Winnipeg Construction

[vid]

Originally Posted by roccerfeller

I can see the small loop where the old terminal was being very claustrophobic in 20 years or so when you have a million plus people in the city using whatever future terminal goes up

It's already very claustrophobic on a Greyhound bus.

[armorand93]

Originally Posted by vid

It's already very claustrophobic on a Greyhound bus.

I second that motion. Travelled on one from Winnipeg to Calgary. It sucked

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by armorand93

I second that motion. Travelled on one from Winnipeg to Calgary. It sucked

until recently i was making the trip from wabowdent to winnipeg 4 times a month 8 hrs

[vid]

I thought he was referring to the road way. Being on a bus making that turn is nerve wracking because the right of way is so narrow.

The bus itself wasn't claustrophobic, there were maybe 20 people on it at most. We all got a bench to ourselves. The guy across the aisle from me was lying down like it was a bed.

[Authentic_City]

Column in response to the potential demolition of the Fortune Block.

Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION
Demolition DERBY
Do funky, independent businesses really have to be sacrificed in the name of downtown development?

By: Bartley Kives

"If it's been said once, it's worth repeating 100,000 times: Small, independent businesses form the heart of any neighbourhood."

[...]

Full story: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opi...158343615.html

[Biff]

Wow, it's like Bartley read my post a couple back about parking lots -

"The short answer is economics: Owners of surface lots make a lot of money off parking and don't need to spend much to continue to rake in that revenue.
Older buildings, meanwhile, are expensive to maintain and extremely expensive to renovate. So when property values rise, it's easier to knock 'em down and build something new on the site. Without some form of redevelopment incentive, such as heritage or downtown housing grants, any old, neglected downtown Winnipeg building is simply a pile of bricks waiting to be demolished.
Surface lots, however, are not going anywhere, unless they happen to be owned by the city, province or a Crown corporation. There are no incentives for parking lot owners to build up on their lands and no penalties for leaving them the way they are."

[roccerfeller]

Originally Posted by vid

I thought he was referring to the road way. Being on a bus making that turn is nerve wracking because the right of way is so narrow.

The bus itself wasn't claustrophobic, there were maybe 20 people on it at most. We all got a bench to ourselves. The guy across the aisle from me was lying down like it was a bed.

Yeah, the road way. Its too tiny right now; I know there will be some light renovations once the old terminal is fully gone, but its really cramped

Originally Posted by Biff

Wow, it's like Bartley read my post a couple back about parking lots -

"The short answer is economics: Owners of surface lots make a lot of money off parking and don't need to spend much to continue to rake in that revenue.
Older buildings, meanwhile, are expensive to maintain and extremely expensive to renovate. So when property values rise, it's easier to knock 'em down and build something new on the site. Without some form of redevelopment incentive, such as heritage or downtown housing grants, any old, neglected downtown Winnipeg building is simply a pile of bricks waiting to be demolished.
Surface lots, however, are not going anywhere, unless they happen to be owned by the city, province or a Crown corporation. There are no incentives for parking lot owners to build up on their lands and no penalties for leaving them the way they are."

What could be done though? Are there any other cities in Canada where there are penalties for leaving surface lots the way they are?

And the privately owned ones are owned by imPark correct? or do they simply manage the lots?

[drew]

Originally Posted by roccerfeller

And the privately owned ones are owned by imPark correct? or do they simply manage the lots?

They do both, manage privately owned lots, and own and manage their own.

[JamieDavid Exchange]

FINALLY!!!

The construction fencing is up all around the former pump house / Harbourmaster building. There's a sign up on the surface lot just North saying the lot will be closed as of June 22, 2012.

http://www.sunstoneboutiquehotels.com/

[1ajs]

sure is forgot to mention that last night

[good_dude]

Originally Posted by trueviking

dont think design has even really started...except for some conceptual RFP drawings.

It's in urban design review.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by roccerfeller

What could be done though? Are there any other cities in Canada where there are penalties for leaving surface lots the way they are?

the answer is to tax surface lots as if they have buildings on them....you knock down your building and not only do you collect parking revenues without any capital investment, but your taxes drop exponentially....its incentive to demolish.

our system of taxing lots based on their value is archaic....

montreal taxes each stall $400 per year.

a good article on the subject.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/bus...landscape.html

[flatlander]

Originally Posted by trueviking

the answer is to tax surface lots as if they have buildings on them....you knock down your building and not only do you collect parking revenues without any capital investment, but your taxes drop exponentially....its incentive to demolish.

our system of taxing lots based on their value is archaic....

montreal taxes each stall $400 per year.

a good article on the subject.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/bus...landscape.html

But surface parking lots cash flow greater than buildings like the Fortune Block. The taxes on a surface lot should be greater than the taxes on the Fortune Block even with the current system. I don't disagree with taxing based on profitability necessarily - I just think surface parking lots are underassessed. I don't think we need to change the system, just make sure it operates like it is intended to.

[vid]

If you go by assessment, and "properly/over" assess surface lots, then you would have a situation where a lot with a building on it is worth less than if it had no building on it, and the possibility that buildings would be demolished in an effort to increase the value of the land they're on.

