Winnipeg Deconstruction

[Canadian Mind]

forgive me for my ignorance, but can somebody explain in two sentances or less the importance of that little shack and what is to be replacing it? Must be pretty important to you folks, but I fail to see the value in it right now.

[rgalston]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

forgive me for my ignorance, but can somebody explain in two sentances or less the importance of that little shack and what is to be replacing it? Must be pretty important to you folks, but I fail to see the value in it right now.

It will be replaced by a curb cut and a surface parking lot.

[Archiseek]

when we're on the subject of buildings at risk

one place i would be worried about in the longterm is the telegram building

it lost most of its tenants this year and is starting to look neglected

pictures i took of it on wednesday
http://canada.archiseek.com/manitoba..._building.html

[rgalston]

Originally Posted by Archiseek

when we're on the subject of buildings at risk

one place i would be worried about in the longterm is the telegram building

it lost most of its tenants this year and is starting to look neglected

pictures i took of it on wednesday
http://canada.archiseek.com/manitoba..._building.html

If they demolished of the Dingwall block next door, maybe someone could redevelop it.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..

It'd be great if someone had some of those old aerial picts of how pockmarked our downtown is because of surface parking.

This is a really good idea for a story for the Free Press.

I could easily see them doing a front page story with a large aerial photo highlighting the abundance of surface parking lots around downtown - and close to the St.Charles hotel - with a headline something like "why do we need more parking lots downtown?". It would be really effective.

Anyone know Bartley Kives or any other reporters at the FP well?

[bc2mb]

Originally Posted by rgalston

I will if you do.

Also, I sent this letter to Cindy Tugwell, executive director of Heritage Winnipeg:

excellent letter rob.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

forgive me for my ignorance, but can somebody explain in two sentances or less the importance of that little shack and what is to be replacing it? Must be pretty important to you folks, but I fail to see the value in it right now.

it is a viable storefront in a national historic site...successful cities are a diverse tapestry of building types....these two little buildings contribute very much to the urban fabric...if we want to attract people to live downtown, storefronts that house tailors and little hole in the wall restaurants are precisely the things that attract them...not 10 more parking spots in an already large surface lot.

i am going to go find out how many parking spots the hampton inn on main has....google earth shows about the same amount that the st. charles currently has.....the marriaggi, a block away has been a successful boutique hotel for 104 years!! with no parking at all....its booked solid, a year in advance.

i dont understand how they can claim to have a viable business plan for a project with 50 parking spots, but they will walk away completely if they only have 40.....and who the hell puts an outdoor patio on the north side of a 3 storey building?

is somebody paying off heritage winnipeg?.....what an absolute embarasment....

i just e-mailed to request that i be registered to speak.

[rgalston]

Originally Posted by trueviking

i dont understand how they can claim to have a viable business plan for a project with 50 parking spots, but they will walk away completely if they only have 40.....and who the hell puts an outdoor patio on the north side of a 3 storey building?

People who throw the patio in their plans simply to placate critics, I guess.

This is the new way to wreck buildings and put up parking lots: be the owner of a building nearby, and come up with a nice little plan for the site, which happens to include a parking lot. Don't start doing anything until you get your parking lot (and after that, who knows)... that way, you can hold buildings as ransom, and bargain with Heritage Winnipeg.

This kind of scheme has recently threatened the Ryan Block, the Bell Hotel, and the Grain Exchange annex.

[esquire]

I've been checking in from time to time to see what's going on, and I was lucky enough to do so in time to catch wind of this particular issue. Let me just say this: getting rid of buildings that fit into their surroundings as well as these ones do is one thing. Replacing it with a parking lot is quite another.

The more that our downtown gets sacrificed to the great god parking, the more unwelcoming and unpleasant a place to be it becomes. If the City simply said yes to every half-baked demolition proposal that came its way over the past few years, we'd now have parking lots in the place of several buildings including the Cadomin Building, the Crocus Building on Main, and several others as rgalston pointed out.

