City should fill its centre first

Sprawl brings more stress to transportation and services infrastructures

Winnipeg city council is about to debate its support for the development of the Waverly West project at the south end of Winnipeg.

The site is owned in part by the Province of Manitoba, and sits west of Waverly Street, between the Perimeter Highway and Bishop Grandin.   A significant percentage of the land is outside the urban development limit defined by Plan Winnipeg.  With expert opinion coming both for and against the project, it is difficult for the public to know whether the development is a good idea or a poor one.

In the early 1970s the province embarked on a program of landbanking, a tool borrowed from the U.K.  The theory of government landbanking was that if the government owned large enough parcels of suburban lands it could sell them at rates lower than those charged by private developers.  This could be done in large enough blocks to counterbalance the high prices charged by private business – and brake a precipitous rise in market-driven pricing.

With Winnipeg’s slow growth, this explosion in development and prices never occurred, and the government abandoned its landbanking policies many years ago.  But it did not abandon all of the lands they had acquired.

Parcels

Two years ago the then minister of family services and housing assistance to middle-income Manitobans.  All three of these parcels lie well outside of Winnipeg’s downtown. Waverly West contains one of these original landbanking parcels.

Some members of Winnipeg’s planning and architectural community were disturbed by this unilateral provincial initiative, and cited the following concerns: This provincial government support for suburban development is not matched by comparable support for central city development – and it runs counter to the tri-level government accord recognizing the priority of Winnipeg’s core areas.  A number of publicly funded studies demonstrate that the true costs of perimeter suburban development far outweigh economic benefits. And sprawl brings additional stress to transportation and services infrastructure.

The sponsors of the Waverly West development held a workshop for the local planning, engineering and design community to help define the direction of development.  This workshop was attended by local professionals, whose efforts focused on making the best of what was coming, and incorporating the latest in urban development theory.

Several months ago, the Free Press published a story about a transportation expert who argued that sprawl is a good thing.  The gentleman was quoted as saying that since Sao Paulo and Mexico City are sprawling, Winnipeg should also sprawl.  (Neglecting to point out that those two cities sprawl because they are huge and rapidly growing, and that both, with centres full to bursting, have no alternative to sprawl – conditions quite different from those in Winnipeg.)

Those who defend the Waverly West development argue that there will soon be a shortage of available lands for low-density single-family housing. They also suggest that refusal to expand the supply of available land will result in a leapfrogging of development to our outlying communities.  This threat of leapfrogging should not be taken as proof that Waverly West is necessary. There are more alternatives than either allowing development at Waverly West, or helplessly watching the uncontrolled growth of Oakbank.

Current projections of land shortages are based on the assumption that low-density single family housing in “greenfield” development sites is the only way to expand our city.  The projections also indicate that there is limited land available for infill development in already-serviced areas of Winnipeg.

Projections

However, even the most dire projections of available infill lands suggest that a large number of housing units can be constructed on “infill” sites.  (In this context, it is important to note that “infill” does not necessarily mean “downtown”, and that many serviced acres are available adjacent to existing residential areas.)  In the interests of sound development and effective use of existing infrastructure, it seems better to exhaust the opportunities for infill development before issuing a carte blanche for expansion into prime agricultural land.

There is little indication that the original landbanking goals of price stabilization are part of the current strategy. Even if costs were lowered, the cost reduction would be available only to initial purchasers, and the true market value of the lands will result in excessive profits to those purchasers upon re-sale.

This would be a strange kind of subsidy for the province to provide – and it is precisely this flaw which brought an end to landbanking in other jurisdictions.  If the province wishes to assist with the long-term health of our city, and to assist with housing for middle-income Winnipeggers, there are better ways to accomplish these goals.

If the Waverly West lands are to be developed, as they may be over the next few decades, the City should make every effort to fill the centre before facilitating the expansion of the periphery.

