william whyte neighbourhood housing plan - City of Winnipeg

WILLIAM WHYTE
NEIGHBOURHOOD
HOUSING PLAN
…. AN EVOLVING DOCUMENT …
Produced By
In Conjunction With
Revised December 20, 2001

ii
Acknowledgements
The development of the William Whyte Neighbourhood Housing Plan was made possible
through the participation of the North End Community Renewal Corporation (NECRC),
numerous housing groups and associations, and the William Whyte Residents Association
(WWRA). Funding for the Plan’s actual preparation was provided by the City of Winnipeg
through its Winnipeg Neighbourhood Housing Plans and Advocacy Program, with
complementary funding provided by the Province of Manitoba through its Neighbourhoods
Alive Program.
The Plan’s relevance and thrust is attributed to the housing groups and organizations, as well
as to the residents who gave of their time to actively contribute their concerns and wishes at
numerous meetings and interviews. The strong commitment and dedication of the WWRA
has been instrumental in providing direction to the Housing Plan.
Revised December 20, 2001

iii
Table of Contents
Page
Acknowledgements ………………………….….…………………………………. ii
Table of Contents ……………………………..…………………………………. iii
List of Tables ……………………………..…………………………………. iv
List of Maps ……………………………..…………………………………. v
Executive Summary …………………………….….………………………………. vi
SECTION I INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………… 1
1.2 Housing Plan Format ………………………………………………… 1
1.3 Purpose of the Neighbourhood Housing Plan ………………………… 2
1.4 Objectives of the Neighbourhood Housing Plan ………………………… 2
1.5 Community Vision ………………………………………………………… 4
1.6 The Neighbourhood Housing Planning Process ………………………… 4
1.7 Housing Plan Time Frame ………………………………………………… 5
SECTION II COMMUNITY BACKGROUND
2.1 The William Whyte Community, Demographic, and
Housing Statistical Overview ……………………………………….. 6
2.2 Block by Block Review ……………………………………………….. 15
SECTION III RESEARCH AND ISSUES
3.1 Research and Issues Compilation ……………………………………….. 18
3.2 The Housing Network ……………………………………………….. 18
3.3 Consultation with Housing Groups……………………………………….. 19
3.4 William Whyte Residents Association ……………………………….. 20
3.5 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats
(S.W.O.T.) Analysis Overview ……………………………………….. 22
3.6 Overview of All William Whyte Housing Issues ……………………….. 24
3.7 Related Issues ……………………………………………………….. 25
3.8 Goals and Measurable Objectives for the First Two Years ……….. 25
SECTION IV STRATEGIES AND INITIATIVES
4.1 Development of Strategies and Initiatives ………………………………. 27
4.2 Specific Planning and Strategy Development
with Housing Groups ………………………………………………. 28
4.3 Description of Housing Strategies and Initiatives ………………………. 29
4.4 Ways of Priorizing Housing Strategies and Initiatives ………………. 61
4.5 Priority Housing Strategies and Initiatives ………………………. 62

iv
4.6 Unit Implications: Numbers ……………………………………… 63
4.7 Financial Implications ……………………………………………… 63
4.8 Peripheral Neighbourhood Development and Impact ……………… 64
4.9 Priorizing Blocks ……………………………………………………… 65
4.10 Redevelopment Options (Matrix) ……………………………………… 65
SECTION V IMPLEMENTATION
5.1 Building Capacity / Capability / Administrative
Coordination Needs ……………………………………………………… 66
5.2 Role of the Public Sector ……………………………………………… 68
5.3 Role of the Private Sector ……………………………………………… 68
5.4 Leadership Role for the
William Whyte Residents Association ……………………………… 69
5.5 Partnerships, Linkages and Coordination ……………………………… 69
5.6 Resources Required ……………………………………………………… 70
5.7 Next Steps ……………………………………………………………… 71
5.8 Promoting the Plan ……………………………………………………… 71
5.9 Monitoring, Evaluating and Up-Dating the Plan ……………………… 72
5.10 Evaluating the Success of the Plan ……………………………………… 73
Appendix ‘A’
William Whyte Community S.W.O.T. Analysis
Overview Results ……………………………………………….…….. 74
Glossary ……………………………………………………………………... 79
Page
List of Tables
Table I Population by Age (1996) ……………………………………… 6
Table II Total population ……………………………………………… 7
Table III Household Size ……………………………………………… 7
Table IV Families By Type ……………………………………………… 7
Table V Household Income ……………………………………………… 8
Table VI Family Average Income By Family Structure ……………… 8
Table VII Incidence of Low Income ……………………………………… 9
Table VIII Dwellings By Period of Construction ……………………… 9
Table IX William Whyte Homeowners By Block ……………………… 10
Table X Dwelling Tenure (1996) ……………………………………… 12
Table XI Change In Residence ……………………………………… 12
Table XII Dwelling Type ……………………………………………… 12
Table XIII Block By Block Condition Review ……………………………… 16

v
Table XIV Goals and Objectives ……………………………………… 26
Table XV Housing Strategies / Initiatives
Prioritization Approaches ……………………………….……... 61
Table XVI Financial Priorities and Ranges ……………………………… 64
Table XVII Redevelopment Options / Initiatives ……………………………. 66
List of Maps
Map I William Whyte Community Boundaries ……………………….. 3
Map II William Whyte Neighbourhood Displaying
Assessment Dwelling Units Overlay with
Owner Occupied Identifier ……………………………………… 11
Map III Non-Profit Housing Organizations Activities
in the William Whyte Community ……………………………… 13
Map IV William Whyte Community Zoning ..…………………………… 14
Map V William Whyte Block By Block
Condition Evaluations …………………...……………………… 17
Map VI William Whyte Residents Attending
Committee Meetings ……..……………………………………… 21

vi
Executive Summary
The process of preparing the William Whyte Neighbourhood Housing Plan began in
November, 2000. This Plan represents a community-based response to the housing needs and
issues evident in the City of Winnipeg’s William Whyte neighbourhood.
The development of the Housing Plan centred on a consultative approach to consolidate the
various concerns and requirements reflected by the residents of William Whyte, housing
groups, and support agencies active within the neighbourhood. Coupled with supporting
research, this pointed to the immediate and critical need to provide new and rehabilitated,
affordable housing in William Whyte, as well as the need to actively maintain and repair the
existing housing stock.
The bottom line is that the neighbourhood continues to experience a net decline in housing
units through unit abandonment, closure, and demolition. The next number of years will
require a concerted and concentrated effort to move the pendulum from ‘net loss’ to ‘net
gain’.
To effectively address housing renewal and redevelopment over the short to long term, a
primary direction in the Housing Plan is the need to foster a co-ordinated direction through
linkages and strategic alliances among all housing groups and the William Whyte Residents
Association (WWRA). A large part of this is a strategy to develop a strong housing delivery
infrastructure within the William Whyte neighbourhood, by developing the local capacity
and capability to implement the necessary housing initiative, programs and projects.
The William Whyte Neighbourhood Housing Plan has been designed to generate local
resident and housing group input over the long-term. The Housing Plan is a starting point – it
is not a static document, but one that will continue to evolve over time as delivery
infrastructure and partnerships evolve.
The Housing Plan is premised on a number of key objectives, primarily:
• Identifying specific housing issues / concerns that require the most attention;
• Determining immediate to long-term housing strategies and appropriate
responses;
• Enhancing and co-ordinating housing programs and resources to increase housing
renewal;
• Determining ways to activate and to sustain housing initiatives over the longterm;
and
• Enhancing the residential liveability in the neighbourhood.

vii
The Plan provides a basis on which available and future resources may be allocated by the
community and its partners. It includes twenty-nine specific initiatives grouped within five
key housing strategies or areas of concern. Following is a summary of the initiatives which
are detailed in the full report.
1. Housing Development and Rehabilitation
- Initiative 4 Scaling-Up North-End Housing Project
- Initiative 8 Land Assembly Strategy
- Initiative 13 Neighbourhood Homesteading Program
- Initiative 18 Redevelopment of quality, affordable housing units
- Initiative 21 Block Prioritization
2. New Housing Development
- Initiative 5 Funding Housing Demolition
- Initiative 7 Solidifying Habitat for Humanity’s Role
- Initiative 29 New Housing Demonstration Projects
3. Upgrading Existing Housing
- Initiative 6 Portfolio or Housing Unit Upgrading
- Initiative 10 Homeowner Block ‘Fix-Up’ Project
- Initiative 11 Special Repair Program For Housing Units Occupied By
Seniors And Persons With Disabilities
- Initiative 12 Basic Home Maintenance Program
- Initiative 17 Rehabilitation of Existing Housing Stock
- Initiative 20 Emergency Home Repair Funding
- Initiative 24 Home Heating Conservation Initiative
- Initiative 27 Home Repair Workshops
- Initiative 30 Rental Unit Repair Assistance
4. Resident / Housing Related Strategy
- Initiative 9 Linked Activities Among Housing Groups
- Initiative 22 Housing Training Initiative
- Initiative 23 Housing Relocation Strategy And Housing Registry
5. Community Upgrading
- Initiative 1 Reduction of Vacant and Boarded-Up Housing Units
- Initiative 2 City of Winnipeg Enforcement of By-Laws Campaign
- Initiative 3 Resident Monitoring Committee
- Initiative 14 University / College Assistance For Resident Association
- Initiative 15 Neighbourhood Clean-Up Campaign
- Initiative 16 Tenant-Landlord Cooperation Program
- Initiative 25 Signage And Panels
- Initiative 26 Bulk Buying And Depot Project
- Initiative 28 Exterior House Recognition

viii
All initiatives support the five strategies. A rationale and expected results are noted, as are
time frames, lead responsibilities, linked initiatives, and estimated funding requirements. All
have been priorized based on consultations with the WWRA and active housing groups.
Following is another summary of the twenty-nine initiatives, this time grouped according to
the priority given to them by the community:
A1. Those initiatives considered a first priority number twenty (20) in total. Three (3) of
these are seen as the most important, and include:
• A campaign aimed at vacant and boarded up housing units including: setting time
limits for boarded-up units and transferring such units to active housing groups;
• Enforcement of health, safety and fire by-laws; and
• A resident monitoring committee re: violations.
A2. The following sixteen (16) initiatives are considered very important, and include:
• Scaling-up North End Housing Project;
• Funding unit demolitions to enable new unit construction;
• Portfolio upgrading for existing housing groups;
• Solidifying Habitat for Humanity’s role within the William Whyte
neighbourhood;
• A local land assembly strategy;
• Linking / coordinating activities among housing groups;
• A homeowner fix-up initiative by block;
• A special repair support for units occupied by seniors and persons with
disabilities;
• A basic home maintenance program;
• A neighbourhood homesteading initiative;
• University / College assistance and advice in design and planning areas;
• Neighbourhood clean-up campaign;
• A tenant-landlord cooperation program;
• Increased funding for the Rehabilitation of Quality Affordable Units
• Maintaining & increasing funding for the rehabilitation of existing housing stock
• Emergency Home Repair Funding.
A3. The residents consider the following strategy to be important but not equally to the
above-noted ones:
• Priorizing street blocks / block faces for renewal.
B. The following initiatives are considered to be of lesser importance or of secondary
priority. These number eight (8) in total, including:
• A housing training initiative for homeowners, tenants, caretakers et al.;
• A joint housing relocation strategy for displaced tenants and developing a
comprehensive housing registry;
• A home heating conservation campaign;

ix
• Preparation of panels to ‘clean-up’ boarded-up units and on-site signage to
promote initiatives;
• A bulk buying material and tool depot;
• Home repair workshops;
• Exterior home recognition / beautification campaign; and
• New Housing Demonstration projects.
C. The following initiative was assigned a low priority by residents. It should be
revisited after the priority strategies enter the implementation phase of the Housing
plan:
• A rental unit repair assistance program.
The various housing strategies and related initiatives proposed in this Plan are ambitious.
Were all initiatives to be implemented, the implications in respect of the number of units
impacted would be very significant. The total units would amount to approximately 600 to
900 housing units (rental, ownership, and other). This would be comprised of:
i. New construction and acquisition /`major rehabilitation: 150 – 180 units
annually;
ii. Repair and basic maintenance to existing housing units: 450 – 720 units
annually.
The total annual funding requirements should all twenty-nine initiatives be implemented
(likely not until 2003-2004) would cost between $3.70 million to $4.69 million. Viewing the
priority strategies or prioritization of initiatives as generated through consultation with the
WWRA and housing group stakeholders, yields the following:
Priority Level Lower Range ($’s) Upper Range ($’s)
A1 $ 0 $ 0
A 2/3 $ 3,460,000 $4,370,000
B $ 140,000 $175,000
C $ 100,000 $ 150,000
Total $ 3,700,000 $ 4,695,000
The Housing Plan concludes with a series of considerations necessary to implement the
strategies in a suitable, adequate, and achievable manner.
By all stakeholders working together and ‘pooling’ resources, including time, co-ordination
and technical expertise, the William Whyte Neighbourhood will experience an improved and
stable housing base.

1
SECTION I INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
In November, 1999 the Winnipeg City Council adopted a Draft Winnipeg Housing Policy,
followed by a Draft Housing Implementation Framework in March, 2000. A primary policy
stated that the “City would encourage the development of comprehensive neighbourhood
housing plans made up of neighbourhood housing assessments, vision statements, and
housing implementation plans. Housing Plans must ensure and sustain neighbourhood
involvement in local decision making.”
As part of this, the City of Winnipeg has made assistance available to develop
Neighbourhood Housing Plans, and to develop local capacity to undertake housing projects.
In November 2000, the North End Community Renewal Corporation (NECRC) received City
of Winnipeg, as well as the Province of Manitoba Neighbourhoods Alive funding, to
facilitate the process in creating a housing plan for the William Whyte community. (See Map
I, Community Boundaries)
The William Whyte Neighbourhood Housing Plan has been developed as a vehicle to
formulate strategies for local housing programming, projects, strategies and initiatives in the
neighbourhood. The primary focus is to build on local capacity to undertake housing renewal
in a sustainable manner over the long term. The Plan’s development pulls together various
stakeholders who have actively participated in the determination of:
• Housing issues and concerns that most impact the area’s residents;
• Strategies that will effectively address them;
• Measures necessary to implement the strategies;
• Ways to ensure the success and effectiveness of initiatives; and
• Ways of assessing the effectiveness of both individual and collective initiatives.
The Plan itself was developed in two phases. First, a preliminary process and issues
document was developed as a starting point. It incorporated initial consultations with
stakeholders, ranging from housing groups to local residents. This outlined the basic issues
and processes necessary to determine possible housing strategies and initiatives.
This Plan represents the second phase during which the local community’s full involvement
and guidance was incorporated.
1.2 Housing Plan Format
The William Whyte Neighbourhood Housing Plan is formatted to present an overview of the
planning process, information and resulting considerations in the following sequence:
i. Planning process background;

2
ii. Background information on housing in the community;
iii. Key housing issues and concerns gathered through the consultation process;
iv. Presentation and prioritization of housing strategies and initiatives; and
v. Considerations necessary for the effective implementation of the housing plan.
1.3 Purpose of the Neighbourhood Housing Plan
The purpose of this Housing Plan is to provide information on the housing needs of the
William Whyte community and to identify housing strategies and initiatives to help address
these needs. The Plan’s intent is to allow for and foster realistic and well-conceived
responses to housing needs, within a flexible framework that accommodates changes in
priorities and emerging neighbourhood housing concerns and issues. The goal underlying the
Plan’s formation is to provide the local community with the capacity and capability to act as
full partners in establishing strategies that address the neighbourhood’s housing priorities.
By empowering the local community through this process, the Neighbourhood Housing Plan
has a greater chance of becoming a ‘living’ document, able to be sustained over the longer
term.
1.4 Objectives of the Neighbourhood Housing Plan
The objectives of the Housing Plan include:
• To identify those housing issues and concerns in the William Whyte
neighbourhood that require attention;
• To improve the “quality” of the neighbourhood’s housing stock. (Quality is
defined as housing that exceeds minimum standards of occupancy. It reflects
housing for which all components such as roofing, windows, electrical /
mechanical systems, etc., are in good condition and require no repair.)
• To determine immediate to long term strategies and initiatives to improve the
housing situation for existing and future William Whyte residents;
• To increase the local delivery infrastructure in the community in respect of local
capacity and capability;
• To enhance and coordinate housing programs and resources in order to increase
housing unit development and rehabilitation;
• To identify sources of funding to support local housing initiatives and projects;
and
• To enhance the residential liveability and image in the William Whyte
neighbourhood.
In effect, when these objectives are coupled with the community’s vision for its future, the
William Whyte residents and its partners can measure the Plan’s success over the medium to
longer term. The adoption of a set of unified objectives is instrumental to the community
working together.

