Winnipeg's Exchange District | East/West | Development

[1ajs]

witch building is this?

[Labroco]

'

[Labroco]

Just to be clear with everyone..

The Donald Street buildings (374 and 376) have been owned by the same family for over 40 years. They have new roofs, electrical , plumbing and have been softly looked after just the way a building of this pedigree should be. The owners have never taken nor were offered any grants nor do the buildings have ANY maintenance issues.

They are simply saying the buildings have been looked after very well thank you without any interference from the city. They have no interest in doing anything other than to continue being guardians of the structures.
They are also much better guardians and custodians of structures than the city is.

Where was Gerbasi and the Heritage Department this year when 4 buildings were torn down on Notre Dame to be turned into a parking lot for Calvery Temple? How about the 110 year old building beside Sports Manitoba? The 100 year old curling rink replaced with a " temporary" parking lot at Main and Broadway?

What the owners were quietly trying to say is that the Aldous buildings are well looked after and not in harms way. Focus on forcing properties like the St Charles to be occupied and not left to rot.

It's very easy for them to designate a building already restored and pat themselves on the back. Stand up and do something that will really make the area better.

The owners have protected the buildings for over 40 years.

Designate the very historic Alexander Docks and go after the negligent owners!

Would also suggest the most vocal pundents get out of their basements and buy a little house in The New South Point Douglas and renovate it. It's great for you, the city and would leave less time to talk about things you may not fully appreciate. When you have a little skin in the game lets talk.

Oh did I mention the 110 year old fire hydrant the city just removed from the Exchange because it was old!

I cannot speak to the adjacent property owners position.

Not to leave the post on a sour note, Peg Brewery is opening in a few more weeks in a building just reutilized by the same people. Millions spent quietly to add vibrancy to the East Exchange. Please, no designation required to save it or bring it back yo life.

[1ajs]

thought it was those ones wasnt sure.

the only one that was at risk till recently was 370 witch got fully renoed.
wheres the city when it comes to 106 princess.

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

thought it was those ones wasnt sure.

the only one that was at risk till recently was 370 witch got fully renoed.
wheres the city when it comes to 106 princess.

I agree!

[GarryEllice]

Originally Posted by Labroco

Where was Gerbasi and the Heritage Department this year when 4 buildings were torn down on Notre Dame to be turned into a parking lot for Calvery Temple?
...
How about the 110 year old building beside Sports Manitoba?
...
The 100 year old curling rink replaced with a " temporary" parking lot at Main and Broadway?
...
Focus on forcing properties like the St Charles to be occupied and not left to rot.
...
Designate the very historic Alexander Docks and go after the negligent owners!
...
Oh did I mention the 110 year old fire hydrant the city just removed from the Exchange because it was old!

And how are any of these things related to 374 & 376 Donald? Heritage designation is not a zero-sum game, and the designation or non-designation of the Aldous buildings is completely independent of these other (valid) issues.

If the owners "have no interest in doing anything other than to continue being guardians of the structures", then what's the harm in having a heritage designation added?

[TimeFadesAway]

Originally Posted by Labroco

They have no interest in doing anything other than to continue being guardians of the structures.

If this is the case, then there should be no problem getting added to the heritage registry. It should have zero impact. Why take the time to oppose? If the owners think that the city needs to concentrate elsewhere, then why take up the city's time with opposing a designation that, if they "just want to be guardians of the structures," won't affect them in the least?

I agree with you regarding the other missed opportunities and continued neglect. Those things need to be addressed as well. And the Alexander Docks situation is just ridiculous and so typically Winnipeg...someone at the city has a personal beef with a business owner and in order to screw the guy, they let an asset like the docks rot.

Finally, as a resident of the Exchange, I do have 'skin in the game.' Not all of us were born into developer families, but that shouldn't exclude us from the discussion.

[Urban recluse]

Bobby Brown has done an excellent job of maintaining his portfolio of heritage buildings, and he is leading a charge to redevelop Point Douglas. I am rather surprised he is so adamant about not having them designated.

Looks like people will begin to move in to Porter House (former Galpern building) in April. Does anyone know who owns the small lot behind it? That gap would make for a nice infill.

[esquire]

Fair comments Labroco, but those buildings are irreplaceable and deserve some form of protection. I don't see why they shouldn't be designated just because the city dropped the ball somewhere else. Besides, if the owners are committed to upkeep and maintenance then what's the beef with a heritage designation anyway?

(Looks like a few of us had the same thought...)

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

Does anyone know who owns the small lot behind it? That gap would make for a nice infill.

Good question. That lot is just screaming for development. Something that's inviting to pedestrians with some nice storefronts could really turn that stretch of Bannatyne into a more walkable area than it already is.

[drew]

Originally Posted by esquire

Good question. That lot is just screaming for development. Something that's inviting to pedestrians with some nice storefronts could really turn that stretch of Bannatyne into a more walkable area than it already is.

I remember seeing older maps of the exchange, and IIRC, that lot has been there a very long time.

I don't know if anything of any substance has ever stood there. Maybe one of our more intrepid forum history buffs can confirm.

