Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking
Towers would have been a disaster. We would sit here for ten years as proposals came and went. Selling 1/3 then bailing. One would get built and everyone would rejoice and say now finally the other three will happen. More will be proposed. And die.
The economics of smaller buildings are far more appropriate for Winnipeg's market. Has anyone noticed how many years SkyCity is taking? The artis tower will be the worst investment they have ever made. And that's with a substantial TIF subsidy.
If downtown Vancouver is a successful high rise neighbourhood, it is a rarity. I can give you a hundred examples of 6 storey neighbourhoods that are vibrant and healthy.
I think everyone needs to go down there and look at how big the site is. Yaletown is dozens of blocks. This site is the size of a Costco and a Superstore side by side.
There are so many reasons to do a mid rise neighbourhood. A few tower blocks would just be good for skyline postcards. Nothing else.
We need to move on from this idea that downtowns can only be skyscrapers. Most great urban neighbourhoods are not towers.
|
This is a pretty solid post (even if I'm late to it). Winnipeg gets obsessed with its own inferiority complex sometimes and doesn't realise that we cannot try to be something we're not if the opportunity isn't there. There will be more highrises over time, but we won't sprout towers the way CGY does everytime Oil takes a strong upturn. Highest and best use. Do what's best for your property, and often enough what's best for your property lines up with what's best for the neighbourhood.
Speaking of highest and best use, I'm not sure about the negativity towards 300 Main. Of all the major developments going on downtown it's by far the most sensible. Artis was the only one to recognize that there was actually a demand for downtown rental apartments, whereas the others sought a condo and casho-out model. As a long term hold, there is less risk in a slower lease up than a condo's slower sell out.
The other aspect is timing. After Glasshouse, SkyCity, and TNS, there is a risk that demand for downtown living gets swallowed up for the next two decades. With a foundation and infrastructure in place, that gives Artis a head start... they will finish construction before anyone else, offering what nobody else did (apts) before enthusiasm of downtown dried up. I believe TNS has since recognized the condo dilemna and is considering apts. Overall it's not as succesful as an apt in any other major city due to Wpg construction costs, but it's a matter of executing in a narrow timeframe, because this window of opportunity may not open again during their careers.
My other hunch is perhaps it should be 30 not 40 storeys, but you can't add 10 more storeys later when the market catches up. Nor can you simply build another highrise in Winnipeg if it does... so this was the one time to go for 40.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roccerfeller
very solid post, TV (as was the one above)
I think putting it into prospective as a several (hypothetical) towers that may not even all come to fruition due to the economic realities, vs an entire district of appx 30 buildings and creating a "neighbourhood" hit it home for me.
Where are the houses or "smaller housing" developments that are proposed to go on these lots? Even in the preliminary design I didn't see a single house unless I missed something
...if you want taller buildings and the economics of those buildings to be more feasible, you should be pro developments like this which densify and get rid of lots on a smaller scale. That way, the economics will work in favour of higher buildings, because the available space becomes more premium. Its part of the reason towers keep getting taller in cities with limited downtown development space and no height restrictions...I can't think of a single empty lot in the Calgary downtown core save maybe one...building taller becomes more feasible.
What viking is saying as well is that there are realities that face Winnipeg...don't be ignorant to those realities. Yes the proverbial bar needs to continue to be pushed higher and higher but it can't be forced (there needs to be fiscal sense), and it shouldn't be the only metric by which a downtown is judged...towers alone do not make cities or downtowns vibrant...
|
Very good points. Vibrancy isn't dependant on towers, but towers certainly drive vibrancy and density... but we can't will it to happen, it must be nudged along somewhat organically.
Regarding smaller houseing; The problem is profit. Land costs, even in Winnipeg, combined with construction costs, are what makes it difficult to build...
Take Glasshouse and SkyCity for example. SkyCity is charging LESS per sq ft than Glasshouse, despite a better location...
Why? Winnipeg isn't yet ready to pay more.
How? Because they went HIGH enough to achieve the necessary density, the necessary volume for this project to succeed.
Winnipeg is still only curious about downtown living rather than excited about it (which will change), because otherwise that sign that reads "starting low $200s" would say "$300s". And if it said $300s, then it would have only been 30 storeys tall or less.
If we're limited to 6 storeys (which isn't a particularly cost effective height...), these small units would be $400k-500k+. And nobody would buy them.
I'd love towers at the forks if we could sustain them. Probably not though.
Low-midrise would be great... if we could sell the units...
So what's left, and/or how do you make development profitable? That's what's holding this city back. Our development mold isn't profitable. We might literally be left with only being able to develop the odd lot and going high enough (whether 8 or 15 storeys or in between) for the developer to actually see a good return. And designate retail for the other lots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban recluse
|
Balls and wieners, that's glorious.
Prev
Linear Mode
