Winnipeg | Waverley West Ward | Development

[thebasketballgeek]

Two upcoming projects in the new Bison Run neighbourhood. Kinda ugly, but it's nice densification near a mosque and K-12 education. Nice of the townhouses on Frontier Drive to provide a decent street wall and wind break from those dastardly winds from the west for AT users. Altogether they will combine to provide 277 new residential units and more importantly 20k sq ft of commercial space.

[thebasketballgeek]

Bridgwater Centre strikes again with a massive 500 unit development known as the "Epicentre." It feels like this thread gets as many new construction updates as the main construction thread these days lol.

Developer to build 500 rental units in south Winnipeg

A multi-use giant is on its way to the heart of Bridgwater.

Winnipeg’s most rapidly growing community will soon rest in the shadow of the EpiCentre, a six-building, six-to-eight-storey development worth $200 million, at the corner of Bison Drive and Centre Street.

The sprawling project consists of three sites of two adjoining buildings, which will total 500 apartments and upwards of 30,000 square feet of commercial space on the main levels. One of the development’s biggest draws could be that about 50 suites will be affordable, set at a fixed rate of 30 per cent of the tenant’s income, while 15 per cent of units will be universally accessible.

While the first — and largest — building (which broke ground in October) is expected to be ready by September 2024, Tim Comack, VP of Ventura Developments, said he will aim to have the second and third sites built every two years after that. In all, he anticipates the EpiCentre will be fully functional in 2030.

“I can tell you — categorically — we need more housing,” Comack told the Free Press at the project’s unveiling on Friday. “The cost of housing has gone through the roof and the only way to change that dynamic is to increase the supply and availability to bring the prices back down.

“When this is done, you’re gonna have thousands of people living above a bunch of commercial. I joked that this is Winnipeg’s White Avenue (also known as 82 Avenue in Edmonton) or it’s our next Corydon. From the perspective of what this can be … it really can be one of the few places in Winnipeg that you can live, work and play, and, literally, not own a car, and have that urban lifestyle, ironically, out in (the suburbs).”

The rental units will range from studio to three bedrooms in size, with one-bedrooms coming in at 675 square feet. Comack said Ventura will be “choosy” as to who fills the commercial space, as offices will be welcome, but limited. He explained his vision of a restaurant, some retail stores and a pub.

A 2021 Census shows Winnipeg’s population grew by 44,363 people since 2016. The Waverley West area boasts the biggest increase (11,000) during that time, with many immigrant families choosing to lay roots in the south end of the city. The rising cost of housing and interest rates have, presumably, made life tougher on those new families and the city’s existing prospective first home owners, however, leaving affordable options near the top of much conversation.

Comack explained that while the plan is for 10 per cent of the first two buildings to offer affordable units, the other four blocks could feature more.

“If programs exist as we progress through the project, we will absolutely grab onto those opportunities and expand on that. As the market’s a bit fluid, we will be able to make decisions as we move along,” he said.

Comack was joined by Manitoba Premier Heather Stefanson and Coun. Janice Lukes at the unveiling in Bridgwater, where each expressed overwhelming support for the massive project.

“Obviously we’re going to be working together with the federal government, other levels of government toward building more affordable housing in Manitoba, but also working with the private sector,” said Stefanson of the importance of the development’s affordable options. “What’s really exciting about this is initiative has been taken by the private sector themselves. We haven’t required them to do anything, they’re taking this initiative on themselves.

“This is a huge development … and it’s very exciting for the future, the economic opportunities around this are huge for Manitoba.”

The site’s amenities are in abundance, as tenants will have access to indoor and outdoor dog parks, fitness centres, playgrounds for children and car and bike share programs, to name a few. According to Lukes, the development falls in line with the long-term vision of the area.

“The concept of the whole Waverley West area has been developed around Centre Street,” Lukes said. “The gentlemen that were the original planners sat me down and made me promise and swear that I would not derail the project, that I’d keep on track with what the vision was. So we have Centre Street, we knew eventually, over time, products like this would come.

“The area was projected to develop over a 25-year period. I think we’re at year 20 and all the lots are sold. Virtually everything is sold here, other than the new development at Bison Run and Prairie Pointe. So this is what was planned, this was the intent and it’s happening at every single lot.”

Lukes added that nearly all the new developments in the Waverley West area that are a private investment are following a similar formula of multi-use with some affordable options that reside on top of commercial space. She noted how older apartment blocks lack three-bedroom suites, but that those are now common in newer developments, as developers cater to the families moving to Winnipeg.

