Winnipeg Construction X

[Spocket]

A little optimism here please. For one thing, that wouldn't simply be Polo Park, that would mean the death of all retail everywhere, not just Winnipeg. While I'm willing to bet that the internet has yet to reach any sort of saturation point, it has one giant drawback that will always make on-the-ground retail an attraction: No waiting. Even if you could order something off of the internet and get it within20 minutes (I mean anything, actually) then people are always going to enjoy shopping simply for the sake of browsing in a concrete retail environment. Hell, can you imagine people in a 100 years? "I wish there was some place where I could just go, buy the thing and have it then and there? Wow...that would be so awesome!"

In any case, Polo Park probably still hasn't maxed out its retail development potential. I thought there was too much there 30 years ago but the location of the area within the city is always going to make it attractive for developers for one reason or another. Residential development is actually entirely natural and long overdue. It's the best place in the city to develop and I've never understood how it could not be full of highrise development all over the place.

Further, flight path arguments don't really hold water as any developable land in the area appears to be north of the mall. There are already two apartment towers directly under a flight path fairly near to the airport at the Portage/90 interchange. If twin 15+/- story towers can be built directly (and I mean directly) under a flight path then I'm sure they can fill practically the entire area along St. James with nothing but 15 storey buildings built wall to wall.

[Pinus]

Originally Posted by armorand93

If the WAA shuts this down, we can basically watch as St James Street, Empress, and the entire Polo/St James area starts looking like Detroit, Baltimore or even Flint...

Speaking of clowns, this statement has made you appear to be one yourself, and essentially has you lose any and all credibility with regards to criticism you have towards the city. Comparing Winnipeg to Detroit? That is soooo 2002.

You really are coming off as a pompous Calgarian, and I'm sure you are out there stoking the "shit on Winnipeg" fires: of this I have no doubt. You are no longer a Winnipegger when this happens, and coming on our local threads to piss and shit all over the city and it's citizens is not only sad, it just goes to show you are not truly interested in positively making a difference.

Perhaps you should focus on your beloved and perfect Calgary because, you know, it's just better out there.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

Middle Eastern cafe and hookah lounge. But it's the Dreman building (Portage & Garry), not the Dayton Building (Portage & Hargrave). Glad they didn't decide to spell "cafe" with a K

Right, you knew what I meant haha.

Originally Posted by pspeid

^^On the other hand, if you look at the Richardson Airport discussion, many people seem to urge the airport towards bigger, better, faster, more more more flights, terminals, you name it. I'm all about building up, but I can't see how changing the rules to allow buildings tall enough to potentially disrupt airport business helps the city as a whole.

I, along with I imagine almost everyone, is all for the airport growing and being successful. Airport growth and Polo Park residential are not mutually exclusive. There's no reason that there shouldn't be new residential in the area – I'm totally cool if they cap it at the max height of the existing apartments there, which are 16ish storeys I believe. Hell, I think even an 8-10 storey max is reasonable.

I don't understand this whole noise complaint thing. If you sign a lease for an apartment in the airport vicinity, you should know that there will be planes nearby – no one's forcing you to live there. The city could even make landlords include language that tenants there understand and accept this.

[BAKGUY]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Right, you knew what I meant haha.



I, along with I imagine almost everyone, is all for the airport growing and being successful. Airport growth and Polo Park residential are not mutually exclusive. There's no reason that there shouldn't be new residential in the area – I'm totally cool if they cap it at the max height of the existing apartments there, which are 16ish storeys I believe. Hell, I think even an 8-10 storey max is reasonable.

I don't understand this whole noise complaint thing. If you sign a lease for an apartment in the airport vicinity, you should know that there will be planes nearby – no one's forcing you to live there. The city could even make landlords include language that tenants there understand and accept this.

Yes..For example...The Exchange District had night clubs and discos 40 something years ago..As the are became more popular the past few years, the Waterfront residents and Exchange residents are livid about the noise from nearby clubs..Sorry, you move there cheek it out first. Or as the commercials go..Oooopps, I should have gone thru a realtor to know ahead where I am moving into! That is what the issue is. Most people are ill informed and do not pay attentions.o, making it very clear, if they move to the polo area, expect air traffic noise. I am all for the expansion on residential but want the airport to succeed also.

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by BAKGUY

Yes..For example...The Exchange District had night clubs and discos 40 something years ago..As the are became more popular the past few years, the Waterfront residents and Exchange residents are livid about the noise from nearby clubs..Sorry, you move there cheek it out first. Or as the commercials go..Oooopps, I should have gone thru a realtor to know ahead where I am moving into! That is what the issue is. Most people are ill informed and do not pay attentions.o, making it very clear, if they move to the polo area, expect air traffic noise. I am all for the expansion on residential but want the airport top succeed also.