4
1.5 Community Vision
The ‘vision’ as defined by the community illustrates how it sees the William Whyte
neighbourhood. It characterizes the community’s sense of what the Housing Plan strives to
work towards and to achieve over time.
The William Whyte Residents Association (WWRA) has identified the following as
comprising its vision for housing:
1. Preserving the ‘character’ of the housing in respect of scale and features;
2. Reducing dilapidated housing stock;
3. Achieving a ‘zero tolerance’ for substandard housing whether owned or rented;
4. Improving fire, safety, and security standards, approaches and strategies for
housing;
5. Achieving higher rates of homeownership by increasing ownership opportunities;
6. Improving municipal infrastructure that supports housing renewal and stability;
and
7. Increasing opportunities for hard-to-house households.
Of course, a ‘vision’ for housing is but a component of the community’s broader vision for
its neighbourhood. This broader vision is what will drive the neighbourhood’s development
of a general community plan for William Whyte. The William Whyte Residents have
identified a broader vision as encompassing the following six (6) visions:
1. A safe and clean community-integrated neighbourhood wherein people look after
one another;
2. A mature neighbourhood deserving the respect it is due;
3. A neighbourhood wherein the diversity of people and services is maintained and
strengthened;
4. A community which celebrates its central location in the City of Winnipeg and
the availability of supporting conveniences;
5. A community with recreational opportunities and green space for its youth; and
6. A community with equitable property related assessments / taxes wherein these
are available, in part, for neighbourhood reinvestment.
1.6 The Neighbourhood Housing Planning Process
The process used in developing the William Whyte Housing Plan encompassed creating
working partnerships among housing groups, resident groups, and municipal and provincial
housing planners and program delivery or resource staff. This involved identifying a wide
range of housing related issues and various means of addressing community concerns.
The planning process has involved three primary steps:
1. Compiling local housing issues through research and consultation;

5
2. Developing housing strategies and activities through identification of goals and
objectives, potential projects and initiatives to resolve these issues, and
development of specific activities to implement the strategies; and
3. Identifying ways to implement the Housing Plan and its various components.
In the William Whyte neighbourhood, the planning process involved a two-pronged
approach:
A. For existing housing groups, individual and grouped consultations saw a number
of housing issues emerge. Specific program responses were identified as suitable
activities to address the issues. In essence, such issues were directly related to the
various group’s operations and required resolution independent of the general
neighbourhood planning process. This is not to say that these issues are separate
and distinct from local housing issues. However, their resolution can be
addressed, in large part, independent of the local, neighbourhood housing
planning process.
B. For the general community, an ‘open’ process was utilized, whereby residents
from throughout the William Whyte neighbourhood were invited to participate
and to become active in the determination and resolution of general / specific
housing issues and concerns. As well, this was intended to support the
development of local or ‘home grown’ solutions lead by the community itself.
Throughout these approaches, there were opportunities and points at which both approaches
converged. William Whyte resident meetings and working group sessions had existing
housing groups present in order to explain their plans and ways in which they could work
towards common goals and objectives with respect to housing unit redevelopment and
renewal.
1.7 Housing Plan Time Frame
The time frame is typically defined as the period during which the Housing Plan is
effectively implemented. In renewing the housing within a community, it is generally
accepted that the planning horizon is long term and should span a period of many years. The
Neighbourhood Housing Plan for William Whyte is intended to guide the process of strategy
and initiative development over the short to medium term. It will be subject to review and
adaptation as circumstances (i.e., opportunities, needs, priorities, issues, and concerns)
change or become increasingly focussed. That is, this Plan is a starting point.
The WWRA and its partners recognize this aspect of the Plan. The stakeholders in this
process know full well that the Housing Plan will evolve. Accordingly, the community has
defined a workable timeframe for the Plan, as follows:
A. The timeframe for the Plan in general terms should span a period of five (5) years.
This will be necessary to permit sufficient time for significant strategies and
initiatives to take hold.

6
B. In specific terms, the Plan should have an effective timeframe of two (2) years.
During this period, the WWRA recognizes that preliminary strategies and
initiatives can be implemented and reviewed / evaluated. The feeling was summed
up by one resident: “Let’s see what can be accomplished during the first couple of
years and then go from there.”
SECTION II COMMUNITY BACKGROUND
2.1 The William Whyte Community, Demographic, and Housing Statistical
Overview
The following section, taken from “The City of Winnipeg’s Neighbourhood Profiles”, based
on Statistics Canada 1996 Census Data, and “The City of Winnipeg Housing Policy
Neighbourhood Housing Indicator Data” (October 2000), briefly overviews selected
demographic and housing statistics of the William Whyte community.
Specifically, Table I – Population By Age, illustrates that in 1996, 33.4% of William
Whyte’s population was under 19 years of age as compared to 26.6% for the City of
Winnipeg at large. For the age grouping of 20 to 64, 56.2% of William Whyte’s and 60.4%
of the City of Winnipeg’s population fell within this category. For the population aged 65
years and older, William Whyte had 10.4% and the City of Winnipeg as a whole had 13%.
Table I Population By Age (1996)
Population By Age William Whyte City of Winnipeg
Age Group Number % of Total Number % of Total
Less than 5 635 10.1% 41,965 6.9%
5 – 9 575 9.2% 41,455 6.8%
10 – 14 455 7.2% 39,745 6.5%
15 – 19 430 6.8% 39,310 6.4%
Sub Total 2095 33.4% 162,475 26.6%
20 - 24 440 7.0% 44,925 7.3%
25 - 29 475 7.6% 46,035 7.5%
30 - 34 565 9.0% 52,640 8.6%
35 - 39 475 7.6% 52,335 8.6%
40 - 44 450 7.2% 48,215 7.9%
45 – 49 425 6.8% 43,695 7.1%
50 – 54 285 4.5% 32,280 5.3%
55 – 59 205 3.3% 25,475 4.2%
60 – 64 210 3.3% 24,210 4.0%
Sub Total 3530 56.8% 369,820 60.4%
65 – 69 160 2.5% 23,005 3.8%
70 – 74 200 3.2% 22,285 3.6%
75+ 295 4.7% 34,050 5.6%
Sub Total 655 10.4% 79,330 13.0%
TOTAL 6,280 100.0% 611,625 100.0%

7
Table II - Total Population, illustrates that between 1971 and 1996 the William Whyte
community’s population had declined from 10,005 to 6,280 or a 37.2% decline, as compared
to a 15.6% increase for the City of Winnipeg as a whole. This trend, as well covered most
population age groupings over this time frame.
Table I I Total Population
Total Population William Whyte City of Winnipeg
Number % of Change Number % of Change
1996 Census 6,280 -5.9% 618,475 0.5%
1991 Census 6,620 -4.0% 615,215 3.5%
1986 Census 6,895 1.7% 594,555 5.3%
1981 Census 6,780 -20.1% 564,475 0.6%
1976 Census 8,490 -15.1% 560,875 4.8%
1971 Census 10,005 535,100
Table III Household Size, indicates that the William Whyte community has higher
household sizes for single persons and for households of six or more persons, than for the
City of Winnipeg as a whole.
Table III Household Size
Household Size William Whyte City of Winnipeg
Number % Number %
1 person 990 38.1 % 71,700 29.1 %
2 person 660 25.9 % 76,985 31.3 %
3 person 325 12.8 % 38,710 15.7 %
4 – 5 persons 435 17.1 % 52,385 21.3 %
6 or more persons 155 6.1 % 6,395 2.6 %
Total 2,545 100.0 % 246,175 100.0 %
Average number of persons
2.4 2.5
per household
Table IV Families By Type, indicates that the William Whyte community has higher
percentage of single parent families than for the City of Winnipeg as a whole.
Table IV Families By Type
Families By Type William Whyte City of Winnipeg
Number % Number %
Married couples with
365 26.2 % 73,225 44.8 %
children
Married couples without
260 18.6 % 48,625 29.8 %
children
Common-law couples
120 8.6 % 6,355 3.9 %
with children
Common-law couples
125 9.0 % 7,970 4.9 %
without children
One parent – female 425 30.5 % 23,155 14.2 %
One parent – male 100 7.2 % 3,985 2.4 %
Total Families 1,395 100.0 % 163,315 100.0 %

8
Table V Household Income, indicates a generally lower household income than that of the
City of Winnipeg as a whole.
Table V Household Income
Household Income William Whyte City of Winnipeg
Number % Number %
Under $10,000 700 27.6 % 21,055 8.6 %
$10,000 - $19,999 850 33.5 % 41,795 17.0 %
$20,000 - $29,999 435 17.2 % 35,210 14.3 %
$30,000 - $39,999 235 9.3 % 32,605 13.2 %
$40,000 - $49,999 125 4.9 % 28,425 11.5 %
$50,000 - $59,999 100 3.9 % 25,200 10.2 %
$60,000 - $69,999 50 2.0 % 18,550 7.5 %
$70,000 - $79,999 10 0.4 % 13,315 5.4 %
$80,000 - $89,999 15 0.6 % 9,165 3.7 %
$90,000 - $99,999 15 0.6 % 6,380 2.6 %
$100,00 and over 0 0.0 % 14,475 5.9 %
Total 2,535 100.0 % 246,175 100.0 %
Average Income $20,460 $44,937
Table VI Family Average Income By Family Structure, as well indicates that average family
incomes are much lower than for those for the City of Winnipeg as a whole.
Table VI Family Average Income By Family Structure
William Whyte
City of Winnipeg
Number
Number
Married and common-law
870 136,175
couple families
Average income $27,946 $58,136
Female one-parent families 425 23,150
Average income $16,316 $26,536
Male one-parent families 105 3,985
Average income $20,540 $38,369
Various other indicators illustrate that the William Whyte community has a high degree of
economic depression. For example, the low-income cut-off (poverty rate) indicated an
increase from 43.7% in 1981 to 68.4% in 1996 for the William Whyte community as
compared to 21.1% to 28.4% for the City of Winnipeg as a whole. Similarly, there has been a
decline in the labour force participation rate of 55.1% to 50.6% in the William Whyte
community as compared to 62.4% to 66.5% for the City of Winnipeg as a whole. In this vein,
the unemployment rate in the William Whyte has increased from 13.1% to 26.5%, as
compared to the 5% to 8.2% for the City of Winnipeg over the 1971 to 1996 period. This
represents a 102.3% increase for the William Whyte community and 64% for the City of
Winnipeg over this time frame. Both William Whyte’s and the City of Winnipeg’s average
incomes have risen between 1971 and 1996. However, in 1996 the average income was still
only approximately 45.5% of that of the City of Winnipeg’s.

9
Table VI I Incidence of Low Income
Incidence William Whyte City of Winnipeg
Number
Number
Total economic families 1,470 165,660
Low income 955 32,165
Incidence of low income - % 65.0 % 19.4 %
Total unattached individuals 1,295 95,095
Low income 990 46,650
Incidence of low income - % 76.4 % 49.1 %
Total population in private
6,195 606,770
households
Low income 4,240 147,425
Incidence of low income 68.4 % 24.3 %
As well, there is an increased crime rate in the William Whyte community as compared to
the City of Winnipeg as a whole. William Whyte, as compared to the City of Winnipeg as a
whole, had approximately 3% of the city’s total crimes in 1999. To put this in context, when
comparing various crime categories for the William Whyte community to the City of
Winnipeg’s average, there were 337 crimes against persons, versus the City’s average of 33.5
or 1006.9% more. As well, for crimes against property the William Whyte community had
1080 versus the city’s average of 206.8 or 522.2% more in 1999. Overall, the William Whyte
community had 1417 versus the City of Winnipeg’s average of 240.3 or 589.7% more in
1999.
Table VIII - Dwellings By Period of Construction, illustrates the development of the housing
stock by various construction periods for the William Whyte community and the City of
Winnipeg. This table depicts that 62.5% of the housing stock was built prior to 1946 in the
William Whyte community, as compared to 20.6% for the City of Winnipeg as a whole.
Table VIII Dwellings By Period of Construction
Dwelling
William Whyte
City of Winnipeg
Construction Period
Number % Number %
Before 1946 1,590 62.5 % 50,800 20.6 %
1946 – 1960 535 21.0 % 51,270 20.8 %
1961 – 1970 145 5.7 % 45,440 18.5 %
1971 – 1980 110 4.3 % 51,759 21.0 %
1981 – 1990 135 5.3 % 39,065 15.9 %
1991 – 1996 30 1.2% 7,800 3.2 %
Total Dwellings 2,545 100.0 % 246,170 100.0%
When further considering other housing statistics, they depict the average effective age of the
William Whyte housing stock is one of the oldest in the City of Winnipeg. The average
effective age for the William Whyte housing stock has been pegged as dating back to 1914,
while the average effective age for the City of Winnipeg dates back to 1952. (Effective age
of a residential dwelling usually refers to the year in which the dwelling was built.
Occasionally, where major renovations, alterations and/or additions have altered the original

10
dwelling to such an extent that the original year of construction no longer accurately reflects
the dwelling age, then the original year of dwelling construction has been modified to reflect
these major renovations.)
In the North End as a whole, 53.8% of the housing stock was constructed before 1946 as
compared to the City of Winnipeg at 20.6%. Similarly, 82.4% of the North End’s housing
stock was constructed prior to 1960 as compared to 41.4% of the housing stock of the City of
Winnipeg.
The William Whyte community has a large percentage of Winnipeg’s buildings for which the
City of Winnipeg has issued repair or which demolitions orders, or has been demolished over
the last few years. The documentation received from the City of Winnipeg indicates that of
the 311 building in these categories, the William Whyte community has approximately
20.6% of the total. Similarly, this community contains 18.9% of Winnipeg’s demolished
homes and 23.0% of homes that have repair or demolition orders against them.
Within the William Whyte community, as of September 13, 2000, there were a total of 1,848
parcels with dwellings, with 50.5% having no owners as residents. As part of this total, the
area had 1,822 parcels of land with less than 6 dwelling units and had 49.8% of the units with
no owners as a resident.
Table IX William Whyte Homeowners By Block, and Map II Homeowners and Tenanted
Occupied Houses By Block, in William Whyte, illustrates the homeowners in the William
Whyte neighbourhood by block. Blocks 1A through 1I are those located on the south side of
Redwood Avenue and the north side of Aberdeen Avenue between Arlington Street and
Main Street. Blocks 8A through 8I are those located on Selkirk Avenue between Arlington
Street and Main Street and located within the William Whyte boundaries only. There are six
(6) blocks or partial blocks within the neighbourhood that have no residents. The
neighbourhood contains 132 block faces (on each side of the east/west and north/ south
streets in the area) approximately 913 homeowners or about 49.4% of the housing stock are
owner occupied.
Table IX William Whyte Homeowners By Block
BLOCKS A B C D E F G H I Total
1 27 37 25 26 19 19 19 20 8 200
2 4 [X] 18 24 19 13 13 13 14 13 131
3 23 23 [X] 19 12 9 8 15 10 119
4 18 18 17 13 13 17 11 18 13 138
5 11 20 13 12 [X] 18 14 10 12 110
6 20 15 11 8 14 11 17 8 14 118
7 16 18 8 4 7 [X] 10 13 1 [X] 8 85
8 6 2 1 1 2 [X] 12
Total 125 151 99 102 80 97 95 86 78 913

12
Table X Dwelling Tenure (1996)
Dwelling Tenure William Whyte City of Winnipeg
Number % Number %
Owner 995 39.2 % 152,695 62.0 %
Leased 1,545 60.8 % 93,480 38.0 %
Total Dwellings 2,540 100.0 % 246,175 100.0 %
Table X Dwelling Tenure, illustrates the relatively low owner occupied dwellings as
compared to the City of Winnipeg. In relation to this, Table XI shows a relatively high
degree of mobility for residents in the community.
Table XI Change In Residence
Change in Residence William Whyte City of Winnipeg
Moved within 1 year
Number % Number %
(1995-1996)
Non-movers 4,185 68.2 % 506,055 83.9 %
Movers 1,950 31.8 % 97,390 16.1 %
Total 6,135 100.0 % 603,445 100.0 %
Moved within 5 years
(1991-1996)
Did not move 2,290 40.5 % 319,365 56.1 %
Moved 3,360 59.5 % 250,215 43.9 %
Total 5,650 100.0 % 569,580 100.0 %
In the William Whyte community has 50.4 % as compared to 59.4 % for the City of
Winnipeg of the housing is single-detached housing. (Table XII Dwelling Type)
Table XII Dwelling Type
Dwelling Type William Whyte City of Winnipeg
Number % Number %
Single-detached house 1,285 50.4 % 146,220 59.4 %
Semi-detached house 200 7.8 % 9,975 4.1 %
Row house 35 1.4 % 8,330 3.4 %
Apartment, detached duplex 420 16.5 % 5,075 2.1 %
Apartment building, less
400 15.7 % 41,750 17.0 %
than five stories
Apartment building, five or
115 4.5 % 33,830 13.7 %
more stories
Other single attached house 95 3.7 % 395 0.2 %
Movable dwelling 0 0.0 % 600 0.2 %
Total Dwellings 2,550 100.0 % 246,175 100.0 %
The median selling price of residential dwellings has declined between 1989 and 1999 in the
William Whyte community from $36,000 to $17,500 or 48.6%, while the City’s has
increased from $78,900 to $86,725 or approximately 9%.

