Winnipeg Construction X

[building_lover]

Originally Posted by trueviking

ha ha....i'm all ears.

I personally don't love that the city made them buy those two hotels 15 years ago or so, but other than that, they have done a lot of good for downtown.

My criticism would not be based on any particular decisions they've made or individuals there. It's a criticism that goes back to their founding, which involved the transfer of a huge amount of public capital to the private sector (by the NDP no less!). Properties given away for pennies to for-profit actors. It mirrors the general slide to neoliberalism of the day, but that doesn't make it immune to criticism. I think a huge opportunity was missed and we're still seeing those effects play out in the homelessness and affordable housing crisis.

Have they done good work? I suppose in limited contexts sure, but I think the general opinion of downtown Winnipeg right now is not a great one. It's hard to get away from seeing their work as work for a very particular group of people. We end up with strange pseudo-public spaces like True North Square that look like ghost towns once their target clientele drive back to the suburbs. I think this is only slightly unfair

[optimusREIM]

It would be nice if those spaces like TNS had more constant foot traffic. Agenda item number one for both the provincial and municipal governments has to be to address some of the root problems afflicting downtown (the social ones, but also the infrastructure ones).

As a corollary, we need to do more to make downtown an attractive place for people to live, make it a place people want to be, increase demand organically that way. Encourage more fine grain development, address the general transportation issues affecting the city and its surrounding areas. It won't be easy but we gotta give it a go.

If we do things to reverse shitty planning that has been going on for the last 70 years, perhaps we can get a lot of stuff back on track.

[Sheepish]

Hmmm....perhaps if there was a hotel and residence across the street that would help with the traffic. If only someone could design and BUILD such a project!
Clearly the Wawa offices will generate more daytime traffic in the area.
The point of not only addressing the underlying social issues, but working to make downtown more physically appealing is critical. Start by encouraging the development of ground level parking lots. Second, create more public social, recreational and amenity space. Finally, be creative.

[esquire]

Centreventure did a decent job when it had the modest task of selling surplus land for development, e.g. a vacant lot on Logan, a tax sale property on Ellice, etc.

When it became elevated to a quasi PP&D like downtown development agency it sort of lost its way. PP&D probably could have been tasked with the same thing and resourced accordingly, and it could have pulled the same thing off.

As for downtown itself, we have been hearing the mantra of "bring in people to live downtown" for a long time. But what is there to make people want to do that? In cities that have large downtown residential populations, there is the promise of something... commerce, shopping, entertainment, dining, some big attractions... Winnipeg doesn't offer a lot of that, and what little of it there is has declined significantly over the last 3 years. So you get all the hassles and risks of a big city downtown but without as many of the perks.

I'd wager that many women simply don't feel comfortable walking the streets after dark... I think fundamental issues like this need to be addressed before you can realistically expect to start drawing larger numbers of people to live downtown.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by esquire

Centreventure did a decent job when it had the modest task of selling surplus land for development, e.g. a vacant lot on Logan, a tax sale property on Ellice, etc.

When it became elevated to a quasi PP&D like downtown development agency it sort of lost its way. PP&D probably could have been tasked with the same thing and resourced accordingly, and it could have pulled the same thing off.

As for downtown itself, we have been hearing the mantra of "bring in people to live downtown" for a long time. But what is there to make people want to do that? In cities that have large downtown residential populations, there is the promise of something... commerce, shopping, entertainment, dining, some big attractions... Winnipeg doesn't offer a lot of that, and what little of it there is has declined significantly over the last 3 years. So you get all the hassles and risks of a big city downtown but without as many of the perks.

I'd wager that many women simply don't feel comfortable walking the streets after dark... I think fundamental issues like this need to be addressed before you can realistically expect to start drawing larger numbers of people to live downtown.

Certainly won't happen overnight of course. Having a vibrant downtown is entirely possible, the problem is taking the steps required to get there. Nobody seems to be taking any of the problems seriously (at least judging by actions and policy). I think what it's really going to take is both a mayor and a premier with vision (who get the right people in the right positions to effect the policies necessary) acting in concert. Also it's going to take individuals with serious spines to resist the pressure that taking this action is going to bring on. Whoever decides to fix this mess is going to be extremely unpopular by the time they leave office, because the action necessary (and I can only imagine) will likely be met with fierce opposition from all political sides. Feds probably need to get involved to a certain extent too.

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by esquire

As for downtown itself, we have been hearing the mantra of "bring in people to live downtown" for a long time. But what is there to make people want to do that? In cities that have large downtown residential populations, there is the promise of something... commerce, shopping, entertainment, dining, some big attractions... Winnipeg doesn't offer a lot of that, and what little of it there is has declined significantly over the last 3 years. So you get all the hassles and risks of a big city downtown but without as many of the perks.

I'd wager that many women simply don't feel comfortable walking the streets after dark... I think fundamental issues like this need to be addressed before you can realistically expect to start drawing larger numbers of people to live downtown.

