YIMBY - Winnipeg Urbanism and Density

[esquire]

^ 10 years in and the lack of development around Osborne station is a little disappointing. I wasn't expecting some Burnaby-style skytrain megadevelopment, but yeesh... just the one measly office building is a bit underwhelming. Not even a single residential building that I can think of.

At least the stations farther down the line have some residential nearby.

[trueviking]

Agreed but really. What would the advantage be of living near that station unless you are a U of M student or employee. Try to go anywhere else and it’s basically just a bus stop. It’s even useless if you work on Pembina somewhere. Can’t really expect real TOD on a single line that for half its length runs through a farmer’s field.

The temple and Burger King block are zoned high density mixed use. All the blocks around the station are. There is a significant misconception by the previous poster that OV doesn’t have towers springing up everywhere because of zoning. It’s because of economics.

Id add empty to the messily office building description. Also a hole in the ground beside it.

[eman]

Originally Posted by trueviking

Agreed but really. What would the advantage be of living near that station unless you are a U of M student or employee. Try to go anywhere else and it’s basically just a bus stop. It’s even useless if you work on Pembina somewhere. Can’t really expect real TOD on a single line that for half its length runs through a farmer’s field.

The temple and Burger King block are zoned high density mixed use. All the blocks around the station are. There is a significant misconception by the previous poster that OV doesn’t have towers springing up everywhere because of zoning. It’s because of economics.

Id add empty to the messily office building description. Also a hole in the ground beside it.

How about River and Nassau. When I saw Philritz1 showing a nice new (downsized due to exclusionary NIMBY zoning) building in Brooklyn I immediately thought of the 4 story buildings recently built there. I believe the zoning doesn't allow anything taller there now even though a ten story building is across the street, then a 15 and 38 floors next to those. OV is Winnipeg's Brooklyn complete with NIMBY exclusionary zoning.

Any house in Osborne should be eligible to be torn down and replaced with any height building. I'll ask again,, what about 24 Carlton Street? That looks like a cheap 10 floor building on a small lot that could fit anywhere in the village with affordable rents or purchase price. Under current zoning where could a building like 24 Carlton be built in OV? I think it could/should be anywhere on Bole, Pulford, Norquay, Wilmot etc.

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMNYhY84G/?k=1

There is a housing crisis in Winnipeg too. People are living on the river banks and bus shacks. Exclusionary zoning must die. So lets build lots of homes in walkable neighbourhoods.

I don't think its economics. Its exclusionary NIMBY zoning.

[thebasketballgeek]

If we want to go full YIMBY it’s a lot more then Osborne that should be mixed use and high density we also have to target the wealthy single-family enclaves (Wellington, Tuxedo, Charleswood) with high density housing. Let the market decide where people want to live instead of artificially imposing supply caps for like 70% of the city. If more high density development happens in Tuxedo then Downtown because of that so be it. That means residents in Elmwood and the North End can worry less about gentrification and displacement of their communities. Not only that but it’s time to get rid of parking minimums and commercial only zoning. What kind of logic is it to purposefully NOT have people live next to Walmarts, Superstores, or other essential services and amenities?

We have to remember Winnipeg is an amalgamation of 7 municipalities therefore there should at least be 7 distinct mixed use nodes including the Downtown and inner city to really create walkability for the majority of residents instead of trying to force everyone in the inner city. The malls and surrounding commercial areas full of their surface parking lots are the ideal place for high density housing because it’s already next to existing services.

Consider the following:

Polo Park becomes “Downtown” St James
St V mall and surrounding area becomes Downtown St Vital
KP Mall and surrounding area becomes Downtown Kildonan
Outlet area becomes Downtown Tuxedo

And so on for all the other malls and massive big box retail areas like Grant Park, Garden City, and Kenaston Common.

Imo this would be the most effective way to combat our housing supply crisis. No NIMBYs to deal with, transit is guaranteed a success, and the formation of really interesting communities could occur. This of course needs to be paired with the banning of urban sprawl developments and I’d go one step further and simply ban the construction of single-family housing.