Originally published in Winnipeg Free Press, Thursday, September 23, 2004

Regina City Square

Just a quick post. We noticed that Google had updated their satellite imagery for downtown regina, and the plaza paving looks incredible! Check it out here – http://goo.gl/maps/n9rMD

Building Blocks

Steve Cohlmeyer has written a book length manuscript about the underlying structure of traditional cities. The work focuses on the inherent territorial clarity of the historic way of building, and the social and economic advantages that grow from this territorial clarity.

 

The second part of the manuscript explores how the traditional structure was compromised by early 20^th century city-building, and on how we might be able – at a topological level – to heal the effects of this compromise.

 

Readers are welcome to visit the Cohlmeyer Architecture Limited website cohlarch.ca to read or download the manuscript.

Welcome to Cohlgate.org

We have established Cohlgate.org as a forum of ideas about architecture & urbanism, and about the framework in which buildings and cities are developed. We hope you enjoy your visit and come back again.

287 Broadway – Rendering vs. Reality

After hearing many comments about how the exterior of the 287 Broadway building looks exactly like the rendering that we produced in the design phase I decided to combine a recent photo with the rendering.

 

I would agree that they are strikingly similar…

Steve is going to China

Steve will be keynote speaker at the upcoming Chinese conference on Smart Buildings and Smart Appliances in June.

Upper Fort Garry Steel Sample

Sample steel prototype by Capitol Steel

287 Broadway, 2011

Work will include: asbestos removal; complete gutting of service cores and mechanical systems; re-design of the core areas and washrooms; installation of new energy efficient mechanical systems; construction of a new basement parking structure and ramp; and construction of a new energy efficient building envelope.

Cree Wilderness Training Centre, 2011

The project will be developed in a wilderness site on Lake Mistissini. The campus will consist of the two service centres, service buildings, the main training facility and waterfront facilities. Construction is scheduled for 2011.

An important goal of the project is to build upon traditional Cree construction and patterns of social interaction – and this priority has lead to development of an open social and teaching environment that reflects the traditional winter structures of the Cree (the Mitogan).

Where to build Stadium?

Best bet – where not many people usually go

Five years ago the City of Winnipeg rewrote the downtown zoning by-law.  As part of the process, the planning department reviewed the range of building and land uses that would be appropriate in the city’s centre.  This review was carried out amid an international consensus that more diverse types of use are best for downtowns – and that blanket restrictions prohibiting certain land uses should be implemented only with great restraint.  The authors of the new zoning bylaw noted that an asphalt plant would not be permitted in our downtown, and that only extremely noxious, or obnoxious, land use would be prohibited.

The relaxation of use restrictions is probably a good thing for urban centres.  A fairly permissive environment makes it easier for entrepreneurs to initiate projects, and for unexpected uses to appear as the marketplace explores new directions.  This represents a sea change in planning attitudes – a welcome change to the overly predictive and restrictive zoning most cities had for the preceding 50 to 60 years.  Yet as this new laissez-faire consensus has become law, we may want to determine what projects really do deserve prohibition.  What kinds of development really are destructive to the economic and social health of our cities’ downtowns?

One obvious candidate for such prohibition in a lively downtown is large-scale surface parking.  Another is a stadium.  Manitoba’s senior federal minister, Vic Towes, announced this spring that Winnipeg’s new stadium should be built “downtown”.  In this context, downtown was defined, rather surprisingly, as Point Douglas, and the announcement was made with the apparent belief that any government largesse should, in principle, be located in the city centre, and that it would inevitably lead to an downtown growth.

It is a truism in city planning that there is a significant difference between arenas (hockey, basketball, boxing, mid-scale rock concerts) and stadiums (football, mega-concerts) in relation to their impact on urban surroundings.  The emblematic arenas in North America are probably Madison Square Garden and the Boston Garden – mid-scale urban venues that have a large number of diverse events year-round.  Our arena, MTS Centre, now has over 250 events each year – an astounding five per week.  This level of relatively constant and steady use fosters, over a period of years, a certain equilibrium between users, local infrastructure, and local spin-off commercial activity.   The general experience has been that arenas like ours prove to be positive urban generators of business and city life.

