Quote:
Originally Posted by wardlow
I know that the property owner is serious about developing... they know what they're doing, and they didn't recently buy all this property and make a lot of improvements to 201 Portage just so they could sit on a giant surface lot for years and years, drawing tiny but steady revenue from parking. (In short, this isn't going to be another downtown surface lot held for decades by an amateur family company.)
And I get that they're also waiting to see how the dust clears with respect to both True North Square and 300 Main -- to see if there's demand for a new building at Portage and Main.
That's all fine, but preventing one more dinky revenue stream is a way the city can effectively incentivize development quicker. I guess in this case though, because the properties on Main are such a dump and there's a billboard that isn't permitted downtown anymore, that the City took this an opportunity to leverage some small visual improvements (no more wood fence that's falling over, no more giant billboard). It's a crummy situation all around, but I take some comfort in knowing that Harvard is actually serious about, and capable of, developing the site one day.
|
l
The issue is really about a consistent policy for the City. (One way or the other).
If you do not want more surface parking lots in the city STOP APPROVING NEW ONES!
This conditional use does not require paving or sewer. The idea that some kind of arts programming on the site on occasion is any kind of consolation prize is a joke! Why should this be approved as a conditional use and not the parking lot on Hargrave? Why would the City allow and support this conditional use and take away parking on a lot on Notre Danme that had been parked for 15 years?
Why create a new gravel lot on Galt/Duncan for sports Manitoba by changing a site from vacant land to parking in the last few years?
When you remove consistant rules and certainty you deminish the confidence of people to invest in Winnipeg.
As to who owns the lots we often speak of, let me share my thoughts...
Most of the small lots are owned by the buildings beside them and used for employee parking. As new development requires parking, these sites for the most part are too small to economically develop today.
As for the very large surface lots, they are owned or controlled by very large companies, the government, and 3 or 4 local investors. Most would gladly build on if a proper tennant was available. As mentioned before, I can think of very few parking lots developed as opposed to demolition of existing buildings in the last 10 years.
Prev
Linear Mode
