Winnipeg Construction IX

[pegaholic]

by 2020 when the science center and Manitoba museum expansion are completed i think themanitoba museum will be a greater attraction than museum for human rights is.

im assuming both the wag expansion and diversity gardens are going forward this year. hopefully the winnipeg science center will get enough funding in the future as it would really be a great attraction in the city and fill that god awful surface lot beside the museum

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by pegaholic

after driving down carlton today is it just me or does the actual public space seems kind of small relative to the buildings.. i dont understand how they need over 17 million dollars in public money to help fund it.. What are the benches and water fountain feature going to be made of gold with expensive champagne pouring out of it.

i understand that the lighting and large led display might cost a bit of money but 17 million seems like a lot.. the space seems tiny but it might just look that way because of the all the construction equipment and work going on

I agree that it looks small. However, the cost building it on top of the parkade, and to prep it for a hockey rink and other amenities adds to it.

On a hilarious note, look at the BellMTS Place rendering - they photoshopped the Rogers logo out of the Rogers building!! But did a terrible job, there's still a red glow.

[pegaholic]

Originally Posted by buzzg

I agree that it looks small. However, the cost building it on top of the parkade, and to prep it for a hockey rink and other amenities adds to it.

On a hilarious note, look at the BellMTS Place rendering - they photoshopped the Rogers logo out of the Rogers building!! But did a terrible job, there's still a red glow.

itll probably be paid parking so tax payers shouldn't have to foot the bill to help pay for the concrete or materials needed to build it . I really want to know how thier using the money i want a precise breakdown

the led display better be massive

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by Bluenote

Density in those towns?
OakBank has town sprawl like never before.
Oakbluff is eating up farm land like crazy.
Lasalle is eating up farmland like never in its history
St Adophe has expanded to the east and south dramatically in the last two years.
Niberville is getting to the point of a small city the way it's spreading southwards.
IDC and Loretta are the only two that are not sprawling.

And the majority of all the new owners of their $500k plus homes are from Winnipeg.

My point is that we talk about these communities like everyone is living on 2 acre lots. The housing density in these communities is going up every year, with smaller lot sizes and multi-family like we've never seen.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

That happens, and it's normal.

They probably all work and contribute exclusively to the Winnipeg economy, and all WSP gets from that is some property tax?

I'm in East St Paul, but while I only "benefit" from Winnipeg I also only contribute to Winnipeg.

Great point Wolf. There's a cognitive dissonance out there that I've never fully understood.

On the one hand, people say "Winnipeg's suburbs are sprawl! Old areas subsidize new communities. Growth doesn't pay for growth! We can't afford to expand outward."

On the other hand, people also say "East St. Paul, West St. Paul etc. are sprawl! People who live there leach off of our City because they don't pay for roads with their property taxes."

If the former is true, wouldn't the latter be ideal? If "suburban development" isn't paying its way, then isn't it better that it happen outside of the city limits? The RM of East St Paul is stuck paying for water, sewer, drainage, etc. etc. etc., but Winnipeg benefits from workers like Wolf working in the city (supporting Winnipeg's industrial and commercial tax base which is WAY more valuable to the City than residential)....

[The Jabroni]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Betting the name for the former MTS Place becomes "Bell MTS Call Centre".

Nah.

Eventually, when every thing is said and done (and if/when the MTS name is dropped), it will be called...

The Bell Tower.

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by pegaholic

by 2020 when the science center and Manitoba museum expansion are completed i think themanitoba museum will be a greater attraction than museum for human rights is.

im assuming both the wag expansion and diversity gardens are going forward this year. hopefully the winnipeg science center will get enough funding in the future as it would really be a great attraction in the city and fill that god awful surface lot beside the museum

The new parkade will be constructed to the North of the concert hall on the existing lot with a robust structure to accommodate the science centre in the future when funding is available.

This frees up the Lily / James lot for more residential development. Great news! The new master plan to be acted on will be released shortly...

[oftheMoon]

Originally Posted by Labroco

The new parkade will be constructed to the North of the concert hall on the existing lot with a robust structure to accommodate the science centre in the future when funding is available.

This frees up the Lily / James lot for more residential development. Great news! The new master plan to be acted on will be released shortly...

