Killed potential - Page 3

newflyer · #41 Posted **Mar 21, 2009, 3:42 PM**

Thats is really the problem, the voice of the tiny minority is loud and complaining makes good news.

There really needs to be an organized voice for densification... in all established neighbourhoods.... and simple whining about change, as some do, is not enough to cancel a chance to densify the city. Winnipeg should come out with a statement that densifing the city is a priority.

Andy6 · #42 Posted **Mar 21, 2009, 5:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

What best makes a city safe?

What makes a city less costly to operate?

What attracts people to Osborne Village?

Urban Density

Just because there's some "density" there, it doesn't follow that more density would make it better. What exactly are the advantages of increasing the residential population of this area by what might be something like 1%? How does that compensate for the loss of the sense of history and character that give the area its charm, and which are the inheritance of all Winnipeggers? In addition to "density", another thing that attracts people to Osborne Village is the character of the old buildings and the trees and the hints that this was once the richest residential neighbourhood in the city.

Although I'm sure it's a fine company, "Sunstone Resort Communities" does not have an automatic right to do whatever it feels like simply because it's adding "density". Should every neighbourhood in the city ideally be "densified"? Every house replaced with a 50-storey condo tower? Why? This is Winnipeg, not Manhattan or Hong Kong. There is no shortage of space. I suspect that the main reason that people want this is so that they'll have a new "project" to yack about on Skyscraperpage. That's not a reason to ruin neighbourhoods over the objections of those that live in them, care about them, and have a financial stake in them. Winnipeg would be a great and interesting city, and a good place to live, even if it didn't have a single construction project on the go. If this project is really bringing a benefit to the community, then fine. But just pointing out that it adds "density" is not enough.

Only The Lonely.. · #43 Posted **Mar 21, 2009, 8:05 PM**

My way of looking at it, is if this project is successful perhaps it will encourage other developers to take a chance.

As Trueviking has pointed out, I think this is a case where the developer has done everything right. The company has consulted with the community, and is proposing to build something that fits within the current zoning of the area.

I say, let's do it!

Only The Lonely.. · #44 Posted **Mar 21, 2009, 8:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by newflyer

... traffic ... change ..

blah blah blah .. DO the NIMBY DANCE

trueviking · #45 Posted **Mar 21, 2009, 8:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by newflyer

Can't wait for Gerbasi to come out against this project.. somebody needs to ask her where she thinks people will live, since she votes against everything.
She is a waste of opportunity personified... I am continuously amazed that people vote for her, but then I realize she comepletely catters to the Nimby population and then it all makes sence.
Winnipeg has a big problem .. and Gerbasi is there leader.

as i said in the construction thread...your villification of gerbassi is once again based on some factless stereotype....she is a strong proponent of this project and has been instrumental in guiding it through the public process.

other developers could learn from how this project has approached a new building...there has been a series of public consultations that started when the project was in its planning infancy...all neighbourhood residents were invited and their concerns listened to....changes have been made accordingly....except for a few, the community supports this project, due in large part to their participation in the process. (is the whellams lane developer listening?)

btw...can anyone give me a few examples of development that gerbassi has opposed, that did not involve destruction of a heritage building in the exchange district?...just curious where this stereotype comes from....we need more councillors who are not development whores selling our future on the basis of tax revenue only.

MichaelM · #46 Posted **Mar 21, 2009, 8:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..

My way of looking at it, is if this project is successful perhaps it will encourage other developers to take a chance.

As Trueviking has pointed out, I think this is a case where the developer has done everything right. The company has consulted with the community, and is proposing to build something that fits within the current zoning of the area.

It's too bad you gotta kiss the communities ass.

And after you do that, they are still not happy.

I just got over that sh!t right now in Transcona. Took 1 year.

People with no voice, who work for the man for peanuts their whole life have a chance for their voice to be heard in front of the community committee. It gives them a sense of power, for the powerless.

Mostly jealousy and pointless verbal diarrhea from their mouths.

Most developers care about the neighborhood. I do, and I live in Linden Woods, not Transcona. And I have donated money to local Transcona charities as well. Not to mention my $25,000.00 donation to the U of M in 2005.

Just the plain truth.

Winnipeg = Anti-Business

viperred88 · #47 Posted **Mar 21, 2009, 9:31 PM**

i do not live on that street but I do live in the heart of this neighborhood and I wonder why I was never notified or seen signs of community consultations.

viperred88 · #48 Posted **Mar 21, 2009, 9:59 PM**

I can't see why they would not preserve the facade of these old house and build over top it. Besides can't these old trees be transplanted elsewhere in the neighborhood. I would even say they could move the houses facade up to the sidewalk. The architects have to be able to give and take when discussing with the community, they just can't be hell bent on building it one way. It is an old neighborhood with character and not a suburb.

