeg and the exchange district by mass transit. In this case, streetcars. (combined with good old fashioned bipedal locomotion.)

If you really care about the future of the exchange district, then you have to realize the importance of tackling these problems right at their source, which means that creating an exchange that is neither deserted and full of surface lots nor ugly and disconnected with countless street level parking garages is simply a matter of improving our bus system, like, a lot. And please don't say an eastern extension of the BRT line is the solution to this, assuming it ever gets built, which we all hope and pray that it won't. Because that 600 million being dumped into our glorified bus lane through the middle of nowhere could be much better spent doubling the size of the bus fleet and increasing frequency on busy routes, installing heated bus shelters on high ridership nodes and transfer stops, or even something as basic as giving every bus a thorough cleaning whenever they get back to the depot. These are the things that people who have to use the bus for most of their travels care about. High bus frequency of at least 5 minute headways. Easy and complication free transfers between buses. A comfortable inside environment that's air conditioned in the summer, trash free, not overwhelmingly crowded, and maybe even has room for a bike if the systems well designed enough.

The bottom line. Don't pick a fight with parking requirements. You'll never win. Instead of finding a way to accommodate both cars and people at the same time, focus on eliminating the demand for the cars in the first place. I know that sound like a very tall order, there's more at stake here than just the exchange district. Go on google earth and take a look just how big of an area some of the parking lots in Winnipeg take up. Imagine all the things we could build on the lunar landscape surrounding polo park. Think about all the high density housing and retail that land could hold. All the new green space that could be created just from parking lots. The possibilities are endless.

We always complain about surface lots, but I don't think we realize how much of a blessing in disguise they really are. All a surface lot is is undeveloped land, that's being temporarily utilized for parking. Remember, it's much easier to get rid of a surface lot than it is to get rid of an actual building, no matter how ugly it is or how much it drags down the rest of streetscape with it. The more surface lots, the more chances we have to create developments that people would actually want to take a picture in front of.

[buzzg]

Not sure if anyone can find historical photos, but some decorative metal stars have been fastened to the south wall of Fortune Block. They seem kind of randomly place so wondering if they may be replicated from the original build. One thinks this says though is that it’s unlikely anything will be built between Fortune and Winnipeg Hotel for a bit... unless Winnipeg gets expanded and they build a patio between

[cllew]

Originally Posted by drew

^^^ the water table is creeping up slowly across the City because industry is no longer drawing large quantities of well water for their operations.
.

According to the current tender documents for the the NW interceptor project by Kildonan park there has been a raise of 6.6 to 9.8 feet (2.0 to 3.0 m) in groundwater levels from 1970 to 2009. And its probably gone up more since then.

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Not sure if anyone can find historical photos, but some decorative metal stars have been fastened to the south wall. They seem kind of randomly place so wondering if they may be replicated from the original build. One thinks this says though is that it’s unlikely anything will be built between Fortune and Winnipeg Hotel for a bit... unless Winnipeg gets expanded and they build a patio between

South wall of what?

Truviking mentioned somewhere that a micro park might go there.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by WpG_GuY

South wall of what?

Truviking mentioned somewhere that a micro park might go there.

My bad – Fortune Block. It does say later in the paragraph but I edited it haha.