YIMBY - Winnipeg Urbanism and Density

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by eman

https://www.paragonliving.com/255bell

255 Bell just completed construction. It's completely leased.

It's only 4 floors mid density because that is what the zoning permitted.

Bellamy keeps saying its economics that density isn't being built in OV. Obvious BS. It was economical in the 80s to build high density, but not today? Today we have 100% occupancy on day one. Seems obvious to me the two mid density high profile projects under construction on Osborne Street could have been massively larger.

lands cheap but its expensive to build here
theres a monopoly on cement (greymont) witch causes a increase in prices

then u add the screwy taxation the city has started doing on commercial buildings (that includes apartment buildings) as they been increasing allot lately pushing rents through the roof its all out of wack

in the exchange theres a fight with the city on albert
the building was forced to evic most of its tenits and now the cities turned around and more then doubled their taxs (the buildings run as a none profit) and has been working to make nessary upgrades

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by eman

https://www.paragonliving.com/255bell

255 Bell just completed construction. It's completely leased.

It's only 4 floors mid density because that is what the zoning permitted.

Bellamy keeps saying its economics that density isn't being built in OV. Obvious BS. It was economical in the 80s to build high density, but not today? Today we have 100% occupancy on day one. Seems obvious to me the two mid density high profile projects under construction on Osborne Street could have been massively larger.

LOL....how does this project prove that high-rise construction is economical to build?....it actually proves that the lower construction costs of mid-rise allows developers to charge affordable rates that lead to fast leasing....you make this building taller and costs skyrocket....higher rents, more risk.

This site could have gone higher with a setback on one side, but even with unlimited zoning, it would have stopped at 6 stories.

again....if zoning is the reason we are not seeing towers, why are we not seeing them where they are allowed in OV?...still waiting on that answer. I definitely think there are parts of the OV neighbourhood plan that are too restrictive but your claim that high-rise towers would spring up if zoning was changed is not based in reality.

As for the projects on Osborne. I’m not sure if you read English but you can throw this into the Google translate if not. I can speak to the one I know. A high-rise project was far more costly per unit and did not make economic sense. It was laid out and costed because the developer wanted a high-rise. It had nothing to do with zoning. Again. Nothing. I can’t tell you about the 80’s but I can tell you about today. Even 6 storey non-combustible is 20% more costly than wood. High-rise makes development very difficult.

[WestEndWander]

Originally Posted by eman

Why would Osborne Street have any height limits at all? That is exclusionary zoning and shuts out national companies from even considering an investment in OV. Is Centre Venture or anyone else doing anything attract capital? Organic growth is stagnation.

The fact that these 6 story buildings can be fully leased before construction ends shows there is demand and the market can afford to pay 30% more.

Bellamy is too smart to know how dumb he is. Make density job #1. Density needs to be encouraged at every turn. If not, 10 years can go by and next to nothing is built. We can all see how little has been built even before covid.

Every time you fail to get those 15 extra units you actually failed to get 30, 45 or 60+ units. Many more units end up being built on cheaper land further way in neighbourhoods where everyone has a car. Owning a car is a trap that feels like freedom that enslave you into spending $8000 a year preventing people from having financial freedom ever.

Yea that car that drives me out to my cabin every weekend is such a trap and plays no part what so ever in my personal freedom.

Attacks like this on cars are short sighted and show a lack of overall critical thinking of how mode shifts in transportation actually take place.

Cars are a blight on our urban environments and the focus should be on the implementation of sustainable transportation systems that are accessible by all. Designing our cities for the automobile has been one of the biggest failures in urban planning in the past 75 years.

On the other had cars are also a necessity in ex-urban environments in Canada because, well......Canada. The sad truth is that ex-urban travel in our country will always be dominated by the automobile and there will not be much that can be done about it.

[trueviking]

^ I think you replied to the wrong argument

[WestEndWander]

Originally Posted by trueviking

^ I think you replied to the wrong argument

Hahaha you know what, I did!

Upon review though it actually works in relation to his rant about owning a car being a trap.

Upon even further review I don't know if that person is even worth engaging as they seem incapable of reading anything other than what they write.

[eman]

Originally Posted by trueviking

LOL....how does this project prove that high-rise construction is economical to build?....it actually proves that the lower construction costs of mid-rise allows developers to charge affordable rates that lead to fast leasing....you make this building taller and costs skyrocket....higher rents, more risk.

