Winnipeg | Osborne Village & Corydon area

[buzzg]

Tweed was originally looking there, but then got the old TD spot. Someone mentioned a Tims, I hope that's wrong because I don't think it'd attract the best crowd right there.

[Wpg_Guy]

Park Theatre (@parktheatre) on Instagram

[buzzg]

It still desperately needs a cornice.

[Wpg_Guy]

584 Gertrude
https://www.google.com/maps/place/58...!4d-97.1483395
Paragon Design Build

https://www.instagram.com/p/ByC97DrgYAE/

[Kris22]

Originally Posted by buzzg

It still desperately needs a cornice.

They seem to have added a small black strip to the top. Obviously not a cornice, but still finishes the edge off.

[Curmudgeon]

584 Gertrude, is it a RTM?...what a way to ruin a streetscape and don't forget it'll look considerably worse than the rendering. Surprised the residents aren't up in arms. The entire block is otherwise intact. A shame.

[EspionNoir]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

584 Gertrude, is it a RTM?...what a way to ruin a streetscape and don't forget it'll look considerably worse than the rendering. Surprised the residents aren't up in arms. The entire block is otherwise intact. A shame.

I don’t understand why is it bad, and why would it look worse than the rendering

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

584 Gertrude, is it a RTM?...what a way to ruin a streetscape and don't forget it'll look considerably worse than the rendering. Surprised the residents aren't up in arms. The entire block is otherwise intact. A shame.

Oh brother....

[Curmudgeon]

Honestly, you'd have to be the type of person that would wear sweat pants to a wedding to think that the McArchitecture as pictured above is desirable at all, let alone in that area.

As for renderings, the finished project seldom looks quite as good, think CMHR, the rendering was light and ethereal, the finished product somewhat hulking and heavy.

[Curmudgeon]

It is a RTM isn't it? Does it even have a foundation? Will it be built like the new hotels in Fargo and Grand Forks, where you can hear every door close and your neighbour's every f*art?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Honestly, you'd have to be the type of person that would wear sweat pants to a wedding to think that the McArchitecture as pictured above is desirable at all, let alone in that area.

For what it's worth, I think it's pretty good and appropriate for the area.

[Wolf13]

What's the uproar? Those are some modernized lines on a traditional profile, with a material mix that is slightly interesting?

Our goal in life is not to recreate every neighbourhood to it's 1930s glory. Furthermore, if you want better materials, then we need cost control in the market place or subsidies. Both practices can easily spiral out of control. Markets and neighbourhoods evolve as a result, as has real estate since the very first cave.

Here I can respect that the language was somewhat kept in tact, just modernized and made affordable.

[bomberjet]

Put a flat roof on and it's do wonders. Slanty roofs on apartments/condos scream cheap.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

What's the uproar? Those are some modernized lines on a traditional profile, with a material mix that is slightly interesting?

Our goal in life is not to recreate every neighbourhood to it's 1930s glory. Furthermore, if you want better materials, then we need cost control in the market place or subsidies. Both practices can easily spiral out of control. Markets and neighbourhoods evolve as a result, as has real estate since the very first cave.

Here I can respect that the language was somewhat kept in tact, just modernized and made affordable.

Not to re-create, but to preserve. And that street dates to the early 20th century, not the 1930s. All Winnipeg has are its beautiful neighbourhoods and the rivers.

Cookie cutter and cheap. Maybe that building would be fine in Bridgewater or Sage Creek, I mean everything else is bland and unappealing so not too many would notice, but it's not even passable on regional streets like Academy Road or Stafford Street and in this case is very destructive to the aesthetics of what is a historic area, and that block is otherwise entirely intact. The design should and could be much more sympathetic. This would not be allowed in historic areas in most other cities.

