Winnipeg Construction X

[WinCitySparky]

Originally Posted by davequanbury

Thanks for these. So is DMSMCA the organization developing the site?

No they are just posting information about the project to inform the neighbourhood. At least as far as I can reasonably assume.

[H2man]

What is the general consensus on converting some golf courses in the city to infill? Is this a controversial issue?

Just looking on google maps (and I know I'm not original in this thinking), but these seem like prime ways to add new housing in a denser matter and create new neighbourhoods that tap in to proximal infrastructure. I understand wanting to keep greenspace for community use, such a parks, but golf courses are for golfers (full disclosure: of which I am not) and utilize a lot of prime land. The are also often liabilities whereas could generate revenue both from same and ongoing future property taxes.

For example, Kildonan golf course is right next to Kildonan Park. I wouldn't advocate for selling off Kildonan Park since it's for the entire community, but a little neighbourhood could appear on the course and have good access to Chief Peguis Trail and Main for suburbanites who might choose this option instead of going further north toward the perimeter and beyond to St. Andews/WSP.

Another example is the Niakwa COuntry Club (private, I know) and then Niakwa Park, St. B Cemetary, and Windsor Park golf course. These are all on the Seine and could make for some great river development and a brand new neighbourhood that would be right across the street from Windsor Park and Southdale. That's a lot of great land that's not being used to its potential.

...Or is this all a horrible idea? lol

[esquire]

I like the idea of using golf courses as infill development space... just not yet.

You just know that had the City sold off golf course land for development in the 90s it would have been utterly squandered. Kildonan GC would be a bunch of ugly strip malls and parking lots fronting Main, with some single family homes over by the river. These days there might be something a bit better, but a look at the U of M's uninspiring plans for the Southwood lands tells you that things still aren't that great.

I'd wait for another 40 or 50 years... by that point developable land in the established parts of the city will come at a significant premium, and we'd likely see some much better and more efficient use of the land.

[Peggerino]

I'm 100% with you H2Man. It would be one thing if golf courses were small and there was like one of them, but like they take up so much real estate, you could probably house like at least ten years of population growth in those areas if you turned them into relatively dense residential. Perhaps the city could frame it to the NIMBYs like, "hey, there's going to be less infill in your neighbourhoods for the next X years, we're just going to develop a couple of golf courses".

Golf also is just kind of a silly thing to be in a city. Not many people can use the course at a time, it's mostly relatively rich people who use it and don't add that much to the surrounding area (besides, I guess trees and not adding to the heat island effect).

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Peggerino

Golf also is just kind of a silly thing to be in a city. Not many people can use the course at a time, it's mostly relatively rich people who use it and don't add that much to the surrounding area (besides, I guess trees and not adding to the heat island effect).

I'm not much of a golfer but I will say this... during covid, the municipal golf courses have been packed. They cater to the recreational players, some to kids (Crescent Drive and Harbourview are where many beginners learn the game), and they are quite affordable... around twenty bucks a head for a round, and there are ways to drive the cost down even more.

So there is a certain accessibility element that they provide that's hard to get anywhere else outside of maybe a small town course. It's not like Richardson and Chipman are hobnobbing at the Crescent Drive Golf Course clubhouse.

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by esquire

I'm not much of a golfer but I will say this... during covid, the municipal golf courses have been packed. They cater to the recreational players, some to kids (Crescent Drive and Harbourview are where many beginners learn the game), and they are quite affordable... around twenty bucks a head for a round, and there are ways to drive the cost down even more.

So there is a certain accessibility element that they provide that's hard to get anywhere else outside of maybe a small town course. It's not like Richardson and Chipman are hobnobbing at the Crescent Drive Golf Course clubhouse.

The city had a record year for golf course admissions, including some like Crescent Drive that were up 25%.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

The city had a record year for golf course admissions, including some like Crescent Drive that were up 25%.

That's great to see but we have to recognize that the city has been looking at reducing the number of its courses by 30% because the courses were underutilized in normal times. Right now its really the only physical activity you can "go out to do" aside from biking and walking.

Likewise, what is considered a fully booked course? I haven't golfed in 13 years but I can guess that a new group starting every ten or fifteen minutes would be enough to have the previous start play through the first hole. So on a nine hole course you have ~10 groups of 3-4 people, taking up many acres of potential recreation space. Whether it cost 20$ or 100$ to use, that's fairly restrictive to the amount of people that can use such a big space.

Like some previous posters mentioned, not all the courses that will be eliminated will remain park space but hopefully any infill going in takes a more natural approach and strives to preserve the generally more mature trees in those areas.

[bomberjet]

I'm not really down for giving up prime riverfront park space to some developer. If they want to reduce the number of courses, leave some as park space and find some good ways to develop it. I wouldn't want it turned into pink stucco boxes. Lots of room for that elsewhere.

Just because there's land, doesn't mean it needs to be turned over to a developer. We lament how shitty City planning get's us nowhere. Turning over land to stucco boxes is not ideal.