[eman]

Further: I don't think its economics. Its exclusionary NIMBY zoning.

255 Bell is 80% leased and they expect to be 100% when ready for move in. Demand is there for many more units. I saw social media post where the developer says they made the project fit into the mature neighbourhood plans. People had been asking him why they didn't put in a tower. Even though 3 towers and an RT station are near by.

[zalf]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

This of course needs to be paired with the banning of urban sprawl developments and I’d go one step further and simply ban the construction of single-family housing.

I disagree on this point. I agree we overbuild SFD homes, Euclidiean zoning is the devil, and that zoning should be radically liberalized. However, I think that whatever the market demands should get built.

What I do think should be put in place is a sort of Pigovian property tax. Property tax should be determined as the greater of either the usual property tax formula or the long-run cost of municipal services for that lot. People can still build McMansions at the edge of the city if they choose, but they'll need to pay their fair share to do so.

[trueviking]

24 Carlton would cost about 30% more per square foot than an equivalent quality 6 storey building. High-rise construction is much more expensive purely because it is high-rise. Different building code requirements, construction logistics and materials etc.

I agree that there are parts of OV that should have higher density zoning but I’ll say it again. Your theory that zoning is stopping high rise construction in the area is completely false. If it were true, the areas that do allow high-rise would have high-rise. They don’t, so there must be some other factors at play. The real world isn’t minecraft.

The six storey that will be going up shortly near confusion corner is zoned for ten storeys and could have had much higher approved. The councillor and the developer wanted 15 storeys. Six storeys is the only economics that worked.

In the end the 6 storey is only 15 units smaller than the 15 storey option. Height isn’t density.

[eman]

Originally Posted by trueviking

24 Carlton would cost about 30% more per square foot than an equivalent quality 6 storey building. High-rise construction is much more expensive purely because it is high-rise. Different building code requirements, construction logistics and materials etc.

I agree that there are parts of OV that should have higher density zoning but I’ll say it again. Your theory that zoning is stopping high rise construction in the area is completely false. If it were true, the areas that do allow high-rise would have high-rise. They don’t, so there must be some other factors at play. The real world isn’t minecraft.

The six storey that will be going up shortly near confusion corner is zoned for ten storeys and could have had much higher approved. The councillor and the developer wanted 15 storeys. Six storeys is the only economics that worked.

In the end the 6 storey is only 15 units smaller than the 15 storey option. Height isn’t density.

Why would Osborne Street have any height limits at all? That is exclusionary zoning and shuts out national companies from even considering an investment in OV. Is Centre Venture or anyone else doing anything attract capital? Organic growth is stagnation.

The fact that these 6 story buildings can be fully leased before construction ends shows there is demand and the market can afford to pay 30% more.

Bellamy is too smart to know how dumb he is. Make density job #1. Density needs to be encouraged at every turn. If not, 10 years can go by and next to nothing is built. We can all see how little has been built even before covid.

Every time you fail to get those 15 extra units you actually failed to get 30, 45 or 60+ units. Many more units end up being built on cheaper land further way in neighbourhoods where everyone has a car. Owning a car is a trap that feels like freedom that enslave you into spending $8000 a year preventing people from having financial freedom ever.

[biguc]

Highrises aren't necessary for density. Getting rid of parking and single-family homes is. Here's a look at a selection of European countries' most dense square kilometers.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/g...-europe-mapped


For comparison, Winnipeg might have a contiguous a square kilometer like these pictured with more than 10k people.

You won't see a lot of highrises in these satellite pictures. You also won't see parking lots or SFH zones. These cities are packing 20000-53000 people into one square kilometer, almost entirely in 3-8 floor buildings. And they do it over, and over, and over again. The key is to build midrises close together.

The area pictured that I'm most familiar with is part of Neukölln, in Berlin. On the ground, its built form is almost indistinguishable from any other industrial-era neighbourhood in Berlin--a solid streetwall of 6 story buildings. The density comes in behind the streetwall, where the hinterhofs (back yards or courtyards) are surrounded by more housing at the same scale. This gives the blocks their distinctive honeycomb appearance when seen from above.

