Winnipeg Construction X

[wardlow]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

I don't think most people outside this forum realize just how much suburban growth in Winnipeg has sucked up most development in the last decade. Outside pandemic years, Winnipeg is growing much faster than Fargo obviously. Fargo grew by roughly 6,600 people between 2016 and 2021 (5.5%) whereas Winnipeg grew by 44,363 (6.3%) over the same period. What affects built form is obviously all about where these new (and existing) people went.

I don't know much about built form and urban structure in Fargo, but I do know that in Winnipeg, the vast majority of dwelling construction, and therefore population growth, has occurred in the Bridgwater area, followed by Sage Creek, Bonavista, Amber Trails, and River Park South. Below is a rough estimate of where the ~40,000 people who moved to Winnipeg between 2016 and 2020 went based on dwelling construction and Statistics Canada people-per-dwelling estimates. Of course I don't actually know with certainty where everyone went, and it could be that people moving to Winnipeg displaced people in existing areas who sold their homes to move to new areas, but it gives you an idea.

Map in spoiler due to image size.

The basic conclusion from this exercise is that suburban growth has vacuumed up nearly all growth in the last 5 years, with Bridgwater being the major concentration. If Bridgwater (and other suburban developments) were never approved or significantly scaled down for whatever reason, I'd imagine two things would happen: we'd see a lot more mid-rise developments in inner-city areas that everyone here is clamoring for, but at the same time it would be partially offset by exurban flight with people who want suburban dwellings opting to move to La Salle, Oak Bluff, Headingly, Niverville, and East/West Saint Paul.

The City is kind of in a tough spot IMO. Yes, you can incent denser development on surface parking lots and in inner-city neighborhoods, but municipal property tax breaks (the only incentive) likely don't change the development equation much since they only make up a tiny fraction of development costs. And if the City doesn't approve suburban development, people will just demand it be built in the outlying municipalities mentioned above who are more than happy to accommodate growth (for now) and commute to Winnipeg, putting pressure on city roads and services without the benefit on municipal taxes. Like it or not, people have preferences and prairie dwellers love big houses and yards, so even if policy tries to force denser development, the market may not support it and cause other negative spillover effects.

Food for thought!

There's a couple of things missing from this take, which may not totally contradict what you're saying but certainly add to it. One is that the majority of new development suburban areas of Winnipeg are not large lot single-family, but instead of a lot more dense. Ask any of Winnipeg's big suburban developers and they'll tell you that both consumer demand and costs are pushing toward more density: smaller yards single-family (smaller than a typical River Heights lot, say), townhouse, apartments.

The second is that the surrounding municipalities are not able to sop up any unmet demand for new residential development. That's because they don't have the same municipal services the city does, and until they can find a Shoal Lake-sized water source, they never will. A lot of people do want and can afford a big lot, exurban type of development (see the area south of Wilkes Avenue, for example), but the typical buyer in Bridgwater Lakes Forest Run probably doesn't want to maintain a septic tank.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Biff

I didn't want to turn this into how shitty suburbs are because Fargo is the poster child for far flung suburbs. The extent to which the city has expanded to the south west is crazy...and anyone who says the hate Winnipeg's "stroads" would return from a trip to Fargo thinking that our big roads were cart paths compared to the 6 lane monstrosities in SW Fargo.

My point was that with all of this massive suburban growth there, they some how managed to lure multi-family developers to their dilapidated downtown in droves...and they seeded an awesome downtown area.

Something someone from the city here should investigate.

I suppose Fargo is a good example of what happens when you concentrate your efforts at downtown rejuvenation in a way that it will be noticed. Fargo's downtown is pretty tiny, so 9 or 10 new buildings will practically redefine the area.

Winnipeg has seen a fair amount of development and improvement downtown over the last 20 years, but it is spread so thin that it is tough to notice.

Imagine taking a pat of strawberry jam and spreading it on a piece of toast, vs. spreading it on a XL pizza crust. You'd barely notice it in the latter case.

Then again, I guess we did try doing something like that in the 80s when efforts were concentrated on North Portage.

[Biff]

I just want to confirm - Winnipeg is the pizza and Fargo is the toast - right? I can see why things don't work in Winnipeg. Who puts jam on their pizza.

[thurmas]

I always felt Winnipeg is more of a pizza pop type of town just squeezing random Frankenstein stuff for whatever fits at the moment.

[Only The Lonely..]

Originally Posted by thurmas

I always felt Winnipeg is more of a pizza pop type of town just squeezing random Frankenstein stuff for whatever fits at the moment.

Interestingly enough.. the Pizza Pop was invented in Winnipeg.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizza_Pops

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..

Interestingly enough.. the Pizza Pop was invented in Winnipeg.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizza_Pops

It's perfect, hot housing on the outside but frigid at the core.

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by wardlow

There's a couple of things missing from this take, which may not totally contradict what you're saying but certainly add to it. One is that the majority of new development suburban areas of Winnipeg are not large lot single-family, but instead of a lot more dense. Ask any of Winnipeg's big suburban developers and they'll tell you that both consumer demand and costs are pushing toward more density: smaller yards single-family (smaller than a typical River Heights lot, say), townhouse, apartments.

