Winnipeg | UofM | Southwood Circle

[trueviking]

No respect required bbg.

If you look closely at the plan, the buildings don’t create a proper street wall. The space between buildings is almost as wide as the buildings themselves. Each block is maybe 60% open space. It’s drawn as green which could be fields of grass but more likely parking. Either way, the buildings are not in an urban configuration. They are more like pavilions in a park. Individual objects that are not working together to create streets.

To create walkable and successful commercial streets the buildings need to be close together and right at the sidewalk, creating a strong street edge that connects to pedestrians.

Compare how the buildings address the sidewalk in the plan with one block of Corydon.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by esquire

So why does it have to be that way? What are the practical reasons pushing the U of M to repeat a textbook example of how not to do a greenfield development that is sitting right at the other end of their campus?

I don't get the reason behind this sense of inevitability, as though Smartpark was the only conceivable development model the U of M could possibly follow.

It's in suburbia so it will have obscene parking minimums, despite being "mixed use" and close to both transit and a walk-in destination.

The university likely doesn't want to deal with selling the myriad small lots necessary for granular development. They'll sell or lease big blocks, which means big buildings. Combined with parking minimums, expect those podiums to be massive parking garages.

Finally, it will be built by suburban Winnipeg developers. Look at the Plaza road "TOD". It's shit. It's next to a transit station but you'd hardly know it looking at the orientation of the development and swathes of parking.

Don't be surprised when little to no retail actually materializes.

That lively looking render just looks like they stole it from some other, better development.




Other concerns, unrelated to the development's plan--more to do with the UofM's involvement:

The UofM is a Brazil(the movie)-esque, Keynsian dystopia. How are the entrenched stakeholders committed to ruining campus life going to react to the spectre of competition at the gates?

Will Aramark cafeterias be the only restaurants allowed?

Will Special Functions get to veto any pizzerias or bakeries, lest anyone not buy their cardboard fare?

Will campus janitors go on strike until they get the contract to pretend to clean the corridors in the new buildings?

Will UMSU demand that all businesses be student-run cooperatives that either lose piles of money, or make just enough money to create no-show jobs for their bosses at CFS?

[thebasketballgeek]

TV I'll give you an appropriate response later on today in regards to street layout, but I really feel the need to address some of Biguc's concerns.

Originally Posted by biguc

It's in suburbia so it will have obscene parking minimums, despite being "mixed use" and close to both transit and a walk-in destination.

There's no parking minimums only parking guidelines that recommend 0.75 stalls/unit. Compared to our obscene parking minimums of 1.5 stalls/unit it's a massive improvement.

Originally Posted by biguc

The university likely doesn't want to deal with selling the myriad small lots necessary for granular development. They'll sell or lease big blocks, which means big buildings. Combined with parking minimums, expect those podiums to be massive parking garages.

Yes this is true there are only like 8 blocks in between Sifton and Markham. However, it's zoned RMU so if any parking is required it will be underground rather then an above grade parkade because the ground floor is for commercial/campus. Also, the U of M as is has a PLETHORA of parking there is no need to add extra when its virtually unnecessary.

Originally Posted by biguc

Finally, it will be built by suburban Winnipeg developers. Look at the Plaza road "TOD". It's shit. It's next to a transit station but you'd hardly know it looking at the orientation of the development and swathes of parking.

The plaza "TOD" is not complete by any means and yes there is too much parking, but it's being built by Calgary developers not Winnipeg ones. We also have to consider rather then the buildings facing the TOD they made the decision to have the buildings face the street with no setback instead. Time will tell if that was a good or bad decision.

Originally Posted by biguc

Don't be surprised when little to no retail actually materializes.

Impossible

Originally Posted by biguc

That lively looking render just looks like they stole it from some other, better development.

That's plagiarism and we know how serious the U of M take plagiarism. As a student currently attending campus I can assure there is not a chance they stole the render.

Other concerns, unrelated to the development's plan--more to do with the UofM's involvement:

Originally Posted by biguc

The UofM is a Brazil(the movie)-esque, Keynsian dystopia. How are the entrenched stakeholders committed to ruining campus life going to react to the spectre of competition at the gates?

Won't disagree with this take, but those stakeholders were involved in the planning process. They wouldn't have let UM properties present this to council without significant consultation. This project started in 2012 why do you think it took 10 years to finally get the project approved? Because those said stakeholders were wreaking havoc and trying to create a smart park but common sense prevailed in the end.

Originally Posted by biguc

Will Aramark cafeterias be the only restaurants allowed?

I've been a student for 4 years and not once have I needed to eat at one of those shitty Aramark cafeterias. Let's just say they're completely outdated and will be a minor insignificant part of this development (if they even bother).

Originally Posted by biguc

Will campus janitors go on strike until they get the contract to pretend to clean the corridors in the new buildings?