While street level looks the same as many other areas, the experience is different. This is a very vibrant area, with bars, shops, and restaurants on every street. It doesn't need highrises.

Taking things back to Winnipeg, if you tipped over the Evergreen towers, they would fit on their massive parking lot as six story buildings with room to spare. They would house the same number of people. Their construction would have been cheaper. The urban environment would be better.

If you want more housing in OV, look at the Safeway parking lot, which could comfortably hold 600 units (as many as a sixty story tower) in six story buildings. Same with the parking lots along Gertrude. Same with the Dollarama parking lot at Confusion Corner.

Just by filling the neighbourhoods three biggest parking areas, we'd add housing for 5000 people. And it would be more affordable and make for a more vibrant neighbourhood than three sixty story towers (or six @ thirty, or nine @ twenty) ever would.

And that's without getting into all the wasted space along back lanes. Building a duplex in every alley parking lot would probably yield close to another 600 units.

If you want something to attack for holding the city back, go after parking minimums. Go after car culture, anti-urban setback rules, single-family zoning.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by biguc

Highrises aren't necessary for density. Getting rid of parking and single-family homes is. Here's a look at a selection of European countries' most dense square kilometers.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/g...-europe-mapped


For comparison, Winnipeg might have a contiguous a square kilometer like these pictured with more than 10k people.

You won't see a lot of highrises in these satellite pictures. You also won't see parking lots or SFH zones. These cities are packing 20000-53000 people into one square kilometer, almost entirely in 3-8 floor buildings. And they do it over, and over, and over again. The key is to build midrises close together.

The area pictured that I'm most familiar with is part of Neukölln, in Berlin. On the ground, its built form is almost indistinguishable from any other industrial-era neighbourhood in Berlin--a solid streetwall of 6 story buildings. The density comes in behind the streetwall, where the hinterhofs (back yards or courtyards) are surrounded by more housing at the same scale. This gives the blocks their distinctive honeycomb appearance when seen from above.

While street level looks the same as many other areas, the experience is different. This is a very vibrant area, with bars, shops, and restaurants on every street. It doesn't need highrises.

Taking things back to Winnipeg, if you tipped over the Evergreen towers, they would fit on their massive parking lot as six story buildings with room to spare. They would house the same number of people. Their construction would have been cheaper. The urban environment would be better.

If you want more housing in OV, look at the Safeway parking lot, which could comfortably hold 600 units (as many as a sixty story tower) in six story buildings. Same with the parking lots along Gertrude. Same with the Dollarama parking lot at Confusion Corner.

Just by filling the neighbourhoods three biggest parking areas, we'd add housing for 5000 people. And it would be more affordable and make for a more vibrant neighbourhood than three sixty story towers (or six @ thirty, or nine @ twenty) ever would.

And that's without getting into all the wasted space along back lanes. Building a duplex in every alley parking lot would probably yield close to another 600 units.

If you want something to attack for holding the city back, go after parking minimums. Go after car culture, anti-urban setback rules, single-family zoning.

Thanks for sharing that link. I've always loved the sky shots of Barcelona, which is in the thumbnail of that article.

Those neighborhoods predate our car obsession and it is to their urban benefit. You don't really need a car for daily living (work excluded) if everything you could want is walking distance from your place, like it is in those european cities. They also have the density for high quality metro sustems and cars are massively inconvenient.

Completely agree about parking minimums, remove that and put parking maximums. Let the economics determine the rest.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

We have to remember Winnipeg is an amalgamation of 7 municipalities therefore there should at least be 7 distinct mixed use nodes including the Downtown and inner city to really create walkability for the majority of residents instead of trying to force everyone in the inner city. The malls and surrounding commercial areas full of their surface parking lots are the ideal place for high density housing because it’s already next to existing services.

Consider the following:

Polo Park becomes “Downtown” St James
St V mall and surrounding area becomes Downtown St Vital
KP Mall and surrounding area becomes Downtown Kildonan
Outlet area becomes Downtown Tuxedo

And so on for all the other malls and massive big box retail areas like Grant Park, Garden City, and Kenaston Common.

