104 King St (Ryan Block)

[trueviking]

some of the grants he is eligible for...pretty significant.

http://www.winnipeg.ca/ppd/historic/...incentives.stm

[Lee_Haber8]

Originally Posted by trueviking

behind the king building would be all parkade...that plan was just to placate the city....he doesnt mean it.

reiss is not interested in putting a cent into this building...it is not beyond saving...it is just beyond saving for free....there are lots of tax incentives, but you still need to put some of your own money in to get them...he is not interested in that...he wouldnt even pay his engineers and architects who did the study for him unless the city gave him a grant to do it. (which they did).

i guarantee that he will try to get the city to pay for its demolition too if it comes to that, claiming that it is a public safety concern.

i agree with you.,..there are exchange district guidelines, but they need teeth so that anyone buying a property there knows what is expected of them.

Winnipeggers have got to be some of the cheapest people on the planet. When will they realize that there are some things worth investing money in.

It's not just heritage, it's also parks, recreation, beautification, proper curbs and sidewalks instead of ditches in Charleswood, and so on...

[Pootkao]

Originally Posted by trueviking

good to hear from you poot....

Thanks dude. Figured I'd start poking my head around these parts again.

[Only The Lonely..]

Historic building's facades saved

Thu Jun 21 2007 | Winnipeg Free Press

City hall thinks it has a compromise solution that can save a historic building in the Exchange District and allow the owner to develop the property.
Council downgraded the historic designation of the property at 104 King St., which requires the preservation of two street facades but allows the owner to demolish the rest of the four-storey structure.

"The city has been in conversation with the owner," Mayor Sam Katz said Wednesday. "This makes sure the facade remains."

The building, owned by Bedford Developments, was constructed in 1895. It's considered a prominent structure in the west Exchange District, having significant street facades facing King Street and Bannatyne Avenue. The building had an historical designation which would prevent it from being demolished or any part of the exterior altered.

But a report to city hall found that Bedford Developments allowed the building to deteriorate to the point where it's structurally unsound and will likely collapse this winter.

Bedford has tried three times to have the historic designation on the building removed so that it can demolish the structure but each time the city has refused.
The compromise will allow Bedford to maintain the building's street appearances along King Street and Bannatyne Avenue while allowing it to demolish the rest of the building.

However, this is an expensive approach, one undertaken by the province in developing the Red River College Princess Street campus, which requires the two exterior walls to be braced and supported while the rest of the building is removed and a structure is built behind the two remaining walls.

If the preservation work is begun by the fall, the city can authorize the work to be done and add the expense to the property tax bill.

A spokesman for Bedford Developments could not be reached for comment.

[Reed Solomon]

Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..

Historic building's facades saved

City hall thinks it has a compromise solution that can save a historic building in the Exchange District and allow the owner to develop the property.
Council downgraded the historic designation of the property at 104 King St., which requires the preservation of two street facades but allows the owner to demolish the rest of the four-storey structure.

Rewarding the owner. Pathetic. I don't care if it wasn't originally a heritage building when he bought it, its in a national historic site and is a prominent building, take the building away from the slum lord. We can do without his "investments" in parking lots and not paying taxes.

"The city has been in conversation with the owner," Mayor Sam Katz said Wednesday. "This makes sure the facade remains."

Yay, Facades for everyone! We're disneyland now. You suck, Sam Katz.

But a report to city hall found that Bedford Developments allowed the building to deteriorate to the point where it's structurally unsound and will likely collapse this winter.

This whole thing disgusts me. How many of us would love to own that building, or see someone who cares own that building, but the douchebags wouldn't sell it. Why didn't the city expropriate it? Good god, you know, I wouldn't put it past them to have some sort of accident happen which makes the facade conveniently unsalvagable, and leaves us with a disgusting parking lot.

Tom Broadbeck's obvious trolling on the subject is equally disgusting. I used to respect his opinion even if I disagreed with it, but I'm thoroughly sickened by his attitude and poor writing on this. theres lots of parking downtown, its just pay parking, and people dont want to pay. That's the f---ing point. People who want to invest in parking lots, which add little to the tax base in the city, should be punished.

A spokesman for Bedford Developments could not be reached for comment.

Pieces of garbage. Sometimes I truly hate this city.

[Andy6]

I doubt you'd really love to own a wrecked old building. Saving the facade seems the reasonable "getting to yes" type of result.

[spiritedenergy]

i think how the city handled this is truly ridiculous... now every landlord in the exchange can think of doing the same, it may be cheaper for them for sure, then each building one after the other will be demolished?

Even though i hate Katz, I think that since 1992 so many majors could have expropriated that building. The city should pass a law to forbid completely the building of new surface lots/parkades downtown, and increase the taxes heavily on the ones already existent. Problem is that few Winnipeggers would ever vote for such a major.

[Only The Lonely..]

The people of Quebec City would never stand for some slum lord running a building in Old Quebec into the ground, but in Winnipeg we not only tolerate it but even reward it.

When will people realize that our charming old buildings and walkable historic neighbourhoods are what seperates us from places like Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver. The exchange is our strength not weakness.

This guy is a joke, he must be related to the fellow who is trying to tear down those small shops on Albert St.

[biguc]

Poot, you have the patience of a saint to deal with Brodbeck. I'd like to hear if he responds.

[flatlander]

Originally Posted by Andy6

I doubt you'd really love to own a wrecked old building. Saving the facade seems the reasonable "getting to yes" type of result.

But what if you're the direct cause of the 'wreck?' Or what if you bought a wrecked building? Do you not shoulder some responsibility in either case?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..

The people of Quebec City would never stand for some slum lord running a building in Old Quebec into the ground, but in Winnipeg we not only tolerate it but even reward it.

Quebec City had and still has slum buildings. It is also a fairly suburban city overall that has not had a huge amount of downtown construction. To some degree the lack of development pressure is what has kept those buildings around.

Two factors have made the difference in the case of Quebec: government money and tourism. Quebec receives a disproportionately high amount of federal funding for this kind of thing and the provincial government also pays for more than some other provinces. Tourists generate demand for the kinds of businesses that can easily exist in heritage buildings but Winnipeg is unlikely to ever attract as many because of its location and because it doesn't have the same quaintness and uniqueness.

[Pootkao]

Originally Posted by biguc

Poot, you have the patience of a saint to deal with Brodbeck. I'd like to hear if he responds.

it was my first time, and his response was pretty much a re-wording of his editorial.

i got no problems banging my head against that brick wall every so often. did you like how i took a little dig in my preamble before moving on to my points?

anyways, i'll email him more. him responding, even just the once, has opened the floodgates. heh heh...