15
The number of rental residential dwellings in the William Whyte community has increased
between 1992 and 1999 by 18% from 656 to 803, while the City’s average has declined by
approximately 6% over the same time period from an average of 71.51 to 67.21.
Map III Non-Profit Housing Organizations Active in the William Whyte Community,
illustrates the approximate locations of the housing units owned or managed by these
organizations. Between the active non-profit organizations of Kinew Housing Inc., Aiyawin
Corporation, North End Housing Project, Winnipeg Housing Rehabilitation Corporation,
MAPS Housing Cooperative, and Habitat for Humanity, there are presently 154 units or
approximately 8.3% of the housing units in the William Whyte community. There are plans
in place for Habitat for Humanity and the North End Housing Project to develop more units
within the community. Most of these units, upon their completion (Habitat for Humanity) or
within a five-year period of their completion (NEHP), will be turned over to homeownership.
The other non-profit organizations noted above, have no plans at the present to expand their
portfolios within the community.
The total building permits issued between 1983 and 1998 for the William Whyte community
showed an increase in the mid to late 1980’s and a relative decline to 1998. On the other
hand, the City has only shown a slight average decline over this same period.
The William Whyte community has one of the higher concentrations of rooming houses as of
1999, documentation indicates a total of 88 as compared to the City of Winnipeg’s average of
3.28. Map IV Community Zoning, illustrates the community is predominately single family
zoning with some multi family and various commercial strips and locations.
2.2 Block By Block Review
Sixty-three (63) blocks in the William Whyte neighbourhood were initially identified and
then surveyed using a ‘windshield’ survey method. (A block was defined as both sides of the
street from one intersecting street to the next.) Only the south side of Redwood Avenue (as
the neighbourhood’s northern boundary) was surveyed, and Selkirk Avenue (as the southern
boundary) was not surveyed because of its primarily commercial nature (non- residential).
Where schools occurred, only the residential portions of the block were considered. The
survey was conducted on the east/west avenues starting at the northern street boundary of the
neighbourhood (Redwood Avenue). Vacant lots and boarded-up and/or vacated buildings
that were noted on the north / south streets, were added to the totals of the associated
east/west blocks.
Five (5) basic categories were developed to assess each block using the following criteria:
Very Good [1] The block is stable re: exterior drive by/windshield review.
Generally, all homes are in good shape as viewed from exterior.
Good [2] Apart from [1] above, the block has a small percentage {i.e., 10 –
15%} as suspect, i.e., dilapidated or boarded-up housing and/or
vacant lots in bad/neglected condition.

16
Fair [3]
Poor [4]
Very Poor [5]
There seems to be a larger number of poor units (approximately
1/3). The block is generally falling into disrepair.
About ½ of the units seem to be beyond reclamation. There is the
potential for spot infill on a more frequent basis.
A majority of the units on the block are in very poor condition.
(“Majority” means 75% or more of total buildings on the block.)
It also appears that most units may not be salvageable. There are
also a large number of vacant/boarded-up units on the block. The
block may be a candidate for larger scale replacement of units.
The ‘windshield’ survey of the William Whyte community, conducted during October 2001,
found one hundred (100) vacant lots and ninety-one (91) obviously boarded-up and/or
vacated buildings (condemned etc.). Those vacant units that were under renovation or noted
to be upgraded (through signage on the building), were not considered under the category of
boarded-up and/or vacated properties. Table XII, Block by Block Condition Review,
illustrates that approximately 50.8% of the blocks were in poor to very poor condition and
only 11.1% were in very good to good condition. The remainder of the blocks, approximately
38.1%, fell into the fair to poor categories. (Note: where the categories were viewed as
somewhere between the two categories, they were recorded in a sub category noted as 2/3,
3/4, or 4/5.) When considering categories two through five, and the potential percentages of
‘suspect’, ‘dilapidated’, ‘falling into disrepair’, ‘boarded-up’, or ‘vacant’ housing units, this
could result in approximately 43% or 1,088 of the William Whyte housing units falling into
these categories. (See Map V Block By Block Condition Review)
Table XIII Block By Block Condition Review
Categories Blocks Sub Total % of Total Blocks % Sub Total
1 1 1.6%
2 6 7 9.5% 11.1%
2 / 3 1 1.6%
3 16 25.4%
3 / 4 7 24 11.1% 38.9%
4 18 28.6%
4 / 5 6 9.5%
5 8 32 12.7% 50.8%
TOTAL 63 63 100.0% 100.0%

18
SECTION III RESEARCH AND ISSUES
3.1 Research and Issues Compilation
This phase of the planning process consisted of a number of approaches necessary to develop
a wide-ranging understanding and appreciation of the variety of housing issues and concerns
existing in the William Whyte neighbourhood. Further, the need to disseminate the
information gathered among the stakeholders, residents and participants involved in the
overall planning process was undertaken over several months.
Assembling the information on housing issues and concerns involved (and might continue to
involve) a number of approaches:
i. Consultation with housing groups active in the north end and primarily in the
William Whyte neighbourhood;
ii. Discussion with emerging housing groups intending to address specific issues;
iii. Discussion with existing resident and neighbourhood associations;
iv. Consultation with agencies, non-profit service providers and public sector funders
and program delivery staff, to gather data on housing conditions and emerging
neighbourhood issues;
v. Setting up informational and working meetings with William Whyte residents
(homeowners and tenants); and
vi. Discussion of issues and priority areas of concern, through the establishment of a
North End Community Renewal Corporation (NECRC) Housing Network,
representing interests within the William Whyte neighbourhood.
Neighbourhood data was updated and assessed, the highlights of which are presented in this
Plan. Information was presented to housing groups and to the WWRA forming, in part, a
basis on which decisions could be made with regard to selecting and emphasizing specific
strategies.
3.2 The Housing Network
One of the first activities in the housing planning process for the William Whyte
neighbourhood was the creation of a housing network and steering committee. The NECRC
facilitated the monthly meetings. Participation on the network included representatives from:
• Public sector funders at the City and Provincial levels;
• Established housing agencies active in the neighbourhood;
• Established non-profit housing groups active in new and existing unit
development;
• Existing non-profit, urban Aboriginal, and co-operative housing groups;
• Emerging non-profit housing and resident associations; and
• Community development agencies.

19
This group met between December 2000 and June 2001. The network committee meetings
allowed a preliminary set of discussions that set about:
1. Defining common needs and operational / delivery issues among the housing
groups that should be addressed in the William Whyte neighbourhood;
2. Determining joint approaches and potential strategic alliances to help scale up
new housing unit development and existing unit redevelopment / rehabilitation;
3. Setting priorities for housing unit development initiatives and projects over the
short to longer term;
4. Exchanging information and coordinating efforts among participating groups; and
5. Defining possible working relationships with funding parties and other resources.
In effect, the network committee was intended to kick-start the research into and
determination of primary issues. More importantly, as each participant had various agendas
relating to its own particular objectives, it proved important that as many objectives as
possible became linked. As these objectives started to be addressed, the consensus was that
the network had served its purpose in getting groups and funders to talk more with one
another.
Even though the formal network committee meetings have ceased at this juncture, they could
be reactivated to serve a primary function during the Housing Plan’s implementation in the
William Whyte neighbourhood. Specifically, it could be a forum to assist the WWRA in
monitoring the implementation of various strategies and initiatives. As well, the network
committee could be useful whenever the Plan is reviewed and the successes of specific
strategies are evaluated. In effect, the network committee can become one consultation tool
or vehicle available to the WWRA.
3.3 Consultation with Housing Groups
Detailed consultations took place with housing groups active in the William Whyte
community. These groups hold housing portfolios aimed at the non-profit rental, cooperative,
ownership and lease-to-purchase housing markets. In general, these groups operate
in the William Whyte neighbourhood, but have housing stock located in other communities
both in and outside of the north end of the City of Winnipeg. These groups include:
Winnipeg Housing and Rehabilitation Corporation, MAPS Housing Co-operative, North End
Housing Project, Habitat for Humanity, KINEW Housing Inc., Aiyawan Corporation. As
well, consultations took place with emerging housing groups such as New Age – Old Ways
Inc. and Solutions to Overcome Poverty.
A number of issues emerged that the housing groups considered most significant:
• Need for measures to deal with the existing housing stock of various housing
groups, relative to long term and immediate repair and upgrading needs;
• Coordination of group activities to minimize overlap and to maximize positive
impacts on the neighbourhood;

20
• Need to increase delivery capacity and capability for many groups in order to
increase the extent of new construction and acquisition / rehabilitation of existing
housing units;
• Need to ensure housing groups have sufficient operating capital and resources to
increase their delivery capacity and capability.
• Need to concentrate housing effort on a sub-neighbourhood or block by block
basis to create a more unified housing renewal effort;
• Need to provide supports and training for new homeowners, tenants, co-operative
members and lease to purchase households; and
• Need to provide of sufficient funding levels to bring truly affordable units on
stream.
In general, housing groups have stressed the need for housing related activities to be linked.
No one group could be expected to deal with all housing issues and requirements. However,
by joining forces through informal, strategic alliances more housing concerns at the local
level could be addressed in a more concerted, concentrated, and sustained effort.
3.4 William Whyte Residents Association
Direct input from local residents to the housing planning process is critical. It helps bind the
issues, concerns and objectives and sets a long-term focus as defined by those who live in the
community.
Meetings with resident homeowners and tenants residing in the William Whyte
neighbourhood began in March 2001. NECRC housing staff and City of Winnipeg housing
and community resource staff provided the coordination and administrative support. General,
community-wide meetings have been conducted monthly. The William Whyte residents have
come together as the William Whyte Residents Association (and are moving towards
incorporating themselves as a formal residents group). (See Map VI, William Whyte
Residents Attendance Committee Meetings, for the approximate location of residents who
have attended these meetings.)
These series of sessions began with residents discussing the strengths and positives of living
in the William Whyte neighbourhood, as well as their concerns regarding housing in the area.
The intent of the meetings was to set up working sessions during which housing programs
and responses would be developed to address specific housing issues and problems.
A number of issues areas were voiced by the residents, such as:
• The need for home repair assistance to deal with basic exterior repairs (fences,
porches etc.);
• Dealing with boarded-up, vacant houses, including re-use and demolition; and
• General neighbourhood clean up including upkeep of yards and exterior
appearances.

22
To begin addressing these and other related needs, the William Whyte residents started a
series of working group meetings covering:
• Housing
• Neighbourhood image and clean-up
• Safety
The group met between May and September, 2001 to develop some initial projects /
initiatives for the neighbourhood. This led to the following activities:
• An initial clean-up campaign in May
• A pilot “homeowner fix-up” project in September
• A clean-up and carnival weekend at the end of September 2001
These efforts have managed to raise the profile and to promote the renewal efforts of the
WWRA. As part of the WWRA group development process, the meetings and initial outputs
(activities) have resulted in the formation of a cohesive and solid ‘core’ group of residents
eager to develop a sustained and all-inclusive approach to housing renewal in their
neighbourhood.
3.5 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (S.W.O.T.) Analysis Overview
To elicit specific resident based housing issues, a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities,
Threats (S.W.O.T.) analysis was undertaken. The S.W.O.T. analysis is a process in which the
community has the opportunity to express their opinions on their community’s current
development status. It is one of the consultation requirements pertinent to the development of
a truly community-based housing plan.
Initially, a series of questions were constructed to elicit resident interpretations of the
community’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and community threats. Then, a meeting
of community residents was called with the intent to complete the S.W.O.T. analysis. The
following are the seven (7) questions posed for this purpose:
1. What do you consider to be the strengths or positive points of living in the
William Whyte community / north end?
2. What kinds of things make you feel that this area is a good place in which to live?
3. What kinds of things concern you about living in this area?
4. What concerns you about housing in the area? Your home? The homes on your
street?
5. What types of opportunities would you like to see to improve on housing in your
community?
6. What strengths or positive aspects in your community could be used or relied
upon to help improve housing in your area?
7. How would you and other neighbourhood residents like to get involved?

23
At this initial meeting of the William Whyte residents, numerous comments were received
concerning housing, the local community environment, location of the community to various
physical elements, the neighbourhood, government services, and safety. The following
reviews the housing comments from the S.W.O.T. analysis. (See Appendix ‘A’ for comments
on the other categories of: Government Services, Neighbourhood, Safety, Location, and
Environment.):
S.W.O.T. Housing Comments
Strengths
• Cheap taxes or property taxes are low;
• Affordable, good quality housing with character homes;
• There are some beautiful character homes in the area, some of which need a fix up;
and
• Some of the boarded up homes could be upgraded.
Weaknesses
• Too many boarded up, condemned, and abandoned houses in the neighbourhood;
• The boarded up houses tend to attract more slum landlords;
• Many houses need fixing up and don’t meet fire codes;
• Reduced market values of homes in the community and people feeling trapped;
• The erosion of the tax base;
• There is no incentive to pump money into the homes;
• The pattern of some rental properties over time: fixed up / trashed / fixed up /
trashed;
• Substandard rental housing in community;
• Many renters not looking after their properties;
• There are too many rental properties in the area and not enough homeowners;
• There are problems getting financing and improvement loans for homeowners;
• The income level cut-off for grants are too low; and
• Some people would like to buy a home but can not afford the down payment
required.
Opportunities
• There is the opportunity to tear down existing poor quality houses and build new
houses;
• There is the opportunity to build new houses on vacant lots;
• There is the opportunity to rehabilitate many of the boarded up houses;
• Programs for youth to help repair homes;
• Potential to develop workshops for homeowners to repair homes; and
• The potential to place signage on newly built and rehabilitated housing in order to
develop better public relations.
Threats
• The question for property owners: Is it worth the money to fix up these homes?

24
3.6 Overview of All William Whyte Housing Issues
Beginning with the initial housing consultation meetings, a myriad of community based
housing issues have been highlighted. In general, the issues ranged from being very specific
to broadly based wherein they are directly linked to other non housing issues in the
community. Two basic categories of housing related issues have been established:
1. Those issues noted by groups actively involved in housing programs and in
housing unit development; and
2. Those issues that emerged in discussions with local residents.
A. An Overview of Housing Group Issues:
The following is an overview of housing related issues expressed by groups actively involved
in housing programs and in housing unit development in the community:
• The need to deal appropriately with maintaining the existing housing portfolios of
groups, re: major repair / upgrading needs;
• The need to provide supports and training for new homeowners, tenants, cooperative
members, and lease to purchase households;
• The provision of sufficient funding levels to bring truly affordable units on
stream;
• Ensuring housing groups have sufficient operating capital and resources to
increase their delivery capacity and capability; and
• Co-ordinating the efforts among various housing groups to ensure that their
housing related efforts and activities are co-ordinated and targeted on a locational
basis.
B. An Overview of Local Resident Issues:
The following is an overview of housing related issues as expressed by local residents:
• Problems concerning the number of boarded up houses in the community,
including condemned and abandoned houses;
• The need to fix up vacant houses that are feasible to rehabilitate;
• The need to undertake exterior housing repairs to improve the area’s image;
• The need to provide small grants to homeowners in order to undertake exterior
cosmetic repairs and cleaning;
• The need to develop workshops for homeowners in order that they can undertake
basic repairs on their homes;
• The need to enforce laws to ensure rental properties are kept in appropriate
condition;
• The need to provide incentives and/or assistance in order that more renters may be
able to assume homeownership;
• The difficulty to obtain financing and home improvement loans;

25
• The need to reduce the number of ‘slum landlords’ operating in the community;
and
• The need to enforce and strengthen bylaws pertaining to the continued
maintenance of properties especially the exteriors (e.g. serious litter and car
wrecks in yards, etc.).
3.7 Related Issues
As with the many direct housing issues, the consultations with William Whyte residents and
the housing stakeholders highlighted a number of related issues. The community saw these
issues as key to improving the neighbourhood’s liveability, and necessary in fostering
residential stability.
These issues are considered integral to any comprehensive planning process leading to
housing development and renewal. Key issues / categories that have received the greatest
emphasis include:
• Safety and health;
• Neighbourhood stability;
• The physical environment (including litter, unsightly yards, graffiti, etc.);
• Improving government services (including enforcement of regulations);
• Employment opportunities and business development; and
• Image and perception of the community.
The residents consulted in the William Whyte neighbourhood further identified three primary
areas in which work would be required. These were considered to be more germane to
helping set a base upon which housing renewal could better proceed. These were:
1. Issues related to the community’s image;
2. Safety concerns, and recreational opportunities; and
3. The need to promote and market the community (public relations).
Clearly, the development of a Housing Plan represents only one component of a broader
Community Plan for the William Whyte neighbourhood. The challenge for the
neighbourhood will be in determining the broader, related issues that a community wide plan
should address and to set out objectives and related strategies.
3.8 Goals and Measurable Objectives for the First Two Years
Adopting specific housing related goals and objectives for the first two years of the William
Whyte Housing Plan, reflects the WWRA’s emphasis on a two-year effective time frame to
implement the more urgently required initiatives. The ability to measure the effectiveness of
program objectives is critical in order to monitor and evaluate individual and grouped
initiatives.