Just by the corner Evergreen towers has a huge parking lot that could be developed they could even do a cost share with evergreen towers in building an underground parkade.

vid · #49 Posted **Mar 21, 2009, 10:17 PM**

Do you know how extensive a trees roots can be? You can't just "relocate" it.

viperred88 · #50 Posted **Mar 21, 2009, 11:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vid

Do you know how extensive a trees roots can be? You can't just "relocate" it.

thats funny I have seen old trees transplanted from one place to another. Years ago, we moved our huge evergreen and its holding its own pretty good now. At first we wondered how it will fair, we saw it struggle a bit but we made sure we watered all the time and spiked some nutrients into to its roots.

Archiseek · #51 Posted **Mar 23, 2009, 2:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by newflyer

aka... don't build new buildings in the inner city.

... traffic ... change ..

blah blah blah .. DO the NIMBY DANCE

Can't wait for Gerbasi to come out against this project.. somebody needs to ask her where she thinks people will live, since she votes against everything.
She is a waste of opportunity personified... I am continuously amazed that people vote for her, but then I realize she comepletely catters to the Nimby population and then it all makes sence.
Winnipeg has a big problem .. and Gerbasi is there leader.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...postcount=1822

newflyer · #52 Posted **Mar 23, 2009, 4:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

as i said in the construction thread...your villification of gerbassi is once again based on some factless stereotype....she is a strong proponent of this project and has been instrumental in guiding it through the public process.

other developers could learn from how this project has approached a new building...there has been a series of public consultations that started when the project was in its planning infancy...all neighbourhood residents were invited and their concerns listened to....changes have been made accordingly....except for a few, the community supports this project, due in large part to their participation in the process. (is the whellams lane developer listening?)

btw...can anyone give me a few examples of development that gerbassi has opposed, that did not involve destruction of a heritage building in the exchange district?...just curious where this stereotype comes from....we need more councillors who are not development whores selling our future on the basis of tax revenue only.

She has voted against many private developments over the years, as I expect even you recognize. She does seem okay with big government projects though.

I will keep closer tabs on her as we go along if you'd like.

She voted in favour of Welington West, but I expect her to vote against the IKEA development.

What was her view on 100 Main Street again?

I don't consider inviting development to the city as selling out the future, for tax revenue, but it is tax revenue which pays the city services we expect. Broadening out the tax burden over more payers benefits everyone. I also think adding density to be the best to incourage urban environments, and reduce the demand for urban sprawl.

The highrise proposal in EK should have been approved in a heartbeat, as should various row houses, but the old tired line of thinking that suburbs should not be seriously considered for increased density is not whats best for the city. Densification needs to be embraced.

GORDBO · #53 Posted **Oct 13, 2012, 11:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by newflyer

With the newly proposed Forks .. it is only a matter of time....

All those granolas will fight tooth and nail to save those gravel surface parking lots. It seems like Winnipeg witnessed something similar to this last year with 100 Main.

Here we go again..

... by the way has anyone heard anything about the amazing park which was to have occupied that surface lot at 100 Main.

... while we are at it ... hope those granolas have been making good use of the unused surface lot at Assiniboine Park, instead of generating revenue to revitalize the greatly aged zoo.

No kidding!!! I thought there was a time limit for the park people to get this done, almost 4 years later, and all I've heard is they want to put up a " temporary" parking lot, What the hell is wrong with this city?!

hexrae · #54 Posted **Oct 14, 2012, 3:05 AM**

Holy thread revival Batman!

rrskylar · #55 Posted **Oct 14, 2012, 4:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hexrae

Holy thread revival Batman!

No kidding. RIP newflyer.

lilwayne · #56 Posted **Oct 14, 2012, 7:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrskylar

No kidding. RIP newflyer.

this newflyer guy is dead?

1ajs · #57 Posted **Oct 14, 2012, 7:34 AM**

we dunno it seams so though hes gone mia and would not surprize me based on my encounters with him if he had a fatal heart attack

was a nice dude in person

armorand93 · #58 Posted **Oct 14, 2012, 5:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ajs

we dunno it seams so though hes gone mia and would not surprize me based on my encounters with him if he had a fatal heart attack

was a nice dude in person

Along with Kinguni gone, I'm the only transit-oriented person left.

Reminds me, we seriously need an SSP meeting.

vid · #59 Posted **Oct 14, 2012, 7:53 PM**

Yeah, because the last one was such a success. 33% of the people who attended weren't even from Winnipeg.

armorand93 · #60 Posted **Oct 14, 2012, 11:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vid

Yeah, because the last one was such a success. 33% of the people who attended weren't even from Winnipeg.

I would've went, but work got in the way. Alright, how about the Winnipeg Convention Centre for the career fair, around 5:30pm Tuesday afternoon? I'll make sure to be there.