I wish this were the case, but I'm afraid that even if an apartment in the area made renters sign a document saying they are taking the lease with the full understanding there will be air traffic noise, someone is going to gum up the works with a protest by saying something like "yes I signed it, but now I have a kid and that changes everything.." or some such thing. People are notorious for wanting to change the rules they disagree with once they have a foothold somewhere. I'm interested to see how this turns out.

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by pspei d

I wish this were the case, but I'm afraid that even if an apartment in the area made renters sign a document saying they are taking the lease with the full understanding there will be air traffic noise, someone is going to gum up the works with a protest by saying something like "yes I signed it, but now I have a kid and that changes everything.." or some such thing. People are notorious for wanting to change the rules they disagree with once they have a foothold somewhere. I'm interested to see how this turns out.

But people already live in the area, along route 90, if it’s so bad why haven’t they started an uprise, why would adding more people change that?

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

But people already live in the area, along route 90, if it’s so bad why haven’t they started an uprise, why would adding more people change that?

Yes, that's true. I'm not actually against building the apartments, but I'd like to hear what specifically the WAA has against them.

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by pspeid;86 74785

Yes, that's true. I'm not actually against building the apartments, but I'd like to hear what specifically the WAA has against them.

It’s in the Free Press article posted above. They don’t want to jeopardize the airports 24 hour operation.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by pspeid

Yes, that's true. I'm not actually against building the apartments, but I'd like to hear what specifically the WAA has against them.

I agree. Based on what I can observe (including the fact that there has been midrise development under the flight paths for 50 years and people seem to be able to cope), I am inclined to agree with CF and Towers, but given the stakes I would like to hear WAA's perspective before drawing any conclusions.

I am frankly surprised that they came out so categorically against this... between the fact that the proposal is pretty well on the edge of the AVP protected area and the technological changes over the last 30-40 years I would have figured it wasn't an issue... maybe WAA is just more concerned about the potential precedent as opposed to the direct impact of new residential on Portage in front of Polo Park.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by armorand93

I've worked retail in the area, grew up in the area, saw it over 20+ years, and started to see new developments - yes, there has been some new ones - but with retail getting oversaturated and replaced with online shopping to the point where entire chains go bankrupt overnight, the ONLY thing thats going to save it (minus getting rid of the internet and reverting back to the 80s), is residential development near Polo Park. Without residential, if it all comes crashing, there wouldn't even be a baseline or a coma condition for retail, as it would all just pull a Target and close their doors.

For the future sake of the entire area, for employment and not having it turn into any more of a shitshow, this residential development HAS to proceed. If not residential, high-tech industry around Polo Park. At the VERY least. Without it, the areas gonna sink like a stone in the Red. With it, even in a worst case recession scenario, at least Polo Park and St James wont take such a big hit. Combined with Kapyong Barracks redeveloping and Seasons built out, it might just guarantee enough economic growth, jobs and stuff to come for the next 10-15 years at LEAST, and help Winnipeg maybe keep people from pulling an all-out exodus.

Even if it this residential development doesn't happen, it is a small part of Winnipeg. Lots of great developments happening in other parts of the city and the population has been increasing by 10-12,000 a year. I really don't get how this will make or break the city economically and provide economic growth (along with Seasons). It's retail and retail is the bastion of the low paid wage earner. Hardly a driver for the economy and strong economic growth.

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by esquire

... given the stakes I would like to hear WAA's perspective before drawing any conclusions.

Airport hopes city grounds plans for massive residential developments in Polo Park area
By: Aldo Santin | Posted: 08/30/2019 7:00 PM

Two proposals headed to city hall next week would dramatically change the Polo Park retail area with the addition of thousands of new high-rise residential units.

However the plans conflict with the area’s no-new-residential-allowed restrictions designed to protect the 24-hour status of the Winnipeg Richardson International Airport.

Councillors on the property and development committee will consider separate proposals from Polo Park shopping centre owner Cadillac Fairview and Towers Realty Group, a property-management firm acting on behalf of several companies that own land on the west side of St. James Street, an area dotted with big-box stores and restaurants.

Both proposals would change the designations of the affected lands within the Airport Vicinity Protection Secondary Plan, which was established in 1997 to prohibit any new residential development that could impact airport operations.

"It’s a big-stakes item… but it’s not a slam-dunk," Coun. Brian Mayes, chairman of the committee, told the Free Press Friday.

The department is recommending that both proposals be considered at a public hearing of the Assiniboia community committee — consisting of Couns. Scott Gillingham, Kevin Klein and Janice Lukes — and the city’s legal services staff has already prepared draft bylaws that would authorize both proposals.