Imo this would be the most effective way to combat our housing supply crisis. No NIMBYs to deal with, transit is guaranteed a success, and the formation of really interesting communities could occur. This of course needs to be paired with the banning of urban sprawl developments and I’d go one step further and simply ban the construction of single-family housing.

This was basically the official City position on the matter going back at least as far as the 1980s and Plan Winnipeg. That document called for the mixed-use densification of the major suburban malls. It has just taken way longer than expected to actually start happening, though... nearly 40 years later and we're just starting to see the first signs of interest of residential development at one of those malls (Polo Park), although it appears to have been derailed by the pandemic for who knows how long.

[trueviking]

amen, biguc.

i used to be into towers. wanted to design them, drooled over them in other cities, saw them as a sign of progress and prosperity....but after really thinking carefully about it and looking at streets and cities across the world, I have jumped off that bandwagon.....there are so few tower neighbourhoods that are great places for people....so few tower streets that are attractive to walk down...i think of Yonge Street in Toronto as an example...20 years ago it was all vibrant small scale commercial and residential....now its lined with sterile glass podiums under 60 storey buildings....every time I go there it feels like more and more of Toronto's soul has being sucked away.

tower districts suck....most of them aren't even particularly dense.

I am a much bigger proponent of mid-rise buildings to create density and urban quality. Imagine the parking lots downtown filled with 6 storey buildings with commercial main floors....towers are not the answer...they don't work with winnipeg's economics and they don't make great streets....let's push for mid-rise densification....four to six storeys everywhere....we are not building towers on the residential streets in OV...nor should we, but why not this so called missing middle density? ....that is Winnipeg's answer if you ask me....winnipeg is not brooklyn.

i love the area north of corydon and west of osborne...towers along the river, a smaller apartment block on every corner....no parking lots...its dense, walkable and has a great urban quality.....that should be winnipeg's future....that's what kapyong should be....that's what every neighbourhood should be.....towers are fine in some places but they are not the holy grail for many reasons.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by eman

Why would Osborne Street have any height limits at all? That is exclusionary zoning and shuts out national companies from even considering an investment in OV. Is Centre Venture or anyone else doing anything attract capital? Organic growth is stagnation.

The fact that these 6 story buildings can be fully leased before construction ends shows there is demand and the market can afford to pay 30% more.

Bellamy is too smart to know how dumb he is. Make density job #1. Density needs to be encouraged at every turn. If not, 10 years can go by and next to nothing is built. We can all see how little has been built even before covid.

Every time you fail to get those 15 extra units you actually failed to get 30, 45 or 60+ units. Many more units end up being built on cheaper land further way in neighbourhoods where everyone has a car. Owning a car is a trap that feels like freedom that enslave you into spending $8000 a year preventing people from having financial freedom ever.

ha ha....you have no idea about the economics of development.

the extra 15 units not built on osborne had nothing to do with zoning....nothing....you build 90 units for 20 million in a 6 storey or 105 units for 30 million in a tower....why wasnt 30 storeys tested?...becasue that's a $60 million+ building and few developers have the money or the appetite for risk to build that in winnipeg....the real world isnt a game of minecraft.

eman doesn't seem to grasp simple economics....we saw the exact same thing happen on Roslyn...the proposal went from 15 to 6 even though there was no height limit....why do you think that was?.....when does this begin to click for you?....50 hargrave....6 storeys....zoned for unlimited height....why?...in fact the entire broadway-assiniboine neighbourhood is filled with little four storey apartment blocks with no density or height restrictions....why aren't there towers popping up all over the place in that area? Please answer that before you start tagging me on Twitter over and over demanding that someone build towers.

has it occurred to you that maybe the 4 and 6 storey buildings in OV are filling up because the rents can be more attainable than they would be in a tower? why do you think there is a line of people willing to pay 30% more?...there's a lot of towers downtown with expensive rents that are sitting empty....390 assiniboine is an example....lower construction costs mean lower rents, means fewer empty units, means lower risk for a developer....390 is again an example of what happens when you take the risk of high cost towers.