“It’s really important to have the mix of affordability and the different price points,” she said. We have a lot of new Canadians coming, we have lots of families and lots of kids.”

While Comack wants to welcome tenants from all walks of life, he said the younger generation will be vital to his building, adding the site’s amenities “zero in on a younger, active lifestyle.”

“The amenities that we’re providing in buildings one and two were chosen for that young guy, gal, couple that got their first dog — they want to move into an apartment, there’s a fitness facility so they can stay fit, there’s a co-working space so they can do work … it’s very attractive to them,” he said.

“But also, some of the stuff that we’re focusing on the future amenities: party room, entertainment space … it does really zero in on the young people, and retaining young people is going to be vital to this. But the housing methodology in our mix, it’s strategically that we’re targeting new Canadians, people with disabilities, people looking for affordable housing … and then the cohort of downsizers, empty-nesters, divorcees, professionals — they fit in the middle.”

Bring on the density you won't see NIMBYs here!!

[trueviking]

LOL on that bolded paragraph.

[bomberjet]

Ya welcome to White ave. Everybody go park your cars in the giant asphalt lots out back. Oh and don't use the front doors because they'll be locked. Great intentions and all. But it's like Sage Creek in terms of this retail on the main drag thing. It's a facade, literally.

Lol joking aside, judging by the renders there are no back doors here. Where's everybody going to park for the White Ave retail?

[WestEndWander]

Lol, new construction updates.

When everything is built in a middle of nowhere greenfield there is nothing easier to do than slap up a bunch of 4 story stick frame garbage and pretend its great. Could it be any more generic and Grand Forks looking? Also, I love the parking lots that are larger than the buildings themselves....so very urban!

Developers who do shite like this and posture as if it's some grand idea never done in every far flung ex-urban area of every major city area the best.

[WestEndWander]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Bridgwater Centre strikes again with a massive 500 unit development known as the "Epicentre." It feels like this thread gets as many new construction updates as the main construction thread these days lol.





Bring on the density you won't see NIMBYs here!!

Haha, that's because nobody lives around there to oppose it and the parking lots prevent any development close proximity to it in the future.

I recommend you investigate density. You may be surprised what it actually is. Cause this ain't it. At all, lol.

[esquire]

^ I'll give them credit. The design standards of these types of lowrise suburban MURBs has increased to some extent, they at least pay lip service to walkability and urbanity, which is nice. They aren't as atrocious as the things I grew up looking at in the 80s and 90s. But that's still not saying much.

[drew]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Bring on the density you won't see NIMBYs here!!

That's cuz it's no one's backyard.

[bomberjet]

This is what our zoning allows. The area was pre-planned for this type of development. So that's what we get here. It's not like an OMG look at this new awesomeness we're getting over here guys!

This is common sub-urban development around Winnipeg and North America. This is Sage Creek, Park City Commons, etc.

[WestEndWander]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

This is what our zoning allows. The area was pre-planned for this type of development. So that's what we get here. It's not like an OMG look at this new awesomeness we're getting over here guys!

This is common sub-urban development around Winnipeg and North America. This is Sage Creek, Park City Commons, etc.

I don't know why we have a thread for this mundane garbage. Unless it is to trash it. Cause then I am here for it!

[bomberjet]

So we can come in and trash it haha. I don't venture in much, but decided to today.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Ya welcome to White ave. Everybody go park your cars in the giant asphalt lots out back. Oh and don't use the front doors because they'll be locked. Great intentions and all. But it's like Sage Creek in terms of this retail on the main drag thing. It's a facade, literally.

Lol joking aside, judging by the renders there are no back doors here. Where's everybody going to park for the White Ave retail?

What's actually interesting is that the mixed-use buildings storefronts only provide an entrance from the street and don't have access via a back door. It's the single-storey commercial that does the back entrance garbage, but like I've mentioned previously once all the building develops we will see more storefronts that have their main access on the street.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by WestEndWander

Haha, that's because nobody lives around there to oppose it and the parking lots prevent any development close proximity to it in the future.

I recommend you investigate density. You may be surprised what it actually is. Cause this ain't it. At all, lol.

Density occurs in numbers my friend. 508 units in 2.25 hectares = 225 units/hectare or 22500 units/sq km which means this area in it's encompassed land is closer to 50,000 people/sq km...

I see you didn't learn much from my last tirade as I would have hoped.

