Winnipeg | Osborne Village & Corydon area

[Wolf13]

I'm perhaps slightly more tolerant for less-than-perfect design if it gets density into neighbourhoods but DAMN those are bad. Yes, budget and all, but I have a feeling a blind person could shit out something nicer...

Originally Posted by buzzg

OK well they can pay taxes if they don't want any government control whatsoever. Can't just be allowed to freely operate with no rules or expenses.

As someone who is personally not religious, I could easily make the argument that they shouldn't be exempt from any taxes.

Because they don't make money.

From an academic perspective, it's a fair but flawed point, but it just doesn't work out in reality unfortunately. The return comes in form of their contribution to communities. Admittedly, it's clearly not in the form of streetscape here, but people.

But religious organizations are clearly not the same as individuals or corps. They are very much within confines of government guideline, but are protected from those guidelines continually shrinking around them. In principle. It's not like their anarchistic rogue russian spy agencies haha.

[borkborkbork]

Great to see the infill in the Village, especially that little duplex being replaced on Stradbrook.

Mixed feelings about the one on River. Happy to see 100 units where there used to be 50, but that does mean that some of the neighbourhood's more affordable (<$800) rentals will get bulldozed.

On an unrelated note, it looks from that agenda that the Gas Station Theatre is having its application to clean up/improve the corner common space at Osborne/River denied. That is really unfortunate, since that space is currently a bit of a blight on the neighbourhood.

[Wpg_Guy]

Is a 5 storey height limit in the Village too low?

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

Great to see the infill in the Village, especially that little duplex being replaced on Stradbrook.

Mixed feelings about the one on River. Happy to see 100 units where there used to be 50, but that does mean that some of the neighbourhood's more affordable (<$800) rentals will get bulldozed.

On an unrelated note, it looks from that agenda that the Gas Station Theatre is having its application to clean up/improve the corner common space at Osborne/River denied. That is really unfortunate, since that space is currently a bit of a blight on the neighbourhood.

One on River overall looks good to me, except I wish they found a way to not keep the parking lot on the river. Only thing that scares me is BLDG tends to turn out junk, but these renders appear to make it look like lots of brick.

Originally Posted by Wolf13

Because they don't make money.

From an academic perspective, it's a fair but flawed point, but it just doesn't work out in reality unfortunately. The return comes in form of their contribution to communities. Admittedly, it's clearly not in the form of streetscape here, but people.

But religious organizations are clearly not the same as individuals or corps. They are very much within confines of government guideline, but are protected from those guidelines continually shrinking around them. In principle. It's not like their anarchistic rogue russian spy agencies haha.

In principle sure, but there are many (of all faiths) that generate a ton of money, and sure it's not "corporate profit" but there are many congregations where the leaders make a ton of money, and the institution sits on a ton of it... so it's not all that different.

I'm not saying we should tax them at all, just that they can't be exempt from all rule of law, considering it's just a bunch of beliefs. I believe in karma – why can't I make my house a place of worship... There's danger in deciding what constitutes a "religion."

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

Is a 5 storey height limit in the Village too low?

Is that even a thing? There's multiple buildings of 10 stories on Mayfair and Roslyn, not to mention the towers on the west side of Osborne.

I do believe there are rules all over the city for how tall you can build based on how close your building, and the neighbouring building, are to the property line. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it's likely a reason we're seeing lots of smaller buildings – small lots. Not to mention costs of course.

[Wpg_Guy]

Regarding 281 River

Village High Density Residential Policies
Encourage medium and high-rise multiple-family development;
o New development along River Avenue east of Osborne Street will have a
minimum of three storeys, and a maximum height of five storeys;
o New high-density development should consider the height, scale, prevailing
densities, and design characteristics of surrounding land uses;
The proposed five (5) storey, 99 unit multi-family building is consistent with the above policies in
the VHDR policy area of the OVNP. The proposed building is within the established height
limits, is adding additional residential density to the area and is consistent in scale and density with buildings in the surrounding area.

[michelleb]

Originally Posted by esquire

The proposal gives off a vibe similar to the new Osborne Place as well as the building that went up on the site of the old Banana Boat.

Good eye. DIN Projects also designed the ugly as sin Chaeban Ice Cream building next door and the 257 Osborne office building (Osborne Place at the Station). They really like blocky buildings based on their other projects: http://www.dinprojects.ca/

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

Regarding 281 River

Village High Density Residential Policies
Encourage medium and high-rise multiple-family development;
o New development along River Avenue east of Osborne Street will have a
minimum of three storeys, and a maximum height of five storeys;
o New high-density development should consider the height, scale, prevailing
densities, and design characteristics of surrounding land uses;
The proposed five (5) storey, 99 unit multi-family building is consistent with the above policies in
the VHDR policy area of the OVNP. The proposed building is within the established height
limits, is adding additional residential density to the area and is consistent in scale and density with buildings in the surrounding area.

