Gillingham’s Contradiction: Spend Big, Blame Suburbs, Push Densification

Near the end of a 14-hour council meeting in March, Winnipeg City Council approved a plan to spend roughly $900 million (we all know it will end up costing much more) on an extension of the Chief Peguis Trail. This decision was based on a cost-benefit analysis prepared by City staff and endorsed by the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and Executive Policy Committee. The report claimed a positive “net present value” of $98 million and projected that the new road would unlock three precincts in the city’s far northwest, paving the way for new residential development.

City staff claimed that these new neighbourhoods would add $59 million a year to city revenues and, over time, would generate $1.83 billion more than they cost. A bold statement. One might conclude that, at last, growth more than pays for growth—something municipal officials often struggle to prove.

But here’s the twist. At the same time, and during the same month, another group of city staff was pushing a different message. Planners rolled out a pitch for the citywide “4-plex” plan, which would allow four-unit buildings on most residential lots across Winnipeg, including long-standing neighbourhoods like River Heights, Glenwood, and St. James.

The reason for this shift? According to the planners, Winnipeg can no longer afford to build outwards. They say new horizontal infrastructure is too expensive and that densifying existing neighbourhoods is a more cost-effective way to grow. The promotional material touts a greatly reduced cost of infrastructure if the city avoids new suburban expansion.

So, which version of the truth are residents supposed to believe?

If the Chief Peguis Trail extension brings in nearly $2 billion in net value over time, why are we being told that new suburbs are unsustainable? On the one hand, a $900 million investment in a road is marketed as a revenue generator. On the other, we’re warned that further suburban development will bankrupt the city unless we change course and increase density in mature neighbourhoods.

It’s the kind of contradiction that should worry residents.

Even the Mayor appears caught in this inconsistency. Mayor Scott Gillingham defended the road extension—an election campaign promise—as necessary to support CentrePort, the city's large industrial development. CentrePort’s success does matter, but the City’s own report focuses more on residential expansion as the main financial benefit. If that’s true, the claim that we must upend residential zoning across Winnipeg to avoid financial ruin doesn’t hold.

Councillor Brian Mayes, never one to shy away from a mic, brought this conflict to light during the council meeting. In a repetitive, perhaps theatrical, fashion, he pointed out that the same City staff pushing for 4-plexes in every neighbourhood are also telling Council that suburban roads like Chief Peguis bring in major long-term revenue. He asked the right question: If the city gains so much from new suburbs, why the urgent push to reshape existing communities?

The contradiction becomes even more important when we consider what’s coming. In June, Council will hold a major public hearing on the 4-plex plan. We can expect more dire warnings from planners—warnings about unaffordable infrastructure, sprawl, and the need to squeeze more people into less space.

So which is it? Does building outward pay for itself, or doesn’t it?

If the cost-benefit report for Chief Peguis is accurate, then planners should stop using the “no new roads” argument to justify citywide zoning changes. Or if, on the other hand, those arguments are correct and suburban growth truly leads to losses, then the $900 million road project is a costly mistake.

Winnipeggers are left holding the bag either way. It’s not about being for or against growth, suburbs, or density. It’s about trust in the information we’re given.

Council can’t make sound decisions when departments within the same administration push conflicting financial narratives. Nor can residents properly engage in consultation when the data shifts depending on who is speaking.

A cash-strapped city needs solid, consistent information to guide its choices. If the City’s own reports can’t agree, then the problem isn’t the suburbs, the 4-plexes, or the roads. The problem is at City Hall.