Winnipeg | Osborne Village & Corydon area

[rypinion]

Actually, steveosnyder and I took a lengthy drive through Bridgwater on Saturday. While it is still mostly single family homes, it is a fair bit "better" than other suburbs in terms of the types of things this board usually appreciates. Front yards are small, houses aren't spread out at all, and lots of multi family. Houses were quite varied in appearance, and there was very little stucco.

Steve O may have more to say about it.

My opinion is that it'll come down to how Bridgwater Centre and Kenaston works out to decide how nice the development is.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by rypinion

and there was very little stucco.

What then? Vinyl?

I really like the cementitious siding that is out now.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Exactly. It's also worth mentioning in light of this year's incredible snow dump how unsuited the city is to any further development requiring back lanes. As soon as you rid yourself of front drives by relaxing setbacks in suburban communities, you're forced to pave and maintain a back lane for access. They're currently doing this in Waterford Green and they're going to live to regret it. Yes, it gives the streets a more neighbourhood feel - though, I'd argue River Heights is no more 'walkable' even with this configuration than say, East. Ft Garry with its driveways here and there - it contributes to the larger problem of managing future infrastructure.

It's an interesting dichotomy. Front drives push houses back, but they're the owner's problem at the very least...

I think the bolded section of this quote could be removed and it would still be valid. This is similar to the conjunction fallacy. As for statements on walkability and neighbourhood feel, I don't think adding a sidewalk that isn't cut by driveways makes a place any more or less walkable. You still won't have anywhere to walk. This is also the reason that I get mad when sidewalks that are heavily used get cut by driveways (see Hargrave parkade, hotel proposal at the creswin lot).

This is the reason I find "active transportation routes" kinda silly as well. Sure, people in EK can walk/run along the active transportation route along CPT extension... But where will they go?

These active transportation corridors are exercise corridors, not for transportation.

Originally Posted by rypinion

Actually, steveosnyder and I took a lengthy drive through Bridgwater on Saturday. While it is still mostly single family homes, it is a fair bit "better" than other suburbs in terms of the types of things this board usually appreciates. Front yards are small, houses aren't spread out at all, and lots of multi family. Houses were quite varied in appearance, and there was very little stucco.

Steve O may have more to say about it.

My opinion is that it'll come down to how Bridgwater Centre and Kenaston works out to decide how nice the development is.

While I think the density of the neighbourhood wasn't too bad, density doesn't equate to anything. I think I mentioned it on the drive -- if the people who live in the neighbourhood still have to drive everywhere then the majority of their time will be spend in the car.

You can't have relationships with your neighbour if they are in their car all the time.

EDIT: Back to the topic -- winnipeg village area. Big alluded to the fact that the businesses there are sustained by the people who live there mostly. Does anyone know the actual numbers for this?

[biguc]

Originally Posted by rypinion

Actually, steveosnyder and I took a lengthy drive through Bridgwater on Saturday. While it is still mostly single family homes, it is a fair bit "better" than other suburbs in terms of the types of things this board usually appreciates. Front yards are small, houses aren't spread out at all, and lots of multi family. Houses were quite varied in appearance, and there was very little stucco.

Steve O may have more to say about it.

My opinion is that it'll come down to how Bridgwater Centre and Kenaston works out to decide how nice the development is.

It's a foregone conclusion that Bridgwater centre won't work out. It can't possibly. In fact, I will bet you any amount of money it's a spectacular failure.

Bridgwater isn't as bad as it could be, no. But it's still bad. They've thrown in a smattering of townhouses and apartments, but they aren't close to anything. None of that neighborhood is going to be close to retail. Sure, they've laced it with walking paths, but they go nowhere.

For the record, 3/4 walls on every house is stucco. They've just put other fake finishing on the front of most houses.


And while Bridgwater is the best of WW, go to South Pointe (I guess that's where the "e" from bridgewater ended up) some time. It's a nightmarish hell of taupe stucco.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by biguc

Osborne and Corydon already work, Heisenberg. Government meddling will only fuck them up. See the recent parking plan for Corydon.


Dennis, I'm not sure I get your point but Kawaii is owned by Village residents.

Well there's not much else to say. If no citizen wants to cultivate/envision some sort of a future for the area then there's not much a developer can do.

As soon some suburban areas start to get some mixed-use and entertainment (like bars and such) buildings, that's when downtown will drastically become less significant. I do think that will happen with Bridgewater eventually (as indicated by their plans) but not for a looooong time.

[biguc]

I don't know why you think neighborhoods that have a fine present have no future unless someone does something about it. And developers are getting along fine right now by doing what developers do and will always do: developing property. There are probably a half dozen projects underway right now in the Village and there's no reason I can see that place will slow.

As for your belief that urbanized suburbs will detract from downtown: there isn't a single city to support this belief. On the contrary, in North America (the home of downtowns), cities with stronger neighborhoods have stronger downtowns. Downtown will always foster a different culture and remain a destination with the biggest attractions. Just because people living off St. Annes could go to their neighborhood pub doesn't mean they'll stop going to downtown clubs, concerts, Jets games, or art galleries. If anything, better neighborhoods will foster better transit use, a more urban mentality, and more connection to downtown and its attractions than suburbia and its weak facsimiles.

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by biguc

And developers are getting along fine right now by doing what developers do and will always do: developing property. There are probably a half dozen projects underway right now in the Village and there's no reason I can see that place will slow.