If you've been to a Walmart recently they have automated cleaning with their fancy new robots. I am sure that a research based University such as U of M will experiment with automation in many different facets of this development including cleaning. Who knows if Janitors will even exist by the time this project is done.

Originally Posted by biguc

Will UMSU demand that all businesses be student-run cooperatives that either lose piles of money, or make just enough money to create no-show jobs for their bosses at CFS?

UMSU is useless. As a student in campus they hold no power. Not a single restaruant in the University Centre is a student run business, rather local Winnipeg businesses (except Subway). They will for sure try to make most of the businesses run there Winnipeg based, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are international businesses on the Sifton high street for example.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

TV I'll give you an appropriate response later on today in regards to street layout, but I really feel the need to address some of Biguc's concerns.



There's no parking minimums only parking guidelines that recommend 0.75 stalls/unit. Compared to our obscene parking minimums of 1.5 stalls/unit it's a massive improvement.



Yes this is true there are only like 8 blocks in between Sifton and Markham. However, it's zoned RMU so if any parking is required it will be underground rather then an above grade parkade because the ground floor is for commercial/campus. Also, the U of M as is has a PLETHORA of parking there is no need to add extra when its virtually unnecessary.



The plaza "TOD" is not complete by any means and yes there is too much parking, but it's being built by Calgary developers not Winnipeg ones. We also have to consider rather then the buildings facing the TOD they made the decision to have the buildings face the street with no setback instead. Time will tell if that was a good or bad decision.



Impossible



That's plagiarism and we know how serious the U of M take plagiarism. As a student currently attending campus I can assure there is not a chance they stole the render.

Other concerns, unrelated to the development's plan--more to do with the UofM's involvement:



Won't disagree with this take, but those stakeholders were involved in the planning process. They wouldn't have let UM properties present this to council without significant consultation. This project started in 2012 why do you think it took 10 years to finally get the project approved? Because those said stakeholders were wreaking havoc and trying to create a smart park but common sense prevailed in the end.



I've been a student for 4 years and not once have I needed to eat at one of those shitty Aramark cafeterias. Let's just say they're completely outdated and will be a minor insignificant part of this development (if they even bother).



If you've been to a Walmart recently they have automated cleaning with their fancy new robots. I am sure that a research based University such as U of M will experiment with automation in many different facets of this development including cleaning. Who knows if Janitors will even exist by the time this project is done.



UMSU is useless. As a student in campus they hold no power. Not a single restaruant in the University Centre is a student run business, rather local Winnipeg businesses (except Subway). They will for sure try to make most of the businesses run there Winnipeg based, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are international businesses on the Sifton high street for example.

Aramark operates all the food stuff on Main floor UC minus GPAs, (including subway and starbucks), all Tims and residence food service.

UMSU has oversight over GPAs, IQs, Degrees and the Hub. They have specific managers for these operations but UMSU could meddle in their affairs if they ever want to.

That being said I doubt the southwood development would be even staffed or managed by U of M employees. I think most of Smart Park is independent in that manner as well, with the only exception in Smart Park is the richardson centre for neutraceutical foods, which is a very research focused building and hires U of M staff and professors have their labs there.

It'll essentially be an off campus development, much like if you bought a lot in Fort Richmond, except that you bought from the u of m. U of M Properties will likely maintain oversight on design choices as the developers but buyers will be in charge of maintaining the properties.

[thebasketballgeek]

Yes thanks for correcting me on that WildCake. I mistakenly thought Aramark was those cafeterias seen plastered through campus like in the Arts buildings.

Well anyways back to Southwood.

Originally Posted by trueviking

If you look closely at the plan, the buildings don’t create a proper street wall. The space between buildings is almost as wide as the buildings themselves. Each block is maybe 60% open space. It’s drawn as green which could be fields of grass but more likely parking. Either way, the buildings are not in an urban configuration. They are more like pavilions in a park. Individual objects that are not working together to create streets.

To create walkable and successful commercial streets the buildings need to be close together and right at the sidewalk, creating a strong street edge that connects to pedestrians.

Compare how the buildings address the sidewalk in the plan with one block of Corydon.

I agree with how the masterplan lays it out on Markham that the buildings are indeed too spread out. However, that is thankfully in phase 2 which will start in 2040 so it was just a vague concept drawing and doesn't have much accuracy (which is worth some criticism). Especially when the massing showcases less spacing between the buildings. If they put the surface parking behind the buildings then I'm personally not going to complain too much because it's much better then having it on public display. Hopefully the renders in 2040 improve on its current design.



The area that has the most detail added (phase 1) seems to utilize the space much better in both the master plan and the massing. In the massing itself you'd be hard pressed to locate an area that has surface parking.