Interesting. Seems a little odd. I guess I can see the 5 limit height making sense at the street (like this development), but I wonder if maybe they'd allow something taller if it was situated closer to the river. There's 5 buildings with 7+ storeys on the river side of River, between Donald and Osborne.

Originally Posted by michelleb

Good eye. DIN Projects also designed the ugly as sin Chaeban Ice Cream building next door and the 257 Osborne office building (Osborne Place at the Station). They really like blocky buildings based on their other projects: http://www.dinprojects.ca/

Chaeban is the former Banana Boat esquire was referring to. It's a great project, but the finishings are terrible. Maybe that siding wouldn't look as bad if it wasn't grey. They dropped a lot of the modern/minimalistic touches from the renders, which sucks.

Has anyone heard anything regarding Osborne Place? I just don't get it. All the construction is cleaned up and gone, landscaping done, but the building isn't finished and no one has moved in. Really hope this didn't jeopardize the residential building planned.

[EndoftheBeginning]

Construction update from today - 180 Roslyn Apartments (used to be known as the Dennistoun Condo project).


photo be me

Reminder what the render looks like

[Wpg_Guy]

Thanks for the update pic!

[buzzg]

Looks great, seems like they’ve moved quickly on it.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Interesting. Seems a little odd. I guess I can see the 5 limit height making sense at the street (like this development), but I wonder if maybe they'd allow something taller if it was situated closer to the river. There's 5 buildings with 7+ storeys on the river side of River, between Donald and Osborne.

Would this be something similar to Provencher? Provencher on the south side limits to 4 storeys while they allow 6 on the north side, to prevent the south side from shading the north. Would limiting height on the river side allow for taller buildings on the south side to allow both to have some view of the river? just thinking out loud (or on my keyboard)

[Tacheguy]

Originally Posted by WildCake

Would this be something similar to Provencher? Provencher on the south side limits to 4 storeys while they allow 6 on the north side, to prevent the south side from shading the north. Would limiting height on the river side allow for taller buildings on the south side to allow both to have some view of the river? just thinking out loud (or on my keyboard)

I believe the south side limit on Provencher has been changed recently. I think that allowed the development beside le Garage to proceed. By the way, no signs of life yet on that one..

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by buzzg

In principle sure, but there are many (of all faiths) that generate a ton of money, and sure it's not "corporate profit" but there are many congregations where the leaders make a ton of money, and the institution sits on a ton of it... so it's not all that different.

I'm not saying we should tax them at all, just that they can't be exempt from all rule of law, considering it's just a bunch of beliefs. I believe in karma – why can't I make my house a place of worship... There's danger in deciding what constitutes a "religion."

That's the great thing with charities. They're subject to strict CRA reporting criteria, so it's easy for cynics to see how their funds are spent. Anyone can go online and instantly see how many permanent employees a church (or any charity) has on their payroll, their salary disclosures within a range, the percentage of their revenue spent on community outreach, among other things. That way, there's no need to speculate.

As for the bad neighbour argument, it would be interesting to hear what the actual neighbours think. You know, those who actually live in the area and have a direct stake in what the church does; the hundreds of Central Park residents who will tell you stories of how the church played a key role in their transition as newcomers. Not the Riverview urbanists who think the demolition of a vacant building built in 1970 is the definition of "destroying a neighbourhood".

[buzzg]

Pho Hoang is opening in the old Desart space. Not sure if their u/c Portage Ace location (Currie Building) has fallen through or if this is another location. Seems like a big space for a Pho joint.

[esquire]

^ That Pho Hoang spot on Portage must be closing in on a year of "opening soon" paper in the windows... I'm guessing it must have fallen through.

[Ando]

Currie building would be a good location for an Indian restaurant.

[esquire]

^ Don't make me post that rimshot meme again

[Urban recluse]

180 Roslyn will be a lovely retirement community.

[GarryEllice]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ That Pho Hoang spot on Portage must be closing in on a year of "opening soon" paper in the windows... I'm guessing it must have fallen through.

It hasn't been anywhere close to a year. Kim Long was still getting reviews online in October 2017. I believe the Pho Hoang sign went up around March 2018, and I've heard hammering and sawing in there as recently as a few weeks ago.

Edit: The Portage location is the cover photo on their facebook page, and in a comment they say it'll be opening in July or August.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

It hasn't been anywhere close to a year. Kim Long was still getting reviews online in October 2017. I believe the Pho Hoang sign went up around March 2018, and I've heard hammering and sawing in there as recently as a few weeks ago.

Edit: The Portage location is the cover photo on their facebook page, and in a comment they say it'll be opening in July or August.

The sign went up in March 2018?! I could have sworn it was longer ago than that... I feel like I've been waiting for it to open since last year.