HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2013, 6:40 PM
oftheMoon's Avatar
oftheMoon oftheMoon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: East Exchanger
Posts: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamieDavid Exchange View Post
Why are all the "naysayers" over the grant to lure residential growth around the Downtown so up in arms about? This is not a new idea. Regina is offering a five year tax break to their residents who chose to move to their new iconic development by Fortress.

Does a five year tax break sound better than a one lump sum? A five year tax break here would be on average $17,000-$19,000 per unit. Much better than a onetime payment of $10,000, IMO. Plus, the city of Winnipeg will be collecting property tax over those five years from those who collected the $10,000! Sounds like a great offer to ALL the citizens of this city. $2.1 million up front for roughly $4 million in revenue after five years.
Is this the program in Regina you're referring to? I'm just looking for some background reference to draw some comparison to what we know was proposed here.

http://www.regina.ca/opencms/export/...icyjan2012.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2013, 6:46 PM
Biff's Avatar
Biff Biff is offline
What could go wrong?
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 5,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by red_179 View Post
Also with regards to the parking availability, it sounds like Streetside and Sunstone themselves were the ones that pulled out of the James Avenue Parkade, so it would be pretty disingenuous of them to blame the City for not providing parking.
The problem (well not the only one but....) with the Streetside and Sunstone project was the provision from the province to add a residential and commercial component to the parkade. I heard about the stages as it was being developed and they just couldn't make the numbers work budget wise. Before it fell apart it was huge, I heard very expensive $30 - $50 million and possibly 10 to 20 storeys tall. It was much more that just a parkade.

It will likely now result in just that, a parkade for about 400-500 vehicles.
__________________
"But a city can be smothered by too much reverence for its past. The skyline must keep acquiring new peaks, because the day we consider it complete and untouchable is the day the city begins to die." - Justin Davidson - May 2010 Issue of New York
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2013, 7:48 PM
ctochico ctochico is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 110
its simple, just count the number of condos sold with parking vs condos without...simple answer
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2013, 8:00 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 10,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveosnyder View Post
For 2 reasons, mainly. Mostly because the burbs don't get this benefit (but they won't talk about the benefits they do get that don't come with living downtown). The other reason that people may or may not understand is that the City will still receive taxes for the condos already built, it will just be paid for by the current owner (the developer) rather than the occupant.

EDIT: I suppose that is one reason why I would be for the subsidy; if the City doesn't help the developers get rid of these condos they would need even more justification in the future to build downtown.
we pay for people to live in the suburbs too....we all paid $55m for roads in waverly west...soon we will build new schools there, sewers, snow clearing, garbage pick up...on and on....we do not incur any more of those costs for downtown development.

it is great to say the market should dictate it all but that simply isnt the reality.....construction costs in downtown winnipeg do not match rental or condo sale prices....the market does not exist without help....hopefully that changes one day but today if we want to steer development into the downtown and create a residential demand that will one day stand on its own market forces, we will have to suck it up and subsidize it....in the context of what we pay for people to live in the burbs its a relative steal.

its bad optics to simply hand out money for sure.....but a real TIFF or the original grant program are essential to move our city forward properly.

like it or not.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2013, 8:12 PM
rypinion's Avatar
rypinion rypinion is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East Exchange, Winnipeg
Posts: 1,396
I think it comes down to the "market rates" for non-downtown development isn't "fair" and doesn't reflect the actual costs to the city for these developments. If the true cost of all the road and sewer work was actually rolled into the development fees for new suburbs, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. We'd be exactly where steveo wants to be, and we'd have downtown condos being priced much lower than suburban equivalents. Everyone here (except the person looking to move into Waverly West or Ridgewood South) would be happy.

That isn't an easy thing to accomplish though. Does anyone really see council doing what is necessary for this to happen anytime this decade?

Until that happens we need something that allows downtown homes to be priced more 'fairly' in comparison to their suburban counterparts.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2013, 9:18 PM
Authentic_City's Avatar
Authentic_City Authentic_City is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
its bad optics to simply hand out money for sure.....
Bingo. I think it's the form of the subsidy that irks a lot of people. It just looks bad to a lot of people. I'm surprised that so many councilors voted for it in the first place. But, I agree the city needs to do something to get residential development entrenched in the area. And like it or not, that will involve spending tax dollars to make it happen.

Why not consider a property tax holiday for residents purchasing an new/unoccupied condo in the exchange?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2013, 9:22 PM
Shinook Shinook is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 656
We can all sit here and talk about market forces, price points, tax incentives, etc. all we want. But none of this will solve the issue that is the main factor causing this problem; parking. If we don't get proper parking for these units, none of that other "mumbo jumbo" will matter because the vast majority of people WILL NOT purchase these condos without parking stall.

