Winnipeg | Osborne Village & Fort Rouge

[lbnevs]

Originally Posted by EndoftheBeginning

345 is Wolfram Engineering (structural firm) -Wardrop became Tetra Tech quite a while ago and are downtown at P&M. Thanks for getting info straight from the developer.

Yoops! Fixed.

Also, when I say "currently Fabca", I have no idea if that's actually still true, since Fabca appears to have been a firm created for some... uh... *choosing words carefully* unorthodox subcontracting arrangements related to the police headquarters construction... I have no idea if they're still a going concern

[T'Cona]

Originally Posted by lbnevs

Just got a notice about this proposed development along Wardlaw between Scott and Donald:

https://339wardlaw.com/#the-development



Paragon Design-Build. 51 units (35 1br, 16 2br), ~0.85 parking stalls per unit.

That is hideous.

[Winnipeg Grump]

Originally Posted by lbnevs

Yoops! Fixed.

Also, when I say "currently Fabca", I have no idea if that's actually still true, since Fabca appears to have been a firm created for some... uh... *choosing words carefully* unorthodox subcontracting arrangements related to the police headquarters construction... I have no idea if they're still a going concern

Ah, yes. The 'unorthodox subcontracting arrangements' involving fraud and whatever other criminality that the RCMP were all ready to see go to trial and then the province just said 'nah, we want to hammer on the two Hydro projects' instead.

[zalf]

Anyone know what's going in at 569 Gertrude, next to the church? The dilapidated house that was there has vanished and been replaced with a hole. I assume it will be a 4 or 6 unit apartment, but I really have no idea.

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by zalf

Anyone know what's going in at 569 Gertrude, next to the church? The dilapidated house that was there has vanished and been replaced with a hole. I assume it will be a 4 or 6 unit apartment, but I really have no idea.

Interesting, I see a permit to demolish and a permit to build on the PPD portal, but no variances/zoning/etc items on DMIS. So, whatever's being done must be able to be done without variances.

21-135144 HO 569 Gertrude AVE
Construct New. Construct new 2002sq.ft, 2 storey half of a side by side, with an unfinished basement and a 27.5 covered front entry.
Issued 2021-06-30

21-135118 HO 569 Gertrude AVE
Demolish. Demolish existing 1939sq.ft. two storey single family dwelling.
Issued 2021-06-30

[zalf]

Well, whatever it is, it's well underway. There was a crew doing constructiony stuff there today. I'll upload photos when I can.

[eman]

Several years have past since the plan was made and we can all see the results now.


"The overall goal of the Osborne Village Neighbourhood Plan (OVNP) is to promote high quality urban development and redevelopment in Osborne Village in a manner that supports and enhances the neighbourhood and advances the urban village concept."

They FAILED. Ok maybe a few places get a C- but overall everything built since is an F. They aimed high with the best of intentions and fell flat face right into the rent-seeking and gentrification trap.


I was in favour of HIGH density with tall slender buildings. Ground level retail or town houses to the property line and a slender tower set back. Even mid block as there already are some like 400 Stradbrook's 14 floors. The whole process there was only hate for these ideas. Tall buildings can be mandated to have 1/4 affordable rents.

Instead the majority insisted on Low/medium density 4 floor max. This is called rent-seeking and gentrification. Projects are so small that studio rents need to be $1500+. The very same people say they are against gentrification, but by limiting the size of development affordable places get renovated to higher rents and not a single affordable unit is built. Are there affordable place in the village anymore?

Rent-Seeking and Gentrification is Osborne Village official policy.

What do you think?

[eman]

Osborne Village Neighbourhood Plan (OVNP)


I'm surprised this topic didn't cause any discussion.

I drive through Bridgewater often and there are hundreds of units built and being built there filled with the kind of people that should/could be living in a walkable community like Osborne Village. Plus all the other communities near the perimeter. I look at those and wonder wtf are builders NOT making anything like that in Osborne. It's the Osborne Village Neighbourhood Plan (OVNP) that makes building anything like that impossible.

[GreyGarden]

In general I'm fine with dense 4 floor buildings in Osborne Village. I'd like to see a couple taller buildings built around the Evergreen towers and 55 Nassau just purely for aesthetic reasons to give the Village a modern look. But for the most part, I'd like to see slightly taller 8ish floor buildings built on underused sites along Osborne or on the periphery of the neighbourhood, but within the Village, I prefer the idea of smaller scale buildings closer together. Towers take up a lot of space and I really dislike walking through tower neighbourhoods - even in Vancouver where they arguably do it "right" - I find it to be awfully dull. I vastly prefer dense neighbourhoods where the buildings are 2-4 floors and tight together.

