Winnipeg Construction X

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I think where this could become something really nice to have is down the road, when transit is built out, being located close to a hub, whether as a business or as a residence could be highly desirable. Since the areas nearest to the station happen to be rather blighted and under developed, it could be the kind of blank slate that would allow for really cool development once the demand justifies it.

I understand the debbie-downer arguments that this is ridiculous and pie in the sky and TOD is a failure of epic proportions in Winnipeg blah blah blah... What we need is a fresh attitude towards these things. It could easily be incentivized and we could create the desire to be near there. I think once railside comes online that will be a nice shot in the arm. It would be even better if we had proper intercity rail (I know, wishful thinking).

I know I have a lot of unjustified ambition, and I may even be accused of being unrealistic, but we'll never have the great city we all want to live in if we limit ourselves by a shitty attitude and pessimistic/bordering on cynical outlook on the vitality and future of our city.

BRAVO!!!!

[GarryEllice]

Originally Posted by esquire

Fair comment, but I suppose this reality makes me wonder about the somewhat grandiose ideas about what Union Station will become when BRT goes through it. It won't be a multimodal transportation nerve centre of the city... it'll be a very lightly used train station that happens to have bus stops inside and next to it.

Well, it'll be a rapid transit station, and ideally all of the rapid transit stations would eventually be desirable locations surrounded by TOD. It's still a very good thing. I just think people are projecting way too many magical properties on the word "hub". If you think about a city with a subway system, any subway station is a magnet for development, not just the hub stations where multiple lines meet. We can hope for our RT network to be like that too someday.

[esquire]

I'm not saying it'll be a bad thing, I just think some of the excitement over Union Station is a little unrealistic. The BRT station can certainly lead to development down the road and that's positive, but it will be years before that happens.

[buzzg]

With Railside starting next year, lots on either side of Union Station and the east side of Main ripe for development, plus Wawanesa and lot beside it – there's tons of potential development to make for successful TOD around Union.

Also, while we may never get great TOD around the dogleg portion of SWBRT, there's still tons of potential (and early signs) around Harkness and Osborne Station, and Jubilee/Fort Rouge I would say is doing quite well now. The new master plan also shows potentially building a pedestrian bridge from Jubilee Station to Pembina, which should lead to some redevelopment around Pembina and Taylor. Also potential for Grant Park Pavillions to connect to Parker Station or Jubilee not too far in future.

[BubberMiley]

Originally Posted by buzzg

With The new master plan also shows potentially building a pedestrian bridge from Jubilee Station to Pembina, which should lead to some redevelopment around Pembina and Taylor.

Doesn’t that already exist?

[LilZebra]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I think where this could become something really nice to have is down the road, when transit is built out, being located close to a hub, whether as a business or as a residence could be highly desirable. Since the areas nearest to the station happen to be rather blighted and under developed, it could be the kind of blank slate that would allow for really cool development once the demand justifies it.

I understand the debbie-downer arguments that this is ridiculous and pie in the sky and TOD is a failure of epic proportions in Winnipeg blah blah blah... What we need is a fresh attitude towards these things. It could easily be incentivized and we could create the desire to be near there. I think once railside comes online that will be a nice shot in the arm. It would be even better if we had proper intercity rail (I know, wishful thinking).

I know I have a lot of unjustified ambition, and I may even be accused of being unrealistic, but we'll never have the great city we all want to live in if we limit ourselves by a shitty attitude and pessimistic/bordering on cynical outlook on the vitality and future of our city.

I guess that person or persons don't believe in the "law of attraction", in that you can manifest almost anything you think of.

But at the same time, said person has also blamed WT for their poor vision and "stuck on BRT" attitude.

If you live life never expecting a miracle, then miracles will never happen in your life, or at the macro big picture level, in our city. If you always assume the worse case scenario, then the worse case is more likely to happen. That's just the way the Universe operates in my observations and experience.

[robertocarlos]

Originally Posted by BubberMiley

Doesn’t that already exist?