[WestEndWander]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Density occurs in numbers my friend. 508 units in 2.25 hectares = 225 units/hectare or 22500 units/sq km which means this area in it's encompassed land is closer to 50,000 people/sq km...

I see you didn't learn much from my last tirade as I would have hoped.

You have nothing of substance to impart. If you think you are some great educator as to the "benefit" of suburban development, I've got some news for you. Run off to studio and get those head pats. Maybe one day they will do you a real educational service and direct you to peer reviewed economic studies of subdivision development and their costs to cities and taxpayers. I'm glad you can do division and show how many people are living on a parcel of land!

You're screaming into a void. Enjoy!

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by WestEndWander

You have nothing of substance to impart. If you think you are some great educator as to the "benefit" of suburban development, I've got some news for you. Run off to studio and get those head pats. Maybe one day they will do you a real educational service and direct you to peer reviewed economic studies of subdivision development and their costs to cities and taxpayers. I'm glad you can do division and show how many people are living on a parcel of land!

You're screaming into a void. Enjoy!

But you literally said to “investigate density” and then you completely disregarded the initial argument made when I presented to you what density is.

For the record, I support all infill development regardless of location. That’s why I’m usually the one on Winnipeg construction thread posting about infill through all parts of the city whether it be St. Vital, Northgate, or Downtown. That’s why I’m able to say for certainty why some projects such as this are better for the city then others.

Oh also, all of those “economic studies of suburban development” all stem from North America and the western world at large. This might come as a shocker but every single city on the planet that is experiencing population growth has some form of outward growth. However, those skyscrapers at the edge of Shenzen are just as much suburban as the single-family house seen in the edges of Phoenix. It’s the type of density in the development itself that determines whether an area can be a net detriment or loss for taxpayers. Not the vague concept of “suburban development” itself because it encompasses a wide range of urban form.

Even in Winnipeg as Bomberjet mentioned Park City Commons, are we going to argue even that development is bad? I don’t think a bunch of midrises anywhere is bad especially ones next to restaurants, grocery stores, and schools.

[WestEndWander]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

But you literally said to “investigate density” and then you completely disregarded the initial argument made when I presented to you what density is.

For the record, I support all infill development regardless of location. That’s why I’m usually the one on Winnipeg construction thread posting about infill through all parts of the city whether it be St. Vital, Northgate, or Downtown. That’s why I’m able to say for certainty why some projects such as this are better for the city then others.

Oh also, all of those “economic studies of suburban development” all stem from North America and the western world at large. This might come as a shocker but every single city on the planet that is experiencing population growth has some form of outward growth. However, those skyscrapers at the edge of Shenzen are just as much suburban as the single-family house seen in the edges of Phoenix. It’s the type of density in the development itself that determines whether an area can be a net detriment or loss for taxpayers. Not the vague concept of “suburban development” itself because it encompasses a wide range of urban form.

Even in Winnipeg as Bomberjet mentioned Park City Commons, are we going to argue even that development is bad? I don’t think a bunch of midrises anywhere is bad especially ones next to restaurants, grocery stores, and schools.

Did you just try to compare growth in a city of 18 million people to that of one with 750,000 people?

As mentioned, you are screaming into the void. Feel free to carry on, no one is listening.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by WestEndWander

Did you just try to compare growth in a city of 18 million people to that of one with 750,000 people?

As mentioned, you are screaming into the void. Feel free to carry on, no ones listening.

Lol thank you for that I was completely oblivious to the difference in population size. I couldn’t have possibly been making a comparison about how different places can and have built successful suburbs for decades. Of course Winnipeg’s suburbs are far from perfect but they are improving. In fact, at this point Winnipeg shouldn’t even be expanding outwards as there are many parts of the city ripe for infill. However, with recent communities that have been established for nearly a decade they have already been built where thousands of people live the conversation should be more productive and discuss how to improve neighborhoods that people such as yourself are completely dissatisfied with.

I’m not screaming into any void considering that you’re replying to my comments and with the reception of other posters here about these developments clearly people are still giving their time of day to interact on this post when one can easily just ignore it.

You’re very good at completely disregarding or blatantly not even considering large portions of what I say to further your narrative and I don’t appreciate that very much. At least I try to address most if not all of your points in my rebuttals. You do it with other posts do but I usually agree with the narrative you present in most instances so I don’t generally feel the need to call you out on it.

For future reference, the snark remarks and personal jibs greatly diminish the points you present no matter how accurate or intuitive the point may be and exudes immaturity.

