Winnipeg's Exchange District | East/West | Development

[drew]

Originally Posted by Ando

I don’t think people should be browbeaten because they raise legitimate concerns about the loss of an important heritage structure. The fact is the whole accident was basically swept under the rug at the time and the city and developer did basically nothing to at least save the facade. And as you have disclosed in the past on here, you had or a personal connection to the project/developers so one needs to consider the source.

It wasn't a legitimate concern. It was straight up conspiracy nonsense.

The facade was not salvageable. The entire building had shifted, and cracked including the front wall. It isn't possible to lift and level a solid masonry wall. It would have needed to be taken apart and rebuilt. Several foundation and masonry experts were brought in to offer their recommendations and it was determined that the wall could not be dismantled because

a) To do so would require the entire building to be shored up before workers were safe to approach it. That was a 7 figure number on its own, and no one was able to come to an agreement on how the building could be safely shored up in the first place.

b) the bricks and stones were damaged and would have been more damaged in the salvage operation, so the facade would only be copied in the end and not kept.

The costs to do a and b would cost more the new 6 storey building that is currently under construction.

It just wasnt feasible.

You can chose to accept that i am not making stuff up ot not, but that is the reality.

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by drew

It was proposed in an area with a pre existing height limit.

The developer knew this going in.

It's automatically going to be denied and then they can appeal.

As I mentioned previously, I think it’s a great project by a proven and innovative developer and very capable architects. The planning department and City officials need to step aside and let people who wish to invest their money into the area do so. I have no issue with the height in this location.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by Ando

I don’t think people should be browbeaten because they raise legitimate concerns about the loss of an important heritage structure. The fact is the whole accident was basically swept under the rug at the time and the city and developer did basically nothing to at least save the facade. And as you have disclosed in the past on here, you had or a personal connection to the project/developers so one needs to consider the source.

boils down to liability and safty costs being to high and the city wanting things now.... as its a major through fare in our downtown for traffic coming in from the east.......... what happend happend and can happy to any old building

[zen-kz]

Originally Posted by drew

the facade would only be copied in the end and not kept.

I would not complain if the facade was copied for this project. Still better as it reminds about the history of this place and use better materials than glass and sheet steel. Check how Christchurch NZ rebuilds their heritage buildings after an earthquake, but we are keep losing our Exchange just because we no longer can afford to build like people 120 years ago.

With this approach should we just demolish the Legislature Building and replace it with something with “better foundation and structure”?!

[drew]

Originally Posted by zen-kz

I would not complain if the facade was copied for this project. Still better as it reminds about the history of this place and use better materials than glass and sheet steel. Check how Christchurch NZ rebuilds their heritage buildings after an earthquake, but we are keep losing our Exchange just because we no longer can afford to build like people 120 years ago.

With this approach should we just demolish the Legislature Building and replace it with something with “better foundation and structure”?!

When did anyone mention the Legislature?

Is the Legislature structurally unstable and in imminent risk of collapse?

Why is this even a point to be made?

[NewIreland]

Can we get back on topic please.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Kris22

That diagram shows the height of the Grain Exchange building as 150'. So this would be on par with that.

What a fantastic project.

According to this, the Grain Exchange is 110’ high. That’s a pretty significant difference.
https://www.winnipeg.ca/ppd/Document...d-167-long.pdf

A lot of the heights on that diagram appear off. I think the new building would be quite a bit higher than what’s shown, but it’s really the ground experience that is important.

The architects have done a nice job. I personally don’t support tall buildings in the Exchange District (especially mid-block) because the human scale is what creates a nice pedestrian quality on the sidewalks. But my opinion doesn’t really matter, maybe council will approve it. If not I hope they can make something work that isn’t a 50% height variance. Slightly higher than 100 feet I’d be ok with personally.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Labroco

As I mentioned previously, I think it’s a great project by a proven and innovative developer and very capable architects. The planning department and City officials need to step aside and let people who wish to invest their money into the area do so. I have no issue with the height in this location.

It’s not city officials being short sighted. They are enforcing the zoning bylaws that have existed for decades. There are reasons for height restrictions and other zoning requirements in character districts. Height restrictions exist in every city. Some entire cities have height restrictions. It’s not just about money. Asking for a 50% variance should always be questioned, no matter what it is. They might get it from council but there is no way a planner could ever approve that kind of discrepancy. I’m sure the developer had no expectation that they would, and assumed they would have to take their chances with council.