Well, I agree about the safety issue. Unfortunately there seems to be zero political will and interest from the public in doing anything about it. Things aren't going to improve until there is a comprehensive and well-funded strategy for housing, mental health & addictions treatment and this apparently is not a priority for voters or officials. Sure, increase WPS foot patrols, it may help a bit but it's always going to be an uphill battle until you deal with the root causes.

As for the rest...

Originally Posted by esquire

commerce, shopping, entertainment, dining, some big attractions... Winnipeg doesn't offer a lot of that, and what little of it there is has declined significantly over the last 3 years

Downtown still has by far the best walk scores and transit access in the city. If that's what you're after - and that is what most urban young people want - then downtown or osborne are the only real options. If you want a decent assortment of restaurants and lounges within walking distance, it has to be downtown or osborne. Most of the city's concert venues are downtown. Most of the city's museums, galleries, and other cultural institutions are downtown. Most of the summer festivals are downtown.

In terms of food & beverage I just don't see this huge decline you're talking about. I actually can't think of a restaurant that's closed downtown although I'm sure there are couple, however new ones have opened too. And as for retail, well yeah, retail is dead. Nobody under 35 ever sets foot in a brick-and-mortar store anymore. Whether they live downtown or in fort richmond they're going to do that shopping online either way, I don't think that's a big factor.

[building_lover]

I keep hearing brick and mortar is dead but I get a very different impression walking down St. Catherine's in Montreal or Eaton Centre/Yonge & Dundas in Toronto...maybe it's only dead for a certain size of city.

[Sheepish]

I actually can't think of a restaurant that's closed downtown although I'm sure there are couple,


Well Marcello's on the ground floor of Hydro shut down.

Part of the problem, as has been recounted on these pages, because of all the lots, combined with the size of the downtown, we lose any cohesiveness and critical mass.
Portage ave has lost its preeminence, which has contributed to the evaporation of downtown retail. Our Mayor needs to take the lead and work to bring the stakeholders together...immediately.

[GreyGarden]

EdwardTH, I’d put West Broadway alongside Osborne in terms of overall walkability and livability. It does not have a big chain grocer in its heart, but it has Foodfare and is walking distance to Osborne’s Safeway. Sherbrook also offers some nice restaurants and actually a bit of retail.

[GreyGarden]

I kind of agree with Sheepish about cohesiveness. Winnipeg has seen some decent urban development over the last decade. But it is split between the Exchange, Osborne and Downtown. Couple that with the size of Downtown and the distance between the Exchange and Osborne, and these developments do not have the impact they would have if they were all concentrated. I understand that the world is not SimCity, but still something to keep in mind.

[GreyGarden]

Originally Posted by building_lover

I keep hearing brick and mortar is dead but I get a very different impression walking down St. Catherine's in Montreal or Eaton Centre/Yonge & Dundas in Toronto...maybe it's only dead for a certain size of city.

No question. It requires a density of people with disposable incomes. Something that the big 3 have. I think Winnipeg actually does pretty decently in the Canadian context in terms of density, but a large chunk of Winnipeg’s inner city population do not have disposable incomes to support retail.

[EdwardTH]

Yeah downtown has a number of "hubs" that kinda have something going but are too isolated from each other to really sustain anything. P&M is right in the middle and could be the centrepiece that ties the exchange, the Forks, and the SHED together. Unfortunately the suburbanites just don't seem to get this and don't want P&M to be another more than an interchange.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by esquire

Centreventure did a decent job when it had the modest task of selling surplus land for development, e.g. a vacant lot on Logan, a tax sale property on Ellice, etc.

When it became elevated to a quasi PP&D like downtown development agency it sort of lost its way. PP&D probably could have been tasked with the same thing and resourced accordingly, and it could have pulled the same thing off.
.

when did it have the modest task of selling surplus land? It was created specifically to be a development agency. In its first decade it was flush with cash and running all kinds of programs, buying buildings, investing in development (good and bad) etc....

Can you give examples of how it lost its way? If anything it's been reduced to the humble entity you suggest it was.

I very much disagree that as part of the bureaucracy PPD could have done the same things....I've seen inside that beast and it is not able to be anywhere near nimble enough to work at the pace of development.

Here's a map of the projects they have supported until 2016



file:///C:/Users/bbellamy/Downloads/Master%20Map.pdf

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by building_lover

My criticism would not be based on any particular decisions they've made or individuals there. It's a criticism that goes back to their founding, which involved the transfer of a huge amount of public capital to the private sector (by the NDP no less!). Properties given away for pennies to for-profit actors. It mirrors the general slide to neoliberalism of the day, but that doesn't make it immune to criticism. I think a huge opportunity was missed and we're still seeing those effects play out in the homelessness and affordable housing crisis.

Have they done good work? I suppose in limited contexts sure, but I think the general opinion of downtown Winnipeg right now is not a great one. It's hard to get away from seeing their work as work for a very particular group of people. We end up with strange pseudo-public spaces like True North Square that look like ghost towns once their target clientele drive back to the suburbs. I think this is only slightly unfair

ah....i see.

