Winnipeg Construction X - Page 348

OTA in Winnipeg · #**6941** Posted **Apr 28, 2022, 12:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..

Potholes uncover remnants of Winnipeg's streetcar system

https://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/potholes...pBes8hLb-vhgnU

Sad they ended. 66 years now. Hard to believe. Just imagine if that service was still running.

We'd be a very different city.

Only The Lonely.. · #**6942** Posted **Apr 28, 2022, 5:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OTA in Winnipeg

Sad they ended. 66 years now. Hard to believe. Just imagine if that service was still running.

We'd be a very different city.

The one time Winnipeg was a 'forward and modern thinking city' was when we joined everyone else in ripping up our streetcar network in 1955.

We were at the top of that trend!

In an alternative universe, I imagine that Winnipeg would be like Toronto only with orange instead of red streetcars still rolling down Portage Ave.

Only The Lonely.. · #**6943** Posted **Apr 28, 2022, 5:11 AM**

From the Strike! musical, great soundtrack with streetcar picts.

You'll want the volume turned up.. a cigar and nice prairie rye.

https://youtu.be/OkdQWDPY4Xc

trueviking · #**6944** Posted **Apr 28, 2022, 5:42 AM**

If you want to get your blood pumping you should watch Klein’s speech at the committee meeting for 490 Shaftesbury. Apparently the site is a park even though it has a 60’s bungalow on it and is private property. Also apparently the fact that they had 300 signatures on an opposition petition and no petitions were presented in support shows the project should be denied because that’s democracy. This was said after he claimed he only evaluates things based on the rules and the facts.

When he asked about the side yard variance for 16 feet instead of 18 he questioned if the project has a garden. The proponent asked why is that relevant he replied, seniors like gardens.

He also questioned why public works was working with the developer on their proposal but did not do any public consultation in the community. Like as if public works is supposed to hold consultation for every development in the city. The bureaucrat didn’t know how to answer without saying WTF, that’s not our job. The question was intended to show that public works and the planning department are biased to developers.

In a hall of fame NIMBY move, CMU announced at the meeting that they will be approaching the provincial government to have the heritage designation that is on their property transferred to another property owned by someone else. You know, the property on the other side of their two acre gravel parking lot.

The development was approved 2-1. Lukes and Gillingham supported it and made good comments about infill.

1ajs · #**6945** Posted **Apr 28, 2022, 5:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

In a hall of fame NIMBY move, CMU announced at the meeting that they will be approaching the provincial government to have the heritage designation that is on their property transferred to another property owned by someone else. You know, the property on the other side of their two acre gravel parking lot.

sorry what gravel lot?

trueviking · #**6946** Posted **Apr 28, 2022, 12:45 PM**

https://www.landmarkplanning.ca/490shaftesburyboulevard

thebasketballgeek · #**6947** Posted **Apr 28, 2022, 1:03 PM**

The most ridiculous thing about all the NIMBYism is that golf courses are objectively terrible for the environment due to the high amount of maintenance and absurd water usage required to keep one running. That 40 hectares of land utilized for that golf course would serve a much better purpose as an extension to Assiniboine Forest with multi-family mixed-use housing on Grant, Shaftesbury, and Corydon if we are looking at this from a environmental sustainability perspective. Especially considering that Assiniboine Forest is already the LARGEST urban forest in North America it would be great to increase the size of what is one of our largest carbon sinks.

One of the complaints from NIMBYs was that it was high-end housing rather then affordable housing. Do they not look at themselves in the mirror and see how much their houses are worth from having that area be artificially capped in supply with only single-family housing? If they wanted affordable housing I would have loved to see the outrage if an affordable housing complex was built instead to catch them red-handed on their hypocritical outlook.

1ajs · #**6948** Posted **Apr 28, 2022, 1:04 PM**

what in the

GreyGarden · #**6949** Posted **Apr 28, 2022, 1:41 PM**

It makes my head spin when people look at medium to high density development and the first thing they say is "I hope its affordable" or "better be affordable housing"... Like why does dense automatically have to be affordable in this city. Its not like they say the same thing when they look at a new-build house or some cul-de-sac.

bomberjet · #**6950** Posted **Apr 28, 2022, 1:44 PM**

And Klein is running for mayor LOL Klein seems like a meme warrior. Fighting against the establishment.

What's the scoop with the other development on Roblin? Could see similar opposition to that one.

esquire · #**6951** Posted **Apr 28, 2022, 1:54 PM**

The combination of entitlement and wealth/influence in that area means that it is probably one of the most formidable NIMBY strongholds in all of Canada. Godspeed to anyone trying to get any kind of multifamily built there, no matter how obviously beneficial it would be.

soewnz · #**6952** Posted **Apr 28, 2022, 2:21 PM**

I'm kind of surprised that there hasn't been more discussion on here about The Bay building, but I guess it is kind of a hot potato! I'd like to set aside the heated parts of the discussion and just say that I'm really wondering about the budget numbers that are being thrown around:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...sfer-1.6427921

So this CBC article puts the budget at $130M, but the number of "up to $111M" just to bring it up to code has been thrown around for a long time - is it just me, or does it seem like a budget of way more than $130M would be required?