"Density" gets thrown around a lot but really doesn't tell the whole story. The real question should be not how small the lots are, but is it walkable - can a person live here without using a car all the time?

Yeah lots of new developments claim they are dense because a) the lots are small, and b) residential and commercial uses are separated. So population density is technically higher if you just look at the residential swaths, because they are only residential, no other uses. But you need mixed-use to have walkability.

If you look at West Broadway you see residential on the same block as services, offices & businesses - sometimes in the same building even. Also a healthy mix of different types of living units on each block. If you look at Bridgewater you see it all seperated out - big swath of single-use commercial area in one spot, higher-density housing grouped together, and big swaths of single-family homes and nothing else. Sure the lots are small, technically the density is high, but that doesn't really mean anything because the other side of the coin is all the big-box commercial with its parking lots and big busy roads all around it.

[Gravity Wins]

Originally Posted by dmacc

It's perfect, hot housing on the outside but frigid at the core.

Ha! That was a good one. New tourism slogan perhaps? "Winnipeg... We're Like a Pizza Pop"

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by Gravity Wins

Ha! That was a good one. New tourism slogan perhaps? "Winnipeg... We're Like a Pizza Pop"

Winnipeg... made from, what’s a pizza pop?

[thurmas]

Winnipeg made from...whats not healthy or Winnipeg made from .....frozen bacon bits pepperoni cheese and pastry

[T'Cona]

I enjoyed many back in the day.

[trueviking]

not to bring this up again but an interesting podcast about the work from home impacts.

https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcas...=1000582636947

[davequanbury]

edit

[davequanbury]

Originally Posted by biguc

New suburbs don't have to be auto-oriented sprawl. The whole SFH tract-housing thing isn't that typical on a global scale. In the US you get more exurban sprawl on unserviced land. In developing countries you get the same thing but the houses are shittier and closer together so they call them slums. In some places the city provides services with the idea that the new area will be more city, not auto-centric sprawl. The approach to these districts' construction varies, but they tend to follow transit provision and lack SFH zoning. In Winnipeg's case, we could still allow new greenfield SFHs without legally enshrining them in perpetuity. So, if someone wants to build a 3000sf house in Bridgwater and move their entire extended family in, they could. Later, they could convert it to MFH or rip it down and build new MFH.

SFH zoning! I'm sure not everyone her would agree with me but I think SFH zoning is legalized NIMBYisn at best, classist and zenophonic at worst.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by davequanbury

SFH zoning! I'm sure not everyone her would agree with me but I think SFH zoning is legalized NIMBYisn at best, classist and zenophonic at worst.

"According to multiple sources, single-family zoning originated in 1916 in the Elmwood neighborhood of Berkeley, California as an effort to keep minorities, specifically a Black dancehall and Chinese laundries, out of white neighborhoods"

"Single-family zoning became basically the only option to try to maintain both race and class segregation," - Jessica Trounstine (associate professor of political science at the University of California, Merced)

"The detached single-family home — is routinely, as in the United States, considered to be so incompatible with all other types of urbanization as to warrant a legally defined district all its own, a district where all other major land uses and building types are outlawed."

Reading up on the history of SFH zoning it's arguably worse then everything you listed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single...zoning#History

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Biff

I didn't want to turn this into how shitty suburbs are because Fargo is the poster child for far flung suburbs. The extent to which the city has expanded to the south west is crazy...and anyone who says the hate Winnipeg's "stroads" would return from a trip to Fargo thinking that our big roads were cart paths compared to the 6 lane monstrosities in SW Fargo.

My point was that with all of this massive suburban growth there, they some how managed to lure multi-family developers to their dilapidated downtown in droves...and they seeded an awesome downtown area.

Something someone from the city here should investigate.

Fargo doesn’t have the same social problems we have here in our downtown core and if they did would come up with solutions unlike here where anything goes, lawlessness prevails and our neutered politicians stick their heads in the sand!

And defined shopping area in downtown Fargo is a bit of stretch…

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by davequanbury

SFH zoning! I'm sure not everyone her would agree with me but I think SFH zoning is legalized NIMBYisn at best, classist and zenophonic at worst.

And the woke lefties give their take….of course oblivious to the economics..

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

And the woke lefties give their take….of course oblivious to the economics..

Hmm please enlighten me on the “economics” of having 2/3 of the cities land dedicated to a single land use being good for the cities economy?

Furthermore, what exactly makes anything about single-family zones economically productive, sustainable, or viable?

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Hmm please enlighten me on the “economics” of having 2/3 of the cities land dedicated to a single land use being good for the cities economy?

Furthermore, what exactly makes anything about single-family zones economically productive, sustainable, or viable?

You’ve heard of the concept of supply and demand right?

Most newcomers to our city desire a single family home, that’s reality!

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

You’ve heard of the concept of supply and demand right?

Most newcomers to our city desire a single family home, that’s reality!

The economics make sense only for a private developer of SFHs.

Cities lose out on the long run when SFHs are built and need the level of service for a city. It doesn't matter if its what most people want, allowing it to happen to the scale that it is right now is a losing proposition for Winnipeg and most other North American cities. If there is no supply available, these newcomers will find alternative housing to meet their needs.