If we are going to start allowing towers to be built in the low scale exchange district, that is a character evolution that will fundamentally change the nature of the district forever. It deserves a bigger discussion than a single planner’s recommendation. It’s not just about this building. It will establish a precedent that we must be prepared for if this is approved. Maybe it’s good, maybe it’s bad, but it needs long and careful consideration. The Exchange District is too important to accept something because we are worried a developer will walk away if he doesn’t get his request.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Labroco

I like it too... it’s only a 12,000ft site and removes a parking lot.

The parking lot across the way finally changed hands after at least 70 years! Not sure if united equities got it or shelter Corp. Over $7,000,000.

Why would the development be responsible for added snow load to the adjacent properties? Would it be determined by computer modeling? Not something I’m familiar with.

I didn’t hear that. Great news. That parking lot is the worst. Hopefully it went to someone with development intention. That’s a big price tag. Wow. Why do you think shelter? I’m pretty sure it wasn’t UE.

If you build a building taller than its neighbour it creates a snow shadow because the winds are slowed. The developer is responsible for ensuring the existing roof can handle the added snow load you will be placing on them. Sometimes you have to build an entirely new roof over the old one. Might have to in this instance because those two buildings are wood frame.

There is a structural engineer here who can explain it better than I can.

[NewIreland]

Originally Posted by trueviking

I didn’t hear that. Great news. That parking lot is the worst. Hopefully it went to someone with development intention. That’s a big price tag. Wow. Why do you think shelter? I’m pretty sure it wasn’t UE.

If you build a building taller than its neighbour you are responsible for ensuring their roof can handle the added snow load you will be placing on them. Sometimes you have to build an entirely new roof over the old one. Might have to in this instance because those two buildings are wood frame.

There is a structural engineer here who can explain it better than I can.

This was planned for the site, don't think it's happening anymore though.

[trueviking]

That one is for the McDermot side. I think Labroco is talking about the Bannatyne side. Would be transformational for the exchange to have both of those lots filled.

[1ajs]

the old rail yard is 2 different properties?

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by trueviking

That one is for the McDermot side. I think Labroco is talking about the Bannatyne side. Would be transformational for the exchange to have both of those lots filled.

I stand corrected... 3 Bannatyne sites sold totalling almost $6,000,000. As UE owns the site to the south they were the most aggressive bidder. The acquisition would allow the southern parcel to be developed and still have parking for their holdings to the south. Bannatyne would remain parking for their tenants. Shelter owns the Hash Jeans building and were in need of parking as well. 124 Bannatyne 30,000ft2 $3,640,000. Lot behind 433 Main 11,000ft2 $1,060,000, 127 Bannatyne 12,000ft2 $1,200,000. 165 parking stalls in total.

These three acquisitions could potential lead to development on 2 sites.

(Donald St Mary’s 30,000ft2 sold for $6,000,000).

[flatlander]

[QUOTE=Labroco;9188087]

Originally Posted by trueviking

They deserve credit for letting a building they owned rot into the ground until the city had to step in and pay them cash to develop it before it fell into the street? I guess so. Would have been better without the prominent neglected derelict building part though.

An interesting comment and leads into a number of discussions ....

A little background and perspective.

1) I believe the parcels on the block were acquired over many years with the practically derelict Grey’s Auction the last. As a boy I remember going there with my father. He used to laugh 50 years ago for us not to stay long as it might fall at any time!. When the owner died / retired I think the parcel was finally sold. My point being not all of the buildings can be saved all the time. In this case the condition of the building can’t be blamed on Reiss. With designations in place it could not be torn down either...

When the parkade proposal was negotiated the facade was a pre condition. A large surface parking lot everyone complains about was substantially upgraded. Some CRU’s were included for street life and a somewhat old facade was included into the structure and corner to soften the street edge. (The facade of MC was included on portage project as well) A program to deal with urban improvement was offered and accepted no different than the other parkade funded.

2) Your second comment that the parkade would be better without the heritage facade is interesting as well. For many years this idea of historic façadism did not sit well with me. I viewed it like a stuffed deer on the wall. I always felt sorry for the deer and the building. It was a technique often used to justify a building’s demolition. Would not the facade of the old post office on Portage even with the parkade behind it have been a better solution? That could be discussed and argued over Japanese whisky well into the night...

Perhaps both solutions while justified, need to be always thoughtfully considered.

I think I can live with it as I get old and nostalgic for the desks bought at auction with my dad...

There are Developers, and there are Speculators. Developers take risks and improve the community, sometimes requiring public sector support to create a market if the market just isn't there yet. And then there are speculators, who sit on assets until they cause such harm to a community that governments have to step in. They take no risk and profit regardless of the negative impact they have on others. I think we all know what category the Reiss family falls into, family dysfunction or not.

[secret agent]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[bomberjet]

Soo, like you now. Let's get on with 127 Bannatyne.