As you can see the podiums take up most of the block and from my estimation range from 4-8 storeys which is appropriate for human scale. Not only that but since the highrises on top only occupy a 1/4-1/2 the space they have been able to orient the buildings so that there is adequate lighting for all times of the day. Since the sun orientation of Winnipeg makes it so that lighting for the majority of the day is from the south it allows Sifton road to not be subject to too much darkness throughout the day as I've noticed been a problem in Toronto and San Francisco. In fact it still keeps the high density considering its about 2,000-3,000 units on 12 hectares of land meaning the building density ranges anywhere from 166 units/hectare to 250 units/hectare. Throughout human history starting with Catal Hoyuk in Turkey, Mohenjo Daro in the Indus Valley, or Memphis in Egypt the density of all major cities ranged from 100 units/hectare to 250 units/hectare. There was a lot of things to complain about at the time, but I don't think anyone in those cities complained about walkability. Which means at a certain density no matter the built form the area will most certainly be walkable with vibrancy. It might not be pleasing to some but it will be effective.

And this is going to be an unpopular opinion but Corydon is not that special and needs revitalization badly as well. The buildings are too short, there's not enough residential units on this supposed high street, and the street parking on both sides of the road is completely unnecessary. They MUST make an AT path on at least one side of Corydon, and it's time for some infill. That 7-11 needs to go, or redeveloped as a mixed-use building



Don't even get me started on this heinous visual. It's singlehandedly ruined the urban fabric of this neighbourhood.

[theruler462]

More information on the first phase of the redevelopment in the Free Press

-$1.5 billion
-3,000 residential units

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/bu...eerful-allowed

[theruler462]

No cheap and cheerful allowed’
UM Properties has high hopes, standards for its housing development near university

More than 10 years after acquiring about 120 acres of land that used to be the Southwood Golf Course, the University of Manitoba is about to launch the commercial marketing of what could eventually become a $6-billion development.

Pending final approval of the development plan from the University of Manitoba’s board of directors at the end of this month — which university president Michael Benarroch said he is confident of achieving — sewer and water lines will start going in for the first phase of the development starting in the second quarter of this year.

Dubbed Southwood Circle, the $1.5-billion first phase alone will include about 3,000 residential units and about three million square feet of development including retail, services and extensive parks and outdoor amenities including access to the Red River.

The University of Manitoba is about to launch the commercial marketing of what could eventually become a $6-billion development on the site of the former Southwood Golf Course.

Among other things, the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation will build its new headquarters there.

Developers will have to follow strict environmental design guidelines — all buildings and land development will have to satisfy, at a minimum, LEED gold standards.

Gregory Rogers, CEO of UM Properties, the U of M-owned development company said, “I think it will be most sustainable development in the country.”

In addition to sustainable construction design, trees will be preserved, storm water management will use sustainable strategies and Indigenous design professionals will inject Indigenous cultural elements throughout.

The entirety of the development — that stretches from Pembina Highway to the Red River from north of IG Field — is expected to take decades to complete and will be worked on in distinct phases starting with two parcels immediately north of the stadium from University Crescent to the river.
Benarroch said, “This has a real opportunity to transform the space around the university and transform the learning experience in parts of our institution.”

In addition to design policies, Rogers said developers will be expected to build to the full extent of the density of the land.

And those design standards are expected to be strictly adhered to.
“No cheap and cheerful allowed,” Rogers said. “We want to see buildings go up here that are commensurate with what you would see in similar triple-A sites in cities across the country. We expect developers here to do something that is really quite nice architecturally.”

The entirety of the development that stretches from Pembina Highway to the Red River from north of IG Field is expected to take decades to complete and will be worked on in phases starting with two parcels immediately north of the stadium from University Crescent to the river.

With the announcement earlier this week of the potential for massive new multi-family developments around Polo Park and the ongoing development plans of Naawi-Oodena, formerly the Kapyong Barracks that includes more than 1,100 residential units, Southwood Circle will have some competition.
Generally speaking about 3,000 multi-family residential units are brought on to the Winnipeg market every year.

“Developers are all looking for a piece of that pie,” Rogers said. “The pie is going to grow over time especially after Winnipeg breaks through the one-million mark in population and people will choose to live in different parts of Winnipeg for different reasons.”

Rogers and Benarroch said they are confident there will be demand from developers. All the properties on the site will be built and developed by third-party developers . Benarroch said there are no plans to have university buildings on the site.

“I would say we are very well positioned,” Roger said. “I’m not going to take it all and I don’t want it all. We’ll get our fair share and what is fair for me will be commensurate with what the market feels is the relative attraction of my community to the other alternatives in the city.”

