Winnipeg Restaurants

[drew]

Devil's advocate: That Co-op and McD's are a usual fuel up point on our trips to the family cottage near LOTW.

If that call centre was built along the street, we would drive by that property without a second look or thought. A call centre really wouldn't have added a great deal of vibrancy to the area. Certainly a gas station and McDs gets more traffic than the most urban of call centres could ever hope to attract.

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by esquire

The transit garage is obviously also a hindrance to that strip's walkability, but the call centre with the huge parking lot out front was the death blow. Flipping the MTS building to the property line would have made a huge difference.

Same developer did the RBC call centre on Taylor. Same MO -- main entrance tucked back deep into a giant parking lot, zero interaction with the street. Bad enough there, but on Osborne it serves to completely disconnect two neighbourhoods from one another.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by drew

Devil's advocate: That Co-op and McD's are a usual fuel up point on our trips to the family cottage near LOTW.

If that call centre was built along the street, we would drive by that property without a second look or thought. A call centre really wouldn't have added a great deal of vibrancy to the area. Certainly a gas station and McDs gets more traffic than the most urban of call centres could ever hope to attract.

I take your point, but there had to have been a better way. For instance, the call centre could have been oriented along the south end of the property leaving some space at the northern end for Co-op and McDonald's. The Co-op is built in such a way that it occupies as much room as humanly possible...it could have been designed to take up half as much space. Or alternately, the Co-op could have went on the former Esso site just south of the Transit garage. The point is that there was more than enough room to accommodate those three uses in a way that was more sensitive to the built environment.

Unfortunately it was built kind of at the peak of the big box era when that's all Shindico wanted to do and no one questioned it.

[drew]

^ It's true it could have been proportioned better - BUT, I am sure the leasability of the land to prime clients such as a Co-op and McD's necessitated the maximum curbside exposure.

[The Unknown Poster]

That MTS building lacks sufficient parking for the amount of staff there. It was always a chief complaint of employees. the McD's and Co-Op, however, were well used by the employees! Its a much hated building among staff but partially due to the cattle call like nature of the work being done there. Most staff were quite pleased if they received transfers to other locations.

In 2011 (I think), they moved a department to Mcgill/Waverly and most everyone was thrilled to go (other then some transit users who found the location more difficult to get to).

[esquire]

^ What I do not understand is why the intersection that allows access to that site doesn't have a left turn arrow. I commute up Osborne most days and the left hand lane is always backed up as guaranteed at least three cars per green light cycle attempt to turn left there, but quite often you can get through at most a couple of cars on a yellow light. It is not the sole reason, but it is definitely a factor behind some of the morning rush hour congestion on Osborne.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ What I do not understand is why the intersection that allows access to that site doesn't have a left turn arrow. I commute up Osborne most days and the left hand lane is always backed up as guaranteed at least three cars per green light cycle attempt to turn left there, but quite often you can get through at most a couple of cars on a yellow light. It is not the sole reason, but it is definitely a factor behind some of the morning rush hour congestion on Osborne.

You should just move downtown.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Riverman

You should just move downtown.

I did it before and I'll do it again

[robertocarlos]

Downtown is wonderful. It would be even better if the WCB didn't hand out such lucrative maintenance contracts. Their grass is cut every week-end at 6am and their parking lot is cleared of snow at 2am immediately after it snows 1 cm.

[Jeff]

The outstanding success of chaeban ice cream at that spot, and its predecessor, shows that strip has definite potential. Hopefully, the added density in Fort Rouge Yards helps solidify that area and let's it hang on to that tiny, ancient Safeway at the very least.

[buzzg]

[QUOTE=Wpg_Guy;8232646]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Are they actually actively marketing it? Because the spaces have been listed as available on their site for years, but I've reached out twice (once through a real estate agent) to inquire about opening a shop there, and it's always been crickets on the other side.

It was added to their leasing section on their website recently, it was not there a few months ago.

What kind of business would you open?

Was looking at a small bar. Still on the table for down the road.

Originally Posted by Riverman

Why? It is a mixed use area, would you rather the workers there drive to work in the suburbs? It totally makes sense.

Originally Posted by esquire

^ The mixed uses are fine, but the site design is abysmal and hurts the walkability of the area. Unfortunately it was built in the early 2000s just before the City began raising its standards for projects like that.

Huh Riverman? Like Esquire said – it's the way it was built, not the use. Makes that stretch of street/sidewalk barren and desolate.

Originally Posted by Bdog

The MTS offices built up to the street would make a nice transition to the blank Transit garage wall, which is also conveniently built up the property line.

Transit building is about 15 feet back, has grass and trees planted along it, and blocks wind and dust from parking lot. It's much more pleasant and comfortable to walk along. Even McDonalds built to the sidewalk like Sherbrook/Portage location would've been a huge help, instead of a drive-thru along the sidewalk.