This site could have gone higher with a setback on one side, but even with unlimited zoning, it would have stopped at 6 stories.

again....if zoning is the reason we are not seeing towers, why are we not seeing them where they are allowed in OV?...still waiting on that answer. I definitely think there are parts of the OV neighbourhood plan that are too restrictive but your claim that high-rise towers would spring up if zoning was changed is not based in reality."


"It was laid out and costed because the developer wanted a high-rise. It had nothing to do with zoning. Again. Nothing. I can’t tell you about the 80’s but I can tell you about today. Even 6 storey non-combustible is 20% more costly than wood. High-rise makes development very difficult.

The developer of 255 Bell said on twitter/instagram that they wanted to build highrise but stayed within the "mature neighbourhood" plan (zoning).

Difficult? It's not difficult or impossible. Instead of increasing the project you downsized it and those units got built elsewhere. Small town thinking,, downsize it instead of making the economics work with even more units. Too difficult? Actually Winnipeg has consistently taken the easy way, build it in Bridgwater, Sage Creek or Transcona.

Not a singe square inch of OV should be zoned low density, high streets or side streets because it's close to downtown. It's Winnipeg premier walkable neighbourhood that has no new units available at any price point. Embarrassing.

Density done Bellamy's way: Need a condo,, goto Bridgwater and buy a car. OV has nothing for you because walkable dense communities are not economical.



I messed up the quote feature, sorry. edited.

[hello]

Viking is supportive of density but just pointing out high rise is a good 20% more expensive making it infeasible for many developers. Would be great to see a lot more 6 storey infill development in Winnipeg. Plenty dense for most neighborhoods.

Development land is relatively affordable in Winnipeg and proportionally a smaller component of overall costs compared to many other Canadian cities so even with a large density bonus given the land lift isn't large enough to justify increased construction costs of high rise for most groups. Winnipeg also doesn't have as many institutional type developers with deep pockets who can justify the lower expected roi.

[eman]

Originally Posted by hello

Viking is supportive of density but just pointing out high rise is a good 20% more expensive making it infeasible for many developers. Would be great to see a lot more 6 storey infill development in Winnipeg. Plenty dense for most neighborhoods.

Development land is relatively affordable in Winnipeg and proportionally a smaller component of overall costs compared to many other Canadian cities so even with a large density bonus given the land lift isn't large enough to justify increased construction costs of high rise for most groups. Winnipeg also doesn't have as many institutional type developers with deep pockets who can justify the lower expected roi.

If Winnipeg does not change course and find ways to increase density roads and infrastructure can only get worse.

The OV Neighbourhood plan has been in place for over a decade. How many new housing units built in that time? One high density rental building(Stradbrook/Harkness) and a dozen 4 floor buildings. What would it take for Bellamy to write a story in the FP pointing out how few units built thanks to the OVNP. A healthy dense neighbourhood should be building condos as well as rentals so owners can build equity and "downsizers" from the suburbs have an awesome place to live.

Where are downsizers buying right now? Bridgwater, Sage Creek and Trancona and they still need a car.

[1ajs]

Winnipeg takes time to do stuff were not à boom bust economy here

[thebasketballgeek]

No but seriously I can agree with Eman on how the city centre needs to get their shit together and get more infill units constructed. I’ve highlighted a few times in the Winnipeg construction thread that the Assiniboia Community Committee (primarily Waverley West) is building far more MULTI-FAMILY housing then any other neighborhood in the city right now. In fact slightly off topic but if Pembina-Jubilee has its own thread Waverley West has deserved a thread for 5-10 years now (maybe I’ll start one later today lol).

Why is the Winnipeg construction thread so dead most of the time? Because this forum wants to see multi-family mid-high rise buildings in the inner city. Nobody here actually gives a shit about a 15 storey building being constructed at the end of Pembina Highway. The city for a plethora of reasons isn’t encouraging more development in these mature neighborhoods with the primary obstacle being NIMBYism, and secondary obstacles being zoning restrictions.

If Osborne Village was capable of building 55 Nassau and the Evergreen Towers 40-50 years ago why is it so hard to do nowadays when we have double the population and just as much latent demand for the area?

