Winnipeg Construction IX

[1ajs]

hmm

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/infill-housing-winnipeg-guidelines-1.4965252

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

hmm

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/infill-housing-winnipeg-guidelines-1.4965252

I don't like it. This is just going to lead to more urban sprawl.

[GarryEllice]

Originally Posted by ywgwalk

What makes a BRT line directly through the middle of Elmwood/EK/NK "pointless" compared to any other area/alignment?

It's a 20 minute walk from Henderson to Gateway, so everyone in between there would suddenly be 10 minutes or less from either. That's a lot of people, and then there's a bunch more within 10 minutes of Gateway to the east.

Also seems like the BRT would be a great location for higher density development, especially since there's been a push for that in EK already.

Finally, there's a fair bit of business/industry there too (*cough* just like the SW alignment *cough*)

The SW alignment has a bunch of different routes fanning out from it, and it runs (at least partially) near Pembina which has by far the highest density in the area. The SW transitway is the RT upgrade of the previous 60, 61, 62, 63, 80, 81 routes. A Gateway transitway would be the RT upgrade of...the 44. That's about it. It's really not comparable. Let's put an express bus on Gateway Road and see how much use it gets first...

The natural corridors for RT in the northeast are Henderson and Nairn/Regent.

[ywgwalk]

Just the 44.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Long time residents of the area are aware of this but that was over a decade ago and any appetite for BRT in this city is now much reduced after the realization that Winnipeggers were sold a bill of goods regarding the SW Transitway. Perhaps it is time to hold a referendum on future expansion of BRT.

The fact that you would say that about an undertaking that is halfway into the first phase of SW BRT tells us about your objectivity on the matter. The first stage hasn't even been built and you're already writing it off as a failure... that's a rather aggressive agenda you're pushing.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

hmm

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/infill-housing-winnipeg-guidelines-1.4965252

Classic Winnipeg resistance to change. This is pretty much a case study.

[buzzg]

On the infill:

- I agree that in terms of size, infill needs to respect surrounding homes, however:
- It should not be a one-size-fits all rule for the whole city – should be a guideline, approved on case-by-case basis; and
- There shouldn't be restrictions on style – a mix is of old and new is good

[pmuhar]

Originally Posted by buzzg

On the infill:

- I agree that in terms of size, infill needs to respect surrounding homes, however:

Unfortunately it doesnt make sense financially. In most areas of the city, the only way infill makes sense is if you split a 50 ft lot into two 25ft lots. And the only way you can have decent sized livable homes on 25ft lots is to build them a little taller and skinnier(i personally dont even think they are that tall or skinny) or long bi-levels.

Building a 1200-1300 sqft bungalow on a 50ft lot just wont work, unless people are willing to sell their homes to developers for half of current market prices, or consumers are willing to buy $500,000 homes next to run down $200,000 ones.

I agree that they should have more say in having the houses blend in with the neighborhoods with their exterior facades, but dictating their height, width, and length just wont work.

Originally Posted by buzzg

On the infill:

- It should not be a one-size-fits all rule for the whole city – should be a guideline, approved on case-by-case basis; and

Agreed. They have recently started requiring some new infills to be approved by the area planner before building permits are issued, and I think this is a great way to make sure developers are building houses that work with the area. A one-size fits all infill strategy will be a complete failure and kill infill development in this city except for in the most expensive areas(tuxedo, wellington)

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

The SW alignment has a bunch of different routes fanning out from it, and it runs (at least partially) near Pembina which has by far the highest density in the area. The SW transitway is the RT upgrade of the previous 60, 61, 62, 63, 80, 81 routes. A Gateway transitway would be the RT upgrade of...the 44. That's about it. It's really not comparable. Let's put an express bus on Gateway Road and see how much use it gets first...

The natural corridors for RT in the northeast are Henderson and Nairn/Regent.

Do you have any idea how costly it would be to run a BRT/future LRT line along Henderson and Nairn/Regent? This makes no sense. People who seem to prefer the dog route, indicate that it is "cheaper" to built, although personally, I would run the route parallel to Pembina Hwy and build a tunnel under McGillivary. It may cost more, but if Winnipeg is ever to plan ahead, it would pave the way for a future LRT tine, and make the route accessible to a more densely populated area, and cut back on travel time.

