Winnipeg Construction X

[michelleb]

That should have been another highrise apartment. Instead it's a highrise for cars, in downtown. No, not better than a surface parking lot.

[T'Cona]

It definitely could have been designed to not look like a parking garage.

[1ajs]

counted 6 cranes in total i could see
too this this morning

[peg]

Great photo AJ!

Slowly but surely the skyline is improving

[esquire]

Originally Posted by michelleb

That should have been another highrise apartment. Instead it's a highrise for cars, in downtown. No, not better than a surface parking lot.

Of course it's better than a surface parking lot. After all, this parkade is making the development next door possible.

I'm sure the developer would love to be spared the expense of having to build a parkade, but that simply isn't the reality of downtown Winnipeg.

[zalf]

Originally Posted by rivercity

Would be nice if the design could provide a somewhat better street level interaction. Maybt they could grow vines up that mesh

Fully agree. Getting some ivy growing up that mesh would go a long way to making this thing less monstrous. Might even be sort of pleasant.

I'd certainly have preferred some kind of CRUs or something at the base to give some street interaction, but you play the hands you're dealt. Hiding it behind some greenery seems to be a reasonable way of managing that.

[Wpgstvsouth94]

Originally Posted by T'Cona

It definitely could have been designed to not look like a parking garage.

What shocks me the most with our winter climate that a parking garage is open concept and unheated.. even parking garages in LA for example are fully enclosed and has A/C.

[drew]

^ the concrete lasts longer if the structures are left cold.

Less melting of salt saturated snow through the winter. Your car likes it better too (for similar reasons).

[trueviking]

I don’t really care that the parkade is ugly, but I care a lot that it is not activated at the ground floor. I’m really hoping the new downtown plan incorporates bylaw requirements for all parkades to be hidden from the street at the ground floor with interior space. We should be way beyond accepting this.

[esquire]

^ That's a reasonable compromise.

[peg]

Originally Posted by trueviking

I don’t really car that the parkade is ugly but I care a lot that it is not activated at the ground floor. I’m really hoping the new downtown plan incorporates the requirement for all parkades to be hidden from the street at the ground floor with interior space. We should be way beyond accepting this.

Agreed 100%

It would be neat to see some parkades retrofitted to have ground floor CRUs or other space, (if not replaced by actual buildings )

[wags_in_the_peg]

Many get extremely horny and ornery over ground level CRU but how many are empty in the downtown area. Why force developers to add them? King&Banatyne / Bronuts at the base of their parkade is simply beautiful and great fit, but there are so many empty storefronts, why force more? Be forced to add art or plants or water features, I'm ok with that

[esquire]

^ The problem with CRUs in downtown Winnipeg is that for the most part, they are all disconnected from each other... it's tough to attract a shop when you'd be the only one on the entire block with the other storefronts all being either offices or parking. It's not surprising that so many of them are empty, even newer ones that are theoretically desirable.

[trueviking]

Well, hopefully downtown isn’t a pedestrian black hole forever and at some point streets are actually active. You can’t go back and add storefronts later. If they are empty, they are empty. Eventually they fill. People made the same argument about Waterfront Drive. They sat empty for years. Now we have nice restaurants, a coffee shop etc.

You have to build for what you want, not what you are. It’s like the old saying. Dress for the job you want, not the job you have.

[wags_in_the_peg]

Good points, I just feel priority should be to fill the dozens of empty ones that exist now.

[zalf]

Originally Posted by wags_in_the_peg

Good points, I just feel priority should be to fill the dozens of empty ones that exist now.

I don't think "filling existing CRUs" is or should be a civic policy priority. Something like "improving downtown walkability" or "linking up retail areas" might be.

In my mind, a closely related question is, "would the marginal cost of mandating a commercial unit or two have made the project non-viable?" If the answer is yes, then probably the right call was made. If the answer is no, then the City left a lot on the table. But these are the kinds of questions that should be asked at the approval stage, and with evidence beyond just whatever the developer claims it is.

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by trueviking

Well, hopefully downtown isn’t a pedestrian black hole forever and at some point streets are actually active. You can’t go back and add storefronts later. If they are empty, they are empty. Eventually they fill. People made the same argument about Waterfront Drive. They sat empty for years. Now we have nice restaurants, a coffee shop etc.

You have to build for what you want, not what you are. It’s like the old saying. Dress for the job you want, not the job you have.

A new soap store and tattoo parlour just opened on Waterfont. The barber shop is always busy.

[trueviking]

Every developer will say that adding commercial frontage to their parkade will make it non-viable. Should be a non-negotiable by-law.

I don’t blame the architects of that parkade or even the developer. I blame the rules. We need to stop settling.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by trueviking

Well, hopefully downtown isn’t a pedestrian black hole forever and at some point streets are actually active. You can’t go back and add storefronts later. If they are empty, they are empty. Eventually they fill. People made the same argument about Waterfront Drive. They sat empty for years. Now we have nice restaurants, a coffee shop etc.

You have to build for what you want, not what you are. It’s like the old saying. Dress for the job you want, not the job you have.

I get it, but I can also understand where developers are coming from if they are reluctant to build CRU space that they know will be a hard sell at market rates for at least the next decade and realistically longer. Even Waterfront has had fairly marginal uptake on CRUs, and this is over 15 years in. It's not hard to see how requiring that type of space could mess with a project's financials.

Making ground level CRU space a must in parkades would certainly improve the quality of projects that do get built and by extension the surrounding streetscape, but how many projects would it sink?

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by esquire

I get it, but I can also understand where developers are coming from if they are reluctant to build CRU space that they know will be a hard sell at market rates for at least the next decade and realistically longer. Even Waterfront has had fairly marginal uptake on CRUs, and this is over 15 years in. It's not hard to see how requiring that type of space could mess with a project's financials.

Making ground level CRU space a must in parkades would certainly improve the quality of projects that do get built and by extension the surrounding streetscape, but how many projects would it sink?

Maybe sinking a parkade isn’t the worst thing. Once it’s built I’d imagine the development pressure it would take to get it redeveloped into something nicer might be damn well insurmountable. So we could have a downtown filled with parking structures but that wouldn’t really make it much better than it is currently other than block the wind and create some street level shade