If the proponents of this development wanted to actually improve the neighbourhood by putting up a building on Albert to replace the ones in question, I could support it. However, punching a hole in the streetscape by replacing buildings with a parking lot is totally inappropriate and ridiculously short-sighted.

[rgalston]

Any building is better than a parking lot

Sat Nov 25 2006

DALLAS HANSEN

ONCE again, the Exchange District is facing the usual threat -- a developer who wants to flatten buildings into a surface parking lot.
An e-mail, originating from city councillor Jenny Gerbasi (and forwarded to me by several people) tells a new variation on a familiar tale: A businessman wants to demolish a set of storefronts from 38 to 44 Albert St. Wait, isn't this a National Historic District? Shouldn't a set of 1920s storefronts built around a house put up in 1877 (the second-oldest structure downtown, the oldest being the Fort Garry Gate) fall under some sort of protection from arbitrary destruction?

"The Lord-Selkirk-West Kildonan Community Committee voted AGAINST the historic designation," necessary for the buildings' legal protection, writes Gerbasi (emphasis in original).

If it's rational for a developer to ditch buildings and make more money letting out a few parking spaces instead, then the end result is irrational. The greatest menace to our way of life in Winnipeg is not youth crime, potholes, or even malathion. It's discontinuity -- the lack of continuously built-up streets. You may eschew the walking and simply use Google Earth's satellite bird's-eye view to see that in most sections of downtown land area devoted to parking exceeds that claimed by buildings. When there are that many buildings missing, it creates an overall vacuum that can only suck.

Indeed, the situation downtown is so severe it would be sensible to recognize that no other buildings -- no matter how "insignificant" -- should be felled for parking. Behind 38-44 Albert there is already surface parking, which leads across the alley into a giant 30m x 50m surface lot facing Arthur Street. Across Albert is a multi-storey parking garage, and in adjacent blocks can be found a glut of surface parking. Rare in fact are the blocks within downtown Winnipeg that remain completely built-up.

For decades, however, almost every block in downtown Winnipeg was built-up completely. Angle parking on Portage, Main and other streets maximized on-street parking, and a streetcar right-of-way down the centre of our main streets kept (privately-held) public transportation popular. Strangely enough, downtown business did much better before the commercial parking lot.

History shows that Winnipeg's downtown can be bustling and prosperous. The experience of other cities shows downtown bustle and prosperity is impossible when so much land is given to surface parking.

If five-to-10-storey buildings makes for a nice average height downtown, every surface lot is a five-to-10-storey-deep hole. We have enough holes. It's time to fill. The Exchange District would be much more effective as a tourist and film industry destination were it to be completely continuous throughout and reconnected to the surrounding neighbouhoods. This would require that surface parking lots be built upon -- to a scale and an architectural style consistent with the original Exchange buildings. The end result would be a downtown that is immeasurably safer, better populated, and much more attractive -- a situation whose economic benefits would spill throughout our poverty-plagued inner city.

Such a vision is possible, with the right policies and a political will. Rather than look toward the long term, too many in this city's business community look to the quick-and-easy buck that comes with owning a parking lot. A land tax, based on the size of the property's land footprint rather than its sale value, might be the only way to make building up surface lots economically attractive.

Even a vacant building -- such as the crumbling Ryan Block at King Street and Bannatyne Avenue -- is preferable to a parking lot. An architectural classic such as the Ryan Block has potential to be developed into a residential, commercial, industrial, or mixed use, and even empty it anchors the intersection with its attractive facade. Flattened, or replaced by a parkade, it can only store yet more cars.

dallashansen.com

[rgalston]

Originally Posted by esquire

I've been checking in from time to time to see what's going on, and I was lucky enough to do so in time to catch wind of this particular issue. Let me just say this: getting rid of buildings that fit into their surroundings as well as these ones do is one thing. Replacing it with a parking lot is quite another.

The more that our downtown gets sacrificed to the great god parking, the more unwelcoming and unpleasant a place to be it becomes. If the City simply said yes to every half-baked demolition proposal that came its way over the past few years, we'd now have parking lots in the place of several buildings including the Cadomin Building, the Crocus Building on Main, and several others as rgalston pointed out.

