Winnipeg Construction X

[WestEndWander]

Originally Posted by Labroco

Shipping container warehousing for people at risk on Henry Street appears to be misguided. (Today’s WFP)

No discussion as of yet on the impact on students of adjacent Argyle High School.

No access to the shipping container housing except across the freeway / overpass or through the school yard.

No discussion with the adjacent home owners. (Wanda Koop)

No development will move forward on the adjacent lands with this type of housing in this location. ( 300 market units in the immediate area have been put on hold once again!).

Proposed Waterfront condo project is also now in a holding pattern.

Perhaps the City owned land down on Higgins would be better suited.

I believe there may be CV involvement in this proposal as they control a portion of the site.

Transitional housing is needed but this is not the spot…

Maybe Market Lands or the St Regis site?

The site can be accessed off Henry Ave, if travelling north on Disraeli. I don't believe it is as difficult as you have mad it out to be. No access is required through Argyle school at all. It can also be accessed via public lane that connects with George Ave.

Why would Market Lands be any more acceptable, considering it is right across from a prominent downtown college? Do those students not matter either?

What does it matter what Wanda Koop says? Last I heard she wasn't Mayor, or even on Council.

So some rich land owners can't build more condos along waterfront and then complain continually about the state of the area? That's a bad thing? There is substantial residential coming on board in other areas of downtown. Continually pressing further along waterfront dr. with condo development is not necessarily the best option.

A development of this nature is far more critical to the future success of our downtown and city as a whole, than 300 residential units.

I agree that far more public consultation is required if the project is to be successful in it's potential location. That being said I see no issue with where it is proposed. Tucked away, but still connected, offering people the ability to withdraw when needed and engage when they want. It is 250m from the frontage along Disraeli to condos along Waterfront Dr. How much more isolated from regular people do they need to be?

Transitional housing is needed. Without a better argument than a bunch of rich land speculators may be upset, I would say this is a great potential spot.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Labroco

I believe there may be CV involvement in this proposal as they control a portion of the site.

Nope. It’s all this guy.

I wouldn’t get too worked up about it. It’s extremely unlikely to happen. The government doesn’t just hand out tens of millions to inexperienced people with good intentions. I don’t think he even owns the land.

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by WestEndWander

The site can be accessed off Henry Ave, if travelling north on Disraeli. I don't believe it is as difficult as you have mad it out to be. No access is required through Argyle school at all. It can also be accessed via public lane that connects with George Ave.

Why would Market Lands be any more acceptable, considering it is right across from a prominent downtown college? Do those students not matter either?

What does it matter what Wanda Koop says? Last I heard she wasn't Mayor, or even on Council.

So some rich land owners can't build more condos along waterfront and then complain continually about the state of the area? That's a bad thing? There is substantial residential coming on board in other areas of downtown. Continually pressing further along waterfront dr. with condo development is not necessarily the best option.

A development of this nature is far more critical to the future success of our downtown and city as a whole, than 300 residential units.

I agree that far more public consultation is required if the project is to be successful in it's potential location. That being said I see no issue with where it is proposed. Tucked away, but still connected, offering people the ability to withdraw when needed and engage when they want. It is 250m from the frontage along Disraeli to condos along Waterfront Dr. How much more isolated from regular people do they need to be?

Transitional housing is needed. Without a better argument than a bunch of rich land speculators may be upset, I would say this is a great potential spot.

This project may have merit on Sutherland west of Main Street…

The adjacent lands are not owned by speculators but rather people that have made long term commitments to the area. There are greater visions for these lands than shipping containers warehousing people in need.

The site in question has always been supported as an annex for Wanda Koop’s artistic legacy and future housing / museum.

The proponent has ZERO development experience and there is ZERO support from any stakeholder, property owner or lessor in the whole area.

For a proponent to have no discussion or consultation obviously does not sit well.

Happy to hear there is no buy in from CV although on closer inspection the land they control does not appear to be part of the proposal. I guess they fall into the category of stakeholder opposed. Welcome aboard!

We are happy to support a better location for this use that is not as disruptive to a whole area on the cusp of an urban transformation.

Great idea but there are better locations and construction methods. We will continue contributing to community needs independently and in consultation with other advocates.

Happy to offer up 92 Gomez or even 45 Lily for a smaller group of individuals in need. People need to be housed humanly, not warehoused in shipping containers…

[esquire]

In light of this proposal, the growth of encampments, MSP's move to Main Street and the impact of that, Siloam's expansion and various other related goings-on, it does seem to me that there is a growing need for a potentially uncomfortable civic discussion about where shelters, social services and transitional housing "belongs".

[trueviking]

^ i agree....as uncomfortable as that is, there needs to be a plan for this as we move forward. It can be highly impactful on neighbourhoods and long term vision for growth.

But again...this is a guy with an idea. No money. No land. No experience.

maybe this pushes the Wanda Koop vision forward.