People in Winnipeg want to complain about the status quo all the time but hate when the status quo actually changes it’s a big conundrum. Let’s consider that the OV neighborhood plan simply hasn’t brought in the # of units required in the area, and it’s apparent with the strip not being vibrant unless it’s a Friday night. There hasn’t been much development by Osborne Station, and the one place where density could increase rapidly (Roslyn Crescent) is occupied by single-family detached houses instead…

Of course that’s not solely to blame on residents as the owner of the commercial strip shares equal responsibility for the mess the neighborhood is in rn. The most beautiful thing about the village is the diversity of housing stock that can even be on the same street and this means that every single lot in the area should be zoned too allow for high density even if what ends up getting built is a midrise. The more high density zoning in the area allows removes artificial scarcity of supply from streets like Gertrude and Wardlaw where both low and high density is allowed and therefore will keep house prices in the area afloat.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by eman

Density done Bellamy's way: Need a condo,, goto Bridgwater and buy a car. OV has nothing for you because walkable dense communities are not economical.
.

man you are a piece of work.... I am not the gatekeeper of osborne village density. I am telling you about the real world, which you have zero interest in accepting. Please educate yourself....you are sounding foolish...its why i blocked you on twitter.

Why don't I write about there being no new high rises in OV?....because that's an economic problem not a zoning one. Why are multi family projects being built in the suburbs?...once again that is an economic answer....its far cheaper to build out there.....I would be laughed out of my profession if I started crying about no skyscrapers being built in OV......i'm not an armchair developer who thinks the world is a giant game of minecraft...

once again. Explain to me why in all the areas of OV where there are no height limits, there are no high rises being built. Please explain that...debate by eman....ignore facts and just keep on whining....please explain why there are no new highrises in broadway assinibloine...no height limits....please explain.....are you there? can you hear me?...

the freaking fake-vancouverism building you love so much on assiniboine went bankrupt because a developer tried to make a tall building work...its laughable irony.

the developer of 255 bell did not say they wanted to build a high rise. That is a complete 100% lie....they have never built high rise and never will.....it costs too much.

the hilarious thing is if you actually got out of your car and walked around, you would see that osborne village has had more multi-family built in the last decade than any other mature neighbourhood...by a VERY long way....it is a huge success story....and much more development is on the way....there are several large building under construction right now...go for a walk....do i wish towers were being built in the many areas of OV where they are allowed?...of course....but as we saw with the proposal on Roslyn, the economics don't work....do i think there could be higher densities allowed in some parts of the neighbourhood? of course, but doing that wouldn't see any more high rises being built.

thankfully, you can build as much density in 6 storey as you can in a tower...as I have said before...the density for the project at osborne at gertrude is the same as the green tower on assiniboine....and it likely wont sit empty for a decade.

i know you will just ignore this and continue blaming bellamy for their being no skyscrapers in osborne village, but it makes me feel better to reply....ha ha.

[Biff]

The project at 255 Bell was first brought forward by Streetside Developments (3 storey-36 units). They sold the land to Paragon who could have built anything on the site. They chose to add one floor and 16 units (4 storey-52 units) It is and always was wood frame construction which is much cheaper than concrete, which would be required for a high rise. If it is such a slam dunk to develop units in OV, why did Streetside - who is a significant developer in the city, sell the property?

Paragon are smart developers who are taking on bigger and bigger projects in Winnipeg. They know how economics and budgets work. If they could have built bigger, they would have.

[esquire]

So what is holding back Osborne Village? For all this supposed "improvement" of new lowrise residential development, the area doesn't look or feel any better than it did 25 years ago. It's pretty much stagnant, if anything Osborne St. has gotten worse.

Meanwhile I go to similar urban village-type neighbourhoods in other Canadian cities and they are like night and day compared to the 90s. They are thriving, with not just large-scale residential, but also significant commercial developments too.

[trueviking]

when is the last time you have been to OV? I don't understand this idea that it is stagnant....there's new construction on almost every block.

the strip is a stroad, a commuter highway.....that's why it doesn't reach its potential....the neighbourhood is booming....the strip itself has two large projects underway....soon a third.

i do reject the idea the the strip is dead...go there...it is far from it....there are almost no empty storefronts....it could be so much more, I agree...but that starts with it being a nice place to be, not drive through.

I believe everyone's memory of osborne when they were 20 is romanticized because they were 20, not because of what osborne was.....20 year olds today will probably think the same when they get older.

[WestEndWander]

Originally Posted by esquire

So what is holding back Osborne Village? For all this supposed "improvement" of new lowrise residential development, the area doesn't look or feel any better than it did 25 years ago. It's pretty much stagnant, if anything Osborne St. has gotten worse.

Meanwhile I go to similar urban village-type neighbourhoods in other Canadian cities and they are like night and day compared to the 90s. They are thriving, with not just large-scale residential, but also significant commercial developments too.

To say OV is stagnant it to say that you clearly have not visited it over a given time period.