The bylaws, if approved by council, are the first step in a long process. Subsequent proposals would be needed for rezoning.

The Winnipeg Airports Authority is opposed to both proposals, saying they would jeopardize what has become an economic engine for the province and city.

Tyler MacAfee, vice-president of communications and government relations for the WAA, said the airport supports 17,000 jobs and generates $3.4 billion of economic activity, adding any changes to the airport area secondary plan needs to consider the long-term interests of the community.

"Where cities get themselves into trouble is when you start making these one-off changes for the benefit of a few developers that really run counter to the original intent of the plan in the first place," MacAfee said. "When you start talking about changing these rules and trying to prop up values for developers, that runs counter to what’s really in the best interests of the long-term future of the community."

Representatives from both firms have been meeting with the planning, property and development department since the spring.

The Cadillac Fairview proposal involves 80 acres in a block between St. James and Empress streets, and from Portage Avenue to St. Mathews Avenue – which includes the Polo Park Shopping Centre, the Scotiabank movie theatre complex, the CJOB studios and the former Target department store building.

The Towers Realty proposal involves 34 acres and 17 separate properties, most of them on the west side of St. James, between Portage and just north of Ellice Avenue to allow new residential development.

The airport area protection plan was approved in 1997 to ensure noise complaints from residents about overhead aircraft didn’t impact airport operations.

Both proposals want the designation on the lands changed to the similar designation east of the CPR La Riviere rail line (the West End) and south of Portage Avenue (River Heights and Tuxedo), where residential development is allowed.


Proposals submitted by both firms acknowledge the airport authority’s concerns over possible noise complaints but argue that changes in aircraft design and building construction in the 20 years since the secondary plan was imposed means that kind of protection isn’t necessary any longer.

Despite the airport authority’s objections, a document submitted by Cadillac Fairview for the committee meeting states that city hall and the provincial government and the airport authority support residential development in the area.

"All stakeholders expressed interest in the idea of adding residential development to the site," states the Cadillac Fairview document, titled a Letter of Intent.

"It was communicated that it was advantageous to the City and Province to realize (multi-family residential) development on the site."

Cadillac Fairview said the Polo Park area is nearly saturated with commercial development and allowing residential development will make the area into a complete, "live, work, play" neighbourhood, adding that the largely vacant former stadium lands would be ideal for that purpose.

Mayes said the airport needs to be protected but added he wasn’t aware of the development restrictions on the surrounding lands.

Klein, who is also a member of the property and development committee, said the proposals reflect council’s current support for residential infill, adding that the area surrounding the airport needs redevelopment.

"If they can make a residential area there, why not?" Klein said.

MacAfee said the airport secondary plan has prevented controversy that has dogged other communities over development adjacent to airports.

The airport authority hasn’t decided whether it will make a presentation to the committee meeting, but he said its staff are discussing the proposals with the city administration.

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/...opments-in-polo-park-area-558852262.html


Brian Mayes is such a twat, assuming this isn't a misquote on the reporters behalf, he is chair of the property and development committee yet wasn't aware about the Polo Park development restrictions.

[armorand93]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

Even if it this residential development doesn't happen, it is a small part of Winnipeg. Lots of great developments happening in other parts of the city and the population has been increasing by 10-12,000 a year. I really don't get how this will make or break the city economically and provide economic growth (along with Seasons). It's retail and retail is the bastion of the low paid wage earner. Hardly a driver for the economy and strong economic growth.

Its about momentum. With Kapyong and Seasons included, along with CentrePort and finally tearing down Portage Place, unstoppable growth is finally about to hit critical mass. Any further impedements to Winnipeg growth will make or break the city, as everyone will either take it elsewhere in Manitoba (outside the perimetre), or take it outside of province.

The residential construction generates trades jobs - something Manitoba is steadily losing. I'll agree, retail isn't economically golden, but the basic jobs generated, will keep the economy alive. So eventually, by developing Polo further, generating construction for 5+ years on lets say... welders wages at $60k/yr minimal - plus retail, plus high tech investments, plus wages and jobs generated?

Winnipeg needs this more than anything. And by finally getting it at critical mass, and having tradesworkers who haven't ran off to other provinces with money to spend and reasons to stay, then it will ensure not only major growth, but also small business growth as well, entrepreneurship, etc etc.

While everyone else is kvetching over this on SSP, everyone has to admit:

- trade jobs in Winnioeg are starting to hit a low
- Polo needs to diversify
- more jobs are needed

If most of my highschool friends all ran outside the Perimetre or out West, even to the states - and not including the ones that stayed behind and have been suffering from the lack of opportunity in 2010s Winnipeg, with no way to move up the ladder or not even an employer willing to hire them (especially because some of them refuse to hire Aboriginals, as some of my friends found out the hard way) - then Winnipeg still has a problem. And it needs an actual fix.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/...opments-in-polo-park-area-558852262.html


Brian Mayes is such a twat, assuming this isn't a misquote on the reporters behalf, he is chair of the property and development committee yet wasn't aware about the Polo Park development restrictions.