I don't think CV was created to be a social agency, but I will remind you of the bell hotel (social housing), marketlands (subsidized arts space and affordable housing), and carriage works (subsidized artist space and housing)....

As much as I agree that we need to build affordable and supportive housing, that is not the mandate of CV or even the jurisdiction of the city. There should definitely be an agency doing that....i personally don't want downtown to just be social housing....market housing is important too....even rich person housing and glass office towers for lawyers.

Imagine downtown without true north square and all the private sector development they helped create.

I also don't think properties are given away for pennies....my experience is they get as much as they possibly can for every property.....if they have given any away for pennies its because that's what it was worth.

My main criticism of CV would be north main. That was a mistake. I also didn't like the two hotel deals but they were forced to do that by Katz.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by building_lover

I keep hearing brick and mortar is dead but I get a very different impression walking down St. Catherine's in Montreal or Eaton Centre/Yonge & Dundas in Toronto...maybe it's only dead for a certain size of city.

only 4% of retail sales in Canada are on-line. The death of bricks and mortar is a myth....go to the outlet mall.

every major city in Canada has pedestrian shopping streets except one.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by trueviking

when did it have the modest task of selling surplus land? It was created specifically to be a development agency. In its first decade it was flush with cash and running all kinds of programs, buying buildings, investing in development (good and bad) etc....

Can you give examples of how it lost its way? If anything it's been reduced to the humble entity you suggest it was.

I very much disagree that as part of the bureaucracy PPD could have done the same things....I've seen inside that beast and it is not able to be anywhere near nimble enough to work at the pace of development.

I am thinking back mainly to the first 5 or 6 years of CV's existence... it started fairly small, then eventually worked its way up to Waterfront Drive which was probably its first major success. But then it lost focus to some degree. It seemed, to my eyes at least, to become less about working out deals to get specific vacant/underused land developed than it was about chasing broad plans to remake entire areas. More ambitious for sure, but seemingly way less focused. The North Main example you cited was a good example where CV's involvement arguably made the area worse if anything.

Is it possible that CV started to become a bit too much like the bureaucracies it was meant to replace?

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by trueviking

only 4% of retail sales in Canada are on-line. The death of bricks and mortar is a myth....go to the outlet mall.

every major city in Canada has pedestrian shopping streets except one.

Exactly. People like to interact with the real world. Yes, even under 35 people. Living online is a fucking nightmare and while certain advantages have come from having access to the internet, nothing really beats walking in, seeing a product yourself or browsing to see what catches your eye, then walking out within 10 minutes, item in hand.

[building_lover]

Originally Posted by trueviking

ah....i see.

I don't think CV was created to be a social agency, but I will remind you of the bell hotel (social housing), marketlands (subsidized arts space and affordable housing), and carriage works (subsidized artist space and housing)....

As much as I agree that we need to build affordable and supportive housing, that is not the mandate of CV or even the jurisdiction of the city. There should definitely be an agency doing that....i personally don't want downtown to just be social housing....market housing is important too....even rich person housing and glass office towers for lawyers.

Imagine downtown without true north square and all the private sector development they helped create.

I also don't think properties are given away for pennies....my experience is they get as much as they possibly can for every property.....if they have given any away for pennies its because that's what it was worth.

My main criticism of CV would be north main. That was a mistake. I also didn't like the two hotel deals but they were forced to do that by Katz.

Yes I agree with what you're saying, CV was certainly not created to be a social agency, and a mix of market and social housing is the only realistic way forward.

I'm sure properties are no longer given away for pennies, but at the time a great number of publicly-owned properties were offloaded onto CV for nothing. This was at a moment when community groups were stepping forward with development plans of their own, and in an alternate universe, the province would have provided assistance to redevelop these into social resources. Instead, they abdicated their responsibility entirely. And therein lies the problem, there was no mix of public and private development, we put all our eggs into the market, and now we have...a crisis.

[bomberjet]

Back on the school topic. the Province wants to award construction of the 9 schools to one single contractor. And build them P3 style at the same time.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9613136/m...ls-built-fast/

Manitoba government says partnering with private sector will get schools built fast
By Steve Lambert The Canadian Press
Posted April 10, 2023 2:15 pm

Manitoba is promising it will avoid problems other provinces have had in partnering with the private sector to build schools, but critics question why they cannot be built the traditional way and warn of the lack of detail in the government’s plan.

“We’re very conscious of the decisions, and I would say mistakes that have sometimes been made in other jurisdictions,” James Teitsma, minister for government services, said in an interview.

“We don’t want to make mistakes here.”

The Progressive Conservative government announced last month a plan to build nine schools under a public-private partnership model, commonly called a P3 system.

The nine schools are to be awarded under a single tender, and the developer would be in charge of ongoing major maintenance, such as roofs and ventilation systems, for up to 30 years as well as the initial construction.

[esquire]

^ It seems like a decent idea... considering the similarities with schools, you'd think there might be a possibility of a 'volume discount' as opposed to doing each one completely bespoke. This is especially true if other jurisdictions have already used this approach and can inform how Manitoba goes about it.