Winnipeg | Osborne Village & Corydon area

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by zalf

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.

huh - that seems like mixed news. good that it's been bought/something will be built (I believe it has a build-something-or-it-reverts type clause) but too bad basils appears to still be for sale... my sense is that you'd get a much better development if someone was able to put the two lots together.

[eman]

That parking lot should get built on and combined with Basils. It should be mixed use, commercial main floor offices for a few floors above and a slender residential tower. Is it zoned for that? Or is it strictly "character" commercial? When the fire happened across the street the best they could do was single floor "character" commercial?

[trueviking]

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.

Pretty sure it was zoned for six stories. There was huge opposition to rezoning and demolition of the house on the site. Recall the lady who issued a human rights challenge or something like that.

I’d also add. That building was probably constructed for $180 per square foot. A 20 storey tower costs $250 per square foot. The economics change considerably as you move into high rise.

[trueviking]

Good news about the parking lot. I was also hoping for a combination development with basils but good to see it developed.

[EdwardTH]

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.

My comment wasn't so much about the overall design or size of the building but a response to biguc questioning whether those projects add enough units to make a difference on the street. In my experience, yes. Also true for that one at Stradbrook & Nassau - never saw a soul go in or out of the old houses that used to be there, now everytime I ride past I see people out on their balconies.

For what it's worth I think "visibility in the skyline" should be among the lowest priorities when it comes to design. "Won't someone please think of the postcard shots!?"

[lbnevs]

The area in the Village that seems most criminally underused is along Donald from roughly Wardlaw to Confusion Corner. It's directly across from RT stations, right on the edge of the Village, and yet, that stretch has, in order:

1) A Domo gas station and a strip mall
2) A strip mall that's 50%+ parking lot
3) A car wash and used car lot
4) The spillover parking for a collision centre
5) A collision centre
6) A car seat factory
7) A pool hall/bar

It feels like the mix of single-storey businesses you'd find way out at the edge of the city, not in the core/inner suburbs.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by EdwardTH

a response to biguc questioning whether those projects add enough units to make a difference on the street. In my experience, yes. Also true for that one at Stradbrook & Nassau - never saw a soul go in or out of the old houses that used to be there, now everytime I ride past I see people out on their balconies.

My point was that they don't support pubs and music venues on Osborne. They go to the gym, go to work, sit on their balconies, probably go on trips to other cities. None of this has supported the local businesses that have been folding in droves on their own high street.

If you really want to argue that OV is better off today because people on residential streets are out on balconies, that's fair. But I do disagree.

[esquire]

Given that the Midtown Bridge was only built in the mid-1950s well into the automobile era, the southern stretch of Donald didn't have the benefit of being an old streetcar route with the typical built environment to match. It's one of the stroadier stroads in the central part of the city... it has an almost expressway-like character.

I suppose it's possible to imagine it one day becoming a proper urban street, but there's a long way to go before it becomes a pleasant place to walk.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by lbnevs

The area in the Village that seems most criminally underused is along Donald from roughly Wardlaw to Confusion Corner. It's directly across from RT stations, right on the edge of the Village, and yet, that stretch has, in order:

1) A Domo gas station and a strip mall
2) A strip mall that's 50%+ parking lot
3) A car wash and used car lot
4) The spillover parking for a collision centre
5) A collision centre
6) A car seat factory
7) A pool hall/bar

It feels like the mix of single-storey businesses you'd find way out at the edge of the city, not in the core/inner suburbs.

1000% agree. This is the type of area that could use High-Density development. The new Stradbrook building is a great example of how the spaces could be utilized. Now just make 5 more of those and even taller. There is no reason a Burger King needs a drive-thru and dollarama needs that much room for parking in the inner city. It’s absolutely hideous.

Adding that density will increase public transportation use drastically and make Osborne even more vibrant.

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by biguc

My point was that they don't support pubs and music venues on Osborne. They go to the gym, go to work, sit on their balconies, probably go on trips to other cities. None of this has supported the local businesses that have been folding in droves on their own high street.

If you really want to argue that OV is better off today because people on residential streets are out on balconies, that's fair. But I do disagree.

Folding in droves? I get that you want to push this narrative that the village is completely dead but you're gonna have to back that up somehow. I get that you miss Ozzy's or whatever. But other than that what are you even talking about? Places that have closed has not been due to gentrification - I miss Music Trader but obviously that business model doesn't work in 2021. Basil's spot has remained empty simply because he wants to charge way too much for it. TD closed their branch because no one goes to physical branches anymore, and now it's a pot store which people actually do use. Every place that's left has been quickly replaced by something objectively better. So where's this mass exodus of businesses? The Toad took over Buccacino's which I'm sure nobody misses, and a new pub has snapped up their old space. Stella's tired old brand was replaced by a very tasty pierogi joint. Papa George's was completely disgusting and was replaced with the far superior Cornerstone which was always busy and is shuttered more for pandemic and staffing reasons than anything else. The mediocre Second Cup was replaced with the mediocre Za for a break-even. Most of the same retail places are still going strong except for Desart, which has been replaced by Pho with a much nicer storefront. So again where's this mass exodus of businesses? The only real notable casualty is Segovia and I get the impression he just wanted to do something different once the pandemic hit - that wasn't exactly a place being frequented by broke students either.