[trueviking]

new building going up on Sherbrook near Broadway...looking good.

[optimusREIM]

I'll start: should they be where the majority of the homeless population generally "resides" in the core of the city? How much do we defer to the residents of a community in determining whether to put up a shelter? As much as shelters are important to have, what can we do to address the causes of homelessness to begin with? Are other types of facilities more suited to the needs of many in the homeless population?

[CoryB]

As the team behind Bruce Oak Recovery Center correctly argued addiction doesn't have a geographic boundary. The same is true for housing insecurity (homelessness). With that in mind we should be looking to have shelters geographically dispersed throughout the city and province.

Most new residential developments are exclusively single family or with minimal apartment/condo buildings. Those same developments have requirements to set aside a certain amount of space for possible schools and greenspaces.

I think a requirement going forward should be to require a certain percentage of the development to include affordable housing, to set aside a potion for the development of semi-detached or row housing, and to have a certain percentage targeted for social assistance housing projects with Habitat. Also all residential developments should be prohibited from setting minimum housing sizes and other aesthetic criteria designed to increase the cost of each home. Further, the province and city should jointly work to develop standards for approved tiny homes. Basically the popular tiny home style space but built to be within reasonable safety standards like GFI plugs near water. Make a couple blue prints people can use for free and fully open source them. A lot of times people are homeless simply because a series of bad luck hit them. If we can lower the overall cost of housing people it gives more choices and better choices than warehousing them.

[esquire]

I am concerned that some of the proposals like the one on this page will fall short in providing the necessary medical treatments and social supports. That's where the real expense and effort are required. The building itself is relatively cheap because it's just the starting point.

Without a real long term commitment to provide that kind of support, any kind of MURB-type transitional/supportive housing is doomed to become a dirty, dangerous, chaotic drug den.

[trueviking]

70% of residential development in Winnipeg is multi-family.

It's not easy to say developers should build affordable housing in Winnipeg without some kind of financial offset...that works in Toronto because return is so high, but the development margins are tight in Winnipeg....that being said, most new developments do have affordable housing units in them because CMHC requires it to get financing. The numbers work. I think the percentage is 20% of the units need to be 'affordable'? I can't recall.

but supportive housing is a totally different animal from affordable housing...as Esquire says, the real cost is the ongoing programming.

[bomberjet]

Affordable. What does that mean? It should mean if you are earning minimum wage /40 hours per week, you can afford to live there. IIRC, there is nothing you can afford earning minimum wage alone.

[trueviking]

^ i'm not sure that if you make minimum wage, you should be expecting to live in a new-build....unless it's a government subsidized program like rent-geared-to-income or something.

CMHC used to define it as something like 30% lower than median market rate.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I'll start: should they be where the majority of the homeless population generally "resides" in the core of the city? How much do we defer to the residents of a community in determining whether to put up a shelter? As much as shelters are important to have, what can we do to address the causes of homelessness to begin with? Are other types of facilities more suited to the needs of many in the homeless population?

Well hearing that the majority of the homeless recognize as First Nations maybe a shelter should be built on the Kapyong Barracks land, maybe instead of various dubious business ventures, providing for their own should become a priority!

[davequanbury]

It's great to log on and read such a thoughtful and sane conversation about homelessness!

I'll echo what I've already read on this thread that those projects which deal with detox, recovery, or wrap around services deserve different locations than emergency shelters. I'll also add that we need as many different models as possible: independent living, group living, spiritual programs, secular programs, detox, harm reduction. The more variety in the network, the more individuals can find their place that suits their journey.

I'll also echo what I read that if the funding is not secure, then supportive housing is a pipe dream. The building is the easy part. The programming is where the healing happens. Even Lyons on Portage shows that offering affordable house is not a break even business, and they weren't even offering the types of treatment programs many folks need.

[OTA in Winnipeg]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Affordable. What does that mean? It should mean if you are earning minimum wage /40 hours per week, you can afford to live there. IIRC, there is nothing you can afford earning minimum wage alone.

If that's what you earn, you need a roommate.

[bomberjet]

Afffordable housing is a gimmick, is what im getting at. Its basically providing middle income people with housing they can afford. Is that really needed? Thats what the market figures out. Chipping away at the housing issue i suppose, forcing basically smaller cheaply built units.

The Henry proposal is more impactful if its being done properly.

[trueviking]

charter house addition.

[esquire]

^ I like when buildings get taller. But it is curious to me that the developer would expand a fairly old and somewhat out of date hotel like that. Or are they totally gutting the interior too?

[zalf]

Based on the amount of garbage that has been hauled out of there over the last few months, I think the interior is gutted too.

All new windows, and the cladding is being replaced, too. If anything, it makes me wonder why they didn't opt for a new build on the same site.

[trueviking]

I'm trying to find an original photo of charter house....it was a nice 1950's modernist hotel at birth.