[pegcityboy]

Not much to say except THAT IS AN ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE IDEA ! Once the green space is gone it’s gone forever and some of the golf courses are on pristine treed land which would be tough to replace or take 50-100 years to replace it , My one exception is John Blumberg Golf Course that is a barren wasteland except by the river .

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by pegcityboy

Not much to say except THAT IS AN ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE IDEA ! Once the green space is gone it’s gone forever and some of the golf courses are on pristine treed land which would be tough to replace or take 50-100 years to replace it , My one exception is John Blumberg Golf Course that is a barren wasteland except by the river .

I agree with you totally. Especially the Niakwa. This one with the parks and cemetery is one of the largest tracts of pristine river front land left.

Also we were supposed to be good stewards to the other creatures that use theses corridors. I know some of you think build. Build and more building. Winnipeg is known for its greenspace. Why would the 20 above cement dwellers want to take away the one thing we are famous for and other cities envy? If you want to live in a concrete jungle. .move to Toronto.

Leave these courses alone.

We have strip malls and parking lots all over that can be used. We have the packer lands STILL sitting dormant. Why in baby Jesus name is the city wanting to start more stupidity when they cannot even solve the other shit.

And taking out courses actually devalues the adjacent community. I live right beside the Canoe club which has been many times carved up so the city could make a little cash. Each time it was a failure. I'm sorry I enjoy having what's left. I enjoy the wildlife.

I think alot of you just look at a Google map and don't set foot anywhere in this city and see first hand.

Royalwood did it right. They saved every stitches of forest. Where as Island Lakes bulldozed it all. Which side has the higher tax base. It ain't island Lakes.

Look at the new developments. They are frantically trying to create forests and wetlands. Doesn't this compute to some of you what people want????

The only reason the city wants to sell off the lands is to get some quick cash. Simple as that.

[GarryEllice]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

Winnipeg is known for its greenspace. Why would the 20 above cement dwellers want to take away the one thing we are famous for and other cities envy? If you want to live in a concrete jungle. .move to Toronto.

I agree that the golf courses should be kept as greenspace, but this comment is bizarre. The one thing Winnipeg is famous for is greenspace? No, sorry, as someone who lived in other provinces for most of my life, Winnipeg is known for being cold and dangerous and having a lot of mosquitoes, that's about it.

I don't get the comment about Toronto either. Toronto has beautiful tree-lined streets and tons of greenspace, including an entire island and ravines stretching through many parts of the city, which have no parallel in Winnipeg. Here's a downtown residential street in the "concrete jungle" that you so smugly referred to:



Doesn't quite measure up to the massive ash and elm canopy that we have in Winnipeg's older neighbourhoods, which is definitely something to be proud of, but still nice and green.

Don't get me wrong, Winnipeg's greenspace is great, but it's never struck me that we're obviously superior to other Canadian cities that I've lived in or spent time in.

[Biff]

For beautifying the Bay's boarded up windows.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...ndigenous-Art-

[GreyGarden]

I don't like the idea of converting golf courses into infill, there's plenty of infill opportunities in the city. A lot of the discussion I've seen on golf courses lately is whether they really have a place within cities and whether they should be converted to public park space. I think this is probably a better way of thinking about this land in the long run. That being said, the only places I've really seen these discussions pick up any steam is in big dense cities where park space is at a premium. That's not the case here and in my opinion Winnipeg's parks are not over used or anywhere near capacity. So I think it's probably a discussion to have in 50-75 years when the City is bigger and denser.

[GarryEllice]

Originally Posted by GreyGarden

I don't like the idea of converting golf courses into infill, there's plenty of infill opportunities in the city. A lot of the discussion I've seen on golf courses lately is whether they really have a place within cities and whether they should be converted to public park space. I think this is probably a better way of thinking about this land in the long run. That being said, the only places I've really seen these discussions pick up any steam is in big dense cities where park space is at a premium. That's not the case here and in my opinion Winnipeg's parks are not over used or anywhere near capacity. So I think it's probably a discussion to have in 50-75 years when the City is bigger and denser.

I agree. I can't see any rationale for ordinary residential infill in golf courses at any point. There is so much other underused land in Winnipeg.

I'd rather look at the golf courses as a land bank for future civic needs that can't be satisfied on ordinary infill sites. New parks would be one example; another is university campus expansion, as is happening at UofM. If for some reason we need to build a new university 50 years from now, a former golf course could serve well as a campus.

[esquire]

Like I said, I'm on board with using golf courses as infill land... when the time is right. Right now it isn't valuable enough and the land would just be squandered. Look at what the U of M is planning for the former Southwood site... a bunch of buildings scattered around a park. It isn't great, and looks only marginally better than the nearby Smartpark which is abysmal in terms of land use. I'd hate to see that kind of fate befall the golf courses.

Better to wait until the land is really needed and valuable enough to result in more intensive land use. As GarryEllice pointed out, the golf course sites could function as a land reserve for a future use that requires a large parcel, like a new university, a new hospital or some other such function. You waste it now on a Tim Hortons, a Part Source and a few townhouses and that opportunity is gone forever.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

I agree. I can't see any rationale for ordinary residential infill in golf courses at any point. There is so much other underused land in Winnipeg.