The "gentrification era" has ushered in most of the best business in Osborne right now - Super Deluxe pizza, Little Sister, Nuburger, Green Carrot, Tokyo Burger. Sorry man but your narrative doesn't really match reality.

I'm not sure in what world you think people with less disposable income are more likely to support the restaurant down the street. I was a broke student in the village for many years. I ate cheap food that I bought at Safeway. Then I got a decent job, nicer apartment, and started going out more. That's not rocket science man.

[GreyGarden]

Originally Posted by EdwardTH

I'm not sure in what world you think people with less disposable income are more likely to support the restaurant down the street. I was a broke student in the village for many years. I ate cheap food that I bought at Safeway. Then I got a decent job, nicer apartment, and started going out more. That's not rocket science man.

This is my view of the village and other Winnipeg neighbourhoods. As development leads to denser neighbourhoods and students become people with disposable income and people with disposable income move in, more and more restaurants and even retail becomes viable. There will always be some degree of turnover to reflect the tastes and needs of the surrounding area - not always for the better.

I guess I understand looking back on a gritty punk scene in OV with nostalgia, but neighbourhoods and areas change. It's possible that in 100 years Osborne will be so expensive that the only things that can afford to rent there will be chain retailers and restaurants, Rexalls and pot shops. At that point I'll look back on Osborne and say it was better in my day. But I think before we get to that point we probably have years of interesting and good small businesses to look forward to as the area becomes denser and wealthier.

[davequanbury]

Originally Posted by EdwardTH

F
The "gentrification era" has ushered in most of the best business in Osborne right now - Super Deluxe pizza, Little Sister, Nuburger, Green Carrot, Tokyo Burger. Sorry man but your narrative doesn't really match reality.

I'm not sure in what world you think people with less disposable income are more likely to support the restaurant down the street. I was a broke student in the village for many years. I ate cheap food that I bought at Safeway. Then I got a decent job, nicer apartment, and started going out more. That's not rocket science man.

Obviously you are both entitled to your opinions, after all, there is more than one narrative that can be used to tell the story of the village. Reading the list of the newer businesses I am struck by the fact that, for good or bad, the character of the village has altered significantly from one of counter culture to one of mainstream culture. Also, the type of businesses also seems to have changed from coffee shops, music venues and gift shops to predominantly restaurants.

For some of us old timers who, it's hard to let go of the way the village was in the 90s, but I wouldn't go as far as to say it's empirically better or worse today. One thing that is undeniable is that it is not the affordable neighbourhood that it once was. The area also got some heavy press nationally a few years back that may have been detrimental to its affordability.

I decided to check the census to see how the demographics compare between 1996 and 2016. Here's what I found:

In 1996, the area was home to an abundance of young folks, in fact the percentage of people aged 20-29 in OV was double that of the city and those aged 30-34 were also overrepresented although not to the same extent.
Individuals older that 35 were less likely to be living in OV in 1996, that trend holds through all census age categories, especially for folks aged 50-65. As one would imagine, this led to an overrepresentation of unmarried folks especially single mothers. The most common household size was 1 person.

Looking at incomes, the average household income in OV in 1996 was $26,026 compared to $44,937 for Winnipeg.The incidence of low income in OV in 1996 was 55.7% compared to 24.3% for the city.

In 1996, 96.5% of OV dwellings were rental properties compared to 38% for the city. The average gross rent was $507, virtually identical to the average for the city.

In 1996, the most common jobs of OV residents were retail (13.2%), health and social services (13.1%), and accommodations food and beverage service (11.5%). In all these categories, the city average is lower. The percentage of self employed in OV was lower than the city average.

In 2016 the area still had a good representation of 25-29 year olds 12.6% of the population compared to being only 7.5% of the total Winnipeg population but the abundance of 20-24 years olds disappears, falling below the city average. We also see folks aged 35-54 less likely to live in OV, yet those aged 55-89 become over represented. In fact those aged 85-89 are three times as more numerous in OV compared to the city.

The percentage of those married has evened out, with OV now closer to the city average. One person households remain more common in OV than in the city. Average incomes for OV residents now outstrip the city ($63,175 compared to $44,916 for the city).

Employment has shifted somewhat, health care and social assistance is still a top sector (14%), education services now come in second (13.1% compared to only 8.5% for the city), and public administration is now 3rd (10.9% compared to 7.2% for the city). The concentration of those employed in retail, accommodations food and beverage are gone, with OV now falling below the city average. Those self employed in OV now almost double the city average.