Taxing land based on the number of parking stalls on it, or having some sort of inverse-tax based on how efficiently the land is being used (with parking or dirt lots being least efficient/most taxed, proper green spaces and well maintained buildings being most efficient/least taxed) would be better at coercing a landowner to develop their property to benefit the community, because they would be saving money by doing so.

The parking stall equation is easy because it is 1:1. A tax based on what the specific property is being used for would require too much interpretation.

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

Follow-up on the famous Exchange paint job...

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/loc...158399835.html

Not so green anymore... wonder what happened.


Winnipeg Free Press

[roccerfeller]

Originally Posted by JamieDavid Exchange

FINALLY!!!

The construction fencing is up all around the former pump house / Harbourmaster building. There's a sign up on the surface lot just North saying the lot will be closed as of June 22, 2012.

http://www.sunstoneboutiquehotels.com/

Oh, awesome news. Totally forgot about this project!

Gonna really add some spark to that area.

[roccerfeller]

Originally Posted by trueviking

the answer is to tax surface lots as if they have buildings on them....you knock down your building and not only do you collect parking revenues without any capital investment, but your taxes drop exponentially....its incentive to demolish.

our system of taxing lots based on their value is archaic....

montreal taxes each stall $400 per year.

a good article on the subject.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/bus...landscape.html

Ah very interesting, thanks viking.

Originally Posted by flatlander

But surface parking lots cash flow greater than buildings like the Fortune Block. The taxes on a surface lot should be greater than the taxes on the Fortune Block even with the current system. I don't disagree with taxing based on profitability necessarily - I just think surface parking lots are underassessed. I don't think we need to change the system, just make sure it operates like it is intended to.

How would this create incentive to place a building on an empty lot however?

Originally Posted by vid

If you go by assessment, and "properly/over" assess surface lots, then you would have a situation where a lot with a building on it is worth less than if it had no building on it, and the possibility that buildings would be demolished in an effort to increase the value of the land they're on.

Taxing land based on the number of parking stalls on it, or having some sort of inverse-tax based on how efficiently the land is being used (with parking or dirt lots being least efficient/most taxed, proper green spaces and well maintained buildings being most efficient/least taxed) would be better at coercing a landowner to develop their property to benefit the community, because they would be saving money by doing so.

The parking stall equation is easy because it is 1:1. A tax based on what the specific property is being used for would require too much interpretation.

Yes, this certainly is an improvement from the "value" system that currently seems to be implemented here in Winnipeg.

Originally Posted by h0twired

Follow-up on the famous Exchange paint job...

Not so green anymore... wonder what happened.

Winnipeg Free Press

huge improvement

[flatlander]

Originally Posted by vid

If you go by assessment, and "properly/over" assess surface lots, then you would have a situation where a lot with a building on it is worth less than if it had no building on it, and the possibility that buildings would be demolished in an effort to increase the value of the land they're on.

Taxing land based on the number of parking stalls on it, or having some sort of inverse-tax based on how efficiently the land is being used (with parking or dirt lots being least efficient/most taxed, proper green spaces and well maintained buildings being most efficient/least taxed) would be better at coercing a landowner to develop their property to benefit the community, because they would be saving money by doing so.

The parking stall equation is easy because it is 1:1. A tax based on what the specific property is being used for would require too much interpretation.

I understand why this is being proposed, but I'm not convinced that our system of taxation can rely solely on taxing things that we consider to be negative activities rather than taxing things that generate income. We don't tax lower income workers a higher rate (and higher income workers a lower rate) to encourage them to earn more money ... oh wait, maybe we do.

That lousy example notwithstanding I think we should see higher assessments on surface parking lots based on income, and lower assessments on heritage buildings like the Fortune Block.

[SKYSTHELIMIT]

Originally Posted by Jeff

was just in downtown vancouver and they have the new telus headquarters plastered all over as the first "platinum LEED office tower in canada". let's correct them!

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/manito...140000468.html

I know someone who is involved with this project and have sent your link to be looked at, she is in chaqrge of communications so this should be rectified. Good pick-up.

[1ajs]

Apartments pay the rent again

Edison building three blocks as vacancy rate stays low

By: Murray McNeill
Posted: 1:00 AM |

[IMG]http://media.winnipegfreepress.com/images/648*432/4141430.jpg[/IMG]


One of the city's most active apartment-block developers in the 1960s, '70s and '80s is jumping back into the game after more than two decades on the sidelines.
The Edison Rental Agency, which will be changing its name to Edison Properties this fall to reflect its re-entry into the development business, plans to build three new apartment blocks -- 215 suites in all -- on the site of the Springfield Heights retail mall on Rothesay Street.


The apartment blocks will be part of a $50-million, 350,000-square-foot residential/retail complex planned for the site. The complex will include a four-storey base structure, with roughly 10,400 square feet of retail space on the ground floor and three floors of apartments. Above that will be the three apartment buildings, with another seven floors of suites in each.


http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/bre...158399615.html