Kapyong Barracks Discussion

[blueandgoldguy]

I wonder how much money people would save on gas, car payments if the station wagon made a comeback and replaced the SUVs and trucks...just as they replaced the station wagon decades ago?

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

I wonder how much money people would save on gas, car payments if the station wagon made a comeback and replaced the SUVs and trucks...just as they replaced the station wagon decades ago?

I'd buy a new station wagon tomorrow if anyone made one, but only if it had faux wood panelling on the sides. THAT is classy!

[esquire]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

I wonder how much money people would save on gas, car payments if the station wagon made a comeback and replaced the SUVs and trucks...just as they replaced the station wagon decades ago?

Most SUVs sold these days (crossovers) are basically jacked-up station wagons. I guess looking at it from the car manufacturer's perspective, why sell a $30,000 product when you can sell people a bigger $50,000 product instead?

I've rented station wagons in Europe where they are still popular and on a practical level, they have about the same level of functionality as small and mid sized SUVs. They look pretty nice too, they bear no resemblance to the Clark Griswold models of 35 years ago.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

I wonder how much money people would save on gas, car payments if the station wagon made a comeback and replaced the SUVs and trucks...just as they replaced the station wagon decades ago?

The shift to higher riding vehicles like SUVs and trucks over cars and station wagons has some basis in demographics. As a population ages lower limb issues such as knees and hips become fairly common. These issues can make getting into lower riding vehicles more difficult. A lot of the soft road SUVs are clearly designed with this in mind having lower entry points than trucks but higher entry points and seating positions than cars.

In terms of "savings" on gas lots of the subcompact and compact SUVs have super efficient 4 cylinder turbo engines. Even larger ones with the modern turbos are generally more fuel efficient than the station wagons of old.

The other reality behind the shift in vehicle trends is people are definitely getting larger and it would seem also taller on average. This changes what is a comfortable seating position in a vehicle. It also gets compounded by the changes in vehicle safety since the boom times for station wagons.

A final factor in the shift is with so many other taller vehicles on the road it becomes difficult to see in traffic what is happening around you unless you are in a vehicle with a higher ride height so basically the overall trend further feeds back into itself as well.

[zalf]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...dena-1.6481537

Winnipeg and Treaty 1 have struck a service deal for the former Kapyong site. Hopefully that helps to get this thing moving along.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by zalf

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...dena-1.6481537

Winnipeg and Treaty 1 have struck a service deal for the former Kapyong site. Hopefully that helps to get this thing moving along.

If this thing doesn't fly does the city get left holding the bag? I don't trust our city politicians with any deal involving tax dollars as we've seen time and time again!

[kalabaw]

Originally Posted by Peggerino

Ya I'm also pretty adamant about never owning a car. Financially, it's not worth it especially given I can, and enjoy ,biking or walking anywhere since I live in West Broadway. From the people I know it seems like car ownership is really not seen as desirable. Way too many costs and responsibilities for something that is ultimately bad for the planet and unnecessary, especially if you're a member of Peg City.

I'm a member of peg city and really find this service useful. I used to rent from Avis or Enterprise whenever I need a car and everyone knows how costly they are. I like that you could rent a car by the hour through peg city. I also like the different sized vehicles they have.

[Winnipegger]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

If this thing doesn't fly does the city get left holding the bag? I don't trust our city politicians with any deal involving tax dollars as we've seen time and time again!

Would you say this if it was a non-Indigenous development? It's literally the city's main job to extend operating services and infrastructure to many types of developments, including residential subdivisions like Waverley West and Sage Creek, or industrial developments like CentrePort. All of these areas have or will require substantial public investment in the form of regional roads or water and sewer mains/pumping stations, just like the Treaty One proposal.

Therefore, all forms of new development that require new infrastructure carry some sort of financial risk to the existing taxpayer should the new development not pan out like the private developers say they will, not unlike the proposed Treaty One development on the Kapyong Barracks land. And yet I've never once heard you question the viability of all the other private-developer led developments. Hmmm....

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

If this thing doesn't fly does the city get left holding the bag? I don't trust our city politicians with any deal involving tax dollars as we've seen time and time again!

I'm not sure I see the "bag holding" risk.

One risk to the city is that T1DC doesn't build the project up and generate the property and commercial tax revenue. Let's say they don't get a lot of interest in the planned commercial units. But realistically, the city faces the exact same risk from other properties. For instance the old football stadium was meant to be used for tons of commercial and retail development generating tons of tax revenues... instead it's a former Target now a call centre and a giant vacant lot/surface parking.

