Winnipeg Construction X

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by Peggerino

IIRC, the UM City Planning school came out with something like that also for downtown. A studio class suggested a building height maximum to complete more projects and have more surface parking lots developed. By having the building heigh max, they argued that you wouldn't have one or two buildings eating up all the demand for downtown residential and leaving those parking lots undeveloped.

Yeah, there's clear logic there but as I recall the issue with the parking lots is that the owners simply make too much money off of them to sell. My guess, therefore would be that to get them to sell you'd have to offer quite a chunk of change and if you're going to plop that kind of cash down then I'd expect you'd want to put up something pretty big to make it worth your while. I'm not sure a single or even a couple of ten floor apartment/condo buildings would be worth it.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Spocket

Yeah, there's clear logic there but as I recall the issue with the parking lots is that the owners simply make too much money off of them to sell. My guess, therefore would be that to get them to sell you'd have to offer quite a chunk of change and if you're going to plop that kind of cash down then I'd expect you'd want to put up something pretty big to make it worth your while. I'm not sure a single or even a couple of ten floor apartment/condo buildings would be worth it.

Part of the problem is that lot owners expect to hit the lottery when they sellout. This is something that CV hasn't helped with the whole Skycity fiasco--there's a reasonable belief, based on past sales, that you can make seven million selling a parking lot to someone who wants to built a highrise. Eliminate that possibility and the market will fall in line.

Parking revenues are a wrinkle in that picture; and it's tough to predict how deep it goes. More buildings could result in more demand for parking. Or they could reduce demand by replacing suburban commuters with downtown residents. And a lot of people just don't care and are happy to collect their meager parking rent.

I know people personally who've had a lot in the family for generations; it's an asset, it earns some rent, and that's enough. If someone wanted to buy it, they'd probably sell. If someone might offer them seven million, they'd be stupid to settle for 500 grand. But they'd almost certainly take 500 grand if seven million was off the table. As things are, there's not enough development pressure--there's none--for them to even think about it. Lower the barrier to entry and it might be a different story.

[buzzg]

I think these are all valid points but it's clear to me that it's not one of these things that is going to "solve" the issue. Need to do some of these things while also disincentivizing (or taxing) surface lots.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by buzzg

I think these are all valid points but it's clear to me that it's not one of these things that is going to "solve" the issue. Need to do some of these things while also disincentivizing (or taxing) surface lots.

Yes. And providing better ways to travel into the city than driving.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by buzzg

I think these are all valid points but it's clear to me that it's not one of these things that is going to "solve" the issue. Need to do some of these things while also disincentivizing (or taxing) surface lots.

Yeah, I think you've hit the nail on the head.

We can't really dictate what price people can sell their property at or tell them that they must sell a profitable enterprise. While I understand the reasons for wanting a change, to me those kinds of rules are entering into, well, I hate to say it but, authoritarian territory. At the same time, how do we incentivize the parking lot owners to sell a profitable enterprise for less than the "lottery" (as Biguc so accurately expressed it)

Tough call, indeed.

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by biguc

Part of the problem is that lot owners expect to hit the lottery when they sellout. This is something that CV hasn't helped with the whole Skycity fiasco--there's a reasonable belief, based on past sales, that you can make seven million selling a parking lot to someone who wants to built a highrise. Eliminate that possibility and the market will fall in line.

Parking revenues are a wrinkle in that picture; and it's tough to predict how deep it goes. More buildings could result in more demand for parking. Or they could reduce demand by replacing suburban commuters with downtown residents. And a lot of people just don't care and are happy to collect their meager parking rent.

I know people personally who've had a lot in the family for generations; it's an asset, it earns some rent, and that's enough. If someone wanted to buy it, they'd probably sell. If someone might offer them seven million, they'd be stupid to settle for 500 grand. But they'd almost certainly take 500 grand if seven million was off the table. As things are, there's not enough development pressure--there's none--for them to even think about it. Lower the barrier to entry and it might be a different story.

There are NO parking lots for sale today in downtown Winnipeg but there are many buildings available.

When the very rare parking lot is sold today the price is reflected in either it’s cash flow capitalized at 3.5% or $40,000 a stall. Even at that price I would continue to purchase any parking lot available.

[trueviking]

The only solution is to tax parking lots as if they have buildings on them. Will increase transit use and incentivize development.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by trueviking

The only solution is to tax parking lots as if they have buildings on them. Will increase transit use and incentivize development.

we need to look at multiple stratigies. not just this

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by biguc

Yes. And providing better ways to travel into the city than driving.