I guess it depends on how you define affordable. The demographic of the area have changed and the Village is likely wealthier than its ever been. Frankly it's a shock that gentrification isn't farther along in the Village. In my opinion, its okay that desirable neighbourhoods are expensive to live in, that's how it works in every other city. It costs a lot to live in Queen West, Dundas West, Plateau Mont-Royal, Mount Pleasant, Kits, etc... Osborne Village is a Winnipeg equivalent to those styles of neighbourhoods.

I don't share the doom and gloom of Osborne, it's a tough street and a pretty horrible pedestrian experience, but the area is becoming denser and wealthier, and I think that'll only lead to a positive outcome for the commercial offerings of the Osborne strip. That being said, I absolutely support initiatives to build affordable housing in the Village.

You mentioned townhouses - I'd love to see more townhouses or row housing built in the Osborne Village area, and inner city Winnipeg in general.

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by eman

Several years have past since the plan was made and we can all see the results now.


"The overall goal of the Osborne Village Neighbourhood Plan (OVNP) is to promote high quality urban development and redevelopment in Osborne Village in a manner that supports and enhances the neighbourhood and advances the urban village concept."

They FAILED. Ok maybe a few places get a C- but overall everything built since is an F. They aimed high with the best of intentions and fell flat face right into the rent-seeking and gentrification trap.


I was in favour of HIGH density with tall slender buildings. Ground level retail or town houses to the property line and a slender tower set back. Even mid block as there already are some like 400 Stradbrook's 14 floors. The whole process there was only hate for these ideas. Tall buildings can be mandated to have 1/4 affordable rents.

Instead the majority insisted on Low/medium density 4 floor max. This is called rent-seeking and gentrification. Projects are so small that studio rents need to be $1500+. The very same people say they are against gentrification, but by limiting the size of development affordable places get renovated to higher rents and not a single affordable unit is built. Are there affordable place in the village anymore?

Rent-Seeking and Gentrification is Osborne Village official policy.

What do you think?

I'm not an expert on development financing, but can somebody who is maybe weigh in? Doesn't high-rise construction incur a lot more costs while low-rise can be more affordable? 300 Assiniboine, D-Condo and 300 Main aren't exactly cheap buildings by virtue of being taller. I think eman might not understand construction costs are high, period, so rent in any brand-new building is high, period. Brand-new affordable units is an oxymoron.

From a street-interaction perspective I'd much rather see more 4-6 story buildings continue to go up than have a 25-story tower where the main interaction with the street is a 200-stall parkade.

[biguc]

The trouble is OV has been overrun with cheap three stories that aren't cheap places to live. Mostly they've replaced subdivided houses, which did provide cheap rentals, and it's not clear in many cases that the new buildings are providing so much more housing than they're replacing that it's a clear win.

Of all the problems with OV's current lack of vitality, this is one I don't think we've discussed: students and punks are more fun than yuppies and retired people. The actual community that supported OV businesses and culture has been displaced.

Maybe in it'll come back in 30 years when all the cheap new builds are falling apart.

[esquire]

My main problem with Osborne Village is that virtually no development has occurred on or adjacent to Osborne itself. There has been so much activity on the side streets but Osborne looks stagnant and forlorn... if there was Google Street View imagery from 1986 you could see that hardly any new buildings have been built since then, and the few that have gone up are no better than what they replaced. I guess this might change depending on what happens with the Osborne Village Inn site and the Dutch Maid site, but that remains to be seen.

It's a bit of a tough pill to swallow that other Canadian cities have seen their urban neighbourhoods thrive and prosper over the last 20+ years (compare Spring Garden Road or 17th Ave SW as they were in 1999 to now), while Osborne has barely changed over that timespan and is arguably less of a draw now than it was then.

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by esquire

I guess this might change depending on what happens with the Osborne Village Inn site and the Dutch Maid site, but that remains to be seen.

I think these two sites will be really important because those are two of the largest (correctable) holes in the OV streetscape from Confusion Corner to the Osborne bridge. Some of the other big holes haven't been fixed but have been greatly improved (e.g., the plaza at Stradbrook is still fronted by a parking lot, but they've done a lot to improve it and make it much more accessible to pedestrians.

The less correctable ones:

Basils and the adjoining parking lot - both for sale but probably priced (in Basils case) in a way that will keep much from happening

The Shell station and Evergreen parking lot - can't see this changing in the immediate term

The fire station is supposed to be merged/replaced but I don't know that there's been any plan/budget so I'm guessing that's >10 years out.