Thanks for the info and welcome to the forum secret agent!

[trueviking]

ha ha...that must be measuring to the top of that satellite antenna on the roof....no way the floor to floor is 15 feet in Grain Exchange....the bird's eye diagram appears to take the height of every rooftop mechanical room and projection and indicates that as the height of the overall building. It shows the new building as being lower than Grain Exchange, which is not the case. The parapet is slightly over 100’.

But really, it’s the sidewalk experience, not the comparative mechanical penthouse heights that matter.

I have been thinking about this a lot. To me it is not at all about the merits of this proposal. Its a nice project, no debate at all. The architects have done a nice job with the assignment they were given. This is a fundamental question about what kind of neighbourhood we want the Exchange District to be.

If we are prepared to see towers on mid-block sites on small streets, set between four storey historic buildings, I can tell you with certainty every proposal on every site after this will be a tower. The economics work better. I already have a client watching carefully and suggesting that if its approved, maybe we could get an extra five floors because we have a more appropriate corner site. I know there are others in the past that have been rejected that will come back.

I know here everyone loves all towers all the time, but they generally don't make the best neighbourhoods. The Exchange is a sensitive character district.....this is a big question that will affect the future of a special area.

This is not a question about the merits of this one project. It is not about modern v. historic. It isn't even about whether or not some old buildings on corner lots are also tall. The question is, are we prepared to throw out the height restrictions on every lot in the national historic site and allow modern towers to fundamentally change the scale and feel of the area? Once this one has been approved, there is no going back.

Personally, I am fine with modern infill, but to me, the human scale of the Exchange District should be preserved. The scale is what makes it a great place to be. It makes it walkable and comfortable. Towers change the climate on the sidewalk. They create shadows and wind. They alter views and the feel of a street from the sidewalk. I don't want to look back in 20 years and think we ruined a beautiful neighbourhood because we didn't think carefully about what we wanted it to be. How attractive will those sidewalk patios be when surrounded by towers?

They don't allow towers in the centre of Paris or Copenhagen. We are fortunate to have the Exchange District, maybe we should fight to keep its distinct personality and character for the next generations. That doesn’t mean keeping it old, but it might mean protecting its scale and human quality.

I also think it would be stronger if the podium didn’t have random windows….that gesture is becoming a bit dated in my opinion...ha ha....but that's just me

[Wigglez]

Originally Posted by trueviking

If we are prepared to see towers on mid-block sites on small streets, set between four storey historic buildings, I can tell you with certainty every proposal on every site after this will be a tower. The economics work better. I already have a client watching carefully and suggesting that if its approved, maybe we could get an extra five floors because we have a more appropriate corner site. I know there are others in the past that have been rejected that will come back.

Personally, I am fine with modern infill, but to me, the human scale of the Exchange District should be preserved. The scale is what makes it a great place to be. It makes it walkable and comfortable. Towers change the climate on the sidewalk. They create shadows and wind. They alter views and the feel of a street from the sidewalk. I don't want to look back in 20 years and think we ruined a beautiful neighbourhood because we didn't think carefully about what we wanted it to be. How attractive will those sidewalk patios be when surrounded by towers?

Leaving my personal opinion of tower vs human scale out of this one, I do have a question for you regarding the above.

The exchange has struggled to see new development, with the exceptions of Waterfront Drive which is all new builds and didn't need to incorporate existing heritage structure, or the new massive hole where the PSB used to be. If the city doesn't allow for larger structure to be built which are economically viable, will these smaller holes on existing streets between heritage buildings ever be filled? Based on what you said above, it sounds like there have been quite a number of projects that never got off the ground due to height, and that a number of developers would jump on the opportunity to build there right now if more height was allowed.

My second question to you would be - In theory, assuming this project does proceed at its current height, would this result in a potential explosion of construction in the exchange?

[NewIreland]

Originally Posted by trueviking

This is not a question about the merits of this one project. It is not about modern v. historic. It isn't even about whether or not some old buildings on corner lots are also tall. The question is, are we prepared to throw out the height restrictions on every lot in the national historic site and allow modern towers to fundamentally change the scale and feel of the area? Once this one has been approved, there is no going back.

The exchange has plenty of tall buildings. This doesn't dominate anything... it compliments the existing buildings and the entire area. Build it!

[bomberjet]

Question. Does the site sit empty if they have to go with the 100' limit?

In my opinion there is a decent stock of heritage buildings. Do we just want to mimic that? We going to hold out on every proposal because it doesnt look like all the other 1900 era buildings? Not trying to be an ass here. I suppose they just deal with the zoning issues. Seems nitpicky from my layman, non architect background.