26
Goals (Table XIV Goals and Objectives) reflect the desired future results expressed by the
community. Also, the objectives reflect what must be accomplished in order to achieve each
goal.
Table XIV Goals And Objectives
GOAL OBJECTIVE ASSOCIATED
INITIATIVES
1. To increase the
number of
homeowner
occupied
housing units.
2. To improve the
quality of
homeowner
occupied units.
3. To improve
enforcement of
housing /
residential
occupancy
standards and
maintenance
by-laws.
4. To improve the
number of
quality rental
housing units.
5. To achieve a
stable and
attractive
residential
neighbourhood
the residents
are proud of.
i. Support projects / programs that assist residents to
become homeowners.
ii. Redevelop housing that can be sold to prospective
homeowners.
iii. Develop training supports for prospective
homeowners.
iv. Increase home purchases by non-residents.
v. Develop ownership housing on vacant lots and as
part of a land assembly scheme.
i. Increase house repair and maintenance programs
and funding.
ii. Increase participation by homeowners in unit
maintenance, repair and upgrading programs /
initiatives.
iii. Make repair programs more affordable and
accessible for homeowners.
i. Ensure ownership and rental units are monitored
in respect of falling below minimum occupancy
standards.
ii. Address the time limit for vacant boarded-up
dwelling units.
iii. Implement an active monitoring strategy.
i. Increase programming and funding aimed at
improving rental properties.
ii. Increase participation by landlords and tenants in
home maintenance and rehabilitation.
iii. Increase participation by landlords in community
strategy building.
iv. Support increased rental unit development and
redevelopment.
i. Increase the involvement of residents
(homeowners and tenants) in maintaining their
properties, both interior and exterior.
ii. Increase community supports and foster active,
locally based directions and decision-making.
4, 5, 7, 8, 13,
14, 18, 21, 22,
23, 29
10, 11, 12, 14,
17, 20, 21, 22,
24, 26, 27
1, 2, 3, 21, 22,
23, 25
4, 5, 6, 8, 12,
14, 16, 17, 18,
19, 21, 29, 30
9, 10, 14, 15,
16, 21, 22, 23,
25, 26, 28, 29

27
SECTION IV STRATEGIES AND INITIATIVES
4.1 Development of Strategies and Initiatives
The development of strategies (initiatives, programs and projects) involved three phases. One
of the primary tasks within the process involved reviewing neighbourhood / housing
information obtained from various sources, including:
• Existing neighbourhood information, reports and statistical data sources;
• Feedback from consultations with housing groups, service organizations, and
community groups;
• Outreach work conducted by various community agencies and associations; and
• Discussion sessions with William Whyte residents and peripheral resident groups.
From this, issues / concerns were grouped into categories. Those directly related to housing
were as follows:
• Development of new units in a concentrated or more clustered manner;
• Rehabilitating units, especially vacant and boarded-up units where feasible;
• Providing incentives and facilitative measures to allow households to fix up the
exterior of units and to deal with critical interior repairs;
• Enforcing the need for landlords to maintain properties;
• Addressing the needs of existing housing group portfolios;
• Increasing the ability (financial and operational infrastructure capacity) of
housing groups to redevelop more units;
• Coordinating efforts among groups to target (physically by location) blocks /
block faces to be renewed; and
• Improving the area’s image and marketability as a means of drawing in the
private sector (households, etc.) in tandem with local renewal efforts.
The next phase involved two approaches based on the consultations with housing groups and
the WWRA. The first involved identifying and proceeding with initiatives aimed at
facilitating the ability of existing housing groups to increase (or scale-up) housing unit
redevelopment and to address housing unit upgrading or repair needs. This ensured that
workable solutions were found and implemented as quickly as possible to address their
specific needs.
The second involved the development of a broad-based housing action plan in conjunction
with the WWRA. This would define the community’s approach to a sustainable housing plan
that would further the work already underway in the William Whyte neighbourhood to
address the myriad of housing needs. It incorporated:
i. Tactics relating to each housing issue or concern;
ii. Projects, programs or initiatives intended to resolve each issue; and
iii. An implementation plan including areas of responsibility, cost implications /
funding and integration of each into the broader housing strategy.

28
4.2 Specific Planning and Strategy Development with Housing Groups
During the consultations with housing groups a number of issues emerged that lead to
housing initiatives / strategies devised in conjunction with these groups. While these
strategies were aimed at these groups in terms of direct benefits, they would allow all groups
to operate in ways that would further benefit the local community, and invariably would have
a greater potential of leading to constructive partnerships within the neighbourhood, and with
the residents.
Specific strategies and initiatives developed include:
1. A Housing Training Initiative being conceptualized / developed among several inner-city
housing groups. The components of which, in part, will deal with training and support
measures for tenants, homeowners, co-operative housing members, lease-to-purchase
households, housing group boards and committees, et al. The needs of housing groups
and their efforts, past and present, in the William Whyte neighbourhood have comprised
fundamental considerations behind this initiative.
2. Promoting an initiative to address the existing housing portfolio issues facing existing
groups such as MAPS Housing Cooperative, and Kinew Housing Inc. and Aiyawin
Corporation. The intent was to formulate a means for the Province to assist groups in
addressing the need for upgrading and major repair needs of existing housing units. The
importance of this approach is to ensure that these housing units continue to serve client
needs. Furthermore, the net loss of housing units, a serious issue in the William Whyte
neighbourhood, would be somewhat mitigated. The move towards maintaining housing
units in existing portfolios is complementary to the work of other housing groups and
various repair programs in revitalizing the housing stock in a concerted effort
(particularly on a block-by-block basis).
3. Increasing the delivery capacity / capability of the North End Housing Project (NEHP)
has been a key initiative that began this year. This has far reaching implications for the
William Whyte Housing Plan and its implementation. By strengthening NEHP’s
operational or delivery infrastructure, it can dramatically increase the number of housing
units it can develop and renew annually. As one of two active housing delivery groups or
developers in the William Whyte neighbourhood (Habitat for Humanity being the other),
scaling-up NEHP’s delivery ability is seen as the most significant and priority strategy to
increasing housing development in the William Whyte neighbourhood.
Furthermore, this strategy enables NEHP to evolve its role into one as a delivery agent
for other groups and to help in delivering local, community-based housing initiatives. In
effect, NEHP becomes an important, multi-functional resource to the neighbourhood. In
addition, this strategy can draw in outside resources to the William Whyte neighbourhood
and the north end, as witnessed by the Thomas Sill’s financial contributions to the
scaling-up process.

29
4.3 Description of Housing Strategies and Initiatives
Each initiative discussed during the consultation phases with the WWRA and other housing
stakeholders is presented in detail in the following format:
1. Area of concern or issue;
2. Type of strategy: A definition and brief description of the particular initiative,
project or proposal;
3. Rationale: Why the strategy is required, and the issues, problems or concerns that
the strategy would or could address in the neighbourhood;
4. Anticipated outcomes or results: The impact that the strategy could have in terms
of residential units impacted, renewed, and so on;
5. Timeframe: The timing of the strategy and how long until it could be started or
implemented;
6. Frequency of the strategy: Whether it is an ongoing, long-term initiative or is
periodic or carried out from time-to-time as need or opportunities dictate;
7. Lead or area of responsibility: Who would take the lead in undertaking the
strategy and what resources would be needed;
8. Other strategies that this particular strategy is linked or connected to; and
9. An estimate of dollars required or a range of funding (if known).
The thirty (30) initiatives are outlined below as priorized by the WWRA. Each initiative falls
under one of the five broad-based strategies, including:
• Housing Development and Rehabilitation
- Initiative 4 Scaling-Up North-End Housing Project
- Initiative 8 Land Assembly Strategy
- Initiative 13 Neighbourhood Homesteading Program
- Initiative 18 Redevelopment of quality, affordable housing units
- Initiative 21 Block Prioritization

30
• New Housing Development
- Initiative 5 Funding Housing Demolition
- Initiative 7 Solidifying Habitat for Humanity’s Role
- Initiative 29 New Housing Demonstration Projects
• Upgrading Existing Housing
- Initiative 6 Portfolio or Housing Unit Upgrading
- Initiative 10 Homeowner Block ‘Fix-Up’ Project
- Initiative 11 Special Repair Program For Housing Units Occupied By
Seniors And Persons With Disabilities
- Initiative 12 Basic Home Maintenance Program
- Initiative 17 Rehabilitation Of Existing Housing Stock
- Initiative 20 Emergency Home Repair Funding
- Initiative 24 Home Heating Conservation Initiative
- Initiative 27 Home Repair Workshops
- Initiative 30 Rental Unit Repair Assistance
• Resident / Housing Related Strategy
- Initiative 9 Linked Activities Among Housing Groups
- Initiative 22 Housing Training Initiative
- Initiative 23 Housing Relocation Strategy And Housing Registry
• Community Upgrading
- Initiative 1 Reduction of Vacant and Boarded-Up Housing Units
- Initiative 2 City of Winnipeg Enforcement of By-Laws Campaign
- Initiative 3 Resident Monitoring Committee
- Initiative 14 University / College Assistance For Resident Association
- Initiative 15 Neighbourhood Clean-Up Campaign
- Initiative 16 Tenant-Landlord Cooperation Program
- Initiative 25 Signage And Panels
- Initiative 26 Bulk Buying And Depot Project
- Initiative 28 Exterior House Recognition

31
INITIATIVE 1
1. Area of
COMMUNITY UPGRADING
Concern/Issue
2. Initiative Reduction of Vacant and Boarded-Up Housing Units
A multiple objective initiative involving:
• Creating a neighbourhood monitoring system to identify
abandoned and/or boarded-up properties;
• Enforced closure of units beyond repair;
• Setting time limits (1 year maximum) for vacant units to
be renewed or demolished;
• Transferring such units to housing groups or qualified
individuals to actively rehabilitate or replace units with new
housing; and
• Establishing a detailed registry of such properties.
3. Rationale • As of the writing of this Plan, there were 91 vacant and
boarded-up properties (primarily single-detached) in William
Whyte;
• Such properties continue to set a negative ‘image’ in the
community; and
• Boarded-up properties present added safety, security and
fire safety concerns.
4.Anticipated
Outcomes
• Goal would be to reduce current level of vacant and
boarded-up properties by 75 – 80% over the next two years;
and
• This reduction would help in promoting renewal of the
neighbourhood.
5.Time Frame • Immediate to short term, or within +/- 6 months.
6. Frequency • Ongoing, permanent monitoring and required action
steps.
7. Lead Responsibility • City of Winnipeg housing inspectors and real property
departments.
8. Linked Strategies • Neighbourhood Homesteading, Land Assembly, Block
Prioritization, Housing Demolition, and NEHP ‘Scaling-Up’
initiatives primarily.
9. Funding Range • Costs for this initiative are generally included in funding
levels for other initiatives. Therefore, cost or funding range
is not determined separately.

32
INITIATIVE 2
1 Area of
COMMUNITY UPGRADING
Concern/Issue
2. Initiative City of Winnipeg Enforcement of By-Laws Campaign
• City of Winnipeg increasing inspections and enforcement
of by-laws and regulations in terms of health, fire and safety,
and occupancy concerns and issues;
• Distribution of by-law fact sheets and active enforcement
promotions campaign throughout the neighbourhood; and
• Improved response rates at the City of Winnipeg relating
to calls to the City reporting actual or possible by-law
infractions.
3. Rationale • To help create a neighbourhood with clean and hazard
free properties to improve community’s image;
• Need to reduce unsightly number of properties – houses
and/or yards; and
• Problems with the length of time condemned buildings
remain vacant, outstanding repair orders and so on.
4.Anticipated
Outcomes
• Reduction in the number of vacant properties; and
• Reduction in unsightly properties and fostering a safe
neighbourhood.
5.Time Frame • Immediate or ‘quick-start’.
6. Frequency • Ongoing, permanent campaign.
• Added emphasis on more intensive enforcement
campaigns, coinciding with e.g., neighbourhood clean-up
campaigns, and the link.
7. Lead Responsibility • City of Winnipeg
8. Linked Strategies • Campaign aimed at Vacant and Boarded-Up Housing
units, Resident Monitoring Committee, Exterior House
Recognition, and Neighbourhood Clean-Up initiatives.
9. Funding Range • To be determined, however, funding would be internal,
administrative funding support for increased inspections –
City of Winnipeg staffing implications not known.

33
INITIATIVE 3
1. Area of
COMMUNITY UPGRADING
Concern/Issue
2. Initiative Resident Monitoring Committee
• Residents / volunteers mobilized to formally watch for
major code / by-law problems, violations and related
concerns.
• Committee regularly reports issues and concerns arising
to appropriate City of Winnipeg staff in a more formalized
manner.
• Committee would actively link or coordinate its efforts
with neighbourhood safety patrols and neighbourhood watch
groups.
3. Rationale • Extent of by-law infractions occurring throughout the
neighbourhood.
• Need to extend the ‘eyes and ears’ of the City of
Winnipeg inspection staff.
4.Anticipated
Outcomes
• Reduction in the time that by-law infractions go
unreported and unchecked.
• Improvement to the neighbourhood’s appearance, safety
and image.
• One of a series of measures to actively mobilize local
residents.
5.Time Frame • Immediate or ‘quick-start’.
• In 2001 WWRA has begun informal monitoring of parts
of the neighbourhood.
6. Frequency • Ongoing, permanent committee
7. Lead Responsibility • WWRA coordinated with the City of Winnipeg staff.
8. Linked Strategies • City of Winnipeg Enforcement By-Law Campaign,
Tenant-Landlord Cooperation Program, “Neighbourhood
Watch”, Clean-Up Campaigns, and Vacant and Boarded-Up
Housing Units.
9. Funding Range • No funding implications identified at this point as the
committee would operate as a volunteer based group.

34
INITIATIVE 4
1. Area of
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND REHABILITATION
Concern/Issue
2. Initiative Scaling-Up North-End Housing Project
• Increasing operational and administrative capacity /
capability.
• NEHP operating as the major developer of new and
rehabbed housing in the neighbourhood.
• NEHP providing project development and property
management expertise.
• NEHP providing technical advice / support to other
groups and resident groups wanting to develop housing
programs and projects.
3. Rationale • The extent of units required to add to the housing stock
and to replace / refurbish vacant units is increasing.
• No other housing group has the ability to become a major
developer of housing in the neighbourhood.
4.Anticipated
Outcomes
• To create a net gain of good quality units in the William
Whyte community.
• Redevelop 30-40+ units annually in the William Whyte
community.
• Act as a resource to help initiate and manage certain
housing programs.
5.Time Frame • Initiative currently underway as of June, 2001.
• Will require 2-3 years to complete full scale-up process.
6. Frequency • Ongoing, long-term initiative in the William Whyte
community.
7. Lead Responsibility • NEHP directly, in conjunction with NECRC.
8. Linked Strategies • Any initiative / strategy, program or project aimed at
housing redevelopment (new and existing).
9. Funding Range • Approximately $1.5 million in annual funding is required
to facilitate NEHP’s program of housing redevelopment in
William Whyte. Funding drawn from all three levels of
government and foundations such as the Thomas Sill
Foundation.

