HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2021, 8:04 PM
DancingDuck DancingDuck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by scryer View Post
What isn't making sense to me is that they have different residential floors but the residential unit count isn't scaling with the amount of floors . To play Devil's Advocate: even if the ENTIRE building was intended to be constructed with only 3 Bedroom units being offered; you should be able to fit 3-4 of those larger units per floor. So there's no way that Concept #1 and Concept #2 should have the same residential unit count since there is a difference of 4 floors . With that in mind, Concept #3 shouldn't have the most residential units since it has less residential floors than Concept #2. Lol, it feels like I'm back in an elementary school math problem .
I would assume it's due to different sized floor plates.... Smaller floor plates on the 14 storey option means that it still has the same amount of floor space as the 8 storey option with bigger floor plates

Option 3 is my easy favourite. 1 is a little too bulky, and 2 actually seems too tall for the part of Osborne it is. #3 wins me over with the step back design.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2021, 8:39 PM
LilZebra LilZebra is offline
Orig. frm Alpha Pectaurus
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Assiniboia, Man.
Posts: 2,873
Option #3 for the reasons others have mentioned.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2021, 9:51 PM
WinCitySparky's Avatar
WinCitySparky WinCitySparky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,516
Option 2 all the way
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2021, 10:03 PM
Gravity Wins Gravity Wins is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 130
Unlikely as it might be, I'd love to see a project like this (144 Rue King in Montreal) be built on the Osborne strip. Something that keeps that nice red brick aesthetic while adding a splash of contemporary style. That would be density done right IMO

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2021, 10:10 PM
BAKGUY BAKGUY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,025
All the options are decent but my vote is for density..First choice Option 2..Second choice Option 3, third choice option 1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2021, 10:11 PM
Wpg_Guy's Avatar
Wpg_Guy Wpg_Guy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Posts: 5,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by BAKGUY View Post
All the options are decent but my vote is for density..First choice Option 2..Second choice Option 3, third choice option 1
You mean height?
__________________
Winnipeg Act II - March 2024

Winnipeg | A Picture Thread - Updated October 2023

In The Future Every Building Will Be World-Famous For Fifteen Minutes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2021, 10:20 PM
Spocket's Avatar
Spocket Spocket is offline
Back from the dead
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,504
I suppose option 3 looks the most appealing to me but option 1 also has advantages and benefits.

Either way, whatever builds up that street is a positive thing.
__________________
Giving you a reason to drink and drive since 1975.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2021, 10:29 PM
Wigglez's Avatar
Wigglez Wigglez is offline
Source?
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 662
Ignoring the designs, Option 3 has the most residential units (106 compared to 105/105) and the most commercial space (8200 sq/ft compared to 7200/8000) - so my vote goes for option 3.

As for the designs, its hard to tell what they would really look like. Right now option 3 looks like a random stack of shipping containers and option 2 looks like a garbage 1970's tower. I'd pick option 1 based on the blocky vague designs provided above.

Overall I think the additional commercial space available with option 3 makes it the best option.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2021, 11:38 PM
scryer scryer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3de14eec6a View Post
I'm not sure if you're making a joke here. The floor plates are different sizes.
Let's compare concept 1 and concept 3 (7 residential floors vs 9 residential floors) since they have similar massing for a second here...

For what's being conceptualized, there's a difference of 1 unit when there's a difference of 2 floors between the concepts. For me I have to question this because UNLESS the specific unit in question is one of the largest penthouses in urban Canada taking up two floors, then as a citizen I would like to know why that is. Otherwise it is a bit of a waste of construction cost to construct an entire floor (including an elevator, etc) for just one unit unless it was priced as a premium unit. Personally I don't think we have the market for an urban two story penthouse in Winnipeg but I could be wrong .

I can throw a bone to concept #2 since it's a skinnier, taller tower as opposed to a shorter wider midrise. But yeah, concept 1 and concept 3 having a difference of 1 unit, and 2 floors is a little odd since they have similar massing. That's all .


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy View Post
Being in the TOD zone the development more then likely can get by with less parking then the 1:1. If not a variance application would be needed, hard to imagine that being declined based on it's proximity to Osborne Station and the 10+ transit routes that service the immediate area.
Larger cities in North America rarely have parking requirements less than a 1:1 ratio for their denser residential structures, even in their TOD zones. As an aside: Vancouver is going to be a hell of a challenger for this urban standard though as its Senakw project is indeed challenging those parking requirement norms by having only 1 parking stall per 10 homes. You can read about it here if you'd like.

