Winnipeg - Out with the old, in with the new

[Winnipegger]

Hi, I am new to the Skyscraper page, but I have a great interest in cities and Skyscrapers, and I have been blessed with a nice downtown in my own City, Winnipeg. I think Winnipeg has it's fair share of Glass and Steel, but making Winnipeg, well, Winnipeg, is that it's major trade district is all historical. Now, I myself, don't really care for the preservation of the 5 storey brick and stone buildings that can make our Downtown look like a dump at first sight. Now, please don't get me wrong. I am a fan of architecture, and it's those buildings that define our strive for building up, and the ever evolving definition on what is urban and central, but I say its time to move on.

Yes, the stone is nice, but who wants a skyline filled with hundreds of tiny 5 storey stone buildings when we can replace them with more efficent, and eye pleasing buildings, like the Richardson, or CanWest, or even the Commodity Exchange Tower. I've been to downtown Minneapolis, and man, was that nice. I stayed in a fancy hotel right in the heart of all those skyscrapers, and it was one heck of a view. And do you know what? There wasn't one single old stone short building there. It was all gleaming glass and steel.

I think that Winnipeg needs to take on a new initiative to let the sky become more of a resource, rather than letting everything sprawl out. Our downtown and city needs to attaract more major coporations so we can get our sky filled with glass. Its the 21st century and the city is the place to be. Offices are where the buisness men are, and the buisness men are what keeps the economy up. Now, I'm only in my teens, and I am not sure how all this urban design and preservation of historical sites work, but those are just my thoughts.

I'd love to see our skyline grow, and glow, and more buildings climb the skys, but I am sure there is way more to it than just trying to attract buisnesses, but I just thought I'd bring up the subject to see what others though. I hope It doesn't offend anyone. Post what you think!


ps. Sorry about the double post. I don't know how to delete one of the two threads!

[Only The Lonely..]

But there's so many surface paking lots you could build over instead. The area around the convention centre quickly comes to mind.

[Greco Roman]

I think this is a repeat thread, is it not?

[biguc]

Why do people insist on not lurking before joining a board, then making moronic posts?

[dennis]

Hi, I am new to the Skyscraper page, but I have a great interest in cities and Skyscrapers, and I have been blessed with a nice downtown in my own City, Winnipeg. I think Winnipeg has it's fair share of Glass and Steel, but making Winnipeg, well, Winnipeg, is that it's major trade district is all historical. Now, I myself, don't really care for the preservation of the 5 storey brick and stone buildings that can make our Downtown look like a dump at first sight. Now, please don't get me wrong. I am a fan of architecture, and it's those buildings that define our strive for building up, and the ever evolving definition on what is urban and central, but I say its time to move on.

Yes, the stone is nice, but who wants a skyline filled with hundreds of tiny 5 storey stone buildings when we can replace them with more efficent, and eye pleasing buildings, like the Richardson, or CanWest, or even the Commodity Exchange Tower. I've been to downtown Minneapolis, and man, was that nice. I stayed in a fancy hotel right in the heart of all those skyscrapers, and it was one heck of a view. And do you know what? There wasn't one single old stone short building there. It was all gleaming glass and steel.

I think that Winnipeg needs to take on a new initiative to let the sky become more of a resource, rather than letting everything sprawl out. Our downtown and city needs to attaract more major coporations so we can get our sky filled with glass. Its the 21st century and the city is the place to be. Offices are where the buisness men are, and the buisness men are what keeps the economy up. Now, I'm only in my teens, and I am not sure how all this urban design and preservation of historical sites work, but those are just my thoughts.

I'd love to see our skyline grow, and glow, and more buildings climb the skys, but I am sure there is way more to it than just trying to attract buisnesses, but I just thought I'd bring up the subject to see what others though. I hope It doesn't offend anyone. Post what you think!


ps. Sorry about the double post. I don't know how to delete one of the two threads!

Oh. I should warn you. If you ever plan on a trip, Never go to Paris, Rome, London, Venice, Vienna, oh jeeze, there are a few others... You would surely hate it there.

[Greco Roman]

He's just expressing his opinion. Granted I would disagree with the getting rid of the older architecture; that would be a shame. He want's to see an improved skyline in Winnipeg; he's not alone.

[dennis]

Why can't we have both old and new. Many admire what's old, many like the new. Many like both. Yes build south of Portage. Restore north of Portage. The new group could then stay south, the old group then keep to the north. The mixed group could then stroll anywhere they wished. As the president said in Mars Attacks, "Why can't we all just get along."