Very exciting news! Thanks Labroco.

[esquire]

^ So this parkade at the Centennial Centre is intended to be "the one" for the entire East Exchange? That's a bit of a surprise given that it's a bit of a hike from the residential buildings in that area. I know it's not that onerous to go from a parkade at Main and Rupert to the buildings on James on a day like today, but doing it every day including through the winter would get tiresome... not having parking closer to apartments/condos near Waterfront could turn out to be a mistake.

I'll be interested to see how the parkade design is supposed to integrate with a new science centre. It would be great if the planned science centre had a good presence visible from the surrounding streets... hopefully the parkade will accommodate that.

[The Unknown Poster]

Originally Posted by robertocarlos

What's wrong with BellMTS Centre?

Too close to Bell Centre, the Montreal arena, I suspect.

Also, given the money being spent to rebrand MTS to BellMTS, I doubt they drop "MTS" anytime soon. Perhaps down the line, they do a full corporate make over and drop MTS and Alliant at the same time...I dont know.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by biguc

Property taxes are the problem. If the city had other options, like congestion fees for drivers, we wouldn't need to worry as much about local political boundaries. But the province ties the city's hands and has never seemed interested in changing that.

Why would any reasonable, free citizen want to impose a congestion fee on anyone? Like I said, I'm not pouring any money into the East St. Paul "economy".

Originally Posted by Bdog

Great point Wolf. There's a cognitive dissonance out there that I've never fully understood.

On the one hand, people say "Winnipeg's suburbs are sprawl! Old areas subsidize new communities. Growth doesn't pay for growth! We can't afford to expand outward."

On the other hand, people also say "East St. Paul, West St. Paul etc. are sprawl! People who live there leach off of our City because they don't pay for roads with their property taxes."

If the former is true, wouldn't the latter be ideal? If "suburban development" isn't paying its way, then isn't it better that it happen outside of the city limits? The RM of East St Paul is stuck paying for water, sewer, drainage, etc. etc. etc., but Winnipeg benefits from workers like Wolf working in the city (supporting Winnipeg's industrial and commercial tax base which is WAY more valuable to the City than residential)....

Thanks.

These days we're wayyyyy to obsessed with a utopian concept of fairness, and that any odds and ends can be bridged through the government or some kind of social reform. With zero consideration for economic contribution to Wpg plus services paid, etc as mentioned above

That statement isn't to invalidate many good concerns out there, but it is a new status quo that permeates deep into the unnecessary.

Biguc obviously means zero harm with his congestion fee comment, but damn, that rattles me libertarian bones lol! Why is it always up to everyone, especially the useless forms of government, to try and even every little detail out?

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by Bdog

Great point Wolf. There's a cognitive dissonance out there that I've never fully understood.

On the one hand, people say "Winnipeg's suburbs are sprawl! Old areas subsidize new communities. Growth doesn't pay for growth! We can't afford to expand outward."

On the other hand, people also say "East St. Paul, West St. Paul etc. are sprawl! People who live there leach off of our City because they don't pay for roads with their property taxes."

If the former is true, wouldn't the latter be ideal? If "suburban development" isn't paying its way, then isn't it better that it happen outside of the city limits? The RM of East St Paul is stuck paying for water, sewer, drainage, etc. etc. etc., but Winnipeg benefits from workers like Wolf working in the city (supporting Winnipeg's industrial and commercial tax base which is WAY more valuable to the City than residential)....

Fair points. And realistically, it would take a lot of studying to figure out the cost difference (which "wastes" more money) between people living in sprawling CoW suburbs, but still paying some taxes, and people living outside the city, paying no taxes, still using the roads but contributing to the CoW economy. Hard to say.

Originally Posted by esquire

^ So this parkade at the Centennial Centre is intended to be "the one" for the entire East Exchange? That's a bit of a surprise given that it's a bit of a hike from the residential buildings in that area. I know it's not that onerous to go from a parkade at Main and Rupert to the buildings on James on a day like today, but doing it every day including through the winter would get tiresome... not having parking closer to apartments/condos near Waterfront could turn out to be a mistake.

I'll be interested to see how the parkade design is supposed to integrate with a new science centre. It would be great if the planned science centre had a good presence visible from the surrounding streets... hopefully the parkade will accommodate that.

