Winnipeg Construction IX

[Wpg_Guy]

Scotia doesn’t own that building anymore it was sold in 2016 to a local owners of an insurance company, I can’t recall the name, they are located on Graham.

[Wpg_Guy]

City wants safer, more attractive surface parking lots; recommends charging per-stall licensing fees
Aldo Santin By: Aldo Santin
Posted: 06/19/2018

A new report at Winnipeg city hall suggests offering downtown parking lot owners discounts on a proposed new licensing fee as an incentive to improve the safety and appearance of their properties.

The report is in response to a proposal made by Mayor Brian Bowman shortly after taking office almost four years ago, making good on a promise he made earlier on the campaign trail.

This report was originally due in mid-2015, but the administration received repeated extensions and only now is offering a suggestion, requiring all surface parking lots be licensed regardless of location, with accompanying minimum landscaping and safety standards.

According to the administrative report to Monday’s meeting of the property and development committee, parking lot owners who comply with all the standards would get a discount on the licence fee; owners who fail to comply would pay the full rate.

The administration proposal is similar to a provision contained in an alternative city budget released Tuesday by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives — Manitoba, which said city hall could raise $34 million annually if it imposed a $1-per-day-per-stall fee on surface parking lots.

The alternative budget said the intent of a parking lot fee would be to raise needed revenue, as well as put pressure on property owners to convert the land from surface parking.

Unlike that proposal, the administrative report doesn’t suggest a fee amount or any other standards, suggesting they would be established only if councillors on the committee approve the approach and authorize consultation with surface-lot owners.

A spokesman for Bowman said the mayor is pleased the report is finally seeing the light of day.

"While obviously later than desired, the administrative report makes a clear recommendation for committee members and Mayor Bowman looks forward to further discussion and engagement on what’s proposed," Jeremy Davis, Bowman's press secretary, said in an email to the Free Press, adding the mayor believes improving downtown surface parking lots will make the area more attractive and will "help to further grow Winnipeg’s downtown population."

The report suggests fees based on a per-stall basis applied only to lots operated as a business and accessible to the public.

The report states downtown Winnipeg has more surface-parking space than any other major city in Canada, with some 150 lots taking up 20 per cent of downtown area.

While the city’s downtown zoning bylaw regulates development standards for new surface lots, the report says most of the existing lots predate those regulations; those owners have non-conforming rights and do not have to comply.

Bowman singled out the unkempt appearance of many of the lots when he ran for the mayoralty in 2014. He also proposed taxing downtown parking lots at higher rates than adjoining properties as a way to spur development.

But setting differential tax rates is not something the city can do without changes to provincial legislation. However, the administration proposal would accomplish the same objective, using the licensing approach.

However, the administrative report said a parking-lot fee could discourage other-use development if owners are required to first make significant investments to maintain them as parking facilities in the short term.

The administrative proposal was praised Tuesday by Stefano Grande, executive director of the Downtown Business Improvement Zone, who called it a sound approach to a problem that has long-plagued the area.

He said he is pleased the proposal would apply city-wide and the administration is calling for consultation with property owners before anything is put in place.

However, Grande said while the prospect of licensing fees would act as a "stick," he wants to see some form of "carrot" that would encourage lot owners to develop their properties with the objective of reducing the number of surface parking lots in the downtown.

The report says landscaping and safety standards can be imposed on all surface lots if council requires operators to purchase business licences.

"The business licensing option has been identified by the public service as the best way to advance higher landscaping and safety standards for surface parking lot businesses within the existing legislative framework under which the city operates," the report states.

"Properly framed, a business licensing regime can supersede zoning rules. Upon its implementation, and subject to a grace period, no commercial parking lot would be entitled to operate without a licence."

The report says relevant standards could include:

• Accessible and van accessible stalls at the prescribed ratio.

• Safe and accessible route to the sidewalk or building entrance.

• Paving and internal drainage.

• Sufficient aisle and parking stall sizes with proper markings.

• Safety-oriented lighting requirements.

• Street-edge landscaping.

• Fencing to prevent cars from encroaching onto the sidewalk.

• Customer-friendly parking payment options.

[email protected]

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/...-per-stall-licensing-fees-485972691.html

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by dmacc

No worries, I took the opportunity to get on my soap box. I think you're mistaken about right wingers being against those things. I personally am all for RT, Bikes and Bike lanes. I just want it done in an economical way.

Maybe put temporary bike lanes in until the road is to be redone before putting in a real curb separated lane. don't just blow the wad on a road that isn't at the end of its life. I feel everything needs to be weighed to understand the economic benefit. A lane of road brings more economic benefit than a bike lane. there needs to be public initiatives but they shouldn't be at the expense of economic growth otherwise we won't be able to maintain and grow the network of public services.