Is this proposed or approved? Perhaps it can still be stopped or drastically changed. In my area residents forced a developer to change from two cookie cutter tall and unadorned two storey boxes (yes, like a box that would contain a ready-to-assemble bookshelf) using cheap materials to traditionally designed houses using wood siding that do not result in any degradation the streetscape. People have to get up in arms about the type of undesirable development pictured above.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Not to re-create, but to preserve. And that street dates to the early 20th century, not the 1930s. All Winnipeg has are its beautiful neighbourhoods and the rivers.

Cookie cutter and cheap. Maybe that building would be fine in Bridgewater or Sage Creek, I mean everything else is bland and unappealing so not too many would notice, but it's not even passable on regional streets like Academy Road or Stafford Street and in this case is very destructive to the aesthetics of what is a historic area, and that block is otherwise entirely intact. The design should and could be much more sympathetic. This would not be allowed in historic areas in most other cities.

Is this proposed or approved? Perhaps it can still be stopped or drastically changed. In my area residents forced a developer to change from two cookie cutter tall and unadorned two storey boxes (yes, like a box that would contain a ready-to-assemble bookshelf) using cheap materials to traditionally designed houses using wood siding that do not result in any degradation the streetscape. People have to get up in arms about the type of undesirable development pictured above.

I don't disagree that much with what you wish it could be. I don't think it's a detrimental design. Ironically, its previous iteration was more "cookie cutter" to its generation of construction than this newer version. Obviously there are commonly recognizeable modern features in the new design, whether the colours or material mix, but the slim profile and sloping lend to older styles.

Where I strongly differ is the "must be stopped" opinion. Limiting the rights of a property owner is a dangerous thing to do, and I think this design needs to be much more offensive before we tell others how to spend their money.

As for the development in your area, there is perhaps one hugely aggrieved party... the developer. You don't know how much time and money this may have cost them. It's very easy to assume that "developer" and "money" don't deserve sympathy, but there is a line where arbitrarily controlling someone else's property, income, and ambition when they don't have skin in their game can become immoral.

[Curmudgeon]

Trite to say, but no right is absolute.

[Wolf13]

You're way too far into someone else's yard when giving your speeches (irony of my long posts noted).

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

You're way too far into someone else's yard when giving your speeches (irony of my long posts noted).

Honestly, if the yard is in Bridgewate or Sage Creek then I essentially could care less. But don't come and destroy the aesthetics of historic neighbourhoods and call it good and appropriate development.

Radical libertarianism is a foreign concept to Canadian sensibilities. No one is advocating any unnecessary or excessive infringement of property rights, but along with rights come responsibilities. Can't just do as you please because you buy a plot of land. Imposing regulations (ie. zoning, design standards, by-laws) that yes, do result in limitation of property rights is hardly dangerous, rather it is essential to the public well-being.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Honestly, if the yard is in Bridgewate or Sage Creek then I essentially could care less. But don't come and destroy the aesthetics of historic neighbourhoods and call it good and appropriate development.

Radical libertarianism is a foreign concept to Canadian sensibilities. No one is advocating any unnecessary or excessive infringement of property rights, but along with rights come responsibilities. Can't just do as you please because you buy a plot of land. Imposing regulations (ie. zoning, design standards, by-laws) that yes, do result in limitation of property rights is hardly dangerous, rather it is essential to the public well-being.

The problem is that many are so alarmed at any libertarianism that they don't realize how radical their socialism is. I'm centre right, not far. I did not ever say that you should do whatever you want on a piece of land, I just highlighted that not enough respect is given to ownership... which you clearly exemplify again and again.

My issue is that your idea of what is acceptable is far narrower than perhaps it should be, hence your reaction to 584 Gertrude vs, well, all the others. And the disregard for others' livelihood outside your framework on THEIR land. That matters. So do by-laws and zoning, but that matters.

[Wolf13]

One other consideration is that neighbourhoods, commercial and residential, can thrive despite, or even because of variations in design. Currently we call the suburbs cookie-cutter... in 70 years they'll be historic? Variation can help their too.

Of course I'm not advocating for Carte Blanche variation.