Solve this problem, and the bulk of this problem goes away instantly. This isn't rocket science.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2013, 9:29 PM
Andy6's Avatar
Andy6 Andy6 is offline
Starring as himself
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto Yorkville
Posts: 7,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Authentic_City View Post
Bingo. I think it's the form of the subsidy that irks a lot of people. It just looks bad to a lot of people. I'm surprised that so many councilors voted for it in the first place. But, I agree the city needs to do something to get residential development entrenched in the area. And like it or not, that will involve spending tax dollars to make it happen.

Why not consider a property tax holiday for residents purchasing an new/unoccupied condo in the exchange?
Why? All this does is ensure that no one ever does anything in future except where there's a subsidy. Everyone (developer and buyer) will always be waiting for the next subsidy program. It's like a drug addiction. Who wants to be the sucker who pays full value for something when, if you just hold back, the city will panic and give you free money for doing something you would have done anyway.
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2013, 9:45 PM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 5,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy6 View Post
Why? All this does is ensure that no one ever does anything in future except where there's a subsidy. Everyone (developer and buyer) will always be waiting for the next subsidy program. It's like a drug addiction. Who wants to be the sucker who pays full value for something when, if you just hold back, the city will panic and give you free money for doing something you would have done anyway.
couldn't have said it better myself!
__________________
I'm sober enough to know what I'm doing, and drunk enough to really enjoy it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2013, 10:02 PM
Authentic_City's Avatar
Authentic_City Authentic_City is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,180
Meh, the city provides lots of incentives and subsidizes development in a lot of largely invisible ways. As has already been said, suburban development is already heavily subsidized. Why not level the playing field to encourage downtown development? Handing out 10K cheques looks bad. Handing out $5million to a developer to build a parkade somehow looks better. Both are subsidies aimed at encouraging development in a particular area. The free market has had decades to work its invisible magic on the Exchange. I think it's perfectly reasonable to prime the pump to get things moving a bit faster. Obviously, the public is not prepared to swallow the city doling out cheques. On the other hand, various tax incentives (i.e. TIF) might be more palatable downtown and would not require that the city borrow scads of money up front.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy6 View Post
Why? All this does is ensure that no one ever does anything in future except where there's a subsidy. Everyone (developer and buyer) will always be waiting for the next subsidy program. It's like a drug addiction. Who wants to be the sucker who pays full value for something when, if you just hold back, the city will panic and give you free money for doing something you would have done anyway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2013, 10:05 PM
drew's Avatar
drew drew is offline
the first stamp is free
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hippyville, Winnipeg
Posts: 5,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy6 View Post
It's like a drug addiction.
Exactly. Downtown Winnipeg is like a metaphor for somebody who is down and out on their luck, with a substance abuse problem and not much hope for the future.

Just like anyone else in society with problems like this, the cure for downtown is to get it off the street (so to speak) and into publicly funded programs to ease off the addictions (subsidies) and to rehabilitate the area.

The goal is to transform the area into somewhere that contributes to society - and yes, just like a person with a drug addiction - it's gonna cost the public some money to get it done - for the greater good.

You have been living in Toronto too long if you think that Downtown Winnipeg will ever improve by simply waiting for market forces to drive the change.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2013, 11:19 PM
Wigglez's Avatar
Wigglez Wigglez is online now
Source?
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by drew View Post
Exactly. Downtown Winnipeg is like a metaphor for somebody who is down and out on their luck, with a substance abuse problem and not much hope for the future.

Just like anyone else in society with problems like this, the cure for downtown is to get it off the street (so to speak) and into publicly funded programs to ease off the addictions (subsidies) and to rehabilitate the area.

The goal is to transform the area into somewhere that contributes to society - and yes, just like a person with a drug addiction - it's gonna cost the public some money to get it done - for the greater good.

You have been living in Toronto too long if you think that Downtown Winnipeg will ever improve by simply waiting for market forces to drive the change.
Who needs to be cured first to solve the problem, the downtown, or the people who inhabit it? (I am of course referring to the people who require drug addiction programs, not 100% of the people that live downtown)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2013, 4:05 AM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 10,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy6 View Post
Why? All this does is ensure that no one ever does anything in future except where there's a subsidy. Everyone (developer and buyer) will always be waiting for the next subsidy program. It's like a drug addiction. Who wants to be the sucker who pays full value for something when, if you just hold back, the city will panic and give you free money for doing something you would have done anyway.
i don't disagree that it might breed a culture of this type but i have been through the analysis.....its all about construction costs...winnipeg has some of the highest construction costs in canada and one of the lowest property values...it is particularly bad downtown with tight sites and shoring costs.

i worked through a feasibility study for a residential tower downtown and it would have cost 75% of the total to build the exact same thing in toronto or vancouver...and be way more valuable...they simply don't have our soil conditions or our climate issues....its a reality of Winnipeg....lower land values make up for some of the construction cost but it doesnt work, rental or purchase...the shortfall is about the $20k per door that the residential grant gives....it isnt greedy developers...the margins are still tight....its just easier to build a low rise suburban townhouse.

taxes are for spending money on the public good.....schools, hospitals, roads...and building a strong urban core.....if we don't do it we will pay a far higher price in the end.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2013, 4:04 PM
JamieDavid Exchange JamieDavid Exchange is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff View Post
The problem (well not the only one but....) with the Streetside and Sunstone project was the provision from the province to add a residential and commercial component to the parkade. I heard about the stages as it was being developed and they just couldn't make the numbers work budget wise. Before it fell apart it was huge, I heard very expensive $30 - $50 million and possibly 10 to 20 storeys tall. It was much more that just a parkade.