I'l say this again....if zoning is what is holding back towers, why aren't there towers being built where they are allowed?...thankfully your misguided notion that towers are the only kind of density is completely ridiculous.....the project on osborne is the same number of units and the same site area as the tower at 390 assiniboine, with far better street interaction....it will be a way better urban building than a point tower on a parkade.

As we discussed on Twitter, I think you should walk around OV to see how much has been built in the last 10 years....and is under construction now…just because you don’t see towers doesn’t mean there is nothing being built....i'll say this once again too.....towers are not the only kind of density.....yes, density is important....so we should understand our market realities and create the conditions that will accelerate the kind of density that is possible to build here....towers are rare in Winnipeg for a reason.....economics...not zoning....economics....so instead of foolishly believing that zoning in the only thing keeping winnipeg from being new york, let's work on getting as much mid-rise density as possible...if a developer wants to build high-rise, great!, but we can't expect it to be the norm.

Edit. I’ll also add that a 200 unit 30 storey tower on Osborne requires 160 parking stalls. That means three full floors would be a parkade. Hopefully with a strip of commercial in front of the main floor. Is that what we want for Osborne? Point towers on parkades? Sometimes density isn’t everything. It’s just as important to build great streets and neighbourhoods that attract people to live a dense urban lifestyle.

[🌳🌱🌿🌴🍁]

I agree with biguc and trueviking, who has already done a lot for WPG.

From the vantage point of the Paris area over much of the past decade (still there for now anyway), I don't understand the obsession with height by some in North America who aren't in places like NYC. And I remember some people being so excited about that imaginary high-rise there which felt like the Simpsons monorail episode.

As has been stated, there have been so many sterile, barren environments created by that approach.

In a way, the name of this website is kind of skewed as well, as the public realm - including, crucially, mature trees, bike lanes and so on - should be a big priority when it comes to new development and urban planning.

As is well known, Paris has deliberately limited building heights within the city, and the traditional combination of retail, restaurants, etc. on the ground floor of residential buildings feels like a natural format.

In any case, Glen Murray talks about this issue in the Prairie Lab podcast, and I guess will have more information on it in the report he worked on. This is also an interesting comment, incidentally: https://twitter.com/Glen4Climate/sta...C-ocjpidsqAAAA

When it comes to 6–7-storey infill, I do like this 'mini-midrise' concept in Ontario. A world away from that Mordor-like tower proposed in WPG.

If Elizabeth Lord's vision had been followed, and a lot of these types of buildings constructed (I realize that she had certain other models in mind, like places in England), it would be a very different, denser city today: https://www.winnipegarchitecture.ca/elizabeth-lord/


- https://twitter.com/naama_blonder/st...C97YDKysMmAAAA

Another priority ideally should be the preservation of historic buildings (or creating aesthetically pleasing new ones) and beautiful homes on a human scale. It seems like Hamilton has a very proactive city planner on this issue - Jason Thorne - and some development/architecture firms doing good things for the city, like https://twitter.com/CoreUrban. This infill had apparently been a parking lot, for example.


- https://twitter.com/UrbanistOrg/stat...33851147636736


-https://twitter.com/DrSarahSheehan/s...03570140192773

[biguc]

Good examples, 🌳🌱🌿🌴🍁. The variety possible with midrises is another plus--it makes for far more interesting streets than towers on bloc-sized podiums. And the affordability factor for residents applies to commercial tenants too. Cheaper CRU rents = more local businesses, street food, dive bars, and fun.

Originally Posted by trueviking

i used to be into towers. wanted to design them, drooled over them in other cities, saw them as a sign of progress and prosperity....but after really thinking carefully about it and looking at streets and cities across the world, I have jumped off that bandwagon.....there are so few tower neighbourhoods that are great places for people....so few tower streets that are attractive to walk down...i think of Yonge Street in Toronto as an example...20 years ago it was all vibrant small scale commercial and residential....now its lined with sterile glass podiums under 60 storey buildings....every time I go there it feels like more and more of Toronto's soul has being sucked away.

tower districts suck....most of them aren't even particularly dense.