With close to 40,000 people already present at the U of M campus on any given day and more than 500,000 square feet of public amenities there including the stadium, the idea of the development is that it will be walkable community for anyone having anything to do with the university.
“There is nothing like this project in the city in terms of its walkability,” said Rogers. “Currently there is really no place for the 40,000 people who are on the campus to live so that they don’t have to drive to work or school. Here we are creating a walkable community, with a bus-rapid transit system running right through it and all the big box amenities within a kilometre.”

The project has achieved all of the regulatory clearance from City Hall except for a minor alteration where UM Properties and the city will swap a couple of small parcels of land. That has to be recognized with a final zoning bylaw.

UM Properties has a 99-year lease on the land — which the university owns — and will lease land to developers for 99 years. They will pay UM Properties the full amount of the lease up front which will be roughly equal to what the value of the land would be if it was freehold.

Dubbed Southwood Circle, the $1.5-billion first phase alone will include about 3,000 residential units and about three million square feet of development including retail, services and extensive parks and outdoor amenities including access to the Red River. Rogers figures the value of the lands will continue to rise after it is serviced and part of a larger development community.
UM Properties has borrowed funds to do the servicing work and will pay back the loans from revenue received from developers.

All of the excess is profit that will goes back to the university.
“We do see this paying returns to the university in the future,” Benarroch said. “We also have other goals we want to accomplish with this piece of land… It is going to enrich everything we do on the campus.”

martin.cash@freepress.mb.ca

[thebasketballgeek]

They also are looking to redevelop Sidney Smith Street relatively soon which could mean goodbye to the infamous Q Lot.

God it’s taken so long I just want them to start ASAP at this point.

[WinCitySparky]

Between Railside, Polo Park, and Southwood, I wonder who will win for longest-dragged-out-and-most-overhyped

[bomberjet]

Wow, that first phase looks great. Beat my expectations.

Originally Posted by WinCitySparky

Between Railside, Polo Park, and Southwood, I wonder who will win for longest-dragged-out-and-most-overhyped

haha. Southwood and Railside are about tied in the dragged-out race currently. Ill admit, the Southwood render looks better, to me, than what I've seen for railside. Guess it's what each of them wants. Railside less height, the funny squares. Southwood has more of a grid street feel. For that first phase anyway. IIRC, there are single family homes for future phases.

[esquire]

I will eat my hat if the first phase even remotely resembles those renderings.

[bomberjet]

I will call the press conference in 10 years so we can watch the hat eating lol fingers crossed.

I was trying to place that render in the real world. What they have labeled as Pembina hwy is University Cres. from what I can tell.

[Kinguni]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I was trying to place that render in the real world. What they have labeled as Pembina hwy is University Cres. from what I can tell.

No, it's accurate. 1st phase rendered there is around 1/4 of the land they plan to develop.

[blueandgoldguy]

Wow. Imagine if we ended up with something resembling that first phase. Several 15-20 story buildings built right up to the streetfront. It looks like a mini-downtown.

[bomberjet]

No what they show is east of university. With sifton along the south edge.

Pembina doesnt curve like that and theres exisitng buildings in the way.

[bomberjet]

In this image.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

No what they show is east of university. With sifton along the south edge.

Pembina doesnt curve like that and theres exisitng buildings in the way.

You’re right it’s University Crescent and the street in the middle is Sidney Smith.

The full extent of the project is much larger in scale with 7,000 additional units planned after this phase.

I wonder if they’ll keep the Blue route running to Dafoe or if they’ll switch it to Dysart at some point with all these new units.

[bomberjet]

Probably no change to Blue routing. Thought being residents can walk to Stadium Sation.

With the plan on extending Blue route across the Red into St. Vital, maybe there would be a circuit from Dafoe, across the river, then back down Dysart. I think the best (only) place to cross the Red would be at the end of Dysart across to River Road. Transit wants to be on Dafoe.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Probably no change to Blue routing. Thought being residents can walk to Stadium Sation.

With the plan on extending Blue route across the Red into St. Vital, maybe there would be a circuit from Dafoe, across the river, then back down Dysart. I think the best (only) place to cross the Red would be at the end of Dysart across to River Road. Transit wants to be on Dafoe.

Transit is already the full length of Dafoe incl. their parking lot and restrooms right before Sanderson. They don't need to be on Dysart if/when such a bridge is built. Just reorganize the roads around there and run Dafoe NE to the river crossing

[lbnevs]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

You’re right it’s University Crescent and the street in the middle is Sidney Smith.

If I understand the image right, it's the area bounded by University Crescent, the river, Sifton, and Thatcher. The roads through the centre are Sidney Smith in one direction and Markham in the other.

What I'm interested in is the idea that everything has to be high-quality design and materials, built to LEED gold. Anyone have any guesses as to the psf construction cost and likely rents? It seems like a very expensive set of standards to build to if your target market is students and staff who want to rent...