If the proponents of this development wanted to actually improve the neighbourhood by putting up a building on Albert to replace the ones in question, I could support it. However, punching a hole in the streetscape by replacing buildings with a parking lot is totally inappropriate and ridiculously short-sighted.

Well said!

Your keen observations are sorrily missed on these forums.

[rgalston]

By the way, here is an article on the subject from July 21, 2006:

Heritage or Parking Lot?

Downtown Winnipeg's oldest building will be torn down to pave the way for a parking lot if a property firm gets its way.

Globe General Agencies and Imperial Parking Ltd. are behind a proposal to take a wrecking ball to two adjoining structures that include storefronts at 38, 42 and 44 Albert St. -- a building holding Ken Hong Restaurant and Garnet Tailoring, in addition to a vacant unit which was once home to a Hells Angels-run clothing and souvenir shop.

In their path are heritage advocates seeking a municipal historic designation for the property to keep it standing.

"It's never a good idea to replace a building with a parking lot. It leaves a gap in the streetscape," Lisa Holowchuk, executive director of the Exchange District Business Improvement Zone, told the Sun yesterday.

"We desire an environment in our downtown, particularly in the Exchange District which is pedestrian-friendly. We're much better off with contiguous storefronts if we want lively streets."

The BIZ hasn't yet taken an official stand on the subject. However, city hall's historical buildings committee is trying to shoot down the proposal, which would see the owners of the complex's three addresses -- Globe Enterprises Ltd., 388 Donald St. Ltd. and Klapman Meyer -- lease newly created ground-level parking space to the nearby St. Charles Hotel as the inn plans a redevelopment.

A report written by Coun. Jenny Gerbasi (Fort Rouge-East Fort Garry), head of the historic committee, states the complex includes sections of a residential building dating to 1878. And only the Fort Garry Gate is older than the edifice among downtown properties.

"This complex is part of a significant streetscape that provides continuity and character to the Exchange District," Gerbasi writes in the report.

Gerbasi did not return repeated calls for comment, nor did vice-president Ron Penner at Globe -- one of Winnipeg's prominent housing rental firms.

St. Charles Hotel's management could not be reached.

The proposed demolition is bad news to Garnet Tailoring, which has done business in one of the complex's units since the early 1990s.

'NOT A GOOD IDEA'

"This is not a good idea," said owner Garnet Francois. "I've been here about 13 years. I'd hate to think about what would happen."

The Hong Chinese eatery has leased its space for more than 20 years, Francois said.

"It has the best wonton soup in the Exchange," Holowchuk said. "It's a great little spot."

[Pootkao]

Here's a copy of the letter I've been sending out.

==================================

Good day xxxx
I will keep this brief, as I'm sure you are a busy person.

No matter the current state of the buildings proposed to be torn down beside the St. Charles Hotel, the city takes a very large step backwards if it allows this to happen.

The re-development of the St. Charles is highly desirable and a commendable project, but we mustn't continue to take one step forward and two steps back. Urban streetscapes are already in short supply in this city, and the Exchange is the one neighbourhood where they are starting to thrive. In fact, they are the key to our city becoming vibrant again and the key to Winnipeg being able to attract tourists from beyond our borders.

To remove an important chunk of Albert Street in order to park cars is incredibly counter-productive. The hotel will be much better served by IMPROVING the buildings and encouraging more "high end" tenants so that its customers can better enjoy the area.

The solution?
There is already plenty of parking behind the St. Charles, and if they don't want to use the other lots on Arthur, have the hotel build a 2 storey parkade on the Notre Dame lot. The cost of the parkade will not be much more than the cost of tearing down and paving the Albert St. lot.

I urge you, please take the necessary steps to keep Winnipeg's downtown from becoming more suburbanized.

Thank you,
Mike Petkau

[Lee_Haber8]

Keep up the good work you guys! I wish I could help out, but I can't really since I'm still in Montreal. I'm letting my family know how important this is. No more goddamn parking lots - the buck stops here!

[esquire]

I just wish City Hall took a broader view of what constitutes "heritage" and is worth protecting