[1ajs]

hi Winnipegger and welcome to SSP.

say you been to miniapolis lol this should bring back some memories for ya then
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=124660

anyhow pegger these old 5 story buildings you complain about add to our fair city......

go travel and come back to me on you complaints ..........
i just came back from belize.......
good to be back :)

[rgalston]

The fundamentals of contemporary urban planning aside, I fail to see how being just another tinier, poorer, colder version of San Deigo, Atlanta or Dallas would be better than having a large chunk of downtown that is something truely unique to North America today.

[SpongeG]

montreal has old montreal and the new....

[Jonitecture]

the existing buildings are timless, and will never be able to be replaced, if you tear them down to make ugly concrete 10-15 story buildings, such as what has happened to Saskatoon, then they will just be torn down in 75 years. Yes, i think a mixture of old and new is good, but it is rare that a downtown core has been preserved such as in winnipeg so, as someone has previously stated, use serface parking lots and ugly buildings for skyscrapers, dont tear down the buildings that make your city unique and beautiful.

[craner]

He's just expressing his opinion. Granted I would disagree with the getting rid of the older architecture; that would be a shame. He want's to see an improved skyline in Winnipeg; he's not alone.

That's what it's all about. And furthermore I agree with the boy.
:)

[Andy6]

I have never understood the significance of "skyline". Unless it's New York or something, who cares? How does an "improved skyline" affect the life of the city? A skyline is something you see only when you're not even in the city.

A lot of what I see on this forum seems to be the result of an urban sensibility that has its origins in playing SimCity rather than in any experience of or interest in actual cities.

[Archiseek]

I have never understood the significance of "skyline". Unless it's New York or something, who cares? How does an "improved skyline" affect the life of the city? A skyline is something you see only when you're not even in the city.

A lot of what I see on this forum seems to be the result of an urban sensibility that has its origins in playing SimCity rather than in any experience of or interest in actual cities.

I agree 100%
The thread "a new tallest" is indictive of that

[Andy6]

I agree 100%
The thread "a new tallest" is indictive of that

Well maybe I was a bit grumpy in my earlier post. I would just put more of a priority on having a larger number of small buildings rather than a couple of tall ones in a sea of parking lots. It is also far more realistic in a city like Winnipeg.

[someone123]

Winnipeg needs to save up its simoleons for a few years and then build a few Empire State Buildings and maybe a Bank of China or two. I suggest raising taxes to 70% and bulldozing all of your schools to cut down on expenses.

[1ajs]

Well maybe I was a bit grumpy in my earlier post. I would just put more of a priority on having a larger number of small buildings rather than a couple of tall ones in a sea of parking lots. It is also far more realistic in a city like Winnipeg.

we don't realy need a new tallest right now we need to build on what we have and work are way up from their...

[Andy6]

I suggest raising taxes to 70% and bulldozing all of your schools to cut down on expenses.

No, that would be lowering taxes to 70%...

The schools are falling down on their own, if my memory of U of M serves.

[1ajs]

No, that would be lowering taxes to 70%...

The schools are falling down on their own, if my memory of U of M serves.

the city has no juristiction on schools its the province

[newflyer]

we don't realy need a new tallest right now we need to build on what we have and work are way up from their...

The fact is a dense highrise increases the value of the surrounding areas. This is really the logic behind the whole Hydro building. They are hoping the injection of 2000 workers into the area will turn the area around. If it goes as planned Portage Place will see a good jump in shoppers, a few more restaurants will appear along Portage and the momentum will grow in the area.

If they left that block as lowrise buildngs, it would have remained as it was. An area dominated by more lower income people. Success College and a dounut shop, and an empty Warehouse One store, just doesn't pick up an area up like an occupied highrise.

If Winnipeg had 7 or 8 more highrises spread out across downtown it would be a much more attractive area for shoppers and business owners alike. They act like local economic drivers. A small town worth of people moving or working within a block does wonders for the surrounding area.

This is really why I feel that the city is losing a prime opportunity with 100 main. If they were able to build a new 30 story highrise on that block the Union Station Building across the street would have surely seen some activity. As well as enhance the interest for that side of Main Street.

I also feel that building a skyline increases peoples attraction to the downtown. I know in Calgary the people consider their skyline as a major source of pride. People love showing it off to visitors.. and as time goes on more and more people want to live in buildings with a view of the skyline. It becomes a very real attraction apon it self. It draws interest.. where it wouldn't exist if the skyline wasn't there. Over time a skyline will eat away at the empty lots.. and other under-utilized buildings.

Of course I would love Winnipeg to have a much nicer skyline, but it needs to build an economy which can support more highrises.... more businesses and more people earning good incomes. Developers will only build such expensive .. even small less expensive... buildings if there is a measured demand for them. This is a concept which I feel to too often missed on this forum.