Winnipeg | 197 Osborne St | Residential Development

[Wpg_Guy]

Description: Proposed consolidation and rezoning of parcels to eventually accommodate a mixed-use, multi-family development at 197, 207 and 213 Osborne Street




Concept #1






Concept #2






Concept #3






Survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/197OsborneStreet-Round2
Source: http://landmarkplanning.ca/perch/res...tionslides.pdf

[Hecate]

Concept three seems the most appropriate, it’s at least interesting. fits in with the area the best.

[zen-kz]

All 3 concepts are too big and heavy for Osborne street, I would prefer to see something which is not more than 3-5 storeys there. However from these 3 concepts the 3rd one is better as it increases the height in steps.

[esquire]

I don't mind any of the concepts but I'd say I prefer option three best. It makes good use of the site and the tapered design makes it look interesting.

Really, anything to help pull the Osborne strip out of its funk is fine with me.

[bomberjet]

Any of them. #3 looks most interesting. But they all have the same details. 105/106 units. 2 level, 86 stall parkade. Similar commercial space.

It fits in to the local area plan for midrise TOD. Looks like the City also wants to expand the park space in behind at some point.

Number 10 is on the case. I'm sure it will be another gem.

[3de14eec6a]

Originally Posted by zen-kz

All 3 concepts are too big and heavy for Osborne street, I would prefer to see something which is not more than 3-5 storeys there. However from these 3 concepts the 3rd one is better as it increases the height in steps.

Isn't there a restriction that all new buildings on the strip need to be 3-5 storeys anyway?

[Biff]

I have to say, I like number 1...if done right. I like how it creates a street wall (canyon effect). I would not however want it to be just an ordinary slab and I feel it creates the worst AM shadow of the 3.

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by 3de14eec6a

Isn't there a restriction that all new buildings on the strip need to be 3-5 storeys anyway?

This is within the TOD zone, 8 storey max, would need a variance for a larger building.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

This is within the TOD zone, 8 storey max, would need a variance for a larger building.

It's like the city's rules are designed to choke off any kind of ambitious development along Osborne. Setbacks, height limits... no wonder Osborne is the way it is.

[Kris22]

Originally Posted by zen-kz

All 3 concepts are too big and heavy for Osborne street, I would prefer to see something which is not more than 3-5 storeys there.

I totally disagree. Options 1 and 3 are what would be expected of an urban neighbourhood in in the 2020s. The Roslyn apartments at the north end of the strip are the equivalent of 6 stories and that was built 100 years ago. It is hardly a stretch to say that a city that has grown in population for a century should be able to build an 8 or 10 storey building on a major thoroughfare, 1 block away from a new rapid transit station. In fact, the proximity to Osborne Station could easily be used to justify the 13 storey building, but I think compromise is best sometimes and I guarantee the nimbys will be out in full force on this one.

I personally think the terraced 10 storey is most appropriate and visually appealing proposal.

[rivercity]

I hope that this will be built sooner than later and will breathe some new life into the strip. I'm into Options 1 and 3; Option 2 appears to be too boxy and narrow for me. For the love of god I hope that quality building materials will be used for at the very least the Osborne facing facade, like brick. If this project were to be constructed and the Zu project built out, that will definitely add to some quality changes to the area.

[scryer]

Option 3 is definitely my number 1 pick.

But, to be fair, there is a way to design a 14 storey building so that it isn't just a tower sitting on a podium. I almost feel like Option 2 was proposed to just "test the waters" on sentiments regarding new towers in Osbourne. My opinion is that the developer should have designed concept #2 differently so that the massing was more reflective of an inner-city midrise as opposed to a tower.

Some examples of what I mean can be inspired by Vancouver's Olympic Village neighbourhood for taller midrises:

Avenue One - 18 Floors




2nd & Main - 12 Floors



Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting a copy + paste job of these into Osbourne Village. Rather I am suggesting that midrise massing beyond 10 storeys can be tapered to suit the area more appropriately and that I would like to see projects like these ones I suggested, inspire Osbourne Village to develop into an excellent inner-city mid-rise neighbourhood while maximizing the density they could provide. IMO, 4 floor midrises are great additions to fade out your density (flanked by townhouses and taller structures) in cities as opposed to being the pinnacle of midrise density.

I may just be paranoid here but I suspect that concept #2 was a throwaway to make #1 and #3 seem like better options . But I am very impressed with option #3 regardless.

I will also go on the record to say that Osbourne Village (and Little Italy, quite frankly) needs an updated, proper neighbourhood plan at this point. That way the city can continue to revitalize Osbourne Village, which is quite frankly in a decline, as the parcels of land opportunities open up without any surprises to its current residents. Also it will help them up-zone as needed for any TOD.