No. You can only walk down to the sidewalk on the east side of Osbourne.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by robertocarlos

No. You can only walk down to the sidewalk on the east side of Osbourne.

Jubilee station is by Pembina.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by BubberMiley

Doesn’t that already exist?

No, you have to walk to the underpass then back north on Pembina. Doesn't seem like much, but it's 10 mins+ to the residential in GP/Taylor area.

[dam_well]

https://globalnews.ca/news/7433694/m...y-club-u-of-m/

I might be late to the party on this one but this was announced yesterday.

[trueviking]

2,000 units in two buildings? Big buildings.

It doesn’t seem like a real announcement of anything different than five years ago.

[Biff]

I attended the Winnipeg Real Estate Forum last week (virtually) and Greg Rogers (UofM) was a panelist on one of the sessions. His background was two very large, squarish, 12-15 storey buildings. Brown masonry base or podium and blue glass with balconies above. They were quite big I thought.

1,000 units per building doesn't seem right though. 250-350 units per building seemed more appropriate to their size.

[esquire]

Just thinking out loud here, but there is a fairly significant number of buildings in the surrounding area that cater largely to students. I know several people who started living near campus as students and then stayed on after graduation until they got married and settled down.

If U of M adds thousands of suites, what impact will it have on that area? I'm not suggesting that the U of M owes the owners of the properties anything, but I ask out of curiosity about what will be likely to happen when you add a huge number of residences that are attractive to students and then all of a sudden end up with loads of older 60s, 70s and 80s builds located off campus that become far less desirable?

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by esquire

Just thinking out loud here, but there is a fairly significant number of buildings in the surrounding area that cater largely to students. I know several people who started living near campus as students and then stayed on after graduation until they got married and settled down.

If U of M adds thousands of suites, what impact will it have on that area? I'm not suggesting that the U of M owes the owners of the properties anything, but I ask out of curiosity about what will be likely to happen when you add a huge number of residences that are attractive to students and then all of a sudden end up with loads of older 60s, 70s and 80s builds located off campus that become far less desirable?

My guess is the illegal rentals will become either obsolete or incredibly cheap and the other rental buildings will get cheaper with the drop in demand

[esquire]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

My guess is the illegal rentals will become either obsolete or incredibly cheap and the other rental buildings will get cheaper with the drop in demand

Yeah, the illegal rentals won't be missed. I would expect most of them to disappear.

The other rental buildings will probably start catering to a different market. But I wonder who that will be? That will be a lot of space to fill.

[Biff]

Typically mis-reported by the papers. First phase is up to 2,000 units in multiple buildings - not 2. They have approvals for up to 25 storeys.

[rkspec]

Sorry, havent been around much. Are there plans for the lot beside Dons Photo?

[michelleb]

Originally Posted by esquire

Yeah, the illegal rentals won't be missed. I would expect most of them to disappear.

The other rental buildings will probably start catering to a different market. But I wonder who that will be? That will be a lot of space to fill.

The overheated rental rates around there will have to drop, that's for sure. Complacent companies like Qualico will actually have to start reinvesting into their old multi-family rentals to make them attractive.

As for former slumlord rentals, the distressed buildings will start being sold off to developers who will split the wide lots and build nice new 2-storey infill, which will trigger older neighbours from the '60s and '70s to start screaming gentrification ala the Glenwood cranks.

Gonna be fun!

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by rkspec

Sorry, havent been around much. Are there plans for the lot beside Dons Photo?

I have heard from someone working on parts of it that the city gave them approval to turn it back into a park for 2 or 3 years until they're ready to develop it. Not sure if said development is new/exists or is the rumoured 15 storey "addition" to the Boyd building from a while back.

[Biff]

Just to be clear, the empty lot is planned to be a 6 storey parkade and the 12-15 storey addition is proposed for the Don's Photo Building...not the Boyd Building. Either way all of it seems fairly pie in the sky as the proposals were from two years ago.