Winnipeg Construction X

[Gravity Wins]

Originally Posted by Wigglez

I got some bad news for ya bud... you started that off by saying you're not a NIMBY then proceeded to explain how you're a NIMBY.

Not correct. I'm not a fan of NIMBYism at all. NIMBY points of view usually just say "development = bad" without any further consideration. I'm considering this and saying that it's wrong for that particular area.

I'd love to see 10 floor buildings go up in pretty much any neighbourhood of Winnipeg. But they should be put in thoughtful places, not squeezed in wherever a developer says is right, regardless of legitimate criticism from people who know the area.

If you were to put a 10 fl apartment a few blocks further East down Roblin (anywhere around the Co-op gas station would be suitable) then that would be a nice development. No need to knock down forest or build over a known deer hang out in an undensified area.

As a last note, anti-NIMBY points of view can be just as bad as NIMBY. If you're just going to say "development = good" and ignore any legitimize criticism from people who know the area, it's sort of the same as NIMBY. Just focusing on one particular point of view and missing the bigger picture.

[Wigglez]

Originally Posted by Gravity Wins

Not correct. I'm not a fan of NIMBYism at all. NIMBY points of view usually just say "development = bad" without any further consideration. I'm considering this and saying that it's wrong for that particular area.

I'd love to see 10 floor buildings go up in pretty much any neighbourhood of Winnipeg. But they should be put in thoughtful places, not squeezed in wherever a developer says is right, regardless of legitimate criticism from people who know the area.

If you were to put a 10 fl apartment a few blocks further East down Roblin (anywhere around the Co-op gas station would be suitable) then that would be a nice development. No need to knock down forest or build over a known deer hang out in an undensified area.

As a last note, anti-NIMBY points of view can be just as bad as NIMBY. If you're just going to say "development = good" and ignore any legitimize criticism from people who know the area, it's sort of the same as NIMBY. Just focusing on one particular point of view and missing the bigger picture.

NIMBY stands for Not In My Back Yard - the exact thing you've continued to describe. NIMBY's aren't specifically anti-development, they're anti-development in their area. You can say you're not a NIMBY all you want - but you, by definition, are...

Your love of 10 story buildings in other areas has nothing to do with your NIMBY attitude towards this area. Especially when you describe it as:

"I'd love to see 10 floor buildings go up in pretty much any neighbourhood of Winnipeg. But they should be put in thoughtful places, not squeezed in wherever a developer says is right, regardless of legitimate criticism from people who know the area."

Just embrace the NIMBY in you and start to argue your points you believe are valid rather than pretend you aren't one. Once you've accepted who you are deep down you can move on and be happier!

[bomberjet]

Just digging in to this Roblin apartment thing.
http://www.landmarkplanning.ca/perch...esentation.pdf

In the CTV news article, one resident was upset they'd lose the greenspace. You mean the greenspace on someone's private property? Ya that one.

Sounds like there been numerous rounds of engagement with the neighbourhood. They looked at smaller buildings, etc. The 10 storey building is going along the east property line minimizes issues with the shadows. The 8 storey building would cause some shadows. They did a shadow study, but didn't show winter shadows. Which would cause the most impact..

All the deer trees are being saved. Minimal tree removal on the property.

The only thing would be the switch from RMF-S to whatever they need. Which is what they're going through now.

[davequanbury]

I think for someone to be a NIMBY their actual backyard needs to be involved. There is a lot of grey area involved. There are places in this city where a development like this do the city a bigger favour efficiency of services-wise. There is not (from what I can tell) a decent walkable service from this location... maybe the odd bus every hour? So, yeah, more of the same car-centric life style that will allow people go on arguing about the state of Winnipeg roads for another generation.

[bomberjet]

That's kind of what you get being out in the burbs near the expressway. It's geared towards 55+ with assisted living. So maybe not as much car traffic as opposed to a general use apartment building. It's also not an apartment and will have longer term residents.

There is bus service directly in front of the site. 3 or 4 routes go through the intersection with WRCP. Pretty good service in terms of routes. Transit is supportive of the project.

What should the site be, nothing? The side by sides on the north half?

IMO this is a great use of the site.

[plrh]

White tail deer are an invasive species and a nuisance in this part of the country. They only exist here because of human activities. They should not be protected or encouraged in the city. Or used as an argument against a development.

[armorand93]

About time they started densifying Charleswood... I hated that area growing up, incredibly sketchy to be around at night. This density upgrade to the area should be nice & make people feel safer, when they're forced to walk from the Perimeter to Moray, without any nearby crossing points whatsoever... theres very little presence or lighting at all, and the only way it seems there will ever be any upgrades, is if Charleswood develops more and gets out of the "Happy Days" suburbia bullshit.

[Lars65]

If you find Charleswood sketchy, I honestly don't know how you find the courage to go out at all. I mean, seriously....

[WinCitySparky]

Originally Posted by Lars65

If you find Charleswood sketchy, I honestly don't know how you find the courage to go out at all. I mean, seriously....

Yeah no kidding lmao

I grew up in Charleswood and I could walk around all night and never have a worry in the world.

