Winnipeg Construction IX

[esquire]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Orlikow cherry picking. Go figure.

One comment he made I would agree with though, and is something we discussed recently. What standards or otherwise are in place for infill development in terms of aesthetic requirements? Is there anything? Is it neighbourhood oriented or is it just a free for all that the city reviews case by case?

I would agree that a mish mashed approach to this can lead to some discontinuity in the nieghbourhood. Maybe that isn't necessarily a bad thing though.

I used to live in an infill home in an area where the homes were mostly 70-80 years older than mine. Obviously mine looked nothing like the original homes. But why should we expect them to?

I can appreciate having some standards in place as there are with new subdivisions, but what I would hate to see is a requirement that new homes be built to resemble the old, original ones. Old areas should be allowed to regenerate over time.

[bomberjet]

I wouldn't want them to look like the old homes. I was meaning when someone builds an infill, are there any standards as to what it should look like? Or is it just whatever the builder wants.

I'm somewhere in the middle of wanting to have a standard, but at the same time letting them go organically. In some neighbourhoods all of the houses on a particular block are being replaced. some are 1 storey, some 2. they look completely different. Is there a strategy on the cities end for this type of stuff?

I for sure don't want faux 1920's new builds, or something like that.

[Authentic_City]

Peguis retail development, Portage and Dominion.

[pmuhar]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I wouldn't want them to look like the old homes. I was meaning when someone builds an infill, are there any standards as to what it should look like? Or is it just whatever the builder wants.

I'm somewhere in the middle of wanting to have a standard, but at the same time letting them go organically. In some neighbourhoods all of the houses on a particular block are being replaced. some are 1 storey, some 2. they look completely different. Is there a strategy on the cities end for this type of stuff?

I for sure don't want faux 1920's new builds, or something like that.

Up until 2ish years ago it was pretty much whatever the builder wanted, but these days most infills have a "planner approval" condition. You submit your exterior facades for the planning department to review and approve. They will provide feedback and wont approve a plan/issue permits until it fits in with the character of the neighborhood.

[pmuhar]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

the early adopters take the most risk

pmuhar:

you dont need to apoligise for being upset about how you have been treated.

home builders association are they of any resource to you in these situations?

Once an application has been denied after the appeal process, I cant reapply for at least one year. I can only apply sooner if I have substantially different development plan, which in most cases doesnt make sense financially.

Ive looked into taking legal action in the past, but its quite expensive and I wouldnt see any results for at least a year anyway, so at this point I really just have no choice but to wait and try again.

[bomberjet]

Thanks for the info.

So you have to wait a year if they deny? That seems excessively long and damaging. 1 year is a along time in business when you're sitting idle.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I wouldn't want them to look like the old homes. I was meaning when someone builds an infill, are there any standards as to what it should look like? Or is it just whatever the builder wants.

I'm somewhere in the middle of wanting to have a standard, but at the same time letting them go organically. In some neighbourhoods all of the houses on a particular block are being replaced. some are 1 storey, some 2. they look completely different. Is there a strategy on the cities end for this type of stuff?

I for sure don't want faux 1920's new builds, or something like that.

It depends on the area. Some neighbourhoods have detailed Local Area Plans with urban design guidelines that layout the density, form, use, etc. that you're allowed to build in different parts of that neighbourhood. There may also be urban design guidelines standing on their own in some neighbourhoods, but I'm not sure. Downtown has them in its separate zoning by-law.

Aside from that, I don't really know but what pmuhar said obviously makes sense. There may still be some very general rules pertaining to the OurWinnipeg/Complete Communities development plans but those are so broad they wouldn't have any influence on any individual neighbourhood or site or anything like that.

[LilZebra]

A year ago at the OurWinnipeg presentation/seminar/workshop at the downtown library that was on the very same day as the Santa Claus parade AND a Jets game...Took me ~2 hrs. to get back to St. Anne's at Fermor.
Le cadeau qui continue à donner (The gift that keeps on giving). LOL.


A few people associated "infill housing" as to mean "like a grain silo".


I saw two of these go up on Fermor early last year between St. Mary's and St. Anne's Rd.

[1ajs]

interesting
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/12/12/m...whLwzejJGiq8pxAc2EaH4ZRVc5G1onGTIxm_cmEI

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

interesting
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/12/12/m...whLwzejJGiq8pxAc2EaH4ZRVc5G1onGTIxm_cmEI

Yes, very interesting article! Progressive cities are trying to reduce car culture and promote pedestrian traffic. It's especially interesting that this is happening in "cold weather" cities like Minneapolis and Buffalo. I guess they're not afraid that, oooohh....let's say "opening an intersection to foot traffic", for example, will create traffic chaos and condemn people to a frozen doom. Yep, nice to see what can happen when you don't let unreasoning fear drive your decision making.

