Dear Winnipeg

Dear Winnipeg,

Since Monday was St. Patrick’s Day, what better time to talk about the city’s greenspace! If you don’t know what greenspace is, it’s the parks we enjoy in our neighbourhoods, and the trees on our boulevards and in our yards.

But it’s also the four-foot swath of grass between your house and your neighbour’s house (that, let’s face it, you probably covered over with concrete pavers to make a path to your garage). And let’s not forget the hellstrips we find beside streets everywhere in the city, those narrow widths of struggling grass that are left exposed to the harsh conditions of compacted soil, heat-reflecting pavement, road salt, limited water and often plenty of doggy, um, “treats”.

Yeah, I love me all that greenspace!

I’m kidding of course… but only partially. Because when we advocate for greenspace, it’s all too easy to lump all of those in together as equivalent, when they obviously aren’t. But I’ll get back to greenspace.

What I actually want to talk about is zoning. This week, the City is holding information sessions on proposed zoning changes that would, in theory, allow up to a fourplex to be built as-of-right on any residential property in the city. “As-of-right” just means without a public hearing, the same way you’re allowed to build a deck or finish the basement. You still need to get a permit, and follow a bunch of other rules, but you don’t need to convince a public hearing of your right to do it in the first place.

There are concerns that the information sessions could become heated, as there are a lot of big emotions around this. And with reason: we’re talking about where people live, so it’s natural for people to get their backs up over these potential changes. To say nothing of the torches and pitchforks.

That this change is being “forced” on the city by the federal government in exchange for much-needed housing dollars hasn’t helped things. It feels like a loss of control for many people. And they kinda have a point.

But as I’ve written about before, we shouldn’t really need the federal government’s stick/carrot. Because this isn’t a choice between change in our neighbourhoods, and no change in our neighbourhoods. It’s a choice between change in our neighbourhoods, and ever-increasing taxes and fees, crumbling infrastructure and service cuts. What we “want”, and what we’re willing and able to pay for, may not be the same thing.

That said, one very valid concern I’ve heard from people is the potential loss of greenspace due to these changes allowing fourplexes everywhere in the city (again, in theory). After all, our city only has 17% tree canopy cover (page 235) and 7% parks and greenspace cover. Meanwhile, world-leading cities like Vienna, Austria have 31% tree canopy cover, and 44% greenspace cover, while Oslo, Norway can boast of 44% tree canopy cover and 48% greenspace cover.

I mean, I don’t know if they’re actually boasting about it… but they could if they wanted to!

Now, I keep saying “in theory” with respect to the proposed zoning changes because the actual implementation of this zoning will only allow less than 27% of residential properties in the city to build up to a fourplex “as-of-right”. Only 41% could build up to a triplex, and just 63% could build up to a duplex. That’s right, more than 1 in 3 residential properties will still not be allowed to have anything other than a single-family home on them.

The reason for that discrepancy is the same reason people are right to be worried about loss of greenspace. And I mean the good kind of greenspace, not the kind that’s laced with road salt and dog-poo. The problem is that these zoning changes come with a bunch of “requirements” that must be met: minimum lot widths, parking mandates, setbacks, etc.

It’s these requirements that are going to cause the loss of greenspace. Again, the good kind of greenspace, not the kind that’s currently being used to store your canoe.

But don’t just take my word for it. To learn more about how setbacks and parking requirements kill greenspace, you can view this top-notch interactive slide deck by Seattle’s Mike Eliason, a man described as one of North America’s foremost voices for building decarbonization, sustainable urbanism and climate ruggedization. Mike explains it much better than I could so, seriously, have a look at it! And don’t forget that it’s interactive, you can click the boxes and slide the sliders to see how setbacks, parking mandates and other regulations affect the total amount of available greenspace.

I can tell you’re still skeptical. Despite Mike’s excellent presentation, you still have a feeling that urban density causes greenspace loss.

Well, it might surprise you to learn that the aforementioned insanely green Austrian city of Vienna has a population of just over 2 million people living on 415 sq km. Compare that to Winnipeg’s 800,000 people living on close to the same space, 468 sq km. And in Oslo, they have just over 700,000 people living in a city approximately the same size as ours, 454 sq km. Except there, only 153 sq km of that is built-up area (most of the rest is forests and greenspace). They’re just getting started on filling up space, and we’re… well, we’re almost done.

So, far from being a greenspace-killer, urban density is actually a greenspace-enabler when looking at the aggregate.

If you want to learn more on how that works, I highly recommend this amazing YouTube explainer by Justine Underhill, a journalist-trained-in-economics-and-theatre turned city councillor in Falls Church, Virginia. I promise you, it’ll be a 19-minutes well spent.

Still think it’s in your best interest to keep these restrictions in place to make small-scale development like this more difficult to do? Well, here’s the thing… like Justine said, preventing development in one place doesn’t make the demand for it disappear. It just goes someplace else that’s easier to build.

Let me show you something. Remember how I said the new zoning changes would only allow duplexes on 63% of properties, triplexes on 41% of them, and fourplexes on 27% of them? It turns out that’s not evenly spread throughout the city.

For instance, the neighbourhood of Glenwood in St. Vital, which is one of a handful of neighbourhoods that has already received a relatively disproportionate amount of infill development over the last few years, has nearly 99% of properties that would qualify to build a duplex on, 73% to build a triplex, and 38% to build a fourplex. All significantly above the city average.

Meanwhile, a neighbourhood like Daniel McIntyre, one of several inner-city neighbourhoods that are “sick of looking at piles of rubble“, only has 16% of properties on which a triplex will be allowed, and less than 4% for a fourplex.

Here’s what it looks like on a map.

As you can see, it’s so, so, so far from being evenly distributed throughout the city.

It bears repeating: when you disallow development in one place, the demand for it doesn’t disappear, it simply goes somewhere else. These restrictions will force an entire city’s worth of demand for triplexes and fourplexes into a handful of neighbourhoods who are already getting the lion’s share of infill development, while starving other neighbourhoods in dire need of investment from much-needed new housing.

One last thing in case you still think adding even more restrictions is the answer… again, when you disallow development in one place, the demand for it doesn’t disappear, it just goes someplace else. Like the Lemay Forest, or Sumka Forest, or, or, or…

Allowing more small-scale development to happen in our existing neighbourhoods, all existing neighbourhoods, is not only good for greenspace in our neighbourhoods, it also helps deal with the many burnt-out piles of rubble plaguing the inner-city, while relieving development pressure from clear-cutting intact forests on the edges, allowing us to be more like some of the greenest cities in the world. We’re coming for you, Oslo and Vienna!

So, yes, let’s do what it takes to save the Lemay Forest. But let’s also fix the structural zoning issues that led to the development demand being directed there in the first place. Otherwise, we’re just missing the forest for the trees. (Pun most definitely intended).

Love,

Elmwood Guy

P.S. If you care about greenspace, housing or financial sustainability, contact your Councillor now to tell them to modify the proposed zoning changes to eliminate minimum lot widths, back lane requirements and parking mandates. Don’t know how to reach your Councillor? Go here. Don’t know which ward you are in? Find it in the Citizen’s Information Service by looking up your address here.

P.P.S. A huge, huge, huge thanks to Daniel Simeone who did all the GIS wrangling for that amazing map. I couldn’t have done it without him!

P.P.P.S. Save the date: if you’ll be in Winnipeg on the evening of May 31st, 2025, I hope to see you at McNally Robinson Booksellers on Grant for the official launch party of my new book, You’ll pay for this! More details coming soon!