35
INITIATIVE 5
1. Area of
NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
Concern/Issue
2. Initiative Funding Housing Demolition
• Provision of dollars to demolish dilapidated housing
units to make way for new infill unit construction.
• Priority extended to demolition of vacant and boarded-up
housing (mainly single-detached houses).
• Funding to offset demolition costs and prepare property
for redevelopment (i.e., clearing of old foundations and so
on).
3. Rationale • To help limit the cost of new infill construction.
• Such funding would keep unit development costs on par
with new unit construction on already vacant lots.
• Targeted block / block faces would undergo major
renewal efforts.
4.Anticipated
Outcomes
• Replacement of derelict and primarily, boarded-up
housing units, primarily single-detached but could be applied
to multiple unit buildings.
• Demolition of 20-30 units per year as a minimum.
5.Time Frame • One time funding from the City of Winnipeg for infill
housing development was approved for 8 units in 2001.
• Framework has been established with the City of
Winnipeg staff through the Winnipeg Housing and
Homelessness Initiative.
6. Frequency • Primarily to coincide with the preparation of lots for
building season or spring through early fall months.
7. Lead Responsibility • NECRC would coordinate request for funding between
housing groups (such as NEHP) and the City of Winnipeg.
8. Linked Strategies • Any initiative involving new unit development.
• Primarily linked to NEHP scaling-up and Habitat for
Humanity’s role in the neighbourhood.
9. Funding Range • Based on per unit demolition costs of $7,500 - $12,500
and 20-30 units per year, approximately $150,000 - $375,000
per year.

36
INITIATIVE 6
1. Area of
UPGRADING EXISTING HOUSING
Concern/Issue
2. Initiative Portfolio or Housing Unit Upgrading
• Providing repair dollars (beyond normal housing group
unit maintenance budgets) to upgrade existing rental housing
units owned by various housing corporations in the William
Whyte community.
• To permit necessary interior / exterior repairs to maintain
units in a good state of repair.
3. Rationale • Is necessary to keep existing rental units in good
condition.
• Necessary as part of a concerted effort to upgrade / renew
units in targeted locations throughout the William Whyte
community.
4.Anticipated
Outcomes
• Would upgrade over 40 units owned by housing groups
such as Kinew Housing Inc., Aiyawin Corporation, and
MAPS Housing Cooperative.
• Would help to bring about the renewal of various blocks
in the neighbourhood.
5.Time Frame • A pilot upgrading initiative of 10 units owned by Kinew
Housing Inc. and Aiyawin Corporation is currently
underway and will be expanded in 2002.
6. Frequency • Major upgrading campaign for the spring to fall months,
until existing portfolio units are upgraded in William Whyte.
• Anticipated to last through to 2003.
7. Lead Responsibility • The Province (Family Services and Housing) in
conjunction with the WHHI office.
8. Linked Strategies • Part of all strategies and programs aimed at upgrading
the existing housing stock.
• Direct linkage to NEHP’s Renovation Enterprise that
would undertake some of the work.
9. Funding Range • In the order of $600,000 to $750,000 in total or $300,000
-$375,000 per year during each of 2002 and 2003.
• Funding drawn primarily through a special Provincial
housing fund to rehabilitate existing portfolio units.

37
INITIATIVE 7
1. Area of
NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
Concern/Issue
2. Initiative Solidifying Habitat for Humanity’s Role
• To link Habitat for Humanity’s role to initiatives and the
community development / stabalization strategy in the
William Whyte community.
• Habitat for Humanity would coordinate its activities with
the WWRA’s strategy to begin targeting blocks for
concerted renewal.
• The group could assist WWRA in developing
neighbourhood wide owner-occupied unit repairs or fix-up
campaigns, by way of advice and assisting in developing a
volunteer base.
3. Rationale • By coordinating efforts among housing groups, more
concerted and concentrated housing renewal can occur.
• Each housing group has areas of expertise they can bring
to the housing redevelopment effort.
4.Anticipated
Outcomes
• More concentrated block renewal work.
• Ability to draw added dollars into the broader housing
redevelopment strategy in the William Whyte community.
5.Time Frame • Preliminary linkages between Habitat for Humanity and
WWRA began in 2001 as part of the block fix-up campaign
6. Frequency • Ongoing for the duration of Habitat for Humanity’s
involvement in the William Whyte community.
7. Lead Responsibility • The WWRA and Habitat for Humanity.
8. Linked Strategies • NEHP’s unit development (new infill and rehabilitation)
work in the William Whyte community.
• Strategy linked to block to block fix-up campaign,
prioritization of blocks and any land assembly strategy.
9. Funding Range • No cost beyond Habitat for Humanity’s current
budgetary requirements

38
INITIATIVE 8
1. Area of
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND REHABILITATION
Concern/Issue
2. Initiative Land Assembly Strategy
• This initiative would largely operate in conjunction with
the Block Prioritization initiative.
• To develop an approach with the City of Winnipeg to
assemble lots for new infill housing, as well as portions of
blocks for larger scale redevelopment of ownership, rental or
non-profit housing.
• Would include assembly of contiguous housing units for
major rehabilitation.
3. Rationale • Many of street blocks in the William Whyte community,
require major redevelopment through a concentrated effort
that a land assembly strategy would largely facilitate.
• One of the biggest operational issues facing housing
groups is the need to assemble vacant lots and homes,
sufficient in number to accommodate the desired building
program targets or unit levels.
4.Anticipated
Outcomes
• Would facilitate ‘demonstration’ projects involving new
building technologies, unique unit design / configuration,
etc.
• Would help to address the need for land by groups
including NEHP and Habitat for Humanity.
5.Time Frame • Medium term or 1 – 2 years to implement the strategy,
including the land acquisition process.
6. Frequency • Ongoing until a majority of blocks requiring major
redevelopment is addressed.
7. Lead Responsibility • City of Winnipeg and the Province of Manitoba in
conjunction with WWRA and NEHP.
8. Linked Strategies • Block Prioritization strategy, as well as strategies /
initiatives targeted to new housing development and unit
rehabilitation, and upgrading of existing homes.
9. Funding Range • Assuming the need to acquire 50% of the lots / homes on
each block targeted for redevelopment and 2 – 4 blocks per
year, $450,000 to $900,000 per year in land assembly funds
would be required.

39
INITIATIVE 9
1. Area of
RESIDENT / HOUSING RELATED INITIATIVES
Concern/Issue
2. Initiative Linked Activities Among Housing Groups
• This involves coordinating various activities that housing
groups are currently involved in or see themselves as
undertaking in the future.
[Note: This initiative is discussed in the Housing Plan under
the Section “Partnerships, Linkages and Coordination”]
3. Rationale • [See Above]
4.Anticipated
• [See Above]
Outcomes
5.Time Frame • Immediate
6. Frequency • Ongoing, permanent initiative.
7. Lead Responsibility • WWRA and NECRC
8. Linked Strategies • Most of the noted initiatives
9. Funding Range • Not Applicable

40
INITIATIVE 10
1. Area of
UPGRADING EXISTING HOUSING
Concern/Issue
2. Initiative Homeowner Block ‘Fix-Up’ Project
• Designating relatively stable blocks with a larger degree
of homeownership, and where blocks are generally in fairly
good to good state or condition.
• Undertaking ‘blitz’ or weekend campaigns to undertake
basic exterior repairs (not requiring skilled trades persons)
e.g., improving fences, gates, levelling stairs, etc. using
volunteers from within the community.
• Campaigns targeted to 2-3 blocks at a time per year.
• Limited materials and labour at no cost to homeowner.
• Could be tied, as well, to providing improved, exterior
house lighting to increase safety and security.
3. Rationale • Need to improve and maintain house exteriors.
• Need for support initiatives available for homeowners
who find it difficult to undertake small, basic exterior
repairs.
4.Anticipated
• 4 – 9 blocks designated per year with 4 – 6 being likely
Outcomes
range.
5.Time Frame • Pilot project undertaken in September 2001.
• Immediate or ‘quick start’, generally requiring 1-2
months lead-time.
6. Frequency • Ongoing, permanent initiative.
• Periodic actions, i.e., campaigns targeted to 2-3 blocks at
a time 2-3 times per year, i.e., spring, summer, and early fall.
• City of Winnipeg has already approved $30,000 for the
year 2002.
7. Lead Responsibility • WWRA with assistance from NECRC.
8. Linked Strategies • Initiatives aimed at home maintenance, repairs and
general block upgrading.
9. Funding Range • Limited, precise definition of eligible repairs would
amount to about $300 per unit or $7,500 per block (block
faces).
• 4-9 blocks per year would require funding in the range of
$30,000 to $65,000 per year.
• Funds accessed through the City of Winnipeg (and
foundations).

41
INITITIVE 11
1. Area of
UPGRADING EXISTING HOUSING
Concern/Issue
2. Initiative Special Repair Program for Housing Units Occupied by Seniors
and Persons with Disabilities
• Providing grants for these households to undertake
repairs and upgrading of items necessary to remain in their
homes.
• Would be available for both homeowners and tenants
(through landlords).
• Would be intended to accommodate more urgent or
critical repairs and upgrading.
3. Rationale • Many seniors and persons with disabilities require repair
assistance, as well as unit retrofitting (special bathroom
repairs, entrance ramps, etc.).
• At least 18% of the households in the William Whyte
community are seniors.
4.Anticipated
Outcomes
• Ability to address the needs of more households in the
neighbourhood is increased.
• More households are able to remain in their homes,
especially in respect of ‘aging in place’ considerations.
5.Time Frame • Medium term, 1-2 years to develop and implement
programs and to allocate funds.
6. Frequency • Ongoing, permanent initiative.
7. Lead Responsibility • Province of Manitoba (Family Services and Housing)
and the Federal government (CMHC).
8. Linked Strategies • Home Maintenance Program, Home Heating
Conservation and other initiatives aimed at unit upgrading.
• Strongly linked to RRAP for Homeowners and Persons
with Disabilities.
9. Funding Range • Initiative could be used to supplement or complement
available RRAP funding.
• In this instance, provision of $5,000 grant supplements
and target of 40 – 50 units per year would require $200,000 -
$250,000, annually.

42
INITIATIVE 12
1. Area of
UPGRADING EXISTING HOUSING
Concern/Issue
2. Initiative Basic Home Maintenance Program
• To help homeowners with basic home maintenance
concerns, including: cleaning eavestroughs, basic weatherstripping,
preparing flower/garden beds, minor and basic
plumbing maintenance, etc.
• Provide volunteer assistance to help with necessary
work.
• Could provide a referral service, e.g., to link up retired
handy persons and homeowners.
3. Rationale • Many basic home maintenance repairs go unchecked and
may lead to the need for larger repairs over time.
• Basic home maintenance (especially exterior related)
helps improve the neighbourhood’s image.
4.Anticipated
Outcomes
• A referral and/or volunteer campaign oriented program
could help maintain 200-400 + units per year.
• Would help maintain those blocks, as well, that are in
relatively good shape.
5.Time Frame • 3-6 months to develop and implement.
6. Frequency • Ongoing, but especially tied to seasonal home
maintenance needs in spring and fall.
7. Lead Responsibility • WWRA to coordinate the program.
8. Linked Strategies • Block Fix-Up initiative, as well as any home repair
initiative, particularly initiatives aimed at seniors and
persons with disabilities.
9. Funding Range • Funding might be restricted to promoting the ides
throughout the neighbourhood, organizing volunteers, basic
supplies / tools, etc. The anticipated basic cost of perhaps
$5,000 - $15,000 per year.

43
INITIATIVE 13
1. Area of
HOUSING REHABILITATION AND HOMEOWNERSHIP
Concern/Issue
2. Initiative Neighbourhood Homesteading Program
• To permit qualifying households to acquire vacant homes
and to repair them within a specified time frame.
• Similar to U.S. programs (Minneapolis and others)
prospective homeowners obtain single-detached houses
within the City of Winnipeg’s inventory for a nominal sum
(e.g., $1.00 transfer of title) and rehabilitate them fully
within a period of one to two years.
3. Rationale • To help in addressing the neighbourhood’s vacant and
boarded-up units.
• To help minimize boarded-up units remaining in such
condition.
• To enhance homeownership affordability at the frontend.
4.Anticipated
Outcomes
• Reduction in the number of boarded-up housing units.
• Likely take-up could amount to 5-10 units per year.
• Block improvement where such units exist.
• Improved property tax levels coming to the City of
Winnipeg
5.Time Frame • Likely, a medium term planning and program
development time frame or 1-1 ½ years.
6. Frequency • Ongoing, permanent program until such time that supply
of vacant and boarded-up units is exhausted.
7. Lead Responsibility • City of Winnipeg Housing and Real Estate staff.
8. Linked Strategies • Any of the initiatives aimed at increasing
homeownership supports and repair programs.
9. Funding Range • Funding implications primarily relate to the difference
between the City of Winnipeg’s book value on the houses
and transferring title for $1.00. Funding, therefore is not
determined at this time, however, write-offs can be offset
against City of Winnipeg cost of demolition of the unit.
• Real cost estimated at perhaps $50,000 - $75,000 per
year.

44
INITIATIVE 14
1. Area of
COMMUNITY UPGRADING
Concern/Issue
2. Initiative University / College Assistance for Resident Association
• Universities and colleges (including trade schools, etc.)
would provide technical assistance, free-of-charge (other
than out of pocket expenses), to the WWRA or any housing
group.
• Assistance in the form of unit design, renewal / repair
advice, redevelopment options / plans, landscaping and so
on.
• Students would take on projects identified with the
residents and/or housing groups as part of their field work
experience.
3. Rationale • Technical support is necessary to achieving longer-tem,
sustainable initiatives.
• Would help provide some options to address the need for
major upgrading / redevelopment of over half of the
residential blocks in the William Whyte community.
4.Anticipated
Outcomes
• Generally, additional redevelopment options that the
WWRA would examine.
• Would provide certain additional design support to help
in maintaining the ‘character’ of the neighbourhood’s
housing stock.
5.Time Frame • Short-term, but generally up to 6 months lead time
incorporate requests for assistance into student projects,
workshops, course work etc.
6. Frequency • Would range from ongoing assistance to periodic or
annual efforts.
7. Lead Responsibility • WWRA in conjunction with university / college
academic and administrative staff.
8. Linked Strategies • Such assistance could be linked to almost any strategy or
initiative implemented as part of the Housing Plan.
9. Funding Range • Limited annual funding to help offset costs incurred by
students for supplies, material and related expenses.
• Anticipated to amount to approximately $7,500 per year.

45
INITIATIVE 15
1. Area of
COMMUNITY UPGRADING
Concern/Issue
2. Initiative Neighbourhood Clean-Up Campaign
• Initiative aimed at keeping the residential areas (streets,
blocks, etc.) free of debris and graffiti.
• Volunteers are mobilized at key times throughout the
year to remove unsightly litter.
3. Rationale • The appearance of a cleaner neighbourhood helps to
create a sense of pride and ownership in the community.
4.Anticipated
Outcomes
• A cleaner residential environment.
• Increased mobilization of residents / volunteers.
• Increased sense of pride
5.Time Frame • Immediate or ‘quick start’, although already underway as
two campaigns were completed in 2001.
6. Frequency • Ongoing, permanent initiative undertaken at key periods
i.e., spring and fall time clean-up.
7. Lead Responsibility • WWRA with assistance from neighbourhood groups,
agencies and the City of Winnipeg.
8. Linked Strategies • Initiative aimed at improving the image of the
neighbourhood.
9. Funding Range • A minimal funding level of $5,000 annually.
• City of Winnipeg as primary funding source.

46
INITIATIVE 16
1. Area of
COMMUNITY UPGRADING
Concern/Issue
2. Initiative Tenant-Landlord Cooperation Program
• Modelled after the original, successful West Broadway
Neighbourhood Housing Resource Centre’s own initiative.
• Rental properties recognized wherein landlords maintain
properties in good condition and practice fair tenanting
procedures.
• Properties recognized with a sign indicating they adhere
to the Tenant-Landlord Cooperation guidelines.
• The William Whyte community’s version could be
modified to deal with properties of under 4-6 units.
3. Rationale • The need to recognize and promote responsible
landlords.
• Need for rental properties to be maintained, at least at
minimum acceptable standards.
4.Anticipated
Outcomes
• The Tenant-Landlord Cooperation recognized buildings
should maintain higher levels of occupancy (few, if any
vacancies).
• Stable rental properties would result in fewer tenant
moves, and impact school migration rates for families.
5.Time Frame • Short term or 6 months to 1 year to set up a similar
program for the William Whyte community.
6. Frequency • Ongoing, permanent initiative for the neighbourhood.
7. Lead Responsibility • WWRA with assistance from the NECRC.
8. Linked Strategies • Enforcement of maintenance, occupancy and
health/safety by-laws.
• Housing registry and tenant relocation programs.
9. Funding Range • The cost of operating the Tenant-Landlord Cooperation
program would consist of part-time staff (1-2 persons),
supplies and the cost of signage.
• Could be accommodated within budget of $20,000 to
$30,000 per year with funding secured from the Province
and/or the City of Winnipeg (i.e., Neighbourhoods Alive and
the City of Winnipeg’s housing budget).