For real. I think my teenage exile in suburbia put me onto towers. They were the beacon I could see from afar, guiding me to a better place. The more experience I have with cities, though, the better I understand that while they often indicate the city, they don't make the city.

How many Shoppers and Pizza Pizzas can you build in a block? Toronto is going to find out. Eventually you'll walk through that city and every block will be the same. Shoppers. Pizza Pizza. Elevators will become metro lines from shoebox condos to employment centres--Shoppers and Pizza Pizza. The street people will tell delusional stories about things called pubs and some guy called Sam. One day you'll find a Freshi. Maybe even a LCBO.

[trueviking]

ha ha ...that's gold ^^

Eman. I blocked you on twitter last night because intentionally misquoting me to others is a step too far. ‘Bellamy doesn’t believe we can afford density’ to Glen Murray is a deliberate straw man argument that I don’t need to defend myself from. I have presented you with my experience in the matter and it appears to bounce off you. That’s fine. You can believe what you want, but when you bring other people in with false statements, I’m out.

If you want to believe that towers are the only way to create density, great. I don’t, and I have shown you why.
If you want to believe that zoning is the only reason towers aren’t built everywhere, great. I don’t, and I have explained the realities of development many times. I am painfully aware of the economic challenges of tower development. Your favourite building in Winnipeg (390 Assiniboine) is the very poster child of this economic challenge. You have never explained why your zoning theory doesn’t hold in places like the Bro-Ass neighbourhood, or on Roslyn, or the blocks around the rapid transit station in Fort Rouge and Osborne…..all places with unlimited zoning and no towers.

Its great that you believe in density, but I am not engaging in the argument anymore. I want a dense, livable, and vibrant city. That is much more complex than just towers. Read some Jan Gehl books. Your favourite building is once a gain a poster child for how poorly towers often engage the street. We need density and great human spaces. I will continue to champion the kind of density that is realistic to build in Winnipeg so we can get to the place we all want to be, as quickly as possible. If you want to continue being angry that nobody is building your towers, that’s great. At least you believe in density. But I’m not part of the debate anymore.

[steveosnyder]

eman, I highly recommend you read some stuff from Ben Stevens (https://benstevens.me/). I can lend you my copy of Birth of a Building. It's fantastic and will really outline why no one will build large buildings in Winnipeg.

If anything I'm even more incremental than most here. We need to make secondary suites (ADUs) allowable in zoning, reduce parking requirements... hell, allow Live/Work (ACUs), we see them on a whole bunch of my favourite streets in the city. Make them easier to build -- especially owner occupied.

[trueviking]

^100%

honestly, had we just kept building Winnipeg the way we did in the 1940's the city would be half the size it is today....and way more vibrant.

[eman]

You think I don't get it?

You don't get it. Winnipeg desperately needs a YIMBY movement right now.

Winnipeg is the lowest density city of its size in Canada. We have consistently made decisions that put new units far away from the core. Osborne Village should be the shining example of "density done right". Here and on twitter I have poked Bellamy and Rollins for being so weak on density because it's clear to see the type of density they advocate for has only resulted in more Sage Creek, more Bridgwater, more Transcona. I want to replace Brent Bellamy with Brent Toderian and hoped this thread would lead to more discussion to help make Osborne, the West end, St. B and downtown way more dense than they are. We must get rid of the Osborne Village Neighborhood Plan because it explicitly prevents density exactly where it should be built.

What will it take to get Bellamy and Rollins to trash the OVN Plan?

[eman]

https://www.paragonliving.com/255bell

255 Bell just completed construction. It's completely leased.

It's only 4 floors mid density because that is what the zoning permitted.

Bellamy keeps saying its economics that density isn't being built in OV. Obvious BS. It was economical in the 80s to build high density, but not today? Today we have 100% occupancy on day one. Seems obvious to me the two mid density high profile projects under construction on Osborne Street could have been massively larger.