[armorand93]

Option two would be best. Osborne needs the density upgrades and investment potential to keep it from becoming a Vancouver East Hastings-level hell. A big tower right near Confusion Corner (why aren't they buying Wild Planet for more space by the way...?) with brand new, non-ancient commercial space plus a few hundred people with deep pockets, shouls help that goal along quite immensely, along with other Confusion Corner developments now coming in.

[Wpg_Guy]

^Interesting that you point out 2 as the concept with the most density, when in reality each concept proposes the exact same level of density with 105 units.

[kalabaw]

I would go for Option 3. I like the setbacks. Although, honestly, any of these 3 would be a good option for Osborne.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

^Interesting that you point out 2 as the concept with the most density, when in reality each concept proposes the exact same level of density with 105 units.

Then arguably it would actually be concept #3 with the best density score since it brings 8,200 sq.ft of commercial space ontop of the residential component within the same parcel of land. This would depend upon the average sq. ft per unit though.

Also I guess I'm just not understanding the math here in terms of the residential unit and the parking unit calculations:

Concept #1 - 8 Floors Total
1 Commercial Floor - 7,200 sq.ft of commercial space
7 Residential Floors
105 Residential Units
2 Parking Levels - 86 Stalls

Concept #2 - 14 Floors Total
1 Commercial Floor - 8,000 sq.ft
13 Residential Floors
105 Residential Units
2 Parking levels - 86 Stalls

Concept #3 - 10 Floors Total
1 Commercial Floor - 8,200 sq.ft
9 Residential Floors
106 Residential Units
2 Parking levels - 86 stalls

What isn't making sense to me is that they have different residential floors but the residential unit count isn't scaling with the amount of floors . To play Devil's Advocate: even if the ENTIRE building was intended to be constructed with only 3 Bedroom units being offered; you should be able to fit 3-4 of those larger units per floor. So there's no way that Concept #1 and Concept #2 should have the same residential unit count since there is a difference of 4 floors . With that in mind, Concept #3 shouldn't have the most residential units since it has less residential floors than Concept #2. Lol, it feels like I'm back in an elementary school math problem .

And don't get me started on the parking! It's definitely not scaling with the increase of residential units OR the increase in height. 86 stalls is less than 1 stall per unit - which I am suspicious that there's a bylaw that stipulates parking requirements to be constructed for buildings in Winnipeg. Maybe these parking requirements would be relaxed for rentals if these go through as a rental/condo mix?

I can forgive the commercial Sq.ft increasing in Concept #3 vs Concept #2 because I get that the ground level layout is completely different . But I am suspicious that these proposed concepts are being misleading with their data now.

[davequanbury]

I'm not as thrilled with these as I was seeing the renderings for The Zu. I guess I just find podium/tower combos less energetic and kind of soul-less (picturing Villa Cabrini). Besides, I don't think the village needs a ton of height, it needs a bunch of retail and services.

This building from Commercial Drive near where the Skytrain crosses feels like a decent analog for the Osborne site.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/22....0695369?hl=en

[esquire]

Originally Posted by davequanbury

I'm not as thrilled with these as I was seeing the renderings for The Zu. I guess I just find podium/tower combos less energetic and kind of soul-less (picturing Villa Cabrini). Besides, I don't think the village needs a ton of height, it needs a bunch of retail and services.

Podiums can deliver services and retail, though. Winnipeg doesn't have too many great recent examples but you can see some older examples of podiums that improve the surroundings.

Broadview Tower on Donald is one such example, it has a supermarket, hair salon, restaurant plus some other shops and offices in the podium. There was even once a great little gym in there although it's been closed for years. Something like that (in function, not necessarily the 80s appearance) would be perfect for Osborne Village.

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by scryer

And don't get me started on the parking! It's definitely not scaling with the increase of residential units OR the increase in height. 86 stalls is less than 1 stall per unit - which I am suspicious that there's a bylaw that stipulates parking requirements to be constructed for buildings in Winnipeg. Maybe these parking requirements would be relaxed for rentals if these go through as a rental/condo mix?

Being in the TOD zone the development more then likely can get by with less parking then the 1:1. If not a variance application would be needed, hard to imagine that being declined based on it's proximity to Osborne Station and the 10+ transit routes that service the immediate area.

[3de14eec6a]

Originally Posted by scryer

What isn't making sense to me is that they have different residential floors but the residential unit count isn't scaling with the amount of floors . To play Devil's Advocate: even if the ENTIRE building was intended to be constructed with only 3 Bedroom units being offered; you should be able to fit 3-4 of those larger units per floor. So there's no way that Concept #1 and Concept #2 should have the same residential unit count since there is a difference of 4 floors . With that in mind, Concept #3 shouldn't have the most residential units since it has less residential floors than Concept #2. Lol, it feels like I'm back in an elementary school math problem .

I'm not sure if you're making a joke here. The floor plates are different sizes.