Then some who are for the dog leg since it is cheaper, oppose running a BRT down the Raleigh corridor, even though building it down Henderson would be exponentially more expensive.

[Hecate]

The most rational spot for a BRT/LRT line is gateway Raleigh. If we were building a subway then Henderson might make sense. We are not. So the most rational spot is gateway Raleigh. There’s lots of space for new development along the corridor and it’s kind of the halfway point between lagimodier and Henderson, so it can easily service all those people with a short walk and some feeder busses. There’s several new apartment buildings that have gone up near lagimodier over the past few years with more under construction. So it only makes sense to build a line that’s in the middle of all that.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

I don't like it. This is just going to lead to more urban sprawl.

I think they’re just trying to protect neighbourhoods. They want to prevent — like that god awful house on montrose from happening. They ruined an entire historic street allowing that thing to be built. They are just trying to make sure that the homes are inline with their surroundings. Nothing wrong with that.

[GarryEllice]

Originally Posted by ywgwalk

Just the 44.

Yup, just the 44. Of course there are more transit routes in NK/EK, but the 44 is the only one that could plausibly be shifted onto a Gateway transitway for any significant length. It's not like Pembina where the 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 80, 81 were all shifted onto the SW transitway.

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

Do you have any idea how costly it would be to run a BRT/future LRT line along Henderson and Nairn/Regent?

Nairn/Regent is the planned route of the East Transitway. RT on Henderson would indeed be expensive and we'll probably never see it, but that fact doesn't magically bestow Gateway with the ridership, density, and major destinations that would make it a viable RT corridor.

Originally Posted by Hecate

So the most rational spot is gateway Raleigh. There’s lots of space for new development along the corridor and it’s kind of the halfway point between lagimodier and Henderson

So you're saying the Gateway corridor is under-developed and as distant as possible from major travel routes. Not exactly convincing me that RT is needed.

By all means, we should definitely safeguard the corridor in case it is ever needed for an RT route, but don't hold your breath...

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

So you're saying the Gateway corridor is under-developed and as distant as possible from major travel routes. Not exactly convincing me that RT is needed.

By all means, we should definitely safeguard the corridor in case it is ever needed for an RT route, but don't hold your breath...

It makes the most sense because it’s in the middle of the two major streets. Are you gonna have separate RT for every thoroughfare in the city? No. You’re going to build them where the most people can access them or why build them at all. Do we build two lines, one for Henderson and one for lagimodier? Or one that can easily service both? With your logic we would need four lines just to service the northern portion of the city. Does lagimodier, Henderson, main, and mcphillips all need to have their own RT. No they don’t. Furthermore gateway Raleigh is the type of area that would be perfect for infill and a prime area for transit oriented development. There’s already a growing retail presence and on top of that there is space that could easily be sold off for development. brickyards and furniture manufacturers would have no problem moving if they are offered the right price when the time is right. Just can’t see the forest for the trees.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Hecate

I think they’re just trying to protect neighbourhoods. They want to prevent — like that god awful house on montrose from happening. They ruined an entire historic street allowing that thing to be built. They are just trying to make sure that the homes are inline with their surroundings. Nothing wrong with that.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it assumes that it is somehow good or desirable for neighbourhoods to remain frozen in time... that streets like Montrose should somehow remain permanently stuck in 1919.

As well built as they are, Winnipeg's supply of 100+ year old houses are eventually going to need replacing. And it is unreasonable to expect them to be replaced with 1919-type housing. If we want to continuously revitalize inner city neighbourhoods (including places like River Heights), people need to be able to build housing that is desirable and relevant. If you limit 25 foot lots to 1,000 SF, that's a good way to chase new housing into the far outer suburbs.

And styles change too... it's unreasonable to expect houses to continue to be built the same way they were 100 years ago. Contemporary designs are beautiful and people should have every right to build them that way in older neighbourhoods.

Finally, increased density should be the goal for neighbourhoods. It doesn't necessarily have to be pursued aggressively, but it should be the long-term goal and it is wrong to place obstacles for the sheer sake of playing to the NIMBY crowd. It is irritating to see people like Brian Mayes acting as though blocking secondary suites in new infills is some kind of triumph when all it really is, is maximizing his re-election chances at the expense of the city's best interests.