The other risk is that this adds to our infrastructure debt. New developments don't always really pay for themselves in the long run even when the city is collecting every last penny of tax revenue (versus 65 cents on the dollar). If the cost of servicing the site and providing all the contracted municipal services is long term more than they're taking in in revenues, that's a risk. But again, that's the same risk as when the city allows new suburban developments out near the perimeter. Maybe a bit worse because they're only getting 65% of the tax revenues, but maybe a bit better because they don't have the full range of services to provide, just the contracted ones, and because it's being built in an existing area with existing infrastructure, not a suburban greenfield.

[Komatiite]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

Would you say this if it was a non-Indigenous development? It's literally the city's main job to extend operating services and infrastructure to many types of developments, including residential subdivisions like Waverley West and Sage Creek, or industrial developments like CentrePort. All of these areas have or will require substantial public investment in the form of regional roads or water and sewer mains/pumping stations, just like the Treaty One proposal.

Therefore, all forms of new development that require new infrastructure carry some sort of financial risk to the existing taxpayer should the new development not pan out like the private developers say they will, not unlike the proposed Treaty One development on the Kapyong Barracks land. And yet I've never once heard you question the viability of all the other private-developer led developments. Hmmm....

There's no big racist conspiracy here. This is a relatively unique business arrangement unlike the run-of-the-mill suburb from an established developer. And I think if an outfit like Fortress got their mitts on this property and entered into the same deal a lot of people would be asking the same thing.

[pspeid]

Some movement on this:

https://winnipegsun.com/news/local-n...ays-treaty-one

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by pspeid

Some movement on this:

https://winnipegsun.com/news/local-n...ays-treaty-one

This may be a stupid question but who will be allowed to live there? Anyone who wants to pay rent? Only indigenous people? Does that open it up to any indigenous people or just treaty one? Metis? Inuit? Also, could this be a potential boon for the homeless population of the city who are overwhelmingly indigenous and from treaty one?

[WinCitySparky]

It’s very likely going to be for-profit for anyone who wants to live/run a business there. I am sure there will be status-person subsidies and allowances for band members but it’s going to be for the financial benefit of both the band and the city so I truly doubt it will be restrictively exclusive.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by kalabaw

I'm a member of peg city and really find this service useful. I used to rent from Avis or Enterprise whenever I need a car and everyone knows how costly they are. I like that you could rent a car by the hour through peg city. I also like the different sized vehicles they have.

West Broadway is great to live, if one uses public transit, or cycles. The big problem is getting through winters. I always see the odd cyclist in -30 C weather in January, and wonder if they have a death wish, observing them on some of the main city roads.

[Biff]

When they say start - It will start with the property on the NE corner of Kenaston and Taylor - a gas station will start late this year, followed by a 5 storey, 144 unit building and then a strip mall. Those are the plans up to now.

[anthonyk]

Originally Posted by Biff

When they say start - It will start with the property on the NE corner of Kenaston and Taylor - a gas station will start late this year, followed by a 5 storey, 144 unit building and then a strip mall. Those are the plans up to now.

"Prime land for urban infill"

*starts with gas station & strip mall*

Edited to add: I guess a 5 storey apt building is not bad.

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by Biff

When they say start - It will start with the property on the NE corner of Kenaston and Taylor - a gas station will start late this year, followed by a 5 storey, 144 unit building and then a strip mall. Those are the plans up to now.

Well that sounds dumb. Gas station and a strip mall...a real shortage of those in Kenaston. I wonder if those renders were smoke and mirrors to bring with.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by FactaNV

Well that sounds dumb. Gas station and a strip mall...a real shortage of those in Kenaston. I wonder if those renders were smoke and mirrors to bring with.

Smoke and mirrors? If you spent more than 30s looking at the plans you could see the insane amount of surface parking they have planned for this site. It's been mentioned several times in this thread, but they used a slight different shade from the proposed adjacent building, rather than the classic grey to denote the lots, which makes it slightly difficult to notice at a quick glance.

This is why I'm way less hopeful for this development than U of M's Southwood redevelopment. The "dreaming big" showcase art and renderings for this area was already soft, and so with the eventual value engineering and standards reduction most developments see over time, there's not much left to cheap out on. At least Southwood has some way to go if it has to cut back its ambitions.

Dissapointing given how much court time and money was spent over it. It's been empty for 20 years and in such a clutch and prime location.

[bomberjet]

What were the expectations? Gas stations are the first thing First Nations develop. Provides revenue and cheap gas for members. Win win.

Plans are here:
https://c7r.1b6.myftpupload.com/wp-c...aster-Plan.pdf

Phase 1 is this piece and then the Canada Lands section in the SW corner of the project.

[zalf]

https://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/this-is-...ment-1.6643952

Groundbreaking ceremony yesterday