The only issue I see with that lot is the size constraints. It would need to be a very skinny building once you accommodate the back lane. It's possible the economics don't work. Although I had been informed the economics didn't work on the Galpern Building either, and obviously someone felt differently.

[Urban recluse]

An addition to the Galpern building to fill that lot could have been spectacular.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by drew

I remember seeing older maps of the exchange, and IIRC, that lot has been there a very long time.

I don't know if anything of any substance has ever stood there. Maybe one of our more intrepid forum history buffs can confirm.

The only issue I see with that lot is the size constraints. It would need to be a very skinny building once you accommodate the back lane. It's possible the economics don't work. Although I had been informed the economics didn't work on the Galpern Building either, and obviously someone felt differently.

A two storey building would be perfect but a single would work from a streetscape/urbanism perspective. That lot is far from the worst one downtown given that it's a relatively small one in an area surrounded by buildings, but unfortunately that lot and the one on the same block but closer to Main really disrupt the continuity of the streetscape... it would be great to see at least one of them get developed.

[Urban recluse]

Yes, that block could be amazing; a larger development incorporating the Chatfield Building could be extraordinary.

[drew]

Originally Posted by drew

I remember seeing older maps of the exchange, and IIRC, that lot has been there a very long time.

I don't know if anything of any substance has ever stood there. Maybe one of our more intrepid forum history buffs can confirm.

The only issue I see with that lot is the size constraints. It would need to be a very skinny building once you accommodate the back lane. It's possible the economics don't work. Although I had been informed the economics didn't work on the Galpern Building either, and obviously someone felt differently.

Reading the HBC pdf for this address, there is a picture at the end showing the building in 1907. It appears there was a 1-3/4 storey brick building in that lot. It looks residential, so maybe the last thing to occupy that lot was a row of houses.

[TimeFadesAway]

Originally Posted by drew

Reading the HBC pdf for this address, there is a picture at the end showing the building in 1907. It appears there was a 1-3/4 storey brick building in that lot. It looks residential, so maybe the last thing to occupy that lot was a row of houses.

You're on the right track. Looking at fire insurance plans from 1906 show a 1 and 1/2 story, 4 unit row house at the corner, that is gone in the 1914 revision. A two story house to the west makes up the rest of the 'missing teeth' that form the lot. It was also gone by the 1914 revision. Both were wooden structures with a brick veneer.

The fire insurance plans, BTW can be found here:
http://collectionscanada.gc.ca/pam_a...ec_nbr=3776923

At some point I'd come across the 1920 version of these plans online, but didn't bookmark it because I was absolutely certain I'd remember where they were. I haven't been able to find them since. Anyone here able to point me in the right direction?

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by TimeFadesAway

If this is the case, then there should be no problem getting added to the heritage registry. It should have zero impact. Why take the time to oppose? If the owners think that the city needs to concentrate elsewhere, then why take up the city's time with opposing a designation that, if they "just want to be guardians of the structures," won't affect them in the least?

I agree with you regarding the other missed opportunities and continued neglect. Those things need to be addressed as well. And the Alexander Docks situation is just ridiculous and so typically Winnipeg...someone at the city has a personal beef with a business owner and in order to screw the guy, they let an asset like the docks rot.

Finally, as a resident of the Exchange, I do have 'skin in the game.' Not all of us were born into developer families, but that shouldn't exclude us from the discussion.

.

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by TimeFadesAway

If this is the case, then there should be no problem getting added to the heritage registry. It should have zero impact. Why take the time to oppose? If the owners think that the city needs to concentrate elsewhere, then why take up the city's time with opposing a designation that, if they "just want to be guardians of the structures," won't affect them in the least?

I agree with you regarding the other missed opportunities and continued neglect. Those things need to be addressed as well. And the Alexander Docks situation is just ridiculous and so typically Winnipeg...someone at the city has a personal beef with a business owner and in order to screw the guy, they let an asset like the docks rot.

Finally, as a resident of the Exchange, I do have 'skin in the game.' Not all of us were born into developer families, but that shouldn't exclude us from the discussion.

I don't think LAB has any real issue with these two bldgs being listed as many of their other properties in the area already are. The city ask if they wanted them listed and they said no. If they are asking and not listening then why ask them at all?

I think they felt the city should be spending their time and money on resources in the area really at risk. If by saying no it creates a discussion about the issues in th area then I think they have made their point. These discussions are never a waste of time. I'm very happy your living in the Exchange. We need many more.


I was a little saddened the other day when I heard Heritage Winnipeg awarded Longboat with an award for the preservation of the Mitchell Copp facade on Portage Avenue. It's no different than the Nature Conservancy of Canada awarding a taxidermist trophy for best Moose head and antlers to the hunter!
(Nothing against Longboat)

I'm just saying the city is ignoring some big issues in the area that must be addressed. No demolition by neglect. No Facadism, it always reminds me of the Moose with the glassy eyes.

[1ajs]

peck building caugh caugh

[Urban recluse]

The Peck building, much like the St. Charles: sickens me to see them undeveloped. They are both at principal corners, and they could be showpieces.