I lived in the village 10 years ago while going to school at the UofM. The amount of development and densification that have taken place since I moved out is astronomical in comparison to other areas of the city.

Comparing development in Waverley West to that in OV over a similar time period is ridiculously short sighted. One is a vacant field. The other is one of the most dense neighborhoods in all of Canada.

Viking nailed it. OV street is not somewhere you want to hang out. Who wants to sit on a patio beside a stroad with cars whipping by you at 60km/hr? Who wants to walk on sidewalks devoid of any street trees from the sun or benches to sit on. Who wants to deal with property owners that charge exorbitant rents far above market value? Fix these issues and watch it take off again.

Tons of factors have contributed to the perceived decline of OV. The lack of development and densification is not one of them.

[WinCitySparky]

Originally Posted by trueviking

when is the last time you have been to OV? I don't understand this idea that it is stagnant....there's new construction on almost every block.

the strip is a stroad, a commuter highway.....that's why it doesn't reach its potential....the neighbourhood is booming....the strip itself has two large projects underway....soon a third.

i do reject the idea the the strip is dead...go there...it is far from it....there are almost no empty storefronts....it could be so much more, I agree...but that starts with it being a nice place to be, not drive through.

I believe everyone's memory of osborne when they were 20 is romanticized because they were 20, not because of what osborne was.....20 year olds today will probably think the same when they get older.

100% this, OV is in fact very happening. The only really stagnant thing is the idea that the 80’s/90’s are coming back and the Zoo is reopening any day now, and the punks and alt peeps are all just waiting to burst back onto the sidewalks.

[BKB]

Originally Posted by trueviking

when is the last time you have been to OV? I don't understand this idea that it is stagnant....there's new construction on almost every block.

the strip is a stroad, a commuter highway.....that's why it doesn't reach its potential....the neighbourhood is booming....the strip itself has two large projects underway....soon a third.

i do reject the idea the the strip is dead...go there...it is far from it....there are almost no empty storefronts....it could be so much more, I agree...but that starts with it being a nice place to be, not drive through.

I believe everyone's memory of osborne when they were 20 is romanticized because they were 20, not because of what osborne was.....20 year olds today will probably think the same when they get older.

When walking beside Osborne Street, I always feel like I am one distracted driver away from getting killed. They need to overhaul that street.

[eman]

Originally Posted by trueviking

when is the last time you have been to OV? I don't understand this idea that it is stagnant....

the strip is a stroad, a commuter highway.....that's why it doesn't reach its potential....the neighbourhood itself is booming.

i reject the idea the the strip is dead...go there...it is far from it....there are almost no empty storefronts....it could be so much more, I agree...but that starts with it being a nice place to be, not drive through.

I drive, walk and risk my life cycling the Village all the time. 390 on the River should have been built in the Village, 5 or 6 of them at various price points in the last decade.

If you can't see how Winnipeg is failing at "Density Done Right" the FreePress should find a writer that does understand YIMBYism and density. Cycling infrastructure in the village is bad and I know you agree with that part. Density is the piece of the puzzle that needs the most work.

This is a barometer of current new home market in the Village:
https://www.realtor.ca/mb/winnipeg/r...ondos-for-sale

An embarrassing list of rinkydink resale units and nothing new at any price point.

Village skyline taken today? or 1985?
https://twitter.com/earlinwinnipeg/s..._mEDsGsgvz6iAw

[zalf]

I'm pretty convinced by trueviking's argument from economics.

Rather than endlessly re-litigating debates about OV, what are some areas that actually are being held back by restrictive zoning? I'd make a case for Henderson Highway. That whole strip could absorb a lot more people, but it's largely R1 zoning, especially once you get away from the properties immediately facing Henderson.

[rivercity]

Originally Posted by eman

I drive, walk and risk my life cycling the Village all the time. 390 on the River should have been built in the Village, 5 or 6 of them at various price points in the last decade.

If you can't see how Winnipeg is failing at "Density Done Right" the FreePress should find a writer that does understand YIMBYism and density. Cycling infrastructure in the village is bad and I know you agree with that part. Density is the piece of the puzzle that needs the most work.

This is a barometer of current new home market in the Village:
https://www.realtor.ca/mb/winnipeg/r...ondos-for-sale

An embarrassing list of rinkydink resale units and nothing new at any price point.

Village skyline taken today? or 1985?
https://twitter.com/earlinwinnipeg/s..._mEDsGsgvz6iAw

Seems like you'd be able to make a pretty quick buck then! Looking forward to seeing your future highrise projects.