47
INITIATIVE 17
1. Area of
UPGRADING EXISTING HOUSING
Concern/Issue
2. Initiative Rehabilitation of Existing Housing Stock
• Funding for major repairs is required to rehabilitate
existing privately owned and rental housing units.
3. Rationale • Need to upgrade housing units requiring major repair
work.
• Need to increase the take-up within the William Whyte
neighbourhood.
4.Anticipated
Outcomes
• Increased repairs of neighbourhood units.
• Upgrading of approximately 80-100 houses and rental
units annually.
5.Time Frame • Existing program
6. Frequency • Ongoing, long term
7. Lead Responsibility • Provincially/Federally funded and delivered by the City
of Winnipeg.
8. Linked Strategies • Scaling-Up NEHP, and general home repair, upgrading
and maintenance initiative noted in Housing Plan.
9. Funding Range • Requires a continuation of RRAP or similar funding
(grants and loans) for ownership housing (Homeowner
RRAP), rental properties (Rental RRAP) units requiring
repairs / retrofit for persons with disabilities (RRAP for
Persons with Disabilities).
• Additional funding (beyond NEHP commitments) of
$500,000 per year.

48
INITIATIVE 18
1. Area of
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND REHABILITATION
Concern/Issue
2. Initiative Redevelopment of quality, affordable housing units
• Need to continue to redevelop existing housing stock and
make it available to local residents on affordable terms.
• This activity needs to be scaled up from historical levels
3. Rationale • Need to help reduce the relatively high cost of housing
development (new or full rehabilitation) to render units
affordable to households by reducing the resulting
occupancy costs.
4.Anticipated
Outcomes
• Redevelopment of 50 housing units per year.
• Increased affordability for households accessing very
good quality redeveloped units.
5.Time Frame • Existing program.
6. Frequency • Long term (3-5+ years)
7. Lead Responsibility • Province of Manitoba.
8. Linked Strategies • Scaling-Up NEHP, Block Prioritization, Land Assembly
and City of Winnipeg Housing Programs.
9. Funding Range • Continuation of City of Winnipeg Housing
Demonstration Program funding to non-profits of $10,000
per unit is critical to the success of this initiative.
• Continuation of Provincial Neighbourhood Housing
Assistance Program funding to individuals or non-profits of
$10,000 per unit is also critical to the success of this
initiative.
• Sufficient annual funding to support a minimum of 50
units or $1,000,000. (Already covered under “Scaling-Up
NEHP” initiative).
• Additional funding of $150,000 per year for further 15
units beyond NEHP requirements

49
INITIATIVE 19 – This page intentionally left blank
1. Area of
Concern/Issue
2. Initiative •
3. Rationale •
4.Anticipated
•
Outcomes
5.Time Frame
•
6. Frequency •
7. Lead Responsibility •
8. Linked Strategies •
9. Funding Range •

50
INITIATIVE 20
1. Area of
UPGRADING EXISTING HOUSING
Concern/Issue
2. Initiative Emergency Home Repair Funding
• Funds are required for emergency home repairs
(mechanical, electrical, plumbing, roof, door and windows
etc.)
3. Rationale • Address the need for critical repairs that ordinarily may
lead to closure of the home.
4.Anticipated
• Reduce situations where households are forced to vacate
Outcomes
homes because of failed systems impacting health and safety.
5.Time Frame • Existing program.
6. Frequency • Long-term (3-5+ years).
7. Lead Responsibility • City of Winnipeg and the Province of Manitoba
8. Linked Strategies • All initiatives pertaining to home repairs and
maintenance.
9. Funding Range • A continuation of the City’s Critical Minimum Home
Repair program that provides up to $3,000 per unit to owneroccupants
to undertake minor, necessary repairs required for
continued healthy / safe occupancy of the houses, is required.
• A continuation of the Province’s Homeowner Emergency
Loan Program (HELP) is required.
• Funding to support take-up of 30-40 applications per
year or a funding range of $90,000 - $ 120,000 per year.

51
INITIATIVE 21
1. Area of
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND REHABILITATION
Concern/Issue
2. Initiative Block Prioritization
• Developing a priority listing of street blocks (both block
faces) for housing renewal, land assembly, targeted
development, demonstration projects or infrastructure
renewal.
• Essentially, coordinating efforts among WWRA, housing
groups and others to determine those blocks that would
benefit from a concerted and concentrated redevelopment
effort.
3. Rationale • The William Whyte neighbourhood has about 50% of its
blocks in need of major renewal efforts.
• Prioritization permits active players (housing groups,
City of Winnipeg, the Province, and others) to concentrate
their efforts as opposed to sporadic redevelopment.
4.Anticipated
Outcomes
• A reduction in the number of poor to very poor condition
blocks throughout the neighbourhood.
• Opportunities enhanced for major block redevelopment.
• Housing groups working in a more coordinated and
linked manner.
• Redevelopment beginning on two to four blocks
annually.
5.Time Frame • Immediate or quick-start.
6. Frequency • Should be an ongoing process until such time that all
blocks requiring major renewal effort are targeted.
• Priorizing should operate annually on a ‘revolving’ basis.
7. Lead Responsibility • WWRA would coordinate the linkages among
stakeholders with assistance from NECRC and the City of
Winnipeg housing and community programs staff
8. Linked Strategies • Strong linkage to “Land Assembly Strategy”, as well as
any strategy / initiative aimed at housing development and
rehabilitation, especially “NEHP Scaling-Up” and Habitat
for Humanity’s role in the William Whyte community.
9. Funding Range • No identified cost associated with this initiative.

52
INITIATIVE 22
1. Area of
RESIDENTIAL / HOUSING RELATED STRATEGY
Concern/Issue
2. Initiative Housing Training Initiative
• A program to provide directed and appropriate training
or mentoring for a wide range of recipients including:
homeowners, lease-to-purchase tenants, renters, caretakers,
building managers, board and committees, etc.
• Inner-city wide initiative requested by a coalition of
housing groups and resident associations.
• Initiative would provide training delivered by a
coordinating body in conjunction with various housing
groups, community agencies and others.
• Initiative would be available to the William Whyte
neighbourhood.
3. Rationale • Need to provide supports ranging from homeowners
experiencing difficulty maintaining units to tenants unaware
of their rights and responsibilities.
• To assist in creating a more stable residential
environment.
• To provide much needed housing supports to residents in
the neighbourhood.
4.Anticipated
Outcomes
• More stable tenant and homeowner base in the
neighbourhood.
• Better maintained properties (owned and rented)
5.Time Frame • Initiative is currently under examination detailing options
for delivery, ways to market it and funding/resource
implications.
• 6 months to 1 year to begin phased implementation.
6. Frequency • Ongoing, permanent support initiative.
7. Lead Responsibility • Inner-City Coalition and/or a designated body.
8. Linked Strategies • This initiative can be considered to be highly supportive
of any one strategy/initiative noted in the Housing Plan.
9. Funding Range • To be determined based upon the outcome of
consultations with consultant and preparation of a ‘business
plan’.

53
INITIATIVE 23
1. Area of
RESIDENTIAL / HOUSING RELATED STRATEGY
Concern/Issue
2. Initiative Housing Relocation Strategy and Housing Registry
• Essentially two separate, but not distinct, initiatives that
should be developed as conjoint or unified projects.
• Relocation Strategy would support tenants displaced
owing to housing unit closures or unit demolition /
redevelopment.
• Housing Registry would catalogue and assess listings of
suitable and well maintained rental units, as well as possible
ownership units for sale.
• Households facing relocation would be linked up with
existing housing groups.
• Registry would inspect properties as to condition, rent
levels, etc.
3. Rationale • To assist renter households to obtain decent and
affordable alternative housing.
• To ensure that block / unit redevelopment does not
4.Anticipated
Outcomes
displace households with limited or nil relocation options.
• Local block and lot redevelopment could displace 50 –
75+ households annually. Priority relocation would be
necessary to address their urgent needs:
• A registry of good housing units would benefit literally
dozens of households annually.
5.Time Frame • Short to medium term – at least 6 months to set up in a
preliminary manner to 1 – 2 years to set up comprehensively
with full linkages in place.
6. Frequency • An ongoing and permanent joint strategy for the William
Whyte neighbourhood (and perhaps peripheral
neighbourhoods).
7. Lead Responsibility • Because of the nature of initiative and application outside
of the neighbourhood, this initiative may be set up
throughout the broader community. Therefore, a broader lead
including NECRC and using the City of Winnipeg and the
Province of Manitoba’s resources is necessary.
8. Linked Strategies • Land Assembly Strategy.
• Tenant-Landlord Cooperation Program.
• Enforcement of maintenance, ownership and health /
safety by-laws, etc.
9. Funding Range • Setting up an appropriate relocation and registry program
would require staffing and office expenses. The magnitude
of the need / requirements need to be examined.
• Nevertheless, one could anticipate an annual funding
requirement in the order of $35,000 to $45,000 per year to
maintain.

54
INITIATIVE 24
1. Area of
UPGRADING EXISTING HOUSING
Concern/Issue
2. Initiative Home Heating Conservation Initiative
• Initiative based on hydro’s ‘Power Smart’ program.
• Would provide energy conservation advice and
individual house audits or assessment to highlight basic ways
of reducing heating costs, including improved weather
stripping, caulking, electrical thermostats, etc.
• Could function as a subset of the “Basic Home
Maintenance” initiative and the “Housing Training
Initiative”.
3. Rationale • High heating costs substantially impact housing
affordability for homeowners and tenants.
• High costs negatively affect a household’s entire
household budget, especially for those on minimal, fixed
incomes.
4.Anticipated
Outcomes
• Reduced monthly heating costs.
• Opportunity to note possible unit deficiencies during
conservation audits.
• Opportunity to direct households to other home repair
funding and supports.
• Good possibility for increased RRAP application and
take-up.
5.Time Frame • Short-term, 6 months to 1 year to initiate and coincide
with appropriate delivery schedule and timing.
6. Frequency • Ongoing campaign with emphasis on late summer and
fall months.
7. Lead Responsibility • WWRA in conjunction with the Province of Manitoba
and the City of Winnipeg (Winnipeg Hydro, Manitoba
Hydro, Centra Gas, and the Provincial energy department.
8. Linked Strategies • Beyond those noted above, Tenant-Landlord Cooperation
Program and other initiatives aimed at home maintenance
and repair.
9. Funding Range • Largely based on minimum coordination, publicity,
promotion and follow-up costs.
• Estimated to be up to $5,000 per year, assuming public
sector delivery of the initiative.

55
INITIATIVE 25
1. Area of
COMMUNITY UPGRADING
Concern/Issue
2. Initiative Signage and Panels
• To create colourful (4 ft x 8 ft) panels through the
Graffitti Gallery to be used by the city of Winnipeg to cover
up windows / doors of vacant and boarded-up housing units.
• To create signage, as well, that publicizes various
WWRA housing initiatives in the William Whyte
community.
3. Rationale • Need to promote activities of WWRA and various
initiatives, campaigns, and projects.
• Vacant and boarded-up units are a visual eyesore within
the neighbourhood.
4.Anticipated
Outcomes
• Enhancing the image (temporarily) of boarded-up
housing units.
• Active promotion of housing projects helping to create a
sense of “things are happening”.
5.Time Frame • Initiative already underway as of June, 2001.
6. Frequency • As required to prepare sufficient amount of panels and
signage.
7. Lead Responsibility • NECRC on behalf of WWRA.
8. Linked Strategies • Neighbourhood Clean-Up, initiatives aimed at vacant and
boarded-up housing units and general promotions and
publicity work.
9. Funding Range • One-time funding of $5,000 in 2001.
• Further supplemental funding of less than $5,000 may be
required at some future point.

56
INITIATIVE 26
1. Area of
COMMUNITY UPGRADING
Concern/Issue
2. Initiative Bulk Buying and Depot Project
• To develop an approach for bulk purchasing of repair
material and components.
• To set up a facility or depot to store purchased material
plus donated material and supplies.
• Facility could operate, as well, a cooperative tool-lending
program.
• Could operate as a satellite Habitat type “re-store’ for the
community.
• Could also provide listing of residents that are handy and
willing to help out others.
3. Rationale • Need to make repair work more affordable for
homeowners by keeping down material and supply costs.
4.Anticipated
Outcomes
• Lower repair material costs, facilitating repairs to more
units than otherwise would be the case.
• Better and improved use of recycled and recyclable
material.
• Would help to stretch dollars that would be available for
‘block fix-up’ campaigns.
5.Time Frame • Short term, i.e., 6 months to 1 year to set up a basic
facility.
6. Frequency • Set-up could be one-time project, but with an ongoing,
permanent presence in the community.
7. Lead Responsibility • WWRA in conjunction with Habitat for Humanity as
coordinating the project.
8. Linked Strategies • Basic home maintenance program, home repair
workshops and ‘block fix-up’ campaign.
9. Funding Range • Intent would be to have a space donated to minimize
expenses.
• Otherwise, operating costs for the depot and paid
coordination perhaps could amount to $20,000 to $35,000
per year depending on the level of volunteer assistance.
Corporate and foundation support would be the
recommended funding source.

57
INITIATIVE 27
1. Area of
UPGRADING EXISTING HOUSING
Concern/Issue
2. Initiative Home Repair Workshops
• Training to teach and support homeowners in
undertaking a variety of home repairs (aside from those
requiring qualified trades persons)
• Would access trades persons and other qualified
individuals to conduct a series of workshops on a variety of
repair and upgrading topics and areas of concern to
homeowners.
3. Rationale • To better ensure that households have the necessary
knowledge to undertake basic home repairs.
• Often, basic repairs may be overlooked due to the
household’s inability to afford hiring repair persons.
• To help render repairs more affordable through do-it –
yourself.
4.Anticipated
Outcomes
• Better maintained homes in the William Whyte
community.
• Connecting resources to homeowners.
5.Time Frame • Short-term, up to 6 months to plan and implement a
workshop series.
6. Frequency • An ongoing, permanent initiative.
• Could be handled as a series of workshops at periodic
times during the course of the year.
7. Lead Responsibility • WWRA to take the lead in conjunction with other groups
(such as NEHP or Habitat for Humanity) who could assist
with organizing specific workshops.
8. Linked Strategies • Any of the repair / support initiatives contained in this
Plan.
• Home maintenance and home training and bulk buying /
depot initiatives.
9. Funding Range • Minimal funding, assuming workshops involve volunteer
time contributed by qualified trades people.
• Basic operating dollars to cover publicity / promotions,
rental of space and refreshments amounting to $5,000 -
$7,500 per year.

58
INITIATIVE 28
1. Area of
COMMUNITY UPGRADING
Concern/Issue
2. Initiative Exterior House Recognition
• Campaign to recognize homes with enhanced
landscaping, upkeep, general appearance, interesting
features, etc.
• Provide certificates or small awards for well-maintained
homes.
• Conduct e.g., a yearly “William Whyte in Bloom”
competition to dovetail with block party / BBQ.
• Promote campaign in the local newspapers and select
media.
3. Rationale • Need to promote community pride and sense of
belonging.
• ‘Image’ is a key concern echoed by residents.
4.Anticipated
Outcomes
• Would help foster community upkeep and appearances.
• Would promote a sense of pride and community
ownership.
5.Time Frame • Can be implemented immediately with little lead time
required.
6. Frequency • Can be a periodic or annual campaign run on a
permanent basis.
• Certain times during spring, summer and winter possible.
7. Lead Responsibility • WWRA as lead in conjunction with housing groups and
the NECRC as part of a broader area promotions campaign.
8. Linked Strategies • Fix-up and house maintenance initiatives.
• Tenant-Landlord Cooperation Program.
• Clean-Up campaign.
9. Funding Range • Minimal funding required.
• Operated as a volunteer or committee project.
• Costs incurred re: basic promotions and awards.
• Anticipated cost of $1,500 - $2,500 per year.

59
INITIATIVE 29
1. Area of
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
Concern/Issue
2. Initiative New Housing Demonstration Projects
• Demonstration projects that encourage unique
approaches to innovative technologies, techniques and
approaches are required. Projects could involve totally new
housing development or block redevelopment projects.
3. Rationale • Major need for rehabilitation of numerous blocks in
William Whyte.
• Need for innovative projects that result in appropriate
and affordable housing for residents.
4.Anticipated
Outcomes
• Generation of new housing development or block
redevelopment projects utilizing new unit layouts /
configurations.
• Redevelopment of blocks in dire need of major renewal
efforts.
5.Time Frame • Existing program.
6. Frequency • Long-term (3 – 5 years).
7. Lead Responsibility • City of Winnipeg and the Province of Manitoba
8. Linked Strategies • Land Assembly, Block Prioritization, NEHP Scaling-Up,
and University/College Assistance initiatives.
9. Funding Range • The City of Winnipeg Housing Demonstration Program
is an example of one kind of funding source. The Provincial
and Federal governments might also support innovative
demonstration project approaches.
• Annual funding level of $75,000 to help prepare unique /
innovative project plans.

