Winnipeg | Osborne Village & Corydon area

[drew]

Originally Posted by zalf

I'm pretty sure Survivorship Bias is playing a role here. That isn't to say that most modern buildings aren't made from crappy materials, but the few that are made to last will have people in the 2100s remarking on how people made things so much better a hundred years ago.

I have my doubts about (typical) modern residential construction.

If the newer residential areas stay relatively stable and there isn't the same decline that happened to neighbourhoods in the inner city, then yes, properly maintained post 1970's houses will last.

However, if we are talking about houses that have maintenance neglected, property values dropping, etc. - there is no way a modern house will stand up to this kind of abuse and still remain viable for "fixing up" similar to areas like Wolseley, the West End, etc. The durability just isn't there.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Biff

I understand all the arguments here. For the most part I would have liked it to have been saved. The practical side of me says if no one could be found to have a use for it then it is what it is.

Everyone says save it. But who saves it? The seller wants out - I think we all agree they should be able to sell. Lots on here say they should have (could have) found a buyer to live in it.....really, who? When you list you home for sale, do you care what the next buyer does with it? You get your price and move on. There was nothing legally protecting it so as long as the buyer is within the law, why cant he do what he wants with the property? (Obviously different with a heritage property)

Everyone has big opinions with others money but really in this situation what can anyone do?

Is it fair to sit on the property until the perfect buyer comes forward to save the structure? Again, who's money is being tied up to wait for this. If it is so desirable, why did no one buy it for that purpose? How long does it realistically sit before it is ok to move on?

It sucks that this house was demolished but with other peoples money at stake it is what it is.

FWIW - we have bought 2 houses now, where we weren't the highest bidder - but we did write letters to the seller explaining that we had a young family, and both times we ended up getting the house. And both times, we renovated and improved the houses. When we sold our first house, similarly, we chose a young family from the 2 offers we received.

I get that we can't expect people to spend their own money how we see fit - but regardless of how the situation got to this point - there is no way anyone should be cheering on the demolition of this house.

[esquire]

^ I agree with Biff. I wouldn't say I'm cheering on the demolition of this house so much as I can grudgingly accept it.

[Biff]

I agree 100%. I would have loved for someone to save it, but no one did. Cheering for is demo is kind of vindictive.

I just dislike hearing that more should have been done, or the guy that bought it should have fixed it up, etc, etc...

I have no idea how long it sat, if the guy that bought it gave an offer the owner couldn't refuse or if he was the only one interested. To me the sale and subsequent demo happened the way it happened.

For whatever reason he was the one that purchased the house and property, there were no caveats stating he couldn't demolish and redevelop, he followed the rules that were set out and he will build 1,2,3 residences or whatever is allowed and move on.

We can all not like the outcome, but if everything is on the up and up maybe someone has to look at changing the rules. Not saying this guy should have done this or that. If you (not meaning you Drew) have a strong opinion then you pony up the cash and save it till your hearts content.

[BKB]

From what I understand, no one was given the opportunity to save it. The current owner of the property wasn't marketing it. He also promised the former owners that he wasn't going to raze the home.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by BKB

From what I understand, no one was given the opportunity to save it. The current owner of the property wasn't marketing it. He also promised the former owners that he wasn't going to raze the home.

Ok, the guy was a dick then if that's what happened.

My comments are more overall situation oriented.

[🌳🌱🌿🌴🍁]

Originally Posted by BKB

From what I understand, no one was given the opportunity to save it. The current owner of the property wasn't marketing it. He also promised the former owners that he wasn't going to raze the home.

Huh, that's interesting. Others would know better than I, and I don't know exactly what this means in terms of the status but I guess this is a construction permit issued last year (just from quickly glancing at what someone said on the page of the group that tried to save it – may be mistaken so that's my disclaimer).

https://ppdportal.winnipeg.ca/Permit...ch/Results.jsp



Anyway, it was a nice house but it is what it is now, as stated.


- Save 514 Wellington Facebook group

[lbnevs]

Looks like the city is selling the parking lot at the corner of Stradbrook and Osborne. This seems like great news.

http://clkapps.winnipeg.ca/dmis/View...ctionId=583673

[trueviking]

City said no to the Main Street USA proposal on McMillan and Stradbrook. Too much density.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by trueviking

City said no to the Main Street USA proposal on McMillan and Stradbrook. Too much density.

Which one was that?

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Which one was that?

Stafford & McMillan
Location: Subdivision and Rezoning – 911/913/915 McMillan Avenue, Winnipeg, MB
Developer: Marc Kipnes
Architects: Articulated Design Union
Contractor: Dwell Design Homes
Status: In Development
Media:
Description: Plans for construction of a mixed-use residential and commercial development including 22 residential units and 2 commercial units fronting on Stafford St

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by trueviking

City said no to the Main Street USA proposal on McMillan and Stafford. Too much density.

City was recommending approval as is, City Centre Committee denied it. John Orlikow voted no based on that this developer owns the three lots in from Stradbrook and doesn't want this development on the 3rd lot.

They also took issue with the look of the Stradbrook side which was a good call.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

City was recommending approval as is, City Centre Committee denied it. John Orlikow voted no based on that this developer owns the three lots in from Stradbrook and doesn't want this development on the 3rd lot.

They also took issue with the look of the Stradbrook side which was a good call.

You mean Stafford right?

Anyways, I don't see what the big problem is with this thing. Could look a little nicer on the Stafford side, but it isn't some huge eyesore

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

You mean Stafford right?

Anyways, I don't see what the big problem is with this thing. Could look a little nicer on the Stafford side, but it isn't some huge eyesore

Stafford yes, my bad.

[bomberjet]

Too much density?? jeez. Orlikow can get bent. This is one street from Corydon, on Stafford. The building is the same height as the neighbouring residential.

I expect this goes to appeal.

[esquire]

^ There are a lot of city councillors who think anything more than a SFH is too much density.

[bomberjet]

Sad. There's numerous buildings within a block on Corydon that have more units than this building. If you go down the street on McMillan, theres buildings like this on almost every corner.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Too much density?? jeez. Orlikow can get bent. This is one street from Corydon, on Stafford. The building is the same height as the neighbouring residential.

I expect this goes to appeal.

I guess he is oblivious to the fact that every other building in his ward is multifamily. The density is there already, this is just a continuation of the trends (and not to mention it adds density where it should be added, versus people buying up lots mid-block to put up condos)
I guess hiding the density and stifling development on major streets is play here. Turns out people don't like vibrant high streets?

How come we allow councillors to veto proposals willy nilly? Or is there some part of the puzzle I'm missing here?

[bomberjet]

I assume this can go to the appeals committee or whatever it's called. Orlikow should not be able to unilaterally block a development.

[bomberjet]

I'm watching the city centre hearing and orilkows on cam eating and putting his nose close to the screen. What a goober lol

I had assumed this was the vacant lot on the SW corner, but it's the lots n the NE corner. Either way. Too dense, pssssh.