A stadium, however, is a different animal.  The number of events in stadiums is limited by their size, and they often showcase only 15 to 20 events per year – each attended by a massive and sporadic influx of audience members. It is difficult for normal urban enterprises to coexist with such a variable presence.  The Hubert Humphrey Stadium was built in 1980 in central Minneapolis as the home of the Minnesota Vikings.  Even though the stadium was covered, and thus able to house more events than an open-air facility, the sporadic-massive-influx characteristic of large stadium was inevitable.  The only neighbours to survive the powerful presence of the stadium are surface parking lots and sports-oriented drinking establishments – and even these have to survive on intense, occasional business opportunities.

Chicago’s Soldier Field might be considered “downtown” because it is on the lakefront and central to greater Chicago; however, it is a good distance from any area that might be considered downtown, or mixed-use, or urban.  Because it is in a large park, far from any urban environment, the massive sporadic influx of users in Soldier Field has had little negative impact on Chicago’s downtown, and the relationship, if not one of spurring urban development, seems to be non-destructive.

Montreal’s Percival Molson Stadium sits in urban surroundings in ways that are very similar to Soldier Field – it is centrally located but is not an integral part of downtown – and it is surrounded by mixed-use, populated urban areas.  Montreal’s stadium is tucked away in a corner of Mount Royal at the north side of the McGill University campus.

Cincinnati has built two massive new stadiums in its downtown over the past decade.  Both are architecturally handsome, and both were meant to contribute to the rebirth of Cincinnati’s centre.  They were constructed side by side along the Ohio River, isolated from downtown by urban expressways, and surrounded by large parking lots.  One has simply to look at an aerial view of Cincinnati on Google Earth to understand how misguided the two large projects were in terms of creating downtown vitality, and how sad it was to turn the city’s back, once again, on the river that was the community’s original raison d’être.

The new Winnipeg stadium, wherever it is constructed, will not have a roof. This is because caveats were placed against the stadium in order to protect the MTS Centre from competition.  An uncovered stadium will have fewer, and necessarily more sporadic, events than a covered facility.  And the impact of this restriction will be to heighten the “black hole”, or vacuum, impact of the stadium on its surroundings.

If stadiums are a necessary part of large cities, where are they best located?  I suspect that Chicago, Montreal tell the story rather nicely:  Such facilities belong in areas that already endure sporadic incursions of large numbers of people. And they belong in areas in were there is no adjacent existing fine-scaled urban fabric or mixed-use.  In Winnipeg the location of our existing stadium in Polo Park seems to fit the criteria for good location rather well.

Land values also have a bearing on the location of a stadium.  Car dealerships and large-scale athletic facilities are both attracted by large parcels of low-cost available land.  As land values rise these facilities tend to search for lower-cost locations, where their relatively low-per-square-foot earning power is more closely related to land value.  Might it be that the high land values in the Polo Park area (possibly the highest in the city) may be too financially attractive to waste on sporadic athletic use?

If this is the case, we may wonder about who would benefit from the sale of the current stadium lands – and whether the idea of moving to riverfront lands in Point Douglas is driven more by the search for easily expropriated, relatively cheap land than by dreams of a revitalized urban core.

Originally published in Winnipeg Free Press, Wednesday, July 30, 2008

More than just a school

Impact of urban university leaves no room for cheap architecture

The decision to locate Manitoba’s major university far from Winnipeg’s urban centre may have been the most unfortunate planning decision in the city’s history.

At first glance we might think that a university is a university – and that as long as the appropriate educational statistics are satisfied then campus location should be irrelevant.  However, the experience in other cities reminds us of the important contribution large urban universities make to the richness and vivacity of their cities (in Canada, Toronto, Montreal and Halifax come to mind).

Winnipeg is fortunate in that the University of Winnipeg is expanding.  Though the U of W may never grow to become our major provincial university, it does show promise of becoming much more of a presence in this city’s downtown.  If the current building campaign is successful, the U of W may bring at least a taste of the impact McGill, the University of Toronto, or Dalhousie have had on Montreal, Toronto and Halifax, respectively.