60
INITIATIVE 30
1. Area of
UPGRADING EXISTING HOUSING
Concern/Issue
2. Initiative Rental Unit Repair Assistance
• Targeted to single-detached and duplex rental properties.
• Basic grant ($2,000) provided to the landlord provided
that the landlord matches the grant amount, yielding
minimum of $4,000 in repairs for critical items related to
mechanical systems and energy conservation.
• Landlord agrees to maintain rent increases at annual
Provincial rent increases (guidelines) for a specified period
of time.
3. Rationale • Single-detached and duplex rental housing represents
some of the poorest condition stock in the neighbourhood.
• Lack of critical repairs force many tenants to move, often
to other poor quality housing.
4.Anticipated
Outcomes
• Critical repairs to between 50-75 rental units per year.
• Reduced need for tenant moves from rental housing
where the lack of mechanical repairs force moves.
• Maintenance of more of the rental stock.
5.Time Frame • Medium term, 1-2 years to implement.
6. Frequency • Ongoing initiative with periodic and defined intake
periods.
7. Lead Responsibility • City of Winnipeg and the Province of Manitoba.
8. Linked Strategies • Rental RRAP program, Tenant-Landlord Cooperation
Program.
9. Funding Range • Based on annual take-up of 50-75 units per year, funding
range of $100,000 - $150,000.

61
4.4 Ways of Priorizing Housing Strategies and Initiatives
The process used in priorizing various housing strategies and initiatives incorporated the
identification of key variables or factors that impact the level of priority assigned to each
initiative. These were discussed during as exercise with the William Whyte Residents
Association (WWRA), as well as in separate meetings with a number of housing groups. It
was important to conduct the exercise separately with the residents to avoid undue influence
by housing groups already active in housing delivery. The following matrix in Table XV
Housing Strategies / Initiatives Prioritization Approaches, identifies the five key factors:
Table XV Housing Strategies / Initiatives Prioritization Approaches
A. WHO INITIATES THE INITIATIVE
1. William Whyte
Residents
Association
2. Existing Housing
Group
3. Public Sector
(City, Province,
Federal)
B. WHO TAKES THE LEAD / COORDINATES
1. William Whyte
Residents
Association
2. Existing Housing
Group
3. Public Sector
(City, Province,
Federal)
C. LEVEL OF URGENCY
1. Very Urgent 2. Urgent 3. Relatively
Urgent
D. TIMEFRAME TO IMPLEMENTATION
1. Already
Underway
2. Immediate or
‘Quickstart’
E. FREQUENCY OR HOW OFTEN
1. Ongoing or
Permanent
2. Periodic or Every
so Often
3. Short-Term
(6 Months to 1
Year)
4. Private Sector
and Others
4. Private Sector
and Others
5. Joint
Partnership
5. Joint
Partnership
4. Not So Urgent 5. When Time
Permits
4. Medium-Term
(1 to 2 Years)
5. Long-Term
(3 to 5 Years)
3. Annual 4. One Time Only 5. Other
In reviewing the above factors and their interrelationships, the WWRA concluded that:
1. It prefers to assign priority to those strategies and initiatives that can be delivered
by existing groups primarily;
2. The WWRA should provide suggestions regarding initiative priorities and
parameters to groups / sectors possessing the capacity to implement and
coordinate such;
3. It wishes to be consulted and to take the initiative in helping coordinate
community-based initiatives, i.e., supports / solutions;
4. It recognizes that those initiatives considered ‘urgent to very urgent’, should be
priorized the highest;
5. In respect of ‘Timeframes To Implement’, the WWRA considers those that can be
implemented over the next two years to be of highest priority; and
6. Initiatives that are ongoing (year-round) or available periodically (e.g., several
times per year) are where the most efforts should be concentrated.

62
The existing housing groups generally reflected the residents assignment of priority.
Generally, these groups would welcome the directions and consultation the WWRA wishes
to provide. In respect of the remaining factors, they all were in agreement that factors C-1, D
1-3, and E-1 in unison are the most important variables in assigning priority to any initiative.
4.5 Priority Housing Strategies and Initiatives
The William Whyte Residents Association set a level or order of priority to the various
housing strategies and initiatives discussed at working sessions during September and
October 2001. This level of priority has been echoed by housing groups active within the
neighbourhood. Clearly, residents believe that the majority of identified housing initiatives
are relatively equal in importance, and all have a role to play in the successful renewal of
housing in the neighbourhood. The following reviews the priorities that have been set:
A1. Those initiatives considered a first priority number twenty (20) in total. Three (3) of
these are seen as the most important, and include:
• A campaign aimed at vacant and boarded up housing units including: setting time
limits for boarded-up units and transferring such units to active housing groups;
• Enforcement of health, safety and fire by-laws; and
• A resident monitoring committee re: violations.
A2. The following sixteen (16) initiatives are considered very important, and include:
• Scaling-up North End Housing Project;
• Funding unit demolitions to enable new unit construction;
• Portfolio upgrading for existing housing groups;
• Solidifying Habitat for Humanity’s role within the William Whyte
neighbourhood;
• A local land assembly strategy;
• Linking / coordinating activities among housing groups;
• A homeowner fix-up initiative by block;
• A special repair support for units occupied by seniors and persons with
disabilities;
• A basic home maintenance program;
• A neighbourhood homesteading initiative;
• University / College assistance and advice in design and planning areas;
• Neighbourhood clean-up campaign;
• A tenant-landlord cooperation program;
• Increased funding for the Rehabilitation of Quality Affordable Units
• Maintaining & increasing funding for the rehabilitation of existing housing stock
• Emergency Home Repair Funding.

63
A3. The residents consider the following strategy to be important but not equally to the
above-noted ones:
• Priorizing street blocks / block faces for renewal.
B. The following initiatives are considered to be of lesser importance or of secondary
priority. These number eight (8) in total, including:
• A housing training initiative for homeowners, tenants, caretakers et al.;
• A joint housing relocation strategy for displaced tenants and developing a
comprehensive housing registry;
• A home heating conservation campaign;
• Preparation of panels to ‘clean-up’ boarded-up units and on-site signage to
promote initiatives;
• A bulk buying material and tool depot;
• Home repair workshops;
• Exterior home recognition / beautification campaign; and
• New Housing Demonstration projects.
C. The following initiative was assigned a low priority by residents. It should be
revisited after the priority strategies enter the implementation phase of the Housing
plan:
• A rental unit repair assistance program.
4.6 Unit Implications: Numbers
The various housing strategies and related initiatives proposed in this Plan are ambitious.
Were all initiatives to be implemented, the implications in respect of the number of units
impacted would be very significant. The number of units that would be impacted one way or
another on an annual basis (say during the first three years of the full Plan implementation)
relates to initiatives: 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20, 29, and 30.
The total units would amount to approximately 600 to 900 housing units (rental, ownership,
and other). This would be comprised of:
iii.
iv.
New construction and acquisition /`major rehabilitation: 150 – 180 units
annually;
Repair and basic maintenance to existing housing units: 450 – 720 units
annually.
4.7 Financial Implications
This section is intended to highlight the funding requirements anticipated for the initiatives as
outlined in the Housing Plan. It provides an estimate of dollar ranges based on annual
requirements. Specific funding levels will be conditioned by the final details of the initiative,
actual targets, and available funds, primarily from the public sector.

64
The total annual funding requirements should all twenty-nine initiatives be implemented
(likely not until 2003-2004) would amount to approximately $3.70 million to $4.69 million.
(See Table XVII Financial Priorities and Ranges)
Viewing the priority strategies or prioritization of initiatives as generated through
consultation with the WWRA and housing group stakeholders, yields the following: (refer to
Section: “Priority Housing Strategies and Initiatives”).
Table XVI Financial Priorities and Ranges
Priority Level Lower Range ($’s) Upper Range ($’s)
A1 $ 0 $ 0
A 2/3 $ 3,460,000 $4,370,000
B $ 140,000 $175,000
C $ 100,000 $ 150,000
Total $ 3,700,000 $ 4,695,000
4.8 Peripheral Neighbourhood Development and Impact
During the ongoing planning process for the William Whyte neighbourhood, it is important
to give due consideration to housing development emerging in neighbourhoods surrounding
the William Whyte community. Certainly any housing initiative or development proposed
outside the William Whyte neighbourhood can have the potential for positively influencing
what can happen in this community. This may be true of development that incorporates new
building technologies or represents a demonstration project consisting of newer housing
types and project configurations. As well, new or different approaches to joint ventures or
strategic alliances among groups and working relationships with the private sector may be
worth duplicating or repeating within the William Whyte community.
Accordingly, such development can and likely will lead to additional housing development
in the William Whyte neighbourhood. It is important, therefore, for the long-term William
Whyte housing planning process (immediate to long-term) to take into account peripheral
housing development plans and strategies, as well.
The bottom line to consider is that no one neighbourhood can act in isolation of others in the
same broader community. Obviously, the opportunity exists for new strategies / initiatives
being developed and implemented in the William Whyte neighbourhood to be applied as
well in other neighbourhoods. Certainly the reverse is equally possible. Therefore, initiatives
successfully attempted elsewhere should be contemplated for the William Whyte
neighbourhood, where these are determined to be appropriate and of real benefit to the
William Whyte neighbourhood. Such an approach will broaden the housing programming
possibilities achievable in this neighbourhood.

65
4.9 Priorizing Blocks
There are not the resources available to begin and sustain all the initiatives at one time
throughout the community. Therefore, the methodology to accomplish Initiative 21 ‘Block
Prioritization’ in order to develop a priority listing of street blocks for housing renewal, land
assembly, targeted development, demonstration projects or infrastructure renewal, etc. is
essential. It could follow that the basic approach may be as outlined in Section 4.5 ‘Ways of
Priorizing Housing Strategies and Initiatives’. It should be noted that different strategies /
initiatives may require different block prioritizations. For example, a block prioritization for
the Clean-Up or Fix-Up strategies, may not be the same for the Land Assembly, Signage and
Panels, or the Exterior House Recognition strategies.
The WWRA should take a strong lead in priorizing and repriorizing blocks as required. The
WWRA needs to determine and reassess prioritisation’s over time, for those blocks that
could benefit from a concerted and concentrated redevelopment effort or improvements that
may result from the utilisation of specific strategies / initiatives. The following is a basic
process to accomplish this process:
1. The members of the WWRA must become thoroughly familiar with all areas of
their community in order to be able to confidently priorize the blocks
appropriately as they may relate to the initiatives outlined in this Plan.
2. The members of the WWRA must become thoroughly familiar with the William
Whyte Housing Plan. This, in combination with item 1 above, will enable the
members to be able to determine the need for, where the impact of an initiative
could be the greatest, be able to advocate, link the appropriate strategies /
initiatives to the appropriate blocks, and the appropriate administrative lead for
the initiative.
4.10 Redevelopment Options Matrix
Table XVII Redevelopment Options / Initiatives, illustrates nine (9) redevelopment options
available to housing development organizations in the north end area of the City of
Winnipeg. It is as well a way for the William Whyte Residents Association to monitor
housing development in the community by various options as related to housing tenure and
who is taking the development lead position.

66
Table XVII Redevelopment Options / Initiatives
Tenure / Lead
Redevelopment
Options
1 Vacant infill lots
(S.F.D.)
2 Contiguous cluster
lots (2-3+)
3 Dispersed block face
lots (3-4+)
4 Contiguous block face
cluster (1/3 to 1/2 blk)
5 Vacant corner lots
(multi-unit acreage)
6 Options 1, 2, 3, 5
vacant land coupled
with rehab of several
adjacent
properties
7 Clustered major rehab
of several block face
properties
8 Sporadic properties
for major rehab in
area
9 Major rehab of
contiguous properties
(2 - 3+)
ownership rental cooperative
&
non-profit
Redevelopment
by
neighborhood
housing groups
Redevelopment
by private sector
lead & joint
venture groups
Redevelopment
by
individual
homeowners
SECTION V IMPLEMENTATION
5.1 Building Capacity / Capability / Administrative Coordination Needs
The neighbourhood housing plan for the William Whyte community has been developed as a
vehicle to formulate strategies for local housing programming, projects, strategies and
initiatives in the neighbourhood. A primary focus of this plan is to build on local capacity to
undertake housing renewal in a sustainable manner over the long term. The Plan pulls
together various stakeholders who are actively participating in the determination of:
• Housing issues and concerns that most impact the area’s residents;
• Strategies that will effectively address them;
• Measures necessary to implement the strategies; and
• Ways of assessing the effectiveness of both individual and collective initiatives.

67
Increasing the delivery capacity and capability of the North End Housing Project (NEHP) is a
key initiative that has far reaching implications for the William Whyte Housing Plan process
and its implementation. The NEHP supported by the North End Community Renewal
Corporation (NECRC), is in the process of scaling-up its operational structure in order to
increase the number of units it can develop / rehabilitate annually.
As one of two active housing delivery groups in the William Whyte neighbourhood (the
other being Habitat for Humanity), increasing NEHP’s delivery abilities is seen as an urgent
need in order to increase unit development in the neighbourhood. As well, such a move could
permit NEHP to evolve into a delivery agent / construction-repair resource for other north
end housing groups and complement the housing plan initiatives for the William Whyte
community. In effect, NEHP and WWRA have the opportunity to form a strategic working
partnership.
The primary resource, therefore, in the William Whyte neighbourhood becomes the
coordinative linkage among WWRA, NECRC, and NEHP. Each has its defined role in
helping to actualize the William Whyte Housing Plan and its strategies / initiatives. For
instance, WWRA can adopt the position as the neighbourhood’s voice to be consulted on
specific initiatives delivered by any entity operating in the William Whyte community.
NECRC can provide much needed experience in the area of community development and
outreach and help to facilitate the development of specific strategies over the immediate to
long-term. NEHP, in scaling-up, will increasingly become the major developer of quality
housing in the neighbourhood. Not only can it provide technical housing expertise / advice,
but it will have to work closely with the WWRA and NECRC, especially in implementing
larger scale block redevelopment projects.
Administrative assistance and co-ordination is an essential component for the volunteers of
the William Whyte Residence Association. As the organization is developing / growing and
becoming a force in the William Whyte neighbourhood, incorporation as a legal body, is an
important facet that must be undertaken in the very near future.
In order to sustain the organization, there are as well, three basic areas of support required.
These include, an office, centrally located in the community, and including, a telephone, fax,
voice mail, Email, file cabinet, and basic office supplies etc. The second basic support, to
avoid overloading the volunteers of the WWRA, is for a part time Administrative Assistant.
Basically, this person’s role would be to assist / represent the WWRA at certain meetings and
help organize events or other needs of the organization. The third support would be for
technical, legal, meeting, and assistance carrying out specific initiatives in the community
from time to time. These supports from the City of Winnipeg, would assist the WWRA in
their endeavours to improve all aspects of the William Whyte community.
The above assistance will ensure that a co-ordinated process evolves and that residents are
informed about the process and status of implementing the various housing strategies. It is
anticipated that these direct supports, in order to run an office, could cost in the range of
$25,000 to $45,000 per year.

68
5.2 Role of the Public Sector
The role of the public sector (Municipal, Provincial, and Federal Governments) for the
community would be to act as an enabler for the development of housing. They should
formulate, as housing program initiators, funders, and administrators, a means to assist
groups in addressing the need for upgrading and to assist in the major repair needs of existing
housing. As part of their role they should encourage, fund and assist in the development of
infill housing in the community. As well, they should take a strong lead in encouraging,
assisting, and linking the community to other groups who are and have gone through
considering other non-housing issues in order that experiences may be shared.
The above involvement and continuing support of the public sector will allow the community
organization(s) to operate in ways that will further benefit the local community and
invariably will have a greater potential of leading to constructive partnerships within the
neighbourhood
5.3 Role of the Private Sector
The extent of community rebuilding in respect of housing is an enormous task well beyond
the ability of any one group or sector to accomplish. Measures to increase the existing unit
delivery infrastructure for the William Whyte community requires the identification of
development leads, coordination, and the necessary partnership or joint venture requirements
with the private sector. The private sector (including homebuilders, real estate board, etc.)
can initiate and support new or different approaches to joint ventures or strategic alliances
among groups and working relationships with the private sector. Their participation may be
sought in a number of forms and include being a sole funder, an active partner and funder or
sole developer of a project.
Fostering demonstration or major housing redevelopment projects in the area through the
private sector is another area for their participation. This form of participation could lead to
alternative housing designs and configurations that, as a pilot development, could well lead
to comparable multiple lot or land assembly redevelopment in the William Whyte
neighbourhood.
Other private sector participants such as various types of financial institutions and
Foundations (such as Thomas Sill, The Winnipeg Foundation etc.), should be encouraged to
participate in the community’s development. As well, small local contractors are a resource
that should be used to foster the local economic environment and job creation.

