HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5181  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2021, 4:22 PM
T'Cona T'Cona is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 120
The more educational campuses the better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5182  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2021, 4:53 PM
pspeid's Avatar
pspeid pspeid is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
Interesting:

Seven Oaks School Division plans to open new Met School in Winnipeg's Exchange District



https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...sion-1.5984845


It will be interesting to see where they end up putting it and how big it will be.
My alma mater! I'm so proud! Where's that old band sweater of mine....????
__________________
"Opinion is really the lowest form of intelligence"-Bill Bullard
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5183  
Old Posted Yesterday, 12:30 AM
1ajs's Avatar
1ajs 1ajs is online now
ʇɥƃıuʞ -*ʞpʇ*-
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: lynn lake
Posts: 24,975
interesting might be in richlus building?
they got allot of empty space floors these days
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5184  
Old Posted Yesterday, 6:22 PM
steveosnyder steveosnyder is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: YWG
Posts: 1,054
Don't know if this was mentioned here yet or not... City of Winnipeg PP&D rejected a variance in the exchange because the building was 45 feet too tall (45% bigger than the 100 foot allowed). The kicker, it's a surface parking lot.

http://clkapps.winnipeg.ca/DMIS/View...pd/2021/a20865

Thoughts?

My opinion, it looks like the podium is level with the two adjoining properties and the tower is set back. I don't think it would cause too many concerns about ruining the human scale of the neighbourhood. If the City wants this to stay 100 feet they need to make it economically viable to do so.

What should be done if the city wants to ensure the exchange district stays human scale is ensure the lots stay human scale. Why is there 1 single lot to the south of this that looks like it's an acre big surface parking lot? (EDIT: Just checked eCIS, it's 2 lots, one 30000sqft, the other 39000sqft)

Can the city force the subdivision of a lot?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5185  
Old Posted Yesterday, 7:06 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 11,038
Ya we discussed this at length. Many feel the building was great and fit right in. Some did not because of the heritage neighbourhood.

It was also said regarding other properties ,such as the surface lot the size of Hudson Bay across the street, that there is a select few who own these properties and like keeping them as parking. Because parking makes money and their other properties need parking.

So it's like a triple whammy. Wont develop the lot because it doesnt make financial sense. The setback requirements hinder the smaller lots more and force them to go higher, like 127 Bannatyne, to become financially viable. But then the height restrictions and rejected variance hinder that. So what's one to do..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5186  
Old Posted Yesterday, 7:34 PM
zalf zalf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
So what's one to do..
Surface lot tax?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5187  
Old Posted Yesterday, 8:31 PM
optimusREIM's Avatar
optimusREIM optimusREIM is online now
There is always a way
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
Ya we discussed this at length. Many feel the building was great and fit right in. Some did not because of the heritage neighbourhood.

It was also said regarding other properties ,such as the surface lot the size of Hudson Bay across the street, that there is a select few who own these properties and like keeping them as parking. Because parking makes money and their other properties need parking.

So it's like a triple whammy. Wont develop the lot because it doesnt make financial sense. The setback requirements hinder the smaller lots more and force them to go higher, like 127 Bannatyne, to become financially viable. But then the height restrictions and rejected variance hinder that. So what's one to do..
I read that report in the appeal documents and they specifically said that one building wouldn't change the character of the area, but with so many surface lots, they could transform the area if all built tall. Couple thoughts:
1- that's kind of the idea. They say explicitly in the document that they want densification but then in the same breath rule out tall buildings. How would tall buildings ruin the character of the exchange? You wouldn't even notice the tall bits, they would likely all be set back and out of the way.
2- if they're really concerned about developments changing the character of the area, they could just put a closed for business sign up and cordon off the area. It's among many buildings in the same height range. What do they expect developers to do? Willingly lose money on projects?
__________________
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm."
Federalist #10, James Madison
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5188  
Old Posted Yesterday, 8:46 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 11,038
Let's say that every lot was filled in with the lower parts being 5 storeys. Then there would randomly be these towers on top in the range of 100' to 150' total height for the new builds. That would be amazing! Maybe they need to be more specific on the viability of projects. And like I mentioned the smaller lots are already more restrictive in making them viable. Does the report talk a out the financial viability and why they are going taller? I'll read through when I get some time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5189  
Old Posted Yesterday, 9:01 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 11,038
The letter from the architect mentions extreme pressure on financial viability.

Would it make a difference if they swapped the residential to the lower floors and pur office on the top? I think the zoning bylaw specifically mentions setbacks for residential.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:06 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.