I did some researching on Winnipeg's current parking requirements and I was only able to pull the following from a 2006 document:



This is found on Page 114 of the Winnipeg Zoning By-Law document. I can see these concepts' residential counterparts falling under the "Other multi-family" requiring it to have 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit.

Again, this was a 2006 document so if there's a better updated one, I'd be happy to check it out as well if directed to the right place.

I also compared it to the TOD handbook developed by the city of Winnipeg and it does talk a little bit about relaxing parking minimums for higher density around transit stations (Page 28) but this document was created as a guide; in other words, I'm pretty sure that there aren't any by-laws currently in place that allow parking minimums to get reduced for TOD. I honestly would be surprised if Winnipeg had a policy like this since Canada's larger cities don't have similar policies, but I am happy to be surprised if that's the case .
__________________
There is a housing crisis, and we simply need to speak up about it.

Pinterest - I use this social media platform to easily add pictures into my posts on this forum. Plus there are great architecture and city photos out there as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2021, 1:49 AM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 13,440
It’s funny that everyone likes option 3. It is by far my favourite too. Not getting my hopes up yet. Needs a lot of variances. Osborne has a lot of restrictions. And that stupid 7’ setback so in 150 years they can add a car lane.

Parking minimums are so dumb. I’m working on a similar sized building downtown, with no living amenities anywhere to be found, and it has no parking requirements. This one on Osborne, where it would be quite easy to live car free because it is a complete community, there are minimums.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2021, 2:50 AM
rivercity rivercity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 190
I don’t know much about the 7 ft setback, but is it so bad? It seems like it could allow for some solid sidewalk space for street trees, patio furniture or something?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2021, 2:57 AM
BAKGUY BAKGUY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy View Post
You mean height?
Yes. I feel like that part of Osborne could use some height and density.
There are and will be plenty of lowrises nearby and especially around where The Hotel was and behind it.
WHile the towers at the other end of the Village range from 26 to 38 floors..12 or 14 floors seems fine to me.
My wish is for some design appeal regardless which option shall be the chosen one. Kind of tired of seeing the plain drab predictable boxes we have been seeing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2021, 3:45 AM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 13,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivercity View Post
I don’t know much about the 7 ft setback, but is it so bad? It seems like it could allow for some solid sidewalk space for street trees, patio furniture or something?
it mostly just adds asphalt....and in this case removes 1,400 square feet of commercial space (20%).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2021, 4:52 PM
T'Cona T'Cona is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 292
I vote for #3: a design with several setbacks, and definitely one with color in mind...and NOT black.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2021, 11:26 PM
flatlander's Avatar
flatlander flatlander is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivercity View Post
I don’t know much about the 7 ft setback, but is it so bad? It seems like it could allow for some solid sidewalk space for street trees, patio furniture or something?
Is this the setback that is intended for a future road widening? If so then you could probably put some planters on it. For now.
__________________
For best results play at maximum volume.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2021, 11:29 PM
flatlander's Avatar
flatlander flatlander is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,369
TV - which will cast the smallest shadow?
__________________
For best results play at maximum volume.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2021, 12:28 AM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 13,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by flatlander View Post
Is this the setback that is intended for a future road widening? If so then you could probably put some planters on it. For now.
Or we could get rid of the policy created in the 1960’s to widen urban streets.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2021, 12:31 AM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 13,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by flatlander View Post
TV - which will cast the smallest shadow?
3 creates the smallest shadows on things that matter. Houses, schoolyard. It transitions to three storeys at the residential street.

The 8 storey definitely fills the most field of view. Its a pretty big wall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2021, 1:26 PM
zen-kz zen-kz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris22 View Post
It is hardly a stretch to say that a city that has grown in population for a century should be able to build an 8 or 10 storey building on a major thoroughfare
In my vision Osborne north of confusion corner should not be a major thoroughfare, but rather pedestrian or shared street (maybe with LRT in the middle). So I would prefer to have it within 3-5 storeys in height to keep human scale. Of course it is hard to imagine such changes in Winnipeg now (with baby boomers in power and a strong car culture) but maybe in 20 years we can see this shift...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2021, 3:36 PM
davequanbury davequanbury is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
Podiums can deliver services and retail, though. Winnipeg doesn't have too many great recent examples but you can see some older examples of podiums that improve the surroundings.

Broadview Tower on Donald is one such example, it has a supermarket, hair salon, restaurant plus some other shops and offices in the podium. There was even once a great little gym in there although it's been closed for years. Something like that (in function, not necessarily the 80s appearance) would be perfect for Osborne Village.
Yeah I agree Broadview Tower is done well, right down to the trees up on the podium. I prefer that type of development downtown personally. I hope this project turns out great though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:08 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.