Looking at the most recent project of a similar scale and scope, Winnipeg Police Headquarters, it ended up costing $200M and is now falling apart. I'm not sure about the challenge of converting that building to a police HQ vs. converting The Bay to housing, museum, etc., but it just seems to me that the budget for The Bay is being grossly underestimated.

Thoughts?

esquire · #**6953** Posted **Apr 28, 2022, 2:23 PM**

^ There is a thread devoted to that project. The subject of the budget has come up... I am highly skeptical. Or maybe it's one of those IG Field kind of things where a low number is floated at the start knowing that once it gets going, the players will have no choice but to kick in more to finish the job.

soewnz · #**6954** Posted **Apr 28, 2022, 2:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

^ There is a thread devoted to that project. The subject of the budget has come up... I am highly skeptical. Or maybe it's one of those IG Field kind of things where a low number is floated at the start knowing that once it gets going, the players will have no choice but to kick in more to finish the job.

Ah yes, it's own thread! That makes way more sense than nobody talking about it! lol

1ajs · #**6955** Posted **Apr 28, 2022, 2:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by soewnz

Looking at the most recent project of a similar scale and scope, Winnipeg Police Headquarters, it ended up costing $200M and is now falling apart. I'm not sure about the challenge of converting that building to a police HQ vs. converting The Bay to housing, museum, etc., but it just seems to me that the budget for The Bay is being grossly underestimated.

Thoughts?

canada post build was a tare down it was at end of life hence why it has its issues

the bay is a friggin concrete bunker

bomberjet · #**6956** Posted **Apr 28, 2022, 2:52 PM**

Police building issues are to do with corruption and incompetency. It is also a concrete bunker like the Bay. The post office was built to institutional standards originally. Solid concrete structure.

One of the main issues that came up in the police budgeting process. Original estimates didn't include the actual fit up of the building lol Just the building itself. Not sure how anyone could've missed that important point. Maybe it was on purpose, who knows.

trueviking · #**6957** Posted **Apr 28, 2022, 5:28 PM**

I'd like to know where this mythical $111 million to get it 'up to code' number came from. What does that even mean? It was a functioning department store until a year ago. It doesn't violate building code any more than any other heritage building. The stair handrails are too low, i guess.

I wouldn't suggest that the budget won't increase. Its a massive project with all kinds of unknowns, but there are reasonable people putting the budgets together. CMHC doesn't back spitball projects.

The other thing to remember is that budgets can define different things....does the $130 include tenant fit-up for the spaces?.....as an example.

soewnz · #**6958** Posted **Apr 28, 2022, 5:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

I'd like to know where this mythical $111 million to get it 'up to code' number came from. What does that even mean? It was a functioning department store until a year ago. It doesn't violate building code any more than any other heritage building. The stair handrails are too low, i guess.

I wouldn't suggest that the budget won't increase. Its a massive project with all kinds of unknowns, but there are reasonable people putting the budgets together. CMHC doesn't back spitball projects.

The other thing to remember is that budgets can define different things....does the $130 include tenant fit-up for the spaces?.....as an example.

According to this CBC article it was Cushman & Wakefield who said it could cost up to $111M to bring it up to code. I'm not sure exactly what they were referring to, but I'm sure they didn't just pull the number out of thin air.

Regarding the tenant fit-up, isn't SCO proposing that their organization is the tenant as well? Wouldn't that imply that the project would need to include fit-up?

I know it's difficult to capture those nuances in a news story, so I'm just curious how all of these pieces are coming together behind the scenes.

1ajs · #**6959** Posted **Apr 28, 2022, 7:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

I'd like to know where this mythical $111 million to get it 'up to code' number came from. What does that even mean? It was a functioning department store until a year ago. It doesn't violate building code any more than any other heritage building. The stair handrails are too low, i guess.

I wouldn't suggest that the budget won't increase. Its a massive project with all kinds of unknowns, but there are reasonable people putting the budgets together. CMHC doesn't back spitball projects.

The other thing to remember is that budgets can define different things....does the $130 include tenant fit-up for the spaces?.....as an example.

you had mention a number needing to do it proper in the past around 110 million witch is not far off from the current budget maybe somefolks miss understood that as well

trueviking · #**6960** Posted **Apr 28, 2022, 8:12 PM**

^ yeah for sure. That number must have been to turn it into something because it certainly would not cost anywhere near that to simply meet the fire code. It has sprinklers, lots of exit stairs, a functioning mechanical system. It was an occupied building. It would not have been allowed to vary too far from life-safety requirements.