[Urban recluse]

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but the former Starbucks on Graham will become a dentist office. Not ideal IMO.

[morty]

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but the former Starbucks on Graham will become a dentist office. Not ideal IMO.

Do dental offices pay higher rent than corporate-owned chain restaurants? Seems like a strange replacement.

[1ajs]

i would suspect they didnt resign the lease figuring it would auto renew and the landlord just went and leased it to someone els like what happend with the old safeway co-op took over on main

[Wpg_Guy]

Mall no more
Bustling Graham Avenue much more than just a transit hub thanks to new businesses, residential developments
By: Martin Cash | Posted: 12/14/2018 7:00 PM

A little more than 20 years ago, a stretch of Graham Avenue was blocked off from vehicular traffic and reserved exclusively for transit buses and become known as the Graham Mall.

There's still about 1,800 buses a day moving about 60,000 people into the downtown along Graham, but the concept of the Graham Mall is changing as is the whole dynamic of downtown.

The Downtown Biz released a report in the summer that noted that people see the strip as something more than just a transit hub and, among other things, recommended that it be once again referred to as Graham Avenue.

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/mall-no-more-502815012.html

[buzzg]

That's dumb. If anything, what they're describing Graham as is more of a Mall than ever before. Keep pushing the "mall" aspect and attracting more retailers.

[pmuhar]

Originally Posted by morty

Do dental offices pay higher rent than corporate-owned chain restaurants? Seems like a strange replacement.

Corporate owned chain stores/restaurants will generally pay lower rent than an independent business like a dental office as its seen as more stable and likely to remain a tenant for years and years. In strip malls its especially nice to have something like a starbucks as it can be considered an anchor tenant and make the rest of your units more desirable.

[pmuhar]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Thanks for the info.

So you have to wait a year if they deny? That seems excessively long and damaging. 1 year is a along time in business when you're sitting idle.

Its actually very weird. So you have a public hearing, and if youre approved or denied you or those in opposition can appeal. Then whatever happens at the appeal hearing is final. So in my opinion what is the point of the first hearing if the appeal(second) hearing is final. They should have some sort of "best out of 3" system.

Yeah I have to wait 1 year before I can even re-apply and then the process starts over again. Once I apply I have to wait for a public hearing date, then there will more than likely be another appeal hearing. Assuming it goes in my favor next time around, its easily another 1.5 years before I even begin construction.

The properties I purchased are total dumps too so it doesnt make sense to try and renovate and sell them, cant sell them as is because anyone that wants to buy it is likely an infill developer and they wont want to wait 1.5 years either, and I cant rent them as the amount of money it will cost to get them to be livable surpasses the amount of rent I will collect in 1.5 years, so Im just stuck with them for a while and will hope for the best in the future. Im not looking for any sympathy from a financial standpoint though as it was a risk and you win some you lose some, its just unfortunate that prime neighborhoods in this city would rather have dumps than new homes all for the sake of "the character of the neighborhood".

[bomberjet]

Ya it's the red tape. It seems ridiculous when someone is willing to spend money to help clean up neighbourghoods and get stuck with this kind of BS.

[Curmudgeon]

The houses in that photo are too tall compared with the adjacent housing and they are also far too close together. They lack curb appeal, will not show well in the winter and I wouldn't want them built on my street. Instead of housing that looks like it came out a carton from a big-box store, I would think that an American foursquare, bungalow or a Cape Cod design would be appreciated by the neighbours and would be approved without question. Yes, aesthetics are very important!

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

The houses in that photo are too tall compared with the adjacent housing and they are also far too close together. They lack curb appeal, will not show well in the winter and I wouldn't want them built on my street. Instead of housing that looks like it came out a carton from a big-box store, I would think that an American foursquare, bungalow or a Cape Cod design would be appreciated by the neighbours and would be approved without question. Yes, aesthetics are very important!

If you put a bungalow on that site, you'd be lucky to get 1,000 square feet in there. People who want moderately larger homes (I'm not talking monster homes, I mean like 1,600 SF+) shouldn't be forced into the far fringes of suburbia to have them.

Also, on lots that narrow the homes are going to be close together no matter what.