Winnipeg | 155-165 Blvd Provencher | 9F Mixed-Use

[wags_in_the_peg]

i love it! that open glass looking into the 2nd floor commercial looks great. those views from some of the balcony will rock!

downside - do they have commercial tenant lined up? that's a lot of space to fill on a street already with lots of empty spots.

[esquire]

I sure hope this building will get built as shown. I recall its neighbour, Place Joseph Royal, looked a lot nicer on paper than it did in real life after being subjected to some pretty extreme value engineering.

[buzzg]

Love this project, but Dwarf no Cachette is also one of my favourite restaurants. I really hope they can find another good spot nearby.

[T'Cona]

Love this.

[lbnevs]

Originally Posted by wags_in_the_peg

downside - do they have commercial tenant lined up? that's a lot of space to fill on a street already with lots of empty spots.

How do these mixed-use buildings work? Does the condo corporation lease out the space directly, or do they sell the retail unit to an owner/investor who then leases it out?

I always wonder about this when I see condo buildings with vacant ground-floor retail (e.g. in the Exchange)...

[Wpg_Guy]

This building will be rental apartments.

The viability of the project isn’t going to hinge on the pre leasing of the commercial space. The large Excelsior CRU sat empty for years before Carnival moved in. The Sterling lofts on Portage still haven’t found a commercial tenant for that CRU.

[prairiedog007]

Looks great, hopefully it gets built, it would be nice if they made it bigger all the way to the corner

[biguc]

Originally Posted by lbnevs

How do these mixed-use buildings work? Does the condo corporation lease out the space directly, or do they sell the retail unit to an owner/investor who then leases it out?

I always wonder about this when I see condo buildings with vacant ground-floor retail (e.g. in the Exchange)...

I've gleaned some information on this from the main Canada board. From what I understand, financing for mixed-use buildings is contingent on commanding certain rents from the commercial spaces. These high rents are out of reach of small businesses, and means that retail spaces often sit empty until a big chain that can afford the rent moves in.

How this makes any economic sense is beyond me.

The upshot is that in Winnipeg retail spaces sit empty and people jump up and down about how there's no demand for retail space downtown. In Toronto, everything is a Pizza Pizza, or Freshi, or Shoppers, and newly redeveloped areas are consequently boring as fuck.

[buzzg]

That's why TNS is 2 banks and a grocery store (that is expensive and partially owned by the developer lol).

[trueviking]

^yup...and its why we should care about old buildings. We often see big and new as better, but it isn't always. There will be no way the tenants of the two little buildings being torn down will move into the new spaces. It will likely be a chain or financial institution....or be empty.

Look at Younge Street in Toronto as an extreme example. Its gone from a bunch of old little buildings with hundreds of little shops to a street lined with glass tower podiums filled with high end restaurants and chains.

[GreyGarden]

Yeah, I'm really not a fan of Toronto's style of pushing all dense development onto high streets. I'd rather see the density placed adjacent to the high streets and preserve the small (and less expensive) storefronts along those high streets. Especially in Winnipeg where we have so few storefronts of the type they have in TO, I think it's important to protect them when we can.

Now when I'm in Toronto I have so little interest in being downtown because it's just chain restaurants and Rexalls. I'm worried about the same thing happening in the West End. At least they're able to lease them. The new CRU at Westminster and Maryland is still empty and so is the one in the West Broadway Commons.

[bomberjet]

I mentioned before it would have been great to keep the two smaller buildings and bump this to the burned down lot. Like others mentioned too.

In fairness though, there are plenty of dumpy store fronts on Provencher already. With lots of good local shops.

[trueviking]

^ are there? in any other city Provencher would be lined with shops. There's a handful, but not enough to create any kind of magnet.

[T'Cona]

Agreed. Hopefully one day soon we will see a complete transformation.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by GreyGarden

Yeah, I'm really not a fan of Toronto's style of pushing all dense development onto high streets. I'd rather see the density placed adjacent to the high streets and preserve the small (and less expensive) storefronts along those high streets. Especially in Winnipeg where we have so few storefronts of the type they have in TO, I think it's important to protect them when we can.

Now when I'm in Toronto I have so little interest in being downtown because it's just chain restaurants and Rexalls. I'm worried about the same thing happening in the West End. At least they're able to lease them. The new CRU at Westminster and Maryland is still empty and so is the one in the West Broadway Commons.

To be fair I think this is more the developer's fault (vs. market) who chose to build one giant unit with only interior access instead of building direct street access to the unit(s) with the ability to demise into a few smaller ones. It's clear they're hoping to just land some big safe (institutional) office tenant instead of maybe a bit more work/risk to have multiple active storefronts. Totally their prerogative I guess, but it does suck.

Shittiest part is the original renders showed multiple storefronts with direct street access and built in planters/benches. Very curious if this update was approved by the city or if it was bait and switch and hope the city doesn't say anything like the project across the street did (but got caught).

[WinCitySparky]

Originally Posted by buzzg

To be fair I think this is more the developer's fault (vs. market) who chose to build one giant unit with only interior access instead of building direct street access to the unit(s) with the ability to demise into a few smaller ones. It's clear they're hoping to just land some big safe (institutional) office tenant instead of maybe a bit more work/risk to have multiple active storefronts. Totally their prerogative I guess, but it does suck.

Shittiest part is the original renders showed multiple storefronts with direct street access and built in planters/benches. Very curious if this update was approved by the city or if it was bait and switch and hope the city doesn't say anything like the project across the street did (but got caught).

Yeah honestly that change basically ruined that building and the streetfront AFAIC.

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by WinCitySparky

Yeah honestly that change basically ruined that building and the streetfront AFAIC.

The submitted plans clearly show "Clear finish 2x5 cedar wood bench".

Another bait and switch is the townhouse type units. The plans very clearly showed two steps up from the ground level to the patio space, and then stairs up to the front door (i.e., the patio spaces would be maybe a foot above street level). They also showed built in planters at the street level. They included clear renderings of this.

What they built puts all the patio space a good 5 feet above the street, and removed all the planters for a wall of black textured stucco facing the street.



The Urban Planning Division's recommendation made specific mention of these features in their recommendation to approve:

"The townhouse units include small patio spaces and planting along much of the Maryland Street facade."

If the city keeps letting this shit happen why do we even have a review process? The message to developers is clear: Make all the promises you want to get approval, you don't actually have to build any of it.

[drew]

^ The CRU entrance on Maryland has a big wall of trendy corten steel.

It's a great example of how not to use this stuff.

The rust is literally flowing down and has stained the face of the foundation wall below.

It looks horrible.

[esquire]

Good grief. This sounds like one hell of a botched project.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

The submitted plans clearly show "Clear finish 2x5 cedar wood bench".

Another bait and switch is the townhouse type units. The plans very clearly showed two steps up from the ground level to the patio space, and then stairs up to the front door (i.e., the patio spaces would be maybe a foot above street level). They also showed built in planters at the street level. They included clear renderings of this.

What they built puts all the patio space a good 5 feet above the street, and removed all the planters for a wall of black textured stucco facing the street.



The Urban Planning Division's recommendation made specific mention of these features in their recommendation to approve:

"The townhouse units include small patio spaces and planting along much of the Maryland Street facade."

If the city keeps letting this shit happen why do we even have a review process? The message to developers is clear: Make all the promises you want to get approval, you don't actually have to build any of it.

We should all take this info and email the councillor.