It's hard to see this as anything but a big step back for the city.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

hmm

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/infill-housing-winnipeg-guidelines-1.4965252

141 Glenwood Crescent is a good example of this.

[Hecate]

Was the house on montrose a step forward for the neighbourhood? Not a chance. It ruined the streetscape. It doesn’t align with the other homes on the street and it dominates over the houses on either side of it. It’s the architectural equivalent of a “— you” to your neighbors and community. No one is saying the house has to look exactly like the others on the street, it just has to Fit in. There is nothing wrong with this. If the city is so concerned about sprawl then The focus really Should be on developing multi unit housing that can actually accommodate the needs of people. Then you might see some of the sprawl slow down. This means building condos and apartments with adequate parking and storage for people. Until that happens the sprawl will continue. I personally believe every condo building with more than say 5 suites should have to have mandatory parking. No excuses. And not two spots for fifty people. Every condo should have multiple spots. I have a car my boyfriend has a car, my parents have a car, everyone I know has a car. I have a snowmobile, a bike and a quad. Where do I store that in a condo?!?)? My friends condo they bought in Venezuela came with five parking spots. One for him, his mom, his dad and his brother and an extra one for guests because SURPRISE people visit. Guess what!? they didn’t have to pay $50,000 per extra spot either.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Riverman

141 Glenwood Crescent is a good example of this.

What is the issue with that house? I took a look on Google Street View and it looks fine to me.

[wardlow]

Most of the "tall" and "skinny" houses are not being built on streets like Montrose or elsewhere in neighbourhoods with a clear and coherent historic character; they are being built two at a time on two 25’ lots that used to be a 50’ lot in old. St. Vital and St. James. Take a drive down Vivian Avenue or Berry Street and tell me what the character of the street is. Is it the bungalow with no basement that was built in 1914? Is it the wartime house with a dirt driveway? Is it the I-don’t-know-what built in the 1970s? These neighbourhoods were built up slowly over decades with cheap houses. It would shock the builders of St. Vital circa 1924 that almost a century later people would be wringing their hands saying the featureless bungalow they built needs to be preserved for all time; these guys probably expected their houses would be gone by 1960.

Anyway, what these twin skinny houses are replacing is, almost always, a very small (less than 1,000 s.f.) house. The typical Winnipeg infill developer is poorly-financed and hustling for marginal returns. Their best bet is to find a lot that can be split into two and is located in one of those sweet-spot cheap-but-desirable areas. St. Vital and St. James are great because they have many 50’ lots, many more that are already 25’s (so new 25’s fit the character), and are both cheap-ish but can sell. Many of these infill developments don’t even need to subdivide the lot because the street was originally subdivided with 25’ lots – the developer just needs to go to Land Titles and establish the underlying lots.

I don’t know how many other people (ie, first-time home buyers wanting to raise a family in a plain, 850 s.f. bungalow built in 1924) are also buying up these houses, but I would guess infill developers are the biggest buyers. Home buyers don’t want to live in a small old house in an average neighbourhood for long, and I don’t think house-flipping in neighbourhoods like these is economically worthwhile circa 2019. What home-buyers seem to be (realistically) interested in buying is these new skinny houses in these old neighbourhoods: *Someone* is buying them, so demand has something to do with this phenomenon, not just supply.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by Riverman

141 Glenwood Crescent is a good example of this.

With the transit and infill discussions mixed, I though you were talking about the express bus route 141 Glenwood Crescent. Made me do a triple take haha

Also funny how we discussed infill just a couple weeks ago and now the City is out with new requirements.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

And it will continue the blossoming Winnipeg tradition of putting rapid transit where it's easiest to build, not where it's most needed.

The challenge there is to build brt along existing routes like Pembina, Henderson or Portage is significantly more expensive that building through mostly unused/lightly used land. Further, the plan is to change transit traffic so there are fewer buses on those congested routes freeing up capacity, aka a similar effect to adding lanes to the existing routes for other traffic.

It isn't a perfect solution but there is no "easy" way to go back 50+ years and design the City's road network properly.

In terms of the greenway a solution could be to convert Raleigh to the transit way and extend the limited direct access it has across the greenway, specifically Anderson park.