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

Same developer did the RBC call centre on Taylor. Same MO -- main entrance tucked back deep into a giant parking lot, zero interaction with the street. Bad enough there, but on Osborne it serves to completely disconnect two neighbourhoods from one another.

At least Taylor RBC is essentially in a field, not really breaking up anything at all. And everything around it has been big box – across the field is Pan Am parking lot and GP soccer/football fields.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

Huh Riverman? Like Esquire said – it's the way it was built, not the use. Makes that stretch of street/sidewalk barren and desolate.

I think it's fine, glad there is a Co-op there. I have walked by there several times, doesn't seem barren to me at all.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by drew

Devil's advocate: That Co-op and McD's are a usual fuel up point on our trips to the family cottage near LOTW.

If that call centre was built along the street, we would drive by that property without a second look or thought. A call centre really wouldn't have added a great deal of vibrancy to the area. Certainly a gas station and McDs gets more traffic than the most urban of call centres could ever hope to attract.

Originally Posted by drew

^ It's true it could have been proportioned better - BUT, I am sure the leasability of the land to prime clients such as a Co-op and McD's necessitated the maximum curbside exposure.

This guy gets it.

It's probably unfair to assume that prospective tenants all like these layouts we prefer.

More importantly, I think we're asking a bit much of a call centre here. Demanding a huge MTS/Co-op/McD's lot to be walkable is like asking a Chevy Surburban to dance.

It's not doing much for the area, but not many other properties are either. Perhaps the precedent was already set here.

[esquire]

^ I agree, the damage was done around there to some degree. But that's a flimsy excuse because if you allow that rationale, how would the area ever get better?

For what it's worth even a minimal effort would have improved that development dramatically:

- orient the call centre so that at least one side is adjacent to Osborne, with parking set back to the west side.
- the McDonald's is fine for the most part, just build it up closer to the street
- find a way to make the Co-op occupy less than an acre or whatever it actually takes up. As built it occupies a crazy amount of space.

I wasn't expecting 4 storey mixed use buildings to pop up around there, but there should be minimal standards. As I said before, if that parcel was being developed today, I suspect the current configuration wouldn't have been allowed... or at least not without some minimal efforts to improve it.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ I agree, the damage was done around there to some degree. But that's a flimsy excuse because if you allow that rationale, how would the area ever get better?

For what it's worth even a minimal effort would have improved that development dramatically:

- orient the call centre so that at least one side is adjacent to Osborne, with parking set back to the west side.
- the McDonald's is fine for the most part, just build it up closer to the street
- find a way to make the Co-op occupy less than an acre or whatever it actually takes up. As built it occupies a crazy amount of space.

I wasn't expecting 4 storey mixed use buildings to pop up around there, but there should be minimal standards. As I said before, if that parcel was being developed today, I suspect the current configuration wouldn't have been allowed... or at least not without some minimal efforts to improve it.

I'd say you're right.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ I agree, the damage was done around there to some degree. But that's a flimsy excuse because if you allow that rationale, how would the area ever get better?

For what it's worth even a minimal effort would have improved that development dramatically:

- orient the call centre so that at least one side is adjacent to Osborne, with parking set back to the west side.
- the McDonald's is fine for the most part, just build it up closer to the street
- find a way to make the Co-op occupy less than an acre or whatever it actually takes up. As built it occupies a crazy amount of space.

I wasn't expecting 4 storey mixed use buildings to pop up around there, but there should be minimal standards. As I said before, if that parcel was being developed today, I suspect the current configuration wouldn't have been allowed... or at least not without some minimal efforts to improve it.

Yup, and everyone keeps saying how maybe this is the only way these tenants wanted it. BS. If the city didn't allow this design, they would have reconfigured just fine – or the developers could have easily found other tenants... this is pretty prime space.

And honestly (not that even worried about this as much as the layout) ... this is a perfect place for 4 storey mixed used development, right in the middle of mature neighbourhoods, minutes from downtown. Plus, now it's got an RT stop! Haha. If (when) BellMTS moves out, and if they struggle to find tenants, would be ripe for high density TOD.

[esquire]

^ Good point, it is probably a decent little land bank for TOD. The buildings on that site are practically disposable, ready for demolition and replacement once fully depreciated. I could definitely see that turn into a couple of apartment buildings + other things.

[buzzg]

All the space around there opposite the tracks (on Pembina) has been designated for high-density in the future plans. Would be great there as well.

[horrorbro123]

Fast Fired By Carbone is Coming To Kildonan Place

[wags_in_the_peg]

Originally Posted by horrorbro123

Fast Fired By Carbone is Coming To Kildonan Place u

also Carbone is opening a small place in Sage Creek