Winnipeg Construction X

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

I agree that the golf courses should be kept as greenspace, but this comment is bizarre. The one thing Winnipeg is famous for is greenspace? No, sorry, as someone who lived in other provinces for most of my life, Winnipeg is known for being cold and dangerous and having a lot of mosquitoes, that's about it.

I don't get the comment about Toronto either. Toronto has beautiful tree-lined streets and tons of greenspace, including an entire island and ravines stretching through many parts of the city, which have no parallel in Winnipeg. Here's a downtown residential street in the "concrete jungle" that you so smugly referred to:



Doesn't quite measure up to the massive ash and elm canopy that we have in Winnipeg's older neighbourhoods, which is definitely something to be proud of, but still nice and green.

Don't get me wrong, Winnipeg's greenspace is great, but it's never struck me that we're obviously superior to other Canadian cities that I've lived in or spent time in.

FWIW my in laws are from Montreal and comment on the abundance of greenspace compared to there. I comment on the sheer amount of graffiti in Montreal compared to here.

[H2man]

Originally Posted by esquire

In principle, converting golf courses to public parks to increase accessibility makes sense. But in practice, I wonder if turning them into parks eliminates the possibility of developing them down the road? I think you would get some real pushback if you tried to develop a park that the community loves as compared to a golf course. Considering most if not all municipal golf courses are attached to major parks, I would think you either maintain them as golf courses until the land is redeveloped (whether that's now or later), or you permanently convert them to park space... I'm not sure that there's much in between.

Yeah for sure, I meant that point hypothetically. As in, if the counterpoint to development of golf courses is that you lose precious greenspace for people to enjoy, it ought to actually be available to everyone and not just those who golf. So if you stand by that point, you'd be open making it actual public greenspace.

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

Sure, but it's hardly going to be an ordinary suburban subdivision. If they follow the plan, it will be a dense mixed-use village that directly extends the existing campus and will no doubt be heavily used by students and staff. If successful it should enhance the overall quality of life on campus by turning it into more of a functional neighbourhood. That's the kind of unique civic benefit that is worth using former golf course land for (imo). Not just another Bridgwater.

And this is pretty much what I'm getting at. It's an opportunity to make an accessible and well-planned neighbourhood. We need more housing and more density and needs to be closer instead of farther to city centre. If we could do something like pictured on all our golf courses, I would call this a huge net benefit.

[Biff]

IF you want to sell off the City courses:

I think if done right there can be a happy medium of both. Right now, I don't think the city courses make a lot of money if any. The city doesn't have any money to create and maintain any new park space. What if using Kildonan Golf course as an example, you carved the golf course property into multi-family/multi-storey developer space along the frontage along Main St from the park entrance to Chief Peguis. The rest would be converted to park space addition for Kildonan Park. You can extend the popular park drive/pathways through the new area creating a loop to the old drive. The sell off of the frontage lands can pay for the park upgrades.

Everyone wins, new park space paid for by a thin strip of develop-able lands.

Something like this:

[esquire]

^ That's a pretty enticing proposition.

[Wpg_Guy]

Biff that’s exactly how I always envisioned selling of the green space. Market may 5-10% of the land for development, generate new tax revenue that can fund new parks, maintenance and amenities.

[bomberjet]

Don't mess with my golf course Biff.. Although yes something like that is decent.

[Biff]

I think if done right, I would take that all day long.

...only using Kildonan Park as an example as I am very familiar with it.

[davequanbury]

Originally Posted by Biff

IF you want to sell off the City courses:

I think if done right there can be a happy medium of both. Right now, I don't think the city courses make a lot of money if any. The city doesn't have any money to create and maintain any new park space. What if using Kildonan Golf course as an example, you carved the golf course property into multi-family/multi-storey developer space along the frontage along Main St from the park entrance to Chief Peguis. The rest would be converted to park space addition for Kildonan Park. You can extend the popular park drive/pathways through the new area creating a loop to the old drive. The sell off of the frontage lands can pay for the park upgrades.

Everyone wins, new park space paid for by a thin strip of develop-able lands.

Something like this:

While they're at it, they could rotate that train bridge and create a AT link to Henderson neighbourhoods

[bomberjet]

I don't know why the birdge hasn't been rotated back and a path put over top. Great idea.

I'm not 100% up to speed on navigable waters. But the new ped bridge at Disraeli is quite low already. Requirements have changed in recent times.

[esquire]

There have been many discussions over the years about that bridge but they never seem to go anywhere... there is always some obstacle which presumably always boils down to money. But if the park were to be expanded according to The Biff Plan, then there would be a pretty strong impetus to finally get something done.

Incidentally, in 2028 it will have been a hundred years (!) since that bridge stopped being used by CP Rail.

[bomberjet]

There's pathways on both sides of the river that are heavily used. Would be a great thing to have right now. Never mind at some theoretical future time.

[Wpg_Guy]

The bridge is privately owned the city has tried to enter discussions to obtain it to no avail.

[bomberjet]

Interesting. Who owns it? CP? Someone bought a bridge? That's the worst possible kind of purchase haha

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Interesting. Who owns it? CP? Someone bought a bridge? That's the worst possible kind of purchase haha

The ownership group purchased the bridge from CP in 1987 (Kevin & Mark Olson & Griff Tripp) today they want the city to lease the bridge from them.


HTFC Planning & Design

[H2man]

Biff, I like your plan in general and would take it in a heartbeat if given the choice between that and the status quo.

For me, I'd take it a step further and maybe convert ~25% of the Kildonan course to new park and have the rest developed, or you could develop the whole parcel and add one neighbourhood-level park as well; say, in the region with the most existing mature trees to avoid cutting them down. But definitely if your motive is to just add more public greenspace and figure out a financing plan, that's a great strategy and comes at essentially no loss.

No argument on reclaiming the bridge for AT, though. That should be done absolutely regardless of what plays out.

[wags_in_the_peg]

i'd love to see parts of Canoe Club golf course (along Dunkirk) converted to multi story residential (along river) and Windsor Park but leave parts of it public parkland. (right now its now public park land, you need to pay golf fees to walk). very easily can carve off. set a % of land to be residential (20%?) and rest public parkland ($80%)

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

The ownership group purchased the bridge from CP in 1987 (Kevin & Mark Olson & Griff Tripp) today they want the city to lease the bridge from them.

Interesting... thank you. But wow, 1987... they are really playing the long game, waiting for the City to make a deal on the bridge.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by H2man

Biff, I like your plan in general and would take it in a heartbeat if given the choice between that and the status quo.

For me, I'd take it a step further and maybe convert ~25% of the Kildonan course to new park and have the rest developed, or you could develop the whole parcel and add one neighbourhood-level park as well; say, in the region with the most existing mature trees to avoid cutting them down. But definitely if your motive is to just add more public greenspace and figure out a financing plan, that's a great strategy and comes at essentially no loss.

No argument on reclaiming the bridge for AT, though. That should be done absolutely regardless of what plays out.

Like I said before. I'm not down for giving up river front property at all. Developing the park along Main would be fine. Stay away from the rivers edge. Those are the best park spaces the City can get.

[bomberjet]

That's an interesting proposal for the bridge. But yes very long game haha and it still looks to have the mid span turned.

[esquire]

What if the City just said nuts to those guys and built its own AT bridge 100 feet away? Now that would be quite the troll job...