69
5.4 Leadership Role for the William Whyte Residents Association
During the planning process, the William Whyte Residents Association (WWRA) has been
coming together and evolving into a strong, core group of residents. It has been discussing
the preferred role it wishes to assume in the implementation stages of the William Whyte
Housing Plan. As one resident aptly stated: “We can become a sort of board of directors …
providing direction and mentioning our preferences to groups working on housing in our
neighbourhood.” This sums up various sentiments expressed by the residents. The WWRA
has recognized the need for a group to emerge that can provide ‘leadership’ for various
housing related strategies and initiatives that a combination of housing groups, partnerships,
the public sector and others will be involved in over the next few years and beyond.
The challenge for the WWRA, in part, over the short to longer-term, will be in continuing to
expand its representational base in the neighbourhood. This will require it to solicit further
representation / involvement from neighbourhood tenants and from the Aboriginal
community and its resident base.
As a core group, the WWRA wishes to ensure that neighbourhood concerns, issues and
aspirations regarding housing stability are at the forefront of any strategy / initiative. This
Plan endeavours to reflect this and to ensure that supports necessary to foster this leadership
role will be sustained over the long term. The latter points to administrative and coordination
support being provided to the WWRA, minimally over the Plan time frame.
5.5 Partnerships, Linkages and Coordination
A primary issue identified during the consultation stages with stakeholders in the William
Whyte community, and strongly echoed by community residents, relates to the need to scaleup
or increase the production of new housing units as well as rehabilitating existing units
(including boarded-up units where feasible). Clearly, the extent of community rebuilding in
respect of housing is an enormous task well beyond the ability of any one group or sector.
Measures to increase the existing unit delivery infrastructure for the William Whyte
community requires the identification of development leads, coordination, and the necessary
partnership or joint venture requirements.
Year one of the William Whyte Housing Plan has as a key objective, defining the working
partnerships necessary to achieve longer term housing unit development in a sustainable and
concerted manner. The immediate task is to determine and to initiate workable, strategic
alliances among:
• Existing housing groups actively developing units (such as Habitat for Humanity
or NEHP);
• Housing groups with currently static or non expanding portfolios (such a MAPS
Housing Cooperative, Kinew Housing Inc. and Aiyawin Corporation;
• New / emerging housing groups;
• Neighbourhood or resident associations;

70
• Public sector funders including all three levels of government;
• Foundations (such as Thomas Sill);
• The private sector (including homebuilders, real estate board, etc.); and
• Others.
The housing network the North End Community Renewal Corporation established between
December 2000 and June 2001, operated as a forum, in part, to facilitate contact and
discussion between and among housing related community groups. This promoted the
sharing of approaches to housing renewal. The inter-relationships between members of the
network and the WWRA will need to continue, as a means to create the types of linked and
coordinated measures to address housing needs and issues identified by the local community.
Furthermore, the contributions that the public sector (City, Provincial and Federal
governments) can extend by way of programs and financial contributions / funding should be
augmented or complemented by other sectors. A number of organizations such as the
Thomas Sill Foundation and The Winnipeg Foundation should be drawn into the process of
supporting the implementation of housing strategies / initiatives. Partnerships with the private
(industry and corporate) sector will further complement efforts. The bottom line is that all
relevant players in the housing field should be drawn upon to participate in ways deemed
most appropriate and timely.
The past number of months has witnessed a number of linked approaches beginning to
emerge. Some key examples include:
1. Habitat for Humanity’s involvement in planning (advisory capacity) pilot, ‘block fixup’
project in the William Whyte community.
2. North End Housing Project’s (NEHP) move to draw private homebuilders into
William Whyte to assist in redeveloping single-detached units.
3. Discussions among NEHP, Kinew Housing Inc., Aiyawin Corporation and the North
End Community Renovation Enterprize in respect of undertaking an existing portfolio
upgrading project.
A concerted move towards increased linkages and partnerships among housing stakeholders
will permit the WWRA to solidify one of its primary roles in providing local or resident
based impact and consultation, direction or preferences to those groups with the
infrastructure to implement priority housing initiatives.
5.6 Resources Required
The City of Winnipeg should act as a strong support resource for the community. This, in
part, would promote the sharing of approaches to housing redevelopment, as well as
promoting the creation of working relationships and the sharing of expertise and capacity
with other organizations.

71
Also, the North End Community Renewal Corporation (NECRC) should act as one of the
basic resources for the community. They could support and assist in coordinating the
linkages of groups / residents with appropriate resources to allow the residents to effectively
carry out or have others carry out the various housing initiatives identified in the Housing
Plan.
The above would help foster the increased capacity of the local WWRA to take a lead in the
community development. They would also be able to take the lead in directing and
monitoring the various community based initiatives identified in the Housing Plan.
5.7 Next Steps
Following the submission and approval of the William Whyte Housing Plan a constant
monitoring of the plan should occur. It is important to note that other strategies may be
considered, developed and implemented as part of the plan as the implementation progresses
and other needs are identified. The next steps will incorporate, therefore, the following:
• Continue developing strategic alliances and partnerships to increase housing
delivery, capacity and capability;
• Continue coordinating efforts among residents, housing groups, funders, and other
stakeholders / resources;
• Continue the mobilization of local William Whyte residents to become active
participants in the local based housing initiatives as they may evolve or new
initiatives are created;
• Continue linking up groups / residents with appropriate resources to effectively
carry out the housing initiatives; and
• Continue to disseminate the community development information to local
residents and organizations that reside or are active in the community.
5.8 Promoting the Plan
One of the more important aspects in implementing the William Whyte Housing Plan relates
to communicating and promoting the Plan and its various strategies. One of the first tasks is
in promoting the Plan throughout the community.
Over time it is critical that as many William Whyte residents as possible become familiar
with what the community has identified as important objectives or things to work towards
and improve. This should be an ongoing job.
A way to help achieve this is through a coordinated and linked communication and
promotional strategy among all players actively involved in the residential renewal of the
neighbourhood. This encompasses the William Whyte Residents Association, housing
groups such as NEHP, Habitat for Humanity, Urban Aboriginal housing corporations, and
others. By combining promotional efforts, there is full acknowledgement that the overriding

72
goal everyone and every group shares is the same - successfully addressing the housing and
residential needs evident within William Whyte.
In effect, the function of the WWRA might well be to initiate and monitor how successful
various groups or players are in coordinating a common set of messages in all
communication and promotional material distributed within and outside of the William
Whyte community. This should relate to material or activities including, but not limited to:
• Community oriented newsletters;
• Exposure in the media, such as community, local or City newspapers, television
and radio;
• Promotional brochures;
• Community informational meetings; and
• Outreach work undertaken by various groups.
5.9 Monitoring, Evaluating and Up-Dating the Plan
The William Whyte Plan will continue to evolve for all intent and purpose. It is not a static
document that will remain the same over the next five years, nor for that matter over the next
three years. Unforeseen opportunities, possibilities and restrictions will impact its
implementation. Certain strategies, and component initiatives, may be more readily
implemented than others prove to be. The Plan must be seen to be a flexible document,
responding to changing funding opportunities or to changing, or more focussed community
wishes and priorities.
By and large, the community (residents, housing groups and the like) should review the Plan
and its various strategies to evaluate whether individual or grouped initiatives are providing
(or continue to provide):
• A definite response to priority housing/residential needs in the William Whyte
community;
• A longer term benefit to the community in achieving stability and liveability; and
• A reasonable level of program take-up, participation and involvement by the
community.
The Housing Plan should be reviewed when any modifications to or increased emphasis of
any particular strategy (ies) changes. This should trigger a review to determine whether the
intent or objective of the Plan might change. As well, if the order involved in implementing
priority initiatives changes dramatically, a review may be warranted.
The William Whyte Housing Plan should be reviewed and, if need be, updated from time-totime
in the following manner:
• At regular intervals, at least annually;
• As significant opportunities emerge and have the potential of significantly

73
affecting the Plan [e.g., the clearing of an entire city block or block face to permit
the development of say forty (40) new, infill housing units, would have a major
impact on the entire neighbourhood.]
• As major sources or blocks of funds become available that might alter the
significance or timing of certain strategies and initiatives contained in the Plan.
5.10 Evaluating the Success of the Plan
By and large, the success of the William Whyte Housing Plan will be measured, in a more
significant way, by the degree to which the community pulls together and influences and/or
directs the Plan’s unfolding and implementation. When the community can stand back and
say that a reasonable and sustained effort has been achieved in addressing the Plan’s
objectives (to a noteworthy extent) then the Plan can be seen as having ‘succeeded’.
The success of the Plan itself might also be measured by the success of individual strategies
or initiatives. In this sense, it is quality rather than quantity that is the key measure. That is, a
few well-implemented initiatives can often have a far greater impact than a much larger
number that are implemented in a haphazard or sporadic fashion.
Remember, the Plan’s success should continue to grow over time. Nevertheless, a number of
points should be considered in evaluating key strategies and initiatives, as follows:
• Has the strategy / initiative responded to unique issues and concerns?
• Has it not duplicated other strategies / initiatives?
• Has it the possibility of longer-term take-up or usefulness?
• Has it had a positive and stronger impact on the residential stability of the
William Whyte neighbourhood? and
• Was it managed and administered appropriately and adequately?
The success of individual or grouped strategies and initiatives might be evaluated by
additional measures of success, noting such items as:
• Take-up or participation;
• Whether funds or initiative benefits were targeted and distributed to those
identified as the primary beneficiaries;
• Improved targeting over time;
• Number of units renewed, developed or upgraded;
• Funds leveraged from other sources;
• Extent of sustainability of the initiative; and
• Whether the strategy / initiative supported and might have strengthened other
ones.

74
APPENDIX ‘A’
William Whyte Community S.W.O.T. Analysis Overview Results
Government Services
Neighbourhood
Environment
Location
Location

75
Government Services:
Strengths
• The City of Winnipeg’s snow removal is good, especially on Burrows Ave.
• Winnipeg Hydro responds quickly to any problems or requests.
• Good bus service.
• Good City services and response time.
• Auto bins for garbage are great to encourage clean up and keep animals out of the
garbage.
Weaknesses
• There are many potholes on the streets. (e.g., Andrews Street between Burrows Ave. and
Selkirk Ave.)
• There is a garbage and litter problem in part due to the lack of enforcement of the litter
law.
Opportunities
• There is an opportunity to improve street and curb maintenance.
• Tax incentives especially the property tax when you improve or rehabilitate your home.
• An opportunity for the government to listen closely to the community and what they feel
is needed for the community.
• To keep the neighbourhood clean.
Threats
• Limited litter by-law enforcement. (should look at the City of Edmonton model)
• Lack of incentives for home renovation for working families and to attract people to the
area.
• Difficult for many people to qualify for a mortgage.
• There is a need to strengthen the rules to deal with delinquent and negligent landlords.
• There is a need to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act. (e.g., repeat abusive tenants the
landlord should have the right to evict much quicker.)
Neighbourhood:
Strengths
• Generations of families have lived in the area.
• The many long time residents are definitely a strength.
• People like to live in the neighbourhood.
• Friendly and accepting people.
• The area has good spirit.
• Community leaders live in the area.
• All my family lives in the North End.
• Brought up in North End.
• The community is generally a “Melting Pot”.
• Working class area.
• Homeowners generally maintain their homes better versus rental properties.

76
• The stable residents generally look out for each other.
• School locations are good.
• Area schools are a strength, they are open to the community and are resources to the
community.
• The many churches in the area.
• The established neighbourhood infrastructure.
• The number of dogs and cats are going down in the area.
Weaknesses
• Every year home assessments go down, and this encourages some owners to pack up,
board up, and walk away from their homes.
• Some beautiful homes have been trashed by some renters.
• Many animals running lose.
• Many vehicles in yards with some staying there for up to five years or more.
• There is a lot of garbage and litter from some rental properties.
• Lack of programs for youth.
• Lack of facilities for youth to access that is affordable.
• Lack of respect by youth for property and people.
• Negative publicity and negative image for community.
• The area is becoming a Ghetto.
Opportunities
• To meet and get to know your neighbours.
• Organize events with neighbours
• Neighbourhood patrol
• Community clean-ups to tackle neighbourhood litter, many people don’t get past their
own yard.
• Blocks / streets having a majority of homeowners could foster very localised initiatives
and turnarounds.
• Neighbourhood ‘help neighbour out’ program clean-up, painting etc.
• Use skills of residents to help other residents.
• Trades people in neighbourhood to assist, to be a resource or a registry.
• To work with different organizations that are trying to improve this area.
• Knowledge in community, housing groups, etc. that can work together
• Help kids/youth in trouble (act as mentor) and get involved doing activities with the
kids/youth.
• To develop safe houses for kids run by the community.
• Neighbours to put pressure on landlords who are not providing quality housing.
• To form the William Whyte Residents Association to deal with community issues.
• To build on the community getting together
• To get volunteers involved in neighbourhood clubs
• Help each other
• Mobilize neighbourhood to get people working together.
• Develop programs to get people working together

77
Threats
• There is little incentive to repair and maintain ones home.
• Housing is depreciating in the neighbourhood.
Safety:
Strengths
• Graffiti is being cleaned up
• Some of the problem activities have quieted down lately over the last few months.
• Some feel safe if friendly to everybody.
Weaknesses
• Many break and enters in area.
• The gangs and their influence on the local kids.
• The hookers in certain areas of the community.
• ‘Johns’ trying to pick up neighbourhood women who live in the area and are not hookers.
• Graffiti
Opportunities
• None mentioned
Threats
• None mentioned
Location:
Strengths
• There are a lot of specialized shops to choose from and an excellent place to go shopping
and attract people to the north end.
• Centralized location in the City of Winnipeg.
• There are a lot of resources and convenient services in the area to choose from.
• Can easily walk to where we need to go in the area.
Weaknesses
• Many commercial activities have left the area.
• There are no banks in the area.
• The influence of the Merchant Hotel bar is a problem for the area.
Opportunities
• None mentioned
Threats
• None mentioned

78
Environment:
Strengths
• Wonderful trees
• Greenery and maturity of the neighbourhood
Weaknesses
• Few places for kids to play
• The little parks are not being maintained. It is deplorable and not safe to play there.
Opportunities
• To look after the playgrounds better.
• To develop more playgrounds.
Threats
• None mentioned

79
GLOSSARY
Aiyawin Housing Corporation:
Aiyawin is an Aboriginal non-profit housing organization. It has some 219 housing
units located throughout the City of Winnipeg.
Habitat for Humanity:
Habitat for Humanity is an independent, non-profit Christian housing program
dedicated to the elimination of poverty housing by building homes in partnership with
families in need. Homeowners contribute hundreds of hours of ``sweat equity'' to the
construction of their own homes and then repay a long-term, no-interest mortgage.
Mortgage costs are kept low by the use of volunteer labour and the generous
donations of funds and building materials. Homeowners are chosen based on their
need for affordable housing and must be living below the poverty line for their
community.
Kinew Housing Corporation:
Kinew was the first non-profit housing corporation sponsored, owned and managed
by Aboriginal peoples.
MAPS Housing Cooperative:
MAPS Housing (Mountain-Andrews-Parr-Selkirk) is a non-profit housing cooperative
located in the north end of the City of Winnipeg.
North End Community Renewal Corporation (NECRC):
NECRC is a non-profit community based membership organization with a mandate to
assist in the economic, social, and cultural renewal of the north end of the City of
Winnipeg.
North End Housing Project (NEHP):
The North End Housing Project is a non-profit community based housing
organization that is dedicated to the revitalization of the north end of the City of
Winnipeg. NEHP attempts to address community deterioration through promoting,
developing, rehabilitating and maintaining decent housing in the north end of the City
of Winnipeg.
Quality Housing:
Quality is defined as housing that exceeds minimum standards of occupancy. It
reflects housing for which all components such as roofing, windows, electrical /
mechanical systems, etc., are in good condition and require no repair.
Winnipeg Housing Rehabilitation Corporation (WHRC):
WHRC is a non-profit housing organization that is active throughout many
neighbourhoods in the inner city of the City of Winnipeg.