I think it's way more useful to integrate it with the main draws in the area, and free up more prime residential space on James. Great plan that will likely allow for more spots. When more residential starts popping up further south, there are plenty of empty lots still suitable for parkades. There's already oneon Lombard and two on McDermot, and the giant lot between McDermot and Bannatyne is ripe for development.

We're VERY close to the point where the parking argument for residents in the Exchange will be come less and less of an issue. Once that grocery store opens on Main, I think things will really change.

Originally Posted by The Unknown Poster

Too close to Bell Centre, the Montreal arena, I suspect.

Also, given the money being spent to rebrand MTS to BellMTS, I doubt they drop "MTS" anytime soon. Perhaps down the line, they do a full corporate make over and drop MTS and Alliant at the same time...I dont know.

The major cost is closing and renovating store from MTS to BellMTS, as with any acquisition. The BellMTS brand is identical to Bell, just a different logo. It'll be peanuts to change the signs and logos in ads to just Bell when the time comes.

If you look at the BellMTS store in Polo - it was already Bell, and has a panel cut-out sign. Probably cost $1000 to get a new panel that says BellMTS. Everything else in the store is paper - and they likely were told to keep the Bell panel for a few years, haha.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

Why would any reasonable, free citizen want to impose a congestion fee on anyone? Like I said, I'm not pouring any money into the East St. Paul "economy".

You play, you pay. The whole reason we have taxes is because your contributions to the economy don't happen in a bubble, they happen within a structure of laws, rules and infrastructure that makes it possible to contribute to the economy. If we in the city weren't all paying to build and maintain roads, you would not be a part of this economy because it would not exist in nearly the form it does. We all pay for access to the market, because the alternative is a non-market. It's not crafty to suggest that your participation in the market exempts you from paying for that access. A modest levy on your access to the market is a reasonable ask, and will help us keep the market productive and efficient.

[DavefromSt.Vital]

Labroco, did you mean that the new parkade would go on the lot south of the Centennial Concert Hall? i.e. Between Pantages and RMTC. There is a box shown on that lot in the second picture:

http://peter-sampson-8ofi.squarespace.com/mccc-master-plan

[esquire]

Originally Posted by DavefromSt.Vital

Labroco, did you mean that the new parkade would go on the lot south of the Centennial Concert Hall? i.e. Between Pantages and RMTC. There is a box shown on that lot in the second picture:

http://peter-sampson-8ofi.squarespace.com/mccc-master-plan

I can't imagine that there will ever be a parkade and science centre on that site... it's pretty small and awkward for that, especially considering that the MCCC's site north of the Manitoba Museum is arguably much better suited for such a thing.

But you are right in that something is cooking on that site south of Centennial Concert Hall. Public City Architecture even has this drawing posted on its project page... no idea what it is or how realistic the chances of it getting built are, though, especially in the current environment:

[pacman]

Originally Posted by biguc

You play, you pay. The whole reason we have taxes is because your contributions to the economy don't happen in a bubble, they happen within a structure of laws, rules and infrastructure that makes it possible to contribute to the economy. If we in the city weren't all paying to build and maintain roads, you would not be a part of this economy because it would not exist in nearly the form it does. We all pay for access to the market, because the alternative is a non-market. It's not crafty to suggest that your participation in the market exempts you from paying for that access. A modest levy on your access to the market is a reasonable ask, and will help us keep the market productive and efficient.

I rarely use the word hate, but I really hate this opinion. You're quite entitled to have it and I'm quite entitled to hate it. Would you like to charge congestion fees to tourists? How dare they come and use our infrastructure without paying property taxes. How about paying one to Headingly to drive down Portage to use John Blumberg's city owned grounds outside city limits to watch the kids or grandkids play soccer? How about a congestion fee payable to West St Paul to drive up to Gimli on a Sunday? Go to the Red River Ex? Maybe a few pennies on top of the price of a hotdog at Skinners? We should just have tollbooths everytime you enter any other jurisdiction in Manitoba, that would be wonderful and "convenient". How about we revert back to pre-Unicity and charge convenience fees for those pesky West Enders who pay $1,500 year property tax going down to St Vital and using that infrastructure around the mall and not paying their share? I mean if I pay $5,000.00 a year in River Park South then its just not fair that those guys in Brooklands get to use all my traffic lights on Bishop Grandin and not pay their share.