The architectural heritage of the U of W is surprisingly strong.  The original Wesley Hall (now home to the U of W Collegiate) was a beautiful sandstone structure which has recently been restored.  At the north end of the main campus, along Ellice Avenue, sits an imposing – though generally forgotten – brick building (Lockhart Hall).  Lockhart Hall was designed by Moody Moore and Partners, and is an excellent example of the architecture of the 1960s.

In the early 1970s, the U of W launched an adventurous rebuilding campaign.  This initiative resulted in the construction of Centennial Hall, designed by Louis Morse of Moody Moore and Partners.  Centennial Hall may be seen today as a lot of steel and glass hulking over sidewalks and smaller buildings below.  In fact it was an ingenious solution to a difficult problem: how to double the size of the university’s facilities without buying more land and without destroying all of the buildings that already filled the campus.  The grand scheme grew out of current theoretical work in Europe, and was recognized in the international architectural press as an important breakthrough building.

As the University of Winnipeg expands, we can all hope that this tradition of excellent institutional architecture will be continued – guaranteeing that new buildings will reflect the long tradition of urban universities constructing high quality, durable buildings.  Unfortunately, there is reason to suspect that architectural quality is not high on the institution’s agenda.  Work that has recently been completed at the north end of Lockhart Hall, the handsome brick structure along Ellice Avenue, provides a telling case-in-point.

Road works were completed at the Ellice Avenue entrance to create the main campus drop-off.  The concrete ramp, which provides access for wheelchairs, received a new red vinyl roof.  It is this roof that caught my eye.  It appears that the roof was constructed to reduce snow-clearing costs and to make life for those who need the ramp more comfortable. Given the quality of the work, it also appears that the cheapest methods and materials were chosen to put a roof on the ramp.  The result is an arched vinyl roof supported by randomly spaced galvanized steel pipes.  The new roof stands in startling and disturbing contrast with the building behind it – both in terms of construction quality and in terms of architectural excellence.

Our institutions are clearly strapped for funds.  This malaise seems to be a permanent reality for universities, and public sector bureaucracies are perennially afraid to be seen “wasting” the taxpayer’s money.  Too much attention to this sometimes imagined political hot potato can, and often does, lead to short-changing of our society’s broader goals.  In order to avoid the pitfalls of excessive budgetary caution we have to, from time to time, remind ourselves of the underlying mandates of our public institutions, and assure that those mandates do not suffer.

A university works within clear and well-understood mandates: to provide good-quality educational services reliably and within established budgets.  There are, as well, other mandates: to enrich our society; to establish and maintain a presence and status in our culture; to be a beacon of excellence; and to be a permanent and significant reflection of our society’s pride and aspirations.  These mandates extend well beyond technical and short-term fiduciary responsibility.

All building projects at the university are integral to it’s mandates.  This is as true for a roof for a ramp as it is for a large-scale building project.  It is especially true when that roof becomes an integral and highly visible part of a larger building.  All actions by the university carry the inherent obligation to promote and reflect the significance of the institution.  Especially for building projects, money spent for the long term is better than money spent many times over for the short term.  (The vinyl canopy not only sends a message of lack of care; it will have to be replaced 20 times in the lifespan of a well-designed and well-constructed version.)

One can only surmise that the decision to construct this flimsy and distressing “Band-Aid” grew from the internal administration’s desire to get it done “fast and cheap”.  The results confirm that the departments charged with facility management should not become the arbiters of institutional presence.  They should not be licensed, because of their budget control responsibilities and obligations, to oversee technical performance, to decide what an institution is – in the public eye and memory.  As for every other public or private institution, the head person is where the buck stops, and the president of the University of Winnipeg might do well to keep closer tabs on the physical signals the university is sending.

Originally published in Winnipeg Free Press, Sunday, July 29, 2007