I read the article too, but it doesn't tell us much about the substance of WAA's opposition. For instance, how do they square their stance with the fact that there are thousands of people already living in the AVP area, many in midrise buildings? What about the improvements in aircraft noise reduction? What about other cities that combine 24 hour operations with nearby development?

[pspeid]

^^ Well, IMO the headline is alarmist, but that doesn't really surprise me. After reading the article, however, it seems WAA is concerned about this change becoming the "slippery slope", where any developer could afterwards claim "you made an exception for them why not for me?". To me this sounds like a very legitimate concern.

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by esquire

I read the article too, but it doesn't tell us much about the substance of WAA's opposition. For instance, how do they square their stance with the fact that there are thousands of people already living in the AVP area, many in midrise buildings? What about the improvements in aircraft noise reduction? What about other cities that combine 24 hour operations with nearby development?

My reading of the article made me feel WAA's position wasn't set in stone, but they were serving notice to the city and CF that they needed to be consulted in this process. We don't really know what WAA thinks about revising their Plan.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by armorand93

If the WAA shuts this down, we can basically watch as St James Street, Empress, and the entire Polo/St James area starts looking like Detroit, Baltimore or even Flint... from a guy that was born and raised in the Polo area, Winnipeg NEEDS THIS. The neighborhood NEEDS this. West End and Brooklands kids that need jobs, NEED. THIS.

I'm seriously hoping someone shuts these clowns out of the economic development finally coming to Winnipeg, and stick to the airport that they can barely make to function. Which if they really cared, they would try to attract flights and travellers, NOT enforce capital flight and give any more reasons for the rest of my friends back home to book it out of the Perimetre, if not directly out of the province.

[BAKGUY]

Originally Posted by armorand93

Its about momentum. With Kapyong and Seasons included, along with CentrePort and finally tearing down Portage Place, unstoppable growth is finally about to hit critical mass. Any further impedements to Winnipeg growth will make or break the city, as everyone will either take it elsewhere in Manitoba (outside the perimetre), or take it outside of province.

The residential construction generates trades jobs - something Manitoba is steadily losing. I'll agree, retail isn't economically golden, but the basic jobs generated, will keep the economy alive. So eventually, by developing Polo further, generating construction for 5+ years on lets say... welders wages at $60k/yr minimal - plus retail, plus high tech investments, plus wages and jobs generated?

Winnipeg needs this more than anything. And by finally getting it at critical mass, and having tradesworkers who haven't ran off to other provinces with money to spend and reasons to stay, then it will ensure not only major growth, but also small business growth as well, entrepreneurship, etc etc.

While everyone else is kvetching over this on SSP, everyone has to admit:

- trade jobs in Winnioeg are starting to hit a low
- Polo needs to diversify
- more jobs are needed

If most of my highschool friends all ran outside the Perimetre or out West, even to the states - and not including the ones that stayed behind and have been suffering from the lack of opportunity in 2010s Winnipeg, with no way to move up the ladder or not even an employer willing to hire them (especially because some of them refuse to hire Aboriginals, as some of my friends found out the hard way) - then Winnipeg still has a problem. And it needs an actual fix.

@ armorand93
Oh..So I am curious you have confirmed info that "Portage Place" is being demolished and torn down? Interesting I have found no evidence of that? From what I understand a major re-do and reconfiguration of the mall, a name change and new loitering rules enforced..new food court if one at all...then 2 exterior pads which are atop of the malls structure with mid rises on them ,either both residential or the second one being mixed residential/ hotel.

[mbp518]

Any pictures or updates on the REC ROOM in Kildonan?

[Biff]

The Rec Room is going up just west of IKEA. The building structure is up and close to being closed in. Just picture a long dark grey rectangle.

[Wolf13]

1. WAA can suck it. Also a horribly pathetic move for McAfee to posture this as a "City's greater good" vs "just one or two big bad developers" standoff is bullshit.
2. Noise wouldn't ever be a factor here, because otherwise nothing would ever get built and the airport would have to be relocated.
3. Winnipeg has been improving economically for a while and Polo is an untapped area, but it isn't the lynch pin. Winnipeg needs development at Polo, and downtown, but downtown stagnation would be worse than Polo stagnation. The doom and gloom from afar just because we have yet another dumb objection to development (which exists in every city except Cgy) is missing the mark in my opinion.