Winnipeg is obviously the only major city in Manitoba so it's easy to try to focus on Winnipeg getting screwed by everyone outside the perimeter (even though the bad guys have a lot of land inside the perimeter). If you want to charge a fee to those who commute into Winnipeg and help spur its economy that's your choice. If charging that fee translates into spurring development just outside the city limits with those ingrates finally spending their after tax dollars in their own jurisdiction then I guess you accomplished your goal. Its all about the market right?

[Biff]

The Parkade is slated to go north of the Museum on Rupert between Main and Martha. It is not 100% yet if the Science gallery would be apart of that project because it needs significant funding. The parkade could start as early as next year.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by DavefromSt.Vital

Labroco, did you mean that the new parkade would go on the lot south of the Centennial Concert Hall? i.e. Between Pantages and RMTC. There is a box shown on that lot in the second picture:

http://peter-sampson-8ofi.squarespace.com/mccc-master-plan

Also, one more thing... the page you linked to has a photo which shows what I presume to be a parkade/science centre building on the lot to the north of the Manitoba Museum.

Looks to my eyes like science gallery along the Main Street frontage, with the parkade on the eastern (Martha St.) end? Looks pretty good if you ask me. I'm guessing that's the "other" parkade on James Avenue as well? I'd just like to know what the new building on Market is supposed to be. If MCCC manages to get this concept realized, there wouldn't be many vacant/surface parking lots left in the vicinity of the museum and concert hall.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by biguc

You play, you pay. The whole reason we have taxes is because your contributions to the economy don't happen in a bubble, they happen within a structure of laws, rules and infrastructure that makes it possible to contribute to the economy. If we in the city weren't all paying to build and maintain roads, you would not be a part of this economy because it would not exist in nearly the form it does. We all pay for access to the market, because the alternative is a non-market. It's not crafty to suggest that your participation in the market exempts you from paying for that access. A modest levy on your access to the market is a reasonable ask, and will help us keep the market productive and efficient.

But why would it matter to you what I pay?

Suburbs outside of city limits are a reality everywhere, and each come with pros and cons. You also have the freedom to move to East St Paul and enjoy some lower taxes, but it's your choice not to. If you don't use the roads, the argument should be that you should pay less, not that I should pay more.

When it comes to taxes or fees, it shouldn't be you vs your neighbour, it should be you vs the government. I'm very much of the impression that the government has taxed me far too much and done too little for me.

Call me a cynic, but it is a huge stretch to consider my participation in the Winnipeg market place as leeching off of Wpg services (not your words). I am but one number of not that many. If ESP were as big as Steinbach, maybe there's an argument, but I'd fight it then too; everyone is always looking for leverage to make their neighbour, not themselves, pay more.

Neverthess, my business exclusively serves the city and not ESP. I can happily call myself a contributor to this economy, and since I participate in the free market, I do not need access from a government entity. The city can look to my vehicle, the gas I purchase, the taxes that my business pays, and thus draws me into the city for their "entrance fee" for "road use". Not to mention my local contributions to economic activity (by association, the taxes paid by businesses I support as they grow, etc). There are many taxes and fees built into every aspect of conducting business, and since we're on a real estate forum, the most obvious example is a building permit. Should a business operator have to pay for "access" to the marketplace through a "congestion" fee when they clearly purchased a building permit?

Otherwise I could literally ride a bike on a path and nobody would expect a congestion fee from me, while my contribution to the local economy remains. If someone thinks I should then pay a bike path fee, I would ask them to change their mentality because socialism sucks

Furthermore, I have a little more understanding for an invoice for improved roads, rather than a cash call in advance of road repairs... which never seem to get done right.

Pardon my cynicism. Government has its purposes but it seems much more adept at getting in the way rather than furthering growth. So I'd fight any additional fee because it is not fuel to the economic fire, but in principal a small barrier to the TRUE mover of the economy: the worker, the business operator, and whether in Winnipeg or ESP, the taxpayer.

[DavefromSt.Vital]

Wasn't sure what was what, there are several new things in that picture.