I'd rather look at the golf courses as a land bank for future civic needs that can't be satisfied on ordinary infill sites. New parks would be one example; another is university campus expansion, as is happening at UofM. If for some reason we need to build a new university 50 years from now, a former golf course could serve well as a campus.

I agree that there is plenty of underutilized land in Winnipeg, and that current parks are below capacity.

The issue is that the city is currently reviewing which golf courses it wants to keep and lose. The city can keep hanging on to the property for a few years after these decisions but it will eventually want to do something with it. A mixed development on some of these lands might be worthwhile.

As an aside, the U of M academic campus isn't expanding into the former southwood golf course lands. The U of M is guiding the development of a community which will be almost entirely residential. The plans do maintain some green space, especially along the river, but it is probably not more than 30% of the whole area.

Another thing to note is that the U of M had to cut down a large proportion of the trees in the old golf course. I don't know if the cause is from the ash beetles, or just age, but they never ended up replacing the trees during the time the land has sat idle. I see the rationale. as they don't have finalized plans for the area, but the whole space has started to feel a lot more sparce than it used to, especially the area west of University crescent.

[H2man]

Great discussion.

I should make some elaborations/points from my end since I can't reasonably address all posts I'd like to:

- I definitely don't mean we should sell them off all at once or even start 'tomorrow' but yes I was implying near-future. Timing should be important if this were to happen.

- As with timing, consideration of proposals will be the biggest factor IMO. I also don't want to sell the land willy-nilly to a developer to build whatever they want. There should be a well organized RFP process that defines and scrutinizes plans for residential, affordable housing, density, organization/walkablity/ability to integrate with surroundings & infrastructure, creation of a real neighbourhood, and sustainability elements which absolutely should involve maintaining existing trees and habitat wherever possible. Of course this shouldn't involve stucco strip malls with seas of parking.

- Re comments about much of the golf course land being pristine....ugh, I guess that's great for the minority of the population who utilize this space or live in a house that backs onto it and get to experience it? If you want to advocate for conversion to pubic parks with no development, that's at least something I could get behind because it's an inclusive initiative. But even if there was new development there that had greenspaces as elements then that's kind of the best of both worlds. Golf courses are massive.

- Which segways to this: we should have good greenspaces in our city that the current golf courses can contribute to, but Winnipeg is a city. There should be a balance of how much is utilized for living and how much should be used for recreation. If you don't build on these squares of land that divide the core and the outlaying suburbs, than the majority of folks will probably choose the outskirts and sprawl us further. New neighbourhoods closer to the core are a compromise and more sustainable than that alternative.

- Re: saving big parcels of land for future major building projects: OK, fair point.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by H2man

- Re comments about much of the golf course land being pristine....ugh, I guess that's great for the minority of the population who utilize this space or live in a house that backs onto it and get to experience it? If you want to advocate for conversion to pubic parks with no development, that's at least something I could get behind because it's an inclusive initiative. But even if there was new development there that had greenspaces as elements then that's kind of the best of both worlds. Golf courses are massive.

In principle, converting golf courses to public parks to increase accessibility makes sense. But in practice, I wonder if turning them into parks eliminates the possibility of developing them down the road? I think you would get some real pushback if you tried to develop a park that the community loves as compared to a golf course. Considering most if not all municipal golf courses are attached to major parks, I would think you either maintain them as golf courses until the land is redeveloped (whether that's now or later), or you permanently convert them to park space... I'm not sure that there's much in between.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by esquire

In principle, converting golf courses to public parks to increase accessibility makes sense. But in practice, I wonder if turning them into parks eliminates the possibility of developing them down the road? I think you would get some real pushback if you tried to develop a park that the community loves as compared to a golf course. Considering most if not all municipal golf courses are attached to major parks, I would think you either maintain them as golf courses until the land is redeveloped (whether that's now or later), or you permanently convert them to park space... I'm not sure that there's much in between.

I think you could designate part of the parks as development reserves and attach conditions to what developers can and cannot do and also warn people way in advance that it will happen in a certain timeline. People don't like surprises otherwise I'm not totally sure what you could do.

[GarryEllice]

Originally Posted by WildCake

As an aside, the U of M academic campus isn't expanding into the former southwood golf course lands. The U of M is guiding the development of a community which will be almost entirely residential.

Sure, but it's hardly going to be an ordinary suburban subdivision. If they follow the plan, it will be a dense mixed-use village that directly extends the existing campus and will no doubt be heavily used by students and staff. If successful it should enhance the overall quality of life on campus by turning it into more of a functional neighbourhood. That's the kind of unique civic benefit that is worth using former golf course land for (imo). Not just another Bridgwater.

By the way, to Esquire's comment about the U of M's plan being a bunch of buildings scattered around a park -- the winner of the design competition did look like that (and was awful), but the actual finalized plan is much better:



Ironically it actually looks more like the runners-up in the design competition.