[zalf]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

Basils and the adjoining parking lot - both for sale but probably priced (in Basils case) in a way that will keep much from happening

On that subject, from this:

The City-owned property located at 145 Osborne Street (“Subject City Property”) shown outlined
on the attached Misc. Plan No. 13365/2 was marketed for sale February and March, 2021 with
an asking price of $800,000.

The Public Service received five Offers to Purchase and recommends the sale of the Subject
City Property to 10090710 Manitoba Limited for $1,625,000.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

The fire station is supposed to be merged/replaced but I don't know that there's been any plan/budget so I'm guessing that's >10 years out.

Any news about the replacement fire hall always seems to take for granted that it will be replaced as is, or moved out of the area.

Why can't we combine a more substantial development with a new fire hall? If Victoria can figure it out then surely our public service can too.





Behold! Fire hall in densely populated urban area, AND new mixed-use development. Just because we've historically built our fire halls as though this was Fisher Branch with a single storey and huge parking area out front doesn't mean that we have to keep building them that way.

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by biguc

The trouble is OV has been overrun with cheap three stories that aren't cheap places to live. Mostly they've replaced subdivided houses, which did provide cheap rentals, and it's not clear in many cases that the new buildings are providing so much more housing than they're replacing that it's a clear win.

Of all the problems with OV's current lack of vitality, this is one I don't think we've discussed: students and punks are more fun than yuppies and retired people. The actual community that supported OV businesses and culture has been displaced.

Maybe in it'll come back in 30 years when all the cheap new builds are falling apart.

I dunno. I've walked or biked down Roslyn every day on the way to work for many years and I see about 300% more activity outside or 180 roslyn than I ever saw around those dilapidated houses before. There's almost always people coming and going, taking their dog out, or keeping eyes on the street while they use the gym. Everyone that lives there seems younger than me. Broke students and punks don't have a whole lot of disposable income to actually support nearby businesses. God forbid the neighbourhood have young people with jobs who are out walking their dog at 7pm rather than young punks who are out yelling and smashing bottles and pissing on things at 3am.

[eman]

Originally Posted by EdwardTH

I dunno. I've walked or biked down Roslyn every day on the way to work for many years and I see about 300% more activity outside or 180 roslyn than I ever saw around those dilapidated houses before. There's almost always people coming and going, taking their dog out, or keeping eyes on the street while they use the gym. Everyone that lives there seems younger than me. Broke students and punks don't have a whole lot of disposable income to actually support nearby businesses. God forbid the neighbourhood have young people with jobs who are out walking their dog at 7pm rather than young punks who are out yelling and smashing bottles and pissing on things at 3am.

180 Roslyn I give it a C-

They could have put townhouses along the street and a slender 20+ floors on one side with 2 to 3 times as many people living there. Would have fit right in with the 4 towers near by. The building is invisible in the skyline. How many floor?

I believe the zoning permitted tall on this lot, is that right? No excuse. C-

There is demand for more units,, they build them like crazy in Bridgewater.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by eman

I drive through Bridgewater often and there are hundreds of units built and being built there filled with the kind of people that should/could be living in a walkable community like Osborne Village. Plus all the other communities near the perimeter. I look at those and wonder wtf are builders NOT making anything like that in Osborne. It's the Osborne Village Neighbourhood Plan (OVNP) that makes building anything like that impossible.

Easy to explain. Market forces.

I spent the long weekend cat-sitting in Leslieville. It was sorta fun doing the walkable neighborhood thing, going out for dinner every night without using the car. But compared to suburban or small town living it is suffocating.

This is how people see it. They compare the noisy and dirty urban life (often referred to as "vibrant") to the peaceful small town or suburbs life. The choice is easy so that's where the market is. This is where the houses get built.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by eman

180 Roslyn I give it a C-

They could have put townhouses along the street and a slender 20+ floors on one side with 2 to 3 times as many people living there. Would have fit right in with the 4 towers near by. The building is invisible in the skyline. How many floor?

I believe the zoning permitted tall on this lot, is that right? No excuse. C-

There is demand for more units,, they build them like crazy in Bridgewater.

You could have had that by financing such a project.

[eman]

Originally Posted by Riverman

You could have had that by financing such a project.

High density buildings should easily be able to find financing as there is demand for units. It they can't and the numbers don't make it feasible its because of zoning and rent-seeking. in the Village it's the Osborne Village Neighbourhood Plan (OVNP)

The Osborne Village Neighbourhood Plan (OVNP) puts extreme limits on what can be built. This drives up the value of existing properties. Making any project more expensive. Making rents and property values higher. The market forces are needlessly driving values up and only marginally growing the number of units(rent-seeking).

Gentrification is bad and people say they hate it when they see it, but rent-seeking is worse because it shuts out needed development, takes away affordable houseing and is the very cause of expanding suburbs.