If not more, This is again straight to the point. Progress is happening at a sustainable rate and chugging along with the current market conditions.

Any one not familiar with the area should take a walk and play count the current multi family and 3-5 storey buildings proposed or under construction in this area.

I counted 5 south of Corydon Ave on a 10 minute walk.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

I think the bolded section of this quote could be removed and it would still be valid. This is similar to the conjunction fallacy.

I didn't mean this for the purposes of practicality. I meant this strictly as a city requirement. The city will not allow everybody to scramble park on the street, so they require on-site parking. If you're relaxing front setbacks, you'll be using the rear setback for these purposes and that will require a lane...

[Cyro]

629 Dudley Ave, Hugo St N, R3M $7,000,000 est PREPARING PLANS
Note: City council rezoning and site plan approvals have been secured. Design development is underway. Schedules for working drawings, tender for general contractor and construction are undetermined.
Project: construction of a stacked townhouse building with six units in three storeys. The project will include demolition of a residential building adjacent to the exisiting medical clinic on the site.
Scope: 55,000 square feet; 3 storeys; 1 storey below grade; 6 units
Development: New
Category: Apartment bldg

Nice add to South Corydon /Crescentwood, Apt as well.Infill on a lonely stretch of Pembina.
Have not looked up details on the project as of yet.

[headhorse]

5468796 project, I think. looked good

[Cyro]

5468796 it is.

http://winnipeg.ca/CLKDMIS/ViewDoc.a.../c/2014/m13318

Location and required variances for this proposal are listed, photos are not. We'll find one eventually.

[Cyro]

CC tommorow. May.6th.

Subdivision and Rezoning - 373, 359 and 357 River Avenue - DASZ 2/2014

3- http://www.winnipeg.ca/CLKDMIS/ViewD...cc/2014/a13543

Rendering of proposal available

4 - This variance has more detailed plans on the proposal and is right below the Subdivision/Rezoning above by Cibinel Architects Ltd.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by Cyro

CC tommorow. May.6th.

Subdivision and Rezoning - 373, 359 and 357 River Avenue - DASZ 2/2014

3- http://www.winnipeg.ca/CLKDMIS/ViewD...cc/2014/a13543

Rendering of proposal available

4 - This variance has more detailed plans on the proposal and is right below the Subdivision/Rezoning above by Cibinel Architects Ltd.

Interesting stuff. One of the rare times the planning department has actually inserted as a condition that the building look like the rendering by the time it comes out of the ground! This is a rental, though. There's no way the glazed staircase and lobby make the cut even thought they're specifically referred...

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Interesting stuff. One of the rare times the planning department has actually inserted as a condition that the building look like the rendering by the time it comes out of the ground! This is a rental, though.

There's no way the glazed staircase and lobby make the cut even thought they're specifically referred...

Good point. It does seem to be something we don't here of too often.

The glazed additions in all probability, may be removed for something more cost efficient and practical for a rental property in the final plan. It would be a nice addition to the structure though.

[Flatland Metropolis]

If built, it is certainly a wonderful addition to the River-Stradbrook area and certainly fits the themes of that neighbourhood.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Interesting stuff. One of the rare times the planning department has actually inserted as a condition that the building look like the rendering by the time it comes out of the ground!

I only read that as a "recommendation".


"it is recommended that the final design be consistent with the plans that were originally submitted with the rezoning and variance application – including an enclosed and glazed staircase on River Avenue and an enclosed and glazed lobby at grade on River Avenue"

If they would have said "the final design SHALL be consistent..." now that has some teeth.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by drew

I only read that as a "recommendation".


"it is recommended that the final design be consistent with the plans that were originally submitted with the rezoning and variance application – including an enclosed and glazed staircase on River Avenue and an enclosed and glazed lobby at grade on River Avenue"

If they would have said "the final design SHALL be consistent..." now that has some teeth.

Well, I mean, everything in these reports is merely a recommendation to be considered by the community committee. If the community committee accepts the recommendation for approval or rejection and its accompanying conditions, this will become binding on the development.

Regardless of the wording, I'd be ensuring the committee heard they're doing their best to adhere to the originally submitted plans but that there will be cuts based on final pricing and design and be advocating for the removal of that wording altogether before it becomes part of the zoning agreement...

That's one of those seemingly throwaway paragraphs that end up causing grief down the line. I've seen those sorts of loosely worded recommendations force something back in front of the committee. Nobody needs that kind of risk whether your intentions are good or not...

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by drew

I only read that as a "recommendation".


"it is recommended that the final design be consistent with the plans that were originally submitted with the rezoning and variance application – including an enclosed and glazed staircase on River Avenue and an enclosed and glazed lobby at grade on River Avenue"

If they would have said "the final design SHALL be consistent..." now that has some teeth.

Something tells me it wouldn't matter... The community committee will think these requirements are too burdensome and make recommendations to the Property Development committee that exclude those requirements.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

Something tells me it wouldn't matter... The community committee will think these requirements are too burdensome and make recommendations to the Property Development committee that exclude those requirements.

They can be and they are. If you hold somebody to a specific design and the costs of a particular commodity increase wildly between design and construction, all you're effectively doing is guaranteeing you get nothing instead of something. You're also unduly punishing the developer for something completely outside of their control.

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by Flatland Metropolis

If built, it is certainly a wonderful addition to the River-Stradbrook area and certainly fits the themes of that neighbourhood.

It certainly would be a nice addition to this area.

It's becoming more and more difficult to find suitable or vacant lots and property to develop.