Agree with this 100%. The city should be partnering with surrounding municipalities to create park and ride options. As well as putting in some permanent commuter lines. A selkirk to Winnipeg line would make so much sense. With parking and stops along main at lockport and St. Andrews.
I look forward to having the bus coming to birds hill park. I have a provincial park pass so I’ll park at birds hill and take the bus to the city.

As for downtown parking... Obviously there is a demand for parking downtown. If people weren’t making money off their lots they would put buildings up or sell. Isn’t it that simple. So the demand for parking is there. How do we move that from surface lots to multi level car parks. I think it would be best to create a crown corp that builds and operates car parks in strategic locations to undercut the surface lots and force them out of business.

[T'Cona]

Originally Posted by biguc

Yes. And providing better ways to travel into the city than driving.

I think more people would use public transportation if it was fast and convenient. Being stuck on a slow-moving bus surrounded by all other vehicular traffic is not an incentive.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by T'Cona

I think more people would use public transportation if it was fast and convenient. Being stuck on a slow-moving bus surrounded by all other vehicular traffic is not an incentive.

Right, and it's a very hard sell for someone in Selkirk or any bedroom community that already has a vehicle to give up their car trips for their commute. There is no way Winnipeg Transit could come up with the frequency and timeliness to bedroom communities for the foreseeable future that'll be comparable to driving or at least outweigh the cons of commuting in a personal vehicle (gas, parking).

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by Hecate

Agree with this 100%. The city should be partnering with surrounding municipalities to create park and ride options. As well as putting in some permanent commuter lines. A selkirk to Winnipeg line would make so much sense. With parking and stops along main at lockport and St. Andrews.
I look forward to having the bus coming to birds hill park. I have a provincial park pass so I’ll park at birds hill and take the bus to the city.

As for downtown parking... Obviously there is a demand for parking downtown. If people weren’t making money off their lots they would put buildings up or sell. Isn’t it that simple. So the demand for parking is there. How do we move that from surface lots to multi level car parks. I think it would be best to create a crown corp that builds and operates car parks in strategic locations to undercut the surface lots and force them out of business.

So your suggesting government (CV) steps in and buys more buildings, tear them down and builds parkades with tens of millions of borrowed / tax payer dollars and offer discounted rent in facilities that do not pay realty taxes, continue to carry the purchase and construction debt just to ensure property owners who pay taxes and comply with current City land use policy and zoning rules will hopefully have a smaller return even after you illegally tax them for a conforming use? This will force them to sell so not needed office buildings are constructed by capital flooding into Winnipeg?

Let’s build government controlled drinking halls and serve cheaper drinks to put other compliant establishments out of business because you don’t like where they are located or their use. Let’s create a new taxation classification for pot shops too because we don’t like their impact on downtown or the streets...

CV can give the St Regis site away for free ... you are not going to get a 50 storey building on that site.

What you might get is a government subsidized parkade owned by someone named Matheson... and that’s a big maybe.

Taxation will not create non existent demand for development on these sites...

When City impact fees were struck down for suburban development the core suffered a huge blow...

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by trueviking

The only solution is to tax parking lots as if they have buildings on them. Will increase transit use and incentivize development.

Additional taxation will not create non existing development demand for these zoned and currently compliant and tax paying sites.

Let the City (CV) buy them and create a subsidized development opportunity as seen by the hugely anticipated and recently announced 50 storey CV sponsored St Regis.

I just can’t wait!

[davequanbury]

Originally Posted by Labroco

Additional taxation will not create non existing development demand for these zoned and currently compliant and tax paying sites.

Let the City (CV) buy them and creat a subsidized development opportunity as seen by the hugely anticipated and recently announced 50 storey CV sponsored St Regis.

I just can’t wait!

I think your argument misses the fact that the value of the parking lot is high enough that the ‘demand’ for building on empty lots isn’t high enough to compete. I would counter that there is demand to build on these lots, but their current ability to generate revenue as parking lots overpowers this demand. Therefore if additional taxation lowered the profit margin of operating a parking lot, then demand for other uses such as buildings would be more powerful when compared against profitability of parking lot. Cut the profit by raising the taxes, then the other uses could compete with the parking lot use. No?

There is demand.