The rest is essentially true, wine instead of beer though.

Completely agreed. In fact, I'd be all for (temporarily) scrapping the Garry/Fort bike plans to do it with these movable curbs, and test if the planned design is even the best way forward.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by EndoftheBeginning

This one still alive and slowly making progress - now before Property Committee. University Crescent at Pembina next to the Bishop ramp on the east side. Seven storeys, 104 units and lots of opposition from the neighbourhood.

I'm all for more development in that area, and agree the existing SFH are already surrounded by MFR enough that it's fine – however I think the size and proximity to the Bishop/Pembina "interchanges" which are already a dangerous nightmare, is awful. This could end up like another Rt 90 fire hall. City should deem it un-developable and buy the land to be added to the park/land reserve for future use. It'd be horrific adding another access point right there.

Originally Posted by dmacc

3 minutes of efficiency on a street that see 30,000 vehicles a day amounts to 90,000 minutes saved per day. if 10% of that is business transportation it amounts to 9,000 minutes. Times that by a 5 day work week and a 52 week year and you have 2.34 million hours saved. Times that by an average wage of the employees at $20 an hour? That would amount to 46.8 million dollars in efficiency. I think those are all fairly conservative number. It helps show how the compounding effect can have major value.

This is absurd. If it was one company absorbing all those minutes, sure, but this is split between thousands of businesses and people. People often overplay "the economy" card as if it's sort of lump-sum consortium that moves in tandem.

Originally Posted by dmacc

^^^ I might be out numbered in my opinion on here though. How about this, you get your P&M and I get an impressive new Route 90?

Sorry what is impressive about the Route 90 plan? Maybe the new bridge design, if the absurd left turn from Portage wasn't part of it?

Originally Posted by DowntownBooster

Have you heard something about this, buzzg? Ever since the outside of 360 Main was re-clad, the exterior of the Scotiabank building pales by comparison now. Since Artis doesn't own the Scotiabank property they don't have an obligation to re-clad that building to match the exterior of 360 Main. Nevertheless, it sure would be nice to see Scotiabank do something on their own to update the look of their building.

Not anything concrete but some talks have been mentioned on here in the past that there was plans being developed to renovate and open it up. Almost the entire main floor has been cleared, yet Scotiabank is actually keeping its banking operations there, so there's gotta be something happening.

Originally Posted by WpG_GuY

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/...-per-stall-licensing-fees-485972691.html

Like the heart and inspiration of this idea, think the licensing is a good idea, HOWEVER – I don't think we should be offering a "discount" to people who comply with a rule or law – impose a penalty to people who don't. I understand that some parking lot rules are grandfathered, but haven't many of the "beautification rules" been in place for a long time, and just aren't being enforced at all? I would also be in favour of the BIZs getting the fees, or significant portion of them.

--

As a side note I have to say, whatever you may think personally of Bowman or what he may stand for politically – he has stuck to his guns in terms of campaign promises, questioned authority put the people first several times, and hasn't bent over to opposition or corporate/outside pressure. That's commendable, and something not often seen from any politicians these days.

I think it's going to be a difficult task to find someone that can be more commendable to more people than him, and certainly hope people (on either side) don't let the petty argument about P&M (so insignificant in terms of overall civic issues) cloud judgement, or make up their minds based on that.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Sorry what is impressive about the Route 90 plan? Maybe the new bridge design, if the absurd left turn from Portage wasn't part of it?

Nothing is impressive about it, I want a new free flowing Route 90 at the bridge and underpass. I'm saying I would concede arguing P&M to get a better planned Route 90.

[Biff]

The Scotia Bank project at 360 Main recently hired PCL as the contractor. It is moving along now. I still haven't seen any renderings so it is hard to know what they are up to.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by dmacc

Nothing is impressive about it, I want a new free flowing Route 90 at the bridge and underpass. I'm saying I would concede arguing P&M to get a better planned Route 90.

The $10-15m going to P&M might get some trees planted on Kenaston.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by buzzg

The $10-15m going to P&M might get some trees planted on Kenaston.

I'm trying to concede the P&M argument, if all of you will supports a better free flowing Route 90. Not the crap that was presented but a real idea. Deal?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Biff

The Scotia Bank project at 360 Main recently hired PCL as the contractor. It is moving along now. I still haven't seen any renderings so it is hard to know what they are up to.

Sounds like it's shaping up to be fairly substantial... after all, no one hires PCL just to slap on a new coat of paint.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by dmacc

I'm trying to concede the P&M argument, if all of you will supports a better free flowing Route 90. Not the crap that was presented but a real idea. Deal?

