Winnipeg | UofM | Southwood Circle
 

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/bu...485473621.html

No shiny pictures?

Anyways, good news to hear at the wheels are turning.

I hope to hell this development looks absolutely nothing like the winning project design – it was an awful, sprawling and windswept design. Kind of insane that a landscape architect won the bid...

Also I don't understand the need for a big road between the stadium and Markham... that's not a far distance, and what would it even be connecting? If anything a N-S road from Chancellor Matheson to ~Thatcher/Pembina would make much more sense.

Been wondering when we'd see movement on Southlands. Haven't noticed anything happening on the golf course lately.

The wheels sure turn slowly at U of M. 10 years since they purchased the property (how does it take 3 years to get from "finalized" to "officially acquired"?) and still no start date or pictures.

Not a fan of the university forcing a new four-lane road between Markham and the BRT, but who knows if it'll actually happen.

I think this is a strange role for the university. Smartpark is linked quite closely to the research and development mission of the u, but neighbourhood residential? I guess I am missing something ..

The 4 lane road will run E-W starting at Sifton road (currently 2 lanes Westbound) all the way to the transit line (between Markham and IGF station), at which point it will follow the transitway to Southpark Drive, making that portion of the road multi-use, not just exclusive to transit.

You can see it in the PDF map of the Southwest transitway plans, in faint grey outline if you zoom in to the U of M area

http://winnipegtransit.com/assets/17...9_lowres_2.pdf

The reason this is moving slowly is that the U of M is making sure the execution of this project is done properly. They own the land and I presume they don’t pay tax on it since they are an academic institution so from a financial perspective, there is no time crunch and they will make more money if this is done properly. Not like a typical developer where vacant land = paying taxes and no revenue

Regarding the architect comments, aren’t those types of contests usually just for publicity and a large portion of the evaluation is the artistic element?

Would be a revenue stream, like how The Forks is also developing their land.

the so called "smartpark" doesn't give the slightest hope that they'll do anything worthwhile here (especially since several of the board members were responsible for that abomination). they basically dropped an industrial park down onto the edge of campus and ringed it with surface parking lots.

Smartpark flat out sucks. I truly hope U of M learned from its mistakes. It's annoying how much land was squandered for that... they could have easily fit everything built into half the space.

That said, the initial signs for the golf course lands are looking better. It's a great large-scale infill opportunity and it'll be interesting to see what happens. This board should put Forks North Portage on speed dial since FNP has built up considerable expertise in developing land appropriately.

http://www.visionaryregeneration.com...aster_Plan.pdf

There's a ton of information on the concepts and goals of this plan here, and some good pictures / plans in the second part.

The challenge is U of M largely attracts students from within Manitoba and more so within Winnipeg. Conservatively it costs a student about $15,000 annual to live on their own and pay for basic necessitates like food. Often students have no or minimal income so they are either taking loans to pay those costs or family is picking them up.

The other challenge U of M has with Southwood is developing the area so it benefits their community. Having a bunch of speculators come in a wild west land grab to secure future income properties is not what they need to have happen.

My vision would be to create relatively small yet independent living for students and new grads. Perhaps something that is owned by U of M or a spin-off arm that puts an age ceiling on who can live there, ie you need to be under 30 to live in this development. Not sure if they could legally pull that off My thinking is if you keep the whole demographic of the neighbourhood constantly on the young end it would naturally attract retailers, etc that are chasing that market.

While I support their quest to maximize the use of their lands, by golly they should be focusing on moving and developing more of their campuses downtown.

They have a whole plan for the Bannatyne campus too, not as huge though.

There is a large international student population at the U of M and ICM (International College of Manitoba, which is affiliated with U of M and uses the Fort Garry campus). Not sure of the numbers but it is a decent chunk of the student body, and all those students need housing. But yes, they are not the majority of the institution.

Bingo. They could take a clue from rrcc in that regard.

I agree that from a philosophical standpoint, it is strange for universities to get into the property development game, but it tends to fly under the radar (unlike say MPI getting into the property development game). It's always pitched as a new revenue stream for cash starved universities, but experience suggests it doesn't always work out that way. Nevertheless, the university as property developer is becoming common. Simon Fraser University has developed a ton of residential and commercial over the past decade (see http://univercity.ca), and radically changed the nature of their campus, which was entirely a commuter campus even 15 years ago. I doubt UM could replicate this success because the property market is quite different here.

Hopefully they can pull it off, looks awesome! Thanks for the info.

Unfortunately this thread will go dry as nothing will really start here for at least a couple of years. look for things to start to ramp up 2020ish.

Clap, clap, clap.


Without renders, I give it at least 5 years.

Nice to hear!
Exactly.

This was one of the landlord's, in particular Artis points for opening up P+M.

They basically said "we're in favour of opening because we want downtown to thrive. Now you show it too... a) all landlords are upgrading, so brighten up the public underground b) bring more of U of M downtown. RRC has thrived here, bring U of M here. This will flood downtown with the people you claim to want here c)few other smaller things."