[H2man]

Originally Posted by davequanbury

I think your argument misses the fact that the value of the parking lot is high enough that the ‘demand’ for building on empty lots isn’t high enough to compete. I would counter that there is demand to build on these lots, but their current ability to generate revenue as parking lots overpowers this demand. Therefore if additional taxation lowered the profit margin of operating a parking lot, then demand for other uses such as buildings would be more powerful when compared against profitability of parking lot. Cut the profit by raising the taxes, then the other uses could compete with the parking lot use. No?

There is demand.

I agree with this, I think it's a good economics argument.

I will add that we should take revenues generated from surface lots taxed as e.g. 5 story buildings and funnel them directly to Transit's operating budget to add frequency. Even if this was only done for rush hour and focused on routes that funnel people in/out of downtown for work, the argument can be made that improved service offsets the reduced parking availability/increased cost to park. This will incentivize drivers to take transit to work instead of their cars.

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by davequanbury

I think your argument misses the fact that the value of the parking lot is high enough that the ‘demand’ for building on empty lots isn’t high enough to compete. I would counter that there is demand to build on these lots, but their current ability to generate revenue as parking lots overpowers this demand. Therefore if additional taxation lowered the profit margin of operating a parking lot, then demand for other uses such as buildings would be more powerful when compared against profitability of parking lot. Cut the profit by raising the taxes, then the other uses could compete with the parking lot use. No?

There is demand.

What people are proposing is expropriation ( diminishing the use of private lands as currently zoned and taxation based on use not current value) with out compensation. If that happens private enterprise and capital will head to other locations.

The real measure over the next 12 months is if the government subsidized St Regis site is built on as proposes (I don’t think so) and the sale price and conditions of market lands North stimulate a market driven development.
The land price even at parking lot values is very small compared to the cost of constructing a 50 floor project everyone speaks about. For that reason the economics is not contingent on the price of the land but rather rental rates, interest rates and construction costs.


Toronto downtown had lots of parking 20 years ago. As the economy and demographics changed they were mostly built out. If that cannot happen on its own in Winnipeg the idea that one can force it is erroneous in my opinion and experience.

You cannot socially engineer development in DT Winnipeg by taxing landowners.

Try the carrot... not the stick.

Without diminishment of poverty and drug abuse it also will be a very difficult road to climb.

[Hecate]

How would increasing taxation spur construction? Wouldn’t the lot owner just pass the buck by raising rates? The city used to own and operate car parks for profit. Then they sold them off... why can’t the city do it again? We can run hockey rinks. But not parking lots???

[T'Cona]

Originally Posted by davequanbury

I think your argument misses the fact that the value of the parking lot is high enough that the ‘demand’ for building on empty lots isn’t high enough to compete. I would counter that there is demand to build on these lots, but their current ability to generate revenue as parking lots overpowers this demand. Therefore if additional taxation lowered the profit margin of operating a parking lot, then demand for other uses such as buildings would be more powerful when compared against profitability of parking lot. Cut the profit by raising the taxes, then the other uses could compete with the parking lot use. No?

There is demand.

[DavefromSt.Vital]

Originally Posted by Labroco

Toronto downtown had lots of parking 20 years ago. As the economy and demographics changed they were mostly built out. If that cannot happen on its own in Winnipeg the idea that one can force it is erroneous in my opinion and experience.

By the 1970s, downtown Toronto and the surrounding area was a sea of surface level parking. Eventually the "Commercial Concentration Tax" was implemented from 1989 to 2010. Commercial properties over a certain size were taxed at a flat rate per square meter past that size, including commercial parking lots.

https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku...l1989/iss1/80/

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c16

[trueviking]

Montreal tripled the taxation on their downtown surface parking lots to spur development, increase modal shift and dissuade demolition. It is definitely not enough to create development on its own, but it is enough to be a piece of the puzzle.

There is lots of demand. This two year period (last year and this) will see more residential units open downtown than any two year period in history.

I was reading a study yesterday that found the most effective tool for increasing transit ridership is to increase parking costs. Calgary has much higher ridership for this very reason. Taxation isn't the only way to drive up parking costs but it is a start. The more lots that get developed the higher the costs will be.

Many of Winnipeg's parking lots are owned by multi-generational families who just sit on them reaping the profits. Taxation provides at least some incentive to think about other options. Coming out of the pandemic, it is also likely that parking demand will remain lower than it was before. Higher costs and lower revenues would make them less lucrative, creating incentive for owners to consider options instead of just passing them on to their children. It is definitely engineered expropriation.

The price of land is a critical part of development costs. Interest rates will be low for a very long time. Multi-family residential is booming right now in Winnipeg. Developers are hungry.