Winnipeg 2014 - Vote Poll

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Well, I think I should probably clarify that in some respect. There's no doubt that money is changing hands. I personally donate to numerous councilors. But this isn't councilors beholden to me or other developers - this is just an alignment of interests on behalf of citizens and developers. People really want to live in the suburbs! The reason land developers (and I stress the difference between land and real estate developers here) give money is because they want favourable concessions on many of the items that can render a subdivision unfeasible - think green spaces, walking paths, commercial centres, etc. But these aren't really items that affect the rest of the city because the damage is done; the citizens and developers got their subdivision. The battle is now how that subdivision is going to play out. And you're right, the influence peddling begins in earnest at this point.

But the stark reality in our city is that the citizens want their suburban living and those who already live in more densely populated urban areas want any further development to stop. In these cases the councilors are difficult to bend; they nearly always favour the citizens. So what we don't really have are councilors beholden to developers, we have councilors beholden to a prevailing ideal of suburban living. If you want to change that, you'll have to change the way in which people live in this city.

And I'll just mention this briefly. We can talk about insidious and latent subsidy of suburban development all day long. But the reality in our city is that the development of downtown Winnipeg is the most heavily subsidized on an upfront and ongoing basis. When I said those interests wanted money, I meant that literally - the Chipman family and whomever else will be along for the ride want huge cash subsidies and tax abatements to make their developments work. Those are not land developments, but they are nearly equally valueless to the citizens given the ways that TIFs tend to play out over time.

I appreciate your honesty in the disccusion.

[esquire]

^ I echo cyro's thanks. But to get down to the bottom line, though...

Obviously no mayor can eliminate suburbs. Not all 750,000 of us are going to live in downtown highrises, simple as that. But an urbanist mayor can ease off costly automobile reliance and make us less beholden to an unending need for more new or repaired roads by investing in transit. An urbanist mayor can help make the difference between a Whyte Ridge-style subdivision and things a little more like Garrison Woods in suburban Calgary, with some degree of density and walkability:





Bowman is a step in that direction, but he is not someone I'd consider a leader in that regard.

[Chadillaccc]

An example of how mayors can make an absolute difference is Nenshi. Under him, we have gone from less than 10% of our population growth going to intensification to 35% of it going to intensification (development and densification of established inner city neighbourhoods).

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ I echo cyro's thanks. But to get down to the bottom line, though...

Obviously no mayor can eliminate suburbs. Not all 750,000 of us are going to live in downtown highrises, simple as that. But an urbanist mayor can ease off costly automobile reliance and make us less beholden to an unending need for more new or repaired roads by investing in transit. An urbanist mayor can help make the difference between a Whyte Ridge-style subdivision and things a little more like Garrison Woods in suburban Calgary, with some degree of density and walkability:


Bowman is a step in that direction, but he is not someone I'd consider a leader in that regard.

And these are beautiful examples of relatively high density in comparison with the rest of the city. And we should be building stuff like this all day. But there are a few funny things about these developments in our city. The first is that they're already happening, they're just happening in all of the suburbs everybody hates so much. Secondly, developers love this stuff precisely because of its density! Rowhousing and mixed-use development isn't just more sustainable for the city, it's a much better value for the land developer given that your denominator is growing. And lastly, this city is rife with fifty and sixty foot lots and there is almost no end to those who would be satisfied to split those lots and build two houses, each with a secondary suite. Or perhaps have each rezoned to R2 and have two legitimate suites on each. That's precisely what the city needs and calls for in its plans. But the biggest hurdle to this isn't councilors beholden to developers; it's councilors beholden to citizens who are abjectly averse to these sorts of proposals.

So you're right in that the mayor needs to set the tone. But we have to be realistic - the mayor isn't fielding calls from upset constituents all day long about the construction noise of the house being built next door in a mature area. And the mayor's job isn't going to hang in the balance if enough people get upset about 'over-development' which is hilariously what the citizens of River Heights think has happened because of some infill on old rail tracks. And they don't sit on the various community committees which is where most of this densified development goes to die. Sure, the mayor could get involved at the council level, but that almost never happens because this is politics - you don't go looking for enemies where you may yet have none.

I like Bowman as a choice; I really do. But I'll agree that he's no panacea. I just don't blame him for it, I blame the fact that we live in a democracy.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

And these are beautiful examples of relatively high density in comparison with the rest of the city. And we should be building stuff like this all day. But there are a few funny things about these developments in our city. The first is that they're already happening, they're just happening in all of the suburbs everybody hates so much. Secondly, developers love this stuff precisely because of its density! Rowhousing and mixed-use development isn't just more sustainable for the city, it's a much better value for the land developer given that your denominator is growing. And lastly, this city is rife with fifty and sixty foot lots and there is almost no end to those who would be satisfied to split those lots and build two houses, each with a secondary suite. Or perhaps have each rezoned to R2 and have two legitimate suites on each. That's precisely what the city needs and calls for in its plans. But the biggest hurdle to this isn't councilors beholden to developers; it's councilors beholden to citizens who are abjectly averse to these sorts of proposals.

So you're right in that the mayor needs to set the tone. But we have to be realistic - the mayor isn't fielding calls from upset constituents all day long about the construction noise of the house being built next door in a mature area. And the mayor's job isn't going to hang in the balance if enough people get upset about 'over-development' which is hilariously what the citizens of River Heights think has happened because of some infill on old rail tracks. And they don't sit on the various community committees which is where most of this densified development goes to die. Sure, the mayor could get involved at the council level, but that almost never happens because this is politics - you don't go looking for enemies where you may yet have none.

I like Bowman as a choice; I really do. But I'll agree that he's no panacea. I just don't blame him for it, I blame the fact that we live in a democracy.

I have said this (though much less eloquently) so many times... It makes me ill just thinking about it.

I wish just once that a development that got rejected at community committee got overturned at P&D committee or council.