[WestEndWander]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Lol thank you for that I was completely oblivious to the difference in population size. I couldn’t have possibly been making a comparison about how different places can and have built successful suburbs for decades. Of course Winnipeg’s suburbs are far from perfect but they are improving. In fact, at this point Winnipeg shouldn’t even be expanding outwards as there are many parts of the city ripe for infill. However, with recent communities that have been established for nearly a decade they have already been built where thousands of people live the conversation should be more productive and discuss how to improve neighborhoods that people such as yourself are completely dissatisfied with.

I’m not screaming into any void considering that you’re replying to my comments and with the reception of other posters here about these developments clearly people are still giving their time of day to interact on this post when one can easily just ignore it.

You’re very good at completely disregarding or blatantly not even considering large portions of what I say to further your narrative and I don’t appreciate that very much. At least I try to address most if not all of your points in my rebuttals. You do it with other posts do but I usually agree with the narrative you present in most instances so I don’t generally feel the need to call you out on it.

For future reference, the snark remarks and personal jibs greatly diminish the points you present no matter how accurate or intuitive the point may be and exudes immaturity.

Here is the thing. I'm not here to stroke your ego or tell you how good you are at analyzing "density" or considering the "nuances" of suburban development.

I'm here to state that your position of presenting suburban development outside established neighborhoods as "successful" is incorrect, blatantly wrong, and simply just ignorant. There is nothing to consider successful about your arguments or about developments that stretch already thin city resources even thinner. They hold no weight.

The positions you bring forward are not considered or regarded because, why would I? It's my job to design/develop/promote city building methods that are the exact opposite of this. I have nothing remotely positive to say about developments such as Waverly West, Sage Creek, etc. I'm not going to pretend to support your arguments so you can feel good about trying to analyze a green field development into some sort of net positive. Gotta love it when the city is responsible for more fire/police/ems stations, schools, sewers, roads, street lights in the middle of nowhere.....you get the idea? Of course you don't.

I'm not here looking to make poorly designed suburbs better for those who live there after the fact. If you have to do that then your plan has been a failure from the outset. I'm certainly not here to make you feel better about your love for Waverly West.

Your smug attitude is terribly off putting and leads to the responses you get from me. School isn't the real world. The sooner you realize that the better off you will be.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by WestEndWander

Here is the thing. I'm not here to stroke your ego or tell you how good you are at analyzing "density" or considering the "nuances" of suburban development.

I'm here to state that your position of presenting suburban development outside established neighborhoods as "successful" is incorrect, blatantly wrong, and simply just ignorant. There is nothing to consider successful about your arguments or about developments that stretch already thin city resources even thinner. They hold no weight.

The positions you bring forward are not considered or regarded because, why would I? It's my job to design/develop/promote city building methods that are the exact opposite of this. I have nothing remotely positive to say about developments such as Waverly West, Sage Creek, etc. I'm not going to pretend to support your arguments so you can feel good about trying to analyze a green field development into some sort of net positive. Gotta love it when the city is responsible for more fire/police/ems stations, schools, sewers, roads, street lights in the middle of nowhere.....you get the idea? Of course you don't.

I'm not here looking to make poorly designed suburbs better for those who live there after the fact. If you have to do that then your plan has been a failure from the outset. I'm certainly not here to make you feel better about your love for Waverly West.

Your smug attitude is terribly off putting and leads to the responses you get from me. School isn't the real world. The sooner you realize that the better off you will be.

In an ideal world all development would occur within existing city limits by filling in parking lots, brownfield developments, and by redeveloping single-family houses in our yellow belt. I wish we lived in an ideal world, but currently we live in a city that grows by 10k a year and that growth has to go somewhere. And too reiterate a point I’ve made previously being a few km away from the largest University in the province and a major hospital is not “the middle of nowhere.” Especially once Bison Dr gets connected. Sage Creek definitely fits that category more so.

Also, the city being responsible for building more schools, sewers, fire stations, roads etc… is because we don’t allow infill in the areas people want too live. Even so the costs for the servicing of this infrastructure can be paid for provided the new subdivision is dense enough and doesn’t remain stagnant. Either way I can assure you that these Bridgwaters and Sage Creeks wouldn’t need to be built if residents in areas like Charleswood and Tuxedo with their rampant NIMBYism. Find a way to get development in areas like those and things start to get really interesting for the city.

I don’t love these areas by any means, but they exist in our cities ecosystem and can/will be improved. As they say different strokes for different folks.

[Lulz]

No need for this monstrosity.
Stop building out and start building up.