It will likely now result in just that, a parkade for about 400-500 vehicles.
A 10 to 20 story mixed used development?!?!?!? ARE YOU F#@KING KIDDING ME?!?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS CITY???????? That is EXACTLY the kind of development the Exchange needed to really make this area a neighbourhood and would of added density to the area. I'm so upset ALL parties involved couldn't get their acts together. Sounds like another missed opportunity, just like the misfortune for the huge surface lot on Bannatyne behind Ship St that happened a while back.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2013, 4:16 PM
rypinion's Avatar
rypinion rypinion is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East Exchange, Winnipeg
Posts: 1,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamieDavid Exchange View Post
A 10 to 20 story mixed used development?!?!?!? ARE YOU F#@KING KIDDING ME?!?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS CITY???????? That is EXACTLY the kind of development the Exchange needed to really make this area a neighbourhood and would of added density to the area. I'm so upset ALL parties involved couldn't get their acts together. Sounds like another missed opportunity, just like the misfortune for the huge surface lot on Bannatyne behind Ship St that happened a while back.
I'm presuming what Biff is getting at was that in order for a mixed use parkade to work financially it had to go 10 - 20 floors into the air, and that in turn made it way too expensive (and/or risky). Probably doesn't help that there's four or five other highrise residential developments on the table at the moment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2013, 4:21 PM
oftheMoon's Avatar
oftheMoon oftheMoon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: East Exchanger
Posts: 516
Live music venue

New live music venue in the East Exchange. But where will 500 people park...

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/art...216880081.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2013, 4:50 PM
steveosnyder steveosnyder is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: YWG
Posts: 1,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
we pay for people to live in the suburbs too....we all paid $55m for roads in waverly west...soon we will build new schools there, sewers, snow clearing, garbage pick up...on and on....we do not incur any more of those costs for downtown development.
If you noticed in my very next post I stated that they weren't good reasons; I stated that this is why the majority of Winnipeg is against it. I then stated exactly what you are saying here, that suburban development patterns have been subsidized since the inception of zoning codes in all their glory.

I also gave my reason for not liking it: more subsidies are not the answer; making up for subsidizing the suburbs by subsidizing downtown will create huge expenses that the civic government can't afford. A better answer would be to charge more for suburban development.

But I agree with Rypinion -- this will not happen with the current council and, more than likely, in my lifetime.

What we need is a council that isn't funded by developers.

Last edited by steveosnyder; Jul 25, 2013 at 5:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2013, 5:23 PM
Cyro's Avatar
Cyro Cyro is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by oftheMoon View Post
New live music venue in the East Exchange. But where will 500 people park...

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/art...216880081.html

As a musician who played many of the Exchange District's venues, both past/present this is a great addition!

A live venue adds a certain type of vibrancy to an area that you don't experience in a regular pub/bar. It's hard to explain but the traffic created benifit's other buisness in the area, both before and after a live gig.(although having an apt/condo in close proximity may not make all residents in the area happy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2013, 5:41 PM
oftheMoon's Avatar
oftheMoon oftheMoon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: East Exchanger
Posts: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyrodill View Post
A live venue adds a certain type of vibrancy to an area that you don't experience in a regular pub/bar. It's hard to explain but the traffic created benifit's other buisness in the area, both before and after a live gig.(although having an apt/condo in close proximity may not make all residents in the area happy)
Agreed! As someone considering moving into the area, I’m all for this. It adds something to the area. There could be “noise” concerns (people before and after and the band itself I suppose), but I feel that’s a part of living downtown – it comes with all sorts of sounds you don’t get elsewhere, it's part of the vibe. And knowing I can catch a live musical act just up the street at in a cool venue like it seems this one will be works for me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2013, 2:44 PM
Cyro's Avatar
Cyro Cyro is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,198
Downtown 'quick fix' panned
Report opposing incentives to turn heritage buildings into condos kept quiet
By: Bartley Kives

A downtown revitalization strategy commissioned by the City of Winnipeg but subsequently kept under wraps advised officials to "resist the temptation to pursue quick fixes" to increase residential development in the city's core.

Quote:
"If $100,000 of incentives can help create 20 units through new construction versus 10 similar units through the conversion of non-residential space, the former clearly would be more cost effective," the report stated.

The high cost of condo conversions in the East Exchange has left developers with narrow profit margins -- keeping purchase costs above the means of some prospective buyers.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/loc...217061711.html

Good article by Bart, A 2008 report kept under wraps by our city council? A different perspective on what should have been done.

ps: (nice skyline shot in the article)
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:42 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.