Winnipeg Construction X

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by WinCitySparky

It failed because of an utterly terrible design for the reality of the area, as well as bad management.

Centre Village was a failure by the architects on so many fronts. It failed the account of the actual needs of its intended users, it failed to account of how the building would interact with its community and it failed to account for how the building would function in the local climate. It is incredibly disappointing that this won awards as it seems that was the only focus of the people that made it.

[FactaNV]

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/op...th-many-pieces

Well written explanation by Brett Bellamy today in the FreeP on housing.

[trueviking]

^ that guy is smart.

[peg]

Originally Posted by FactaNV

Who are you to judge if someone loves the feeling of rusty spoons? Some say the feeling is almost orgasmic.

Get those salad fingers out of here!

[OTA in Winnipeg]

Originally Posted by trueviking

^ that guy is smart.

[BAKGUY]

Originally Posted by zalf

Broadway between Good and Colony.

Not at all. Edmonton St North

[ColdRain&Snow]

Originally Posted by ColdRain&Snow

Some interesting applications coming up at City Council soon:

https://legacy.winnipeg.ca/ppd/PublicNotices/

193 Mcgregor St
VARIANCE: 23-244490/D
Plain language: For Variances to enable the construction of a 26-unit, four-storey residential building.

366 Marion St
VARIANCE: 24-108685/D
Description: To vary the Proposed “RMU” Development and Design Standards of Winnipeg Zoning By-law No. 200/2006 as follows:
1) for the construction of a mixed use commercial and multi-family dwelling

126 - 140 Sherbrook St
VARIANCE: 23-237179/D
Plain language: The City of Winnipeg received an application for a building with commercial space on the ground floor and residential units above.

1131 Nairn Ave
VARIANCE: 23-254531/D
Plain language: The City of Winnipeg received an application for a variance to enable the construction of a mixed-use multi-family building.

744 St Mary'S Rd
VARIANCE: 23-257426/D
Plain language: The City of Winnipeg received an application for a mixed-use building with one commercial unit and ten residential units.

I'm happy to say that all 5 of these projects were approved last week at their respective community committees. They still need to be voted on by City Council, but usually if they make it past the community committees then they make it past council.

[bomberjet]

Good news. Facebook was up in a tizzy over the Nairn proposal. Same for Sherbrook.

OMG this is not affordable, blah, blah, blah.

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by ColdRain&Snow

I'm happy to say that all 5 of these projects were approved last week at their respective community committees. They still need to be voted on by City Council, but usually if they make it past the community committees then they make it past council.

We really do seem to have a very pro density majority on the council. I'm yet to see one of these big projects get refused since developing this interest. For all the bluster of some members, the council seems to make the right approvals at least on permitting.

[WinCitySparky]

Council knows we desperately need the densified tax base. But I’m happy for it.

[FactaNV]

Some renders for the Parkerlands development.

Edit:scratch that link, didn't realize it would doxx myself...I'll try to find a way to post a pdf anonymously haha. The renders are eon the Winnipeg city council agenda website if you want to find them yourselves.

[Winnipeg Grump]

Originally Posted by FactaNV

Some renders for the Parkerlands development.

Edit:scratch that link, didn't realize it would doxx myself...I'll try to find a way to post a pdf anonymously haha. The renders are eon the Winnipeg city council agenda website if you want to find them yourselves.

The report is here:
https://clkapps.winnipeg.ca/DMIS/Vie...pd/2024/m24628

You can search in here for Fulton Grove or Parker and get everything.

[pegster]

What's the chance of there ever being a pedestrian/bike connection across the CN Main Line between the Parker Lands/Transitway and Taylor? There are all these services right there on Taylor, but it's a big detour on foot to Waverly to get to them.

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by pegster

What's the chance of there ever being a pedestrian/bike connection across the CN Main Line between the Parker Lands/Transitway and Taylor? There are all these services right there on Taylor, but it's a big detour on foot to Waverly to get to them.

I think CN is pretty party pooper on that one and refuses to allow connections above. Maybe a pedestrian tunnel underneath? It'd be 10x the cost but it's something.

[xubiqtss]

Originally Posted by FactaNV

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/op...th-many-pieces

Well written explanation by Brett Bellamy today in the FreeP on housing.

Well-written and not incorrect, but I would have hoped for a more substantial critique.

It asks that we go easier on the profit-driven housing sector because any sort of housing is good housing. Which is fair enough. But is the intended conclusion really just that all types of housing are good, and we need to build more of everything? This kind of argument allows to writer to avoid taking any position. Isn't the flipside of "everything is good" that "nothing is bad?"

Isn't the elephant in the room of this piece that we currently rely almost entirely on the private sector for housing? That more social housing units have been sold to private developers in the last decade than have been created? Isn't that enough, do they really need more cheerleaders?

Societies must necessarily make choices on how to direct limited resources. Could it be worth mentioning that some types of housing ought be higher priority for this resource distribution than others? That the difference between us and the cities we most admire for their liveability in places like France, Austria, Netherlands, etc. are the share of social housing stock, not the degree to which we support private developers?

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by FactaNV

I think CN is pretty party pooper on that one and refuses to allow connections above. Maybe a pedestrian tunnel underneath? It'd be 10x the cost but it's something.

CN would let you go over. Going under less desirable. At grade will not happen.

I don't think CN could actually block a crossing. The City would take them to the CTA and would win. CN can limit the type and location of crossing. They may also be forced to pay some costs depending upon the situation with the CTA.

[1ajs]

if theres a trail at a spot for more then 20yrsrthey cant block it

[optimusREIM]

^ You're thinking of a prescriptive easement. I know that between private properties that works, but I would not at all be surprised if the legislation that enables railways to operate also prevents prescriptive easements from attaching to their properties. Seems like the sort of policy that would make sense if you're passing laws to enable railways for their advantage, and you don't want adjacent properties to have any sort of encumbrances on the railway's ROW.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

^ You're thinking of a prescriptive easement. I know that between private properties that works, but I would not at all be surprised if the legislation that enables railways to operate also prevents prescriptive easements from attaching to their properties. Seems like the sort of policy that would make sense if you're passing laws to enable railways for their advantage, and you don't want adjacent properties to have any sort of encumbrances on the railway's ROW.

actualy this law got used on cn in transcona and they faught it in court and lost 10-15 years ago

it was talked about on here actualy

[bomberjet]

At what location would that be? I do this for a living and have never heard of that law. There is a lot of grandfathering and stuff that happens.