No, because the two don't have to be mutually exclusive, especially with the P&M cost such a drop in the bucket – and that it all needs to be redone regardless.

If P&M cost $400m, sure maybe, I'd bargain.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by buzzg

No, because the two don't have to be mutually exclusive, especially with the P&M cost such a drop in the bucket – and that it all needs to be redone regardless.

If P&M cost $400m, sure maybe, I'd bargain.

Well shit, here I thought I could pull a fast one on you. Oh well, we'll just have to agree to disagree for now. I think everyone is sick of this argument right now. I'm sure there will be plenty of time for this discussion as the Mayoral race picks up steam.

A mayoral race thread might be something good to start on here. I don't know how to start one but I'm sure some good discussion could be had on one.

[esquire]

^ I truly hope that a minor project like Portage and Main does not become a mayoral campaign issue. It would be like the board of directors of Great-West Life spending an entire meeting arguing over where the annual chairman's banquet should be held.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ I truly hope that a minor project like Portage and Main does not become a mayoral campaign issue. It would be like the board of directors of Great-West Life spending an entire meeting arguing over where the annual chairman's banquet should be held.

You're right but sometimes small, seemingly insignificant issues can be hugely polarizing and take centre stage. It sounds Like Jenny Motkaluk is going to push it as part of her campaign and so far she seems like the only real opposition to Bowman.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by esquire

Sounds like it's shaping up to be fairly substantial... after all, no one hires PCL just to slap on a new coat of paint.

Yeah, kinda why I thought to post it. Hopefully if turns out to be even a bit transformative to that structure.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by dmacc

You're right but sometimes small, seemingly insignificant issues can be hugely polarizing and take centre stage. It sounds Like Jenny Motkaluk is going to push it as part of her campaign and so far she seems like the only real opposition to Bowman.

A good candidate would lead on important issues instead of attempting to find a way to turn a trivial matter into a wedge issue that can be exploited for votes.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by esquire

A good candidate would lead on important issues instead of attempting to find a way to turn a trivial matter into a wedge issue that can be exploited for votes.

You're right, however, I don't think that has stopped others in the past. It works as a good tool to get additional media time. If you create a good polarizing issue then the media grabs hold of it and your name comes up more then other candidates. It's a common tool used by politicians. From her interview on CJOB it sounds like she wants to make it a bit of an issue.

[roccerfeller]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ I truly hope that a minor project like Portage and Main does not become a mayoral campaign issue. It would be like the board of directors of Great-West Life spending an entire meeting arguing over where the annual chairman's banquet should be held.

Its already becoming one

as dmacc noted, Jenny is going in that direction

[esquire]

Originally Posted by roccerfeller

Its already becoming one

as dmacc noted, Jenny is going in that direction

She's trying. Just like Gord Steeves did last election. Hopefully the public will exercise the same level of judgment this time out.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by esquire

She's trying. Just like Gord Steeves did last election. Hopefully the public will exercise the same level of judgment this time out.

Granted if her platform is better overall, I will vote for her even if she were to tell me she won't look at Route 90.

I actually wanted Steeves even though I supported RT. I voted for Bowman because I felt it was more important to keep Judy Washalisalies(I know that's spelled wrong) from getting elected. Bowman got in at a great time, he just had to improve upon the previous administration.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by dmacc

Well shit, here I thought I could pull a fast one on you. Oh well, we'll just have to agree to disagree for now. I think everyone is sick of this argument right now. I'm sure there will be plenty of time for this discussion as the Mayoral race picks up steam.

A mayoral race thread might be something good to start on here. I don't know how to start one but I'm sure some good discussion could be had on one.

That we can agree on.

Originally Posted by esquire

^ I truly hope that a minor project like Portage and Main does not become a mayoral campaign issue. It would be like the board of directors of Great-West Life spending an entire meeting arguing over where the annual chairman's banquet should be held.

Agreed. Especially since it was one of the parts of Bowman's campaign (not all of it) and he won. "We" chose it.

Originally Posted by dmacc

You're right, however, I don't think that has stopped others in the past. It works as a good tool to get additional media time. If you create a good polarizing issue then the media grabs hold of it and your name comes up more then other candidates. It's a common tool used by politicians. From her interview on CJOB it sounds like she wants to make it a bit of an issue.

Yeah – it's awful when something like this becomes a huge issue, roads as well, when there are many real-life problems to be talking about.

So far P&M is Jenny's ONLY campaign pillar. She has a questionnaire on her website that has 1 question: "Where should the Portage & Main money go instead?"

a) that is the textbook definition of a loaded question, assuming everyone wants it gone
b) it all needs to be redone ($) whether it opens to pedestrians or not