Winnipeg | Osborne Village & Fort Rouge - Page 141

Biff · #**2801** Posted **Nov 8, 2021, 5:11 PM**

I did some digging on this and my contacts laughed at the possibility. As nice as it would be they said the cost would be prohibitive regarding the relocation of parking. Hopefully this is wrong. The people I talked to would most likely know, but...

DonaldSmith · #**2802** Posted **Nov 8, 2021, 6:57 PM**

Is the southern portion of the 1 Evergreen Pl lot developable? Could there be a Hycroft Tower 2?

Biff · #**2803** Posted **Nov 8, 2021, 7:27 PM**

I believe all of the what appears to be surface level land/parking is in fact a below grade parkade.

I think the issue is they would have to be able to provide parking to all those who already have it, plus build more to accommodate the new residents. There is no space to build new parking without displacing parking. There always is a way, but according to my sources, it would be cost prohibitive.

esquire · #**2804** Posted **Nov 8, 2021, 7:48 PM**

It's annoying to see so much space tied up by parking... it's too bad it couldn't have been handled more efficiently to open up a site for another building.

peg · #**2805** Posted **Nov 8, 2021, 8:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff

Could they not build out new parkades as podiums over the existing parking? and then leave the edges as CRU's / amenity spaces?

There is a lot of surface there...

trueviking · #**2806** Posted **Nov 8, 2021, 9:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

It's annoying to see so much space tied up by parking.

Winnipeg in one sentence.

borkborkbork · #**2807** Posted **Nov 8, 2021, 11:26 PM**

if we take as given the depressing tendency to favour parking over all other uses, why is the idea of replacing parking with one (or even two) storeys of a tower dedicated to parkades so cost-prohibitive?

I understand underground parking being expensive (water table things), but if the only thing standing between an empty lot and a 15-storey building is some parking spaces, why don't we see more solutions where the fix is that the 15-storey building becomes a 17-storey one with two floors devoted to parkade space?

Is the engineering work of making a parkade storey vs. a regular residential storey a huge difference (ventilation systems, weight requierments, etc.)?

Naive question I know...

trueviking · #**2808** Posted **Nov 9, 2021, 5:33 AM**

I think the issue here is that it would be like building a building on top of an existing building, which would add enough cost to make it less viable. its brutal that was ever allowed.

Structured parking is expensive, no two ways about it. It's one of the main drivers of suburban development over infill. I have been working on a downtown building for the entire pandemic and 75% of that time has been trying to make the parking work economically. What you suggest is a common solution, but there are lots of logistical issues like insulating the ceiling, aligning structure (it usually means lots of expensive transfer beams) and running mechanical through. Most preferable is if the parking can be independent of the building, like set beside it somehow if the site is large enough.

biguc · #**2809** Posted **Nov 9, 2021, 9:02 AM**

There was an old rumour that those parking decks were bases for towers. I take it that isn't true?

An aside: these towers demonstrate how height =/= density. There's room on that lot to lay all three towers on their sides. They'd be about 8-10 storey buildings. There's enough room right along Osborne for a 55 Nassau at that scale, if you took out the Shell on the corner.

Crazy that they built towers on a giant piece of land to accommodate parking, and now can't build any more towers because of the parking.

GreyGarden · #**2810** Posted **Nov 9, 2021, 2:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

its brutal that was ever allowed.

I feel like this is my #1 Winnipeg quote that I say most often. Obviously, its an insane amount of space devoted to parking, but I'm bummed that the stretch of parking along Osborne can't really be developed (until rents dramatically increase I guess).

I can begrudgingly live with surface parking if its tucked away off the main street, be it Osborne or Portage, Sherbrook, etc. But I shake my head when suburban style development is allowed right along important inner city streets. Portage between Sherbrook and Maryland comes to mind.

esquire · #**2811** Posted **Nov 9, 2021, 2:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreyGarden

I can begrudgingly live with surface parking if its tucked away off the main street, be it Osborne or Portage, Sherbrook, etc. But I shake my head when suburban style development is allowed right along important inner city streets. Portage between Sherbrook and Maryland comes to mind.

The good news is those buildings are disposable junk and now that they're over 20 years old I could see them getting replaced with something better whenever the economy has an upswing again.

WinCitySparky · #**2812** Posted **Nov 9, 2021, 7:00 PM**

.

buzzg · #**2813** Posted **Nov 11, 2021, 5:56 PM**

The Evergreen rumour is interesting because there really is so many places a tower could theoretically go... right on Osborne with some commercial would be awesome, but there's so much space to the south and along Evergreen itself too.

Interestingly, 1 Evergreen just spent two years on parkade restorations. They had temporary joists on the ramps to do lots of repairs, shoring work, concrete upgrades, etc. Maybe this has something to do with it? It's always been interesting to me that there's that big grass patch near 1, but everything else is surface parking.

1 is owned/managed by Shindico and 7 & 11 are Shelter. Funny if something was to get built on the west side of Evergreen... what would the address be? 1 is at the end of the street haha.