Although the deer street gangs did rule with an iron hoof...

[WinCitySparky]

Originally Posted by plrh

White tail deer are an invasive species and a nuisance in this part of the country. They only exist here because of human activities. They should not be protected or encouraged in the city. Or used as an argument against a development.

They taste great

[bomberjet]

Charleswood can still be what it is. Deep lots, trees, and all that. But this property is not that.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Charleswood can still be what it is. Deep lots, trees, and all that. But this property is not that.

I just hope it doesnt interfere with future grade separation at that intersection. Ugh, who am I kidding, we will never see proper road networks completed here

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I just hope it doesnt interfere with future grade separation at that intersection. Ugh, who am I kidding, we will never see proper road networks completed here

Don't worry, automation of the road network will happen before 2050, well before the city would even consider an interchange there..

[bomberjet]

Nah looks like they have a parclo setup with loops in the NE and SW quadrants.

I think I shard this before, but if you go to the link you can see all the property lines in the City overlaid on air photos the City gets done.

https://www.winnipeg.ca/ppd/maps_aerial.stm

Just turn on the property lines in the legend. You can also see which parcels are owned together, by the blue outlines. You can also see assessed values by clicking the parcels.

There's some interesting properties out there in Charleswood. Long skinny lots in behind.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Gravity Wins

Not correct. I'm not a fan of NIMBYism at all. NIMBY points of view usually just say "development = bad" without any further consideration. I'm considering this and saying that it's wrong for that particular area.

I'd love to see 10 floor buildings go up in pretty much any neighbourhood of Winnipeg. But they should be put in thoughtful places, not squeezed in wherever a developer says is right, regardless of legitimate criticism from people who know the area.

If you were to put a 10 fl apartment a few blocks further East down Roblin (anywhere around the Co-op gas station would be suitable) then that would be a nice development. No need to knock down forest or build over a known deer hang out in an undensified area.

As a last note, anti-NIMBY points of view can be just as bad as NIMBY. If you're just going to say "development = good" and ignore any legitimize criticism from people who know the area, it's sort of the same as NIMBY. Just focusing on one particular point of view and missing the bigger picture.

A NIMBY is supposed to be a person who opposes a necessary civic improvement, that absolutely must be built somewhere, because it's in his/her neighbourhood. It's someone who doesn't want to accept his/her share of the downside of needed civic infrastructure -- like a group home or a hospital or something. A free rider, in other words, who is perfectly happy to use a new hospital as long as it, and the traffic and noise it brings, is located in someone else's neighbourhood. That is what NIMBY is supposed to mean.

It's not someone who doesn't favour some commercial developer's project, like an apartment building, that is not a public amenity and not necessary to the functioning of society. Somehow, because the word developed negative connotations when used properly, the developers and urban development fetishists grabbed on to it and twisted it so that it applied to anyone who doesn't want grotesquely out-of-scale commercial buildings in their neighbourhood.

[trueviking]

Places for people to live are not necessary to the functioning of society?

Why in the world should a neighbourhood only be accessible to those who want or can afford a single family home?

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Andy6

A NIMBY is supposed to be a person who opposes a necessary civic improvement, that absolutely must be built somewhere, because it's in his/her neighbourhood. It's someone who doesn't want to accept his/her share of the downside of needed civic infrastructure -- like a group home or a hospital or something. A free rider, in other words, who is perfectly happy to use a new hospital as long as it, and the traffic and noise it brings, is located in someone else's neighbourhood. That is what NIMBY is supposed to mean.

It's not someone who doesn't favour some commercial developer's project, like an apartment building, that is not a public amenity and not necessary to the functioning of society. Somehow, because the word developed negative connotations when used properly, the developers and urban development fetishists grabbed on to it and twisted it so that it applied to anyone who doesn't want grotesquely out-of-scale commercial buildings in their neighbourhood.

Interesting and never thought about it that way, in Winnipeg the word nimby has been used towards those (residents) fighting against infill housing where the character and charm of certain neighbouhoods has been lost because greedy/shady developers had carte blanche by city hall to slice and dice their neighbourhoods at will.

Why in the world should a neighbourhood only be accessible to those who want or can afford a single family home? (TV) Wow, seriously, doesn't the price of homes in a neighbourhood kind of dictate what is and isn't built!

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Wow, seriously, doesn't the price of homes in a neighbourhood kind of dictate what is and isn't built!

It shouldn't. Every neighbourhood should be accessible to a diverse range of people. The idea that everyone must be able to afford a house to access desirable neighbourhoods is antiquated and misguided.

If people don't like apartment buildings in their neighbourhood, that's too bad for them.

[trueviking]

Andy's description of NIMBY is perfectly applicable to those who oppose density and change in their neighbourhood. It is an absolutely necessary evolution in a modern and growing city and it is completely unreasonable to expect your community will not evolve and contribute to that need.

[optimusREIM]

Speaking of NIMBYs, apparently Allard is now bringing a motion to cancel the sale of 219 Provencher. Man, sometimes I'm ashamed to be francophone.