Rental tenure has dropped from 96% down to 63% and average rents in OV now outpace those of Winnipeg ($1,225 compared to $938 for the city)

The takeaway is that OV residents have gone from being young, unmarried service sector renters to being slightly less young, more wealthy white collar workers who own their residence.

https://winnipeg.ca/census/1996/data/03-08.pdf

https://winnipeg.ca/census/2016/Comm...lyn/Roslyn.pdf

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by davequanbury

The takeaway is that OV residents have gone from being young, unmarried service sector renters to being slightly less young, more wealthy white collar workers who own their residence.

Revealing: The city's population grew by 14% between 1996 and 2017, but River-Osborne only grew by 7%.

You would think that what's meant to be a dense neighbourhood right near/in the core would grow at least at the same pace as the city as a whole, particularly when there's lots of underdeveloped land, but nope. The city's war on height, the long and unpredictable processes for zoning/variances, etc... it's harder to build in the Village than out in the distant burbs.

[davequanbury]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

Revealing: The city's population grew by 14% between 1996 and 2017, but River-Osborne only grew by 7%.

You would think that what's meant to be a dense neighbourhood right near/in the core would grow at least at the same pace as the city as a whole, particularly when there's lots of underdeveloped land, but nope. The city's war on height, the long and unpredictable processes for zoning/variances, etc... it's harder to build in the Village than out in the distant burbs.

Yes, but remember the same holds true for all central areas. The growth is happening in the outlying areas and it not taking the shape of dense tall structures but rather low density. That tells me that the desire to live in a single detached house is driving the growth. What makes you think these same individuals would trade their new homes for high rise living if restrictions didn't exist?

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by davequanbury

Yes, but remember the same holds true for all central areas. The growth is happening in the outlying areas and it not taking the shape of dense tall structures but rather low density. That tells me that the desire to live in a single detached house is driving the growth. What makes you think these same individuals would trade their new homes for high rise living if restrictions didn't exist?

I don't think people will choose dense housing in inner city neighbourhoods when the city builds infrastructure and amenities that make it easy to live in remote, sparsely-populated car-dependent suburbs filled with SFR homes.

I'm not one of those urbanists who pretends that yards, pools, ample parking, etc. are all unappealing amenities. I just recognize that these are things that come with hidden social costs for the city and taxpayers.

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by davequanbury

Reading the list of the newer businesses I am struck by the fact that, for good or bad, the character of the village has altered significantly from one of counter culture to one of mainstream culture.

I'll certainly concede that the village isn't the hub of counter-culture it once was. So what. It's still the most successful high street in the city so let's stop claiming all the businesses are fleeing. It's not like us middle-aged white collars on this forum are the vanguard of the counter-culture these days either so no point in sitting around waxing nostalgic about it.

Osborne is having growing pains in between its punk adolescence and its yuppie future but if the Zu thing works out and something happens on the Basil's/parking lot site its new form could really start to take shape.

[sleepyeyed]

I don't really think the issue is with what businesses are occupying the area... ever since they rehabbed the bridge and removed the busses, the neighbourhood has way less people and more cars. close down some traffic lanes for bikes and a streetcar to union station along Broadway. I don't get turning the street into a commuter freeway.

[GarryEllice]

Originally Posted by sleepyeyed

I don't really think the issue is with what businesses are occupying the area... ever since they rehabbed the bridge and removed the busses, the neighbourhood has way less people and more cars. close down some traffic lanes for bikes and a streetcar to union station along Broadway. I don't get turning the street into a commuter freeway.

Ah, it's the "RT ruined Osborne Village" person! I really think that you might be mixing correlation with causation here...

Osborne Village has moved on to the yuppie stage of gentrification, the young/hip scene has shifted over to Sherbrook, and the retail strip on Osborne is still in the process of adapting to the new reality that it's no longer the coolest neighbourhood in the city. These are natural changes, similar to how the "cool" part of Queen West has shifted ever further westward in Toronto. It's bizarre to suggest that the RT is what caused this. It was already happening before the RT was built.

That said, I certainly agree that Osborne Street could use some massive traffic calming.

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

Ah, it's the "RT ruined Osborne Village" person! I really think that you might be mixing correlation with causation here...

Osborne Village has moved on to the yuppie stage of gentrification, the young/hip scene has shifted over to Sherbrook, and the retail strip on Osborne is still in the process of adapting to the new reality that it's no longer the coolest neighbourhood in the city. These are natural changes, similar to how the "cool" part of Queen West has shifted ever further westward in Toronto. It's bizarre to suggest that the RT is what caused this. It was already happening before the RT was built.

That said, I certainly agree that Osborne Street could use some massive traffic calming.

Exactly. If you looked at any neighbourhood and found that its demographics were exactly the same as they were 30 years ago, that probably means the place is stagnant. Change is good, embrace it.

[sleepyeyed]

Yuppie means young urban professional so i'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make between it and young/hip to justify what's happened to the neighbourhood retail. both streets are in rough shape, and some of the changes on Sherbrook recently haven't been for the better.