Winnipeg Construction VIII

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by headhorse

that's not consulting then, just presenting

agreed.

[CoryB]

I find to opposition to the tall Pump House proposal extremely frustrating. The people that are leading the charge against this development seem to largely be the same group that is constantly advocating for increased residential density in the Exchange to make the likes of a grocery store viable. You can't have it both way. Further, if the public consensus was to preserve Winnipeg's waterfront the condo you are currently living it likely would never have been built in the first place.

[headhorse]

Originally Posted by trueviking

agreed.

tough situation. has anyone seen a render from a different angle? 10-12 units per floor makes me think this thing isn't so sleek looking from the north or south.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by CoryB

I find to opposition to the tall Pump House proposal extremely frustrating. The people that are leading the charge against this development seem to largely be the same group that is constantly advocating for increased residential density in the Exchange to make the likes of a grocery store viable. You can't have it both way. Further, if the public consensus was to preserve Winnipeg's waterfront the condo you are currently living it likely would never have been built in the first place.

There appears to be a self-serving element to this. It seems to amount to "I want the city to create a nice urban neighbourhood with parks and grocery stores and affordable housing. Then once I get my place to live I don't want anything else built."

Having vibrant urban neighbourhoods means that you might have a few extra people living nearby. The sad part of this is that the Exchange District could easily absorb a building of this scale. Assuming that the parkade on James is actually built, residents will barely notice that this building is even there.

In other Canadian cities, one single building would barely rate mention let alone lead to demands for "consultation" (i.e., I'll tell you what you can build) and this type of controversy.

[drew]

Originally Posted by esquire

In other Canadian cities, one single building would barely rate mention let alone lead to demands for "consultation" (i.e., I'll tell you what you can build) and this type of controversy.

I see the frustration here - but this is Winnipeg. It isn't "other" cities. If you want to build here, this is an extra layer of due-diligence that needs to happen. Again, especially if a serious variance is required.

It isn't rocket science. And quite frankly, if a developer goes this route, and pisses off the local opposition - well, sucks for the developer. A little extra work up front goes a long way.

[steveosnyder]

I am trying to figure out why it would cost so much that it would require 24 stories to make it viable. I can understand a surface lot -- they make a lot of money for their costs, so it would need to be a big project to make up for this, but why would this location need such a huge profile?

Does it require site remediation? An over abundance of historic preservation? What else? I mean, it has an opportunity cost of $0, it's not making any money in its current form (including taxes because it's held by CentreVenture).

[bomberjet]

The abundance of preservation is the kicker I think. All the pumps and shtuff in there. Apparently, I'm not an expert in that field by any means.

[bejb]

in the 10x20x20 presentation it was indicated they are working with really-big-name international engineers so his acoustics would be perfect. I am sure their fee required a few of those extra floors.

edit: I am certain he said it was Arup Group - the firm that works on all the big starchitect projects

[Jammon]

My buddy is an architect who was telling me about the pump house and it would cost a lot of extra money to get the base ready for any type of development because of the pipes and the water that would need to be pumped out. Apparently, it is not an cost-effective job to get the pump house ready for any type of business which is why developers have proposed "big" projects so they can make it financially feasible.

[trueviking]

its an industrial building...to make it appropriate for public use it would cost in the neighbourhood of $6-8 million...it needs a completely new roof, waterproofing, windows, insulation, exit stairs, etc...it was built for 8 people to work in.

[Cyro]

This is a great debate, but it seems their is much speculation going on.

This will take only a handful of residence, who are ok with an 8 storey proposal, still effectively blocking their river views and sunshine, to shut this proposal down. I agree that the residence or "NEIGHBORS to THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPEMENT", should be given the oppurtunity to voice their opinions, as already mentioned, but it will not end well.

People signing an online petition is irrelevent, It's the 1 or 2 that oppose that change in variance and sign the document that will decide what happens. Of course theirs always the appeal, the years will fly by in no time.

EDIT: If we can add those photos of the proposal to Winnipegs Historical Thread or Exchange thread. We'll all look back and go hmmmm. "The things that never got built in River City"
I hope I'm wrong, but just in case.

[trueviking]

The architect showed me the shadow studies. An 8 storey building blocks as much view and casts as much shadow where it matters. Really only Sky and the new hotel are affected. Shadow never hits the park.

[Cyro]

Yes TV, we are in agreement.

So if the few who are affected as we've both said, and you've viewed the shadow studies to confirm it, do the few in opposition not realize an 8 storey developement will still affect them in the same way as would a 24 storey proposal?

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by Cyro

Yes TV, we are in agreement.

So if the few who are affected as we've both said, and you've viewed the shadow studies to confirm it, do the few in opposition not realize an 8 storey developement will still affect them in the same way as would a 24 storey proposal?

They very well could but know that an 8 story building isn't going to work there so if they block the 24 storey one they get no building there at all.

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by cheswick

They very well could but know that an 8 story building isn't going to work there so if they block the 24 storey one they get no building there at all.

I can see your line of thinking Cheswick, you could take it one step further, with NO development, they could put up a parking lot and alleviate some of the parking woes being experienced in the area?

Let's get this over with. When does Council have this scheduled for? The cut of was Dec.16th IIRC for submissions to oppose the change in the height variance?

[roccerfeller]

ugh. very unfortunate if this doesn't go through. This proposal, regardless of height, was something that could save the pumphouse and add more people to the area in one swoop.

I don't disregard people for having their own opinions and desires for no tower to come into the picture, for whatever their reasons, but it is ultimately diminishing that area more than anything.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by cheswick

They very well could but know that an 8 story building isn't going to work there so if they block the 24 storey one they get no building there at all.

yeah, that wouldn't surprise me....the architect has pages and pages of studies showing the difference between what is allowed and what 24 stories does....its really two floors of Sky....the rest was blocked by their own building already.

I wasn't sold on the idea until I talked to them...they really came together to save the pumphouse...they are not looking to build a tower somewhere and thought this was the best spot.

the opponents use parking and traffic as an argument....I told them that wasn't their strongest argument.

[Arts]

It's not as if the locals have the luxury of knowing how the community changed the last time a 24 storey high-rise was built right beside them. I think they are just being diligent, their concerns are valid.

Though, I don't see how any riverfront views would be blocked, or that the shadows cast would be significant for any but the top floor dwellers of the existing 8 storey buildings in the neighbourhood. I don't think that density is the concern or else why live in the exchange district in the first place?

Could the developer not accomplish the same goals building two 12 story buildings, or would that even alleviate the locals' concerns? I am certainly curious how this will pan out, that is a marvelous old building with a very marketable history.

[rypinion]

Originally Posted by Arts

I don't think that density is the concern or else why live in the exchange district in the first place?

I have the suspicion that many who live in Sky were looking for a suburban feel in the middle of downtown. That's the impression I get reading the many emails and flyers I get under my door with respect to the proposal.

[Cyro]

Other News....

Intergenerational housing project slated for Transcona

Three levels of government are partnering to built a unique housing project for low-income families and aging parents or relatives in care.

Government officials were in Transcona this morning to announce the 92-unit housing project to be built at 840 Ravelston Ave.

The project is estimated to cost $25.9 million:

Render of Proposal

The project consists of two wings: a four-storey wing with 47 affordable units for seniors; and, a six-storey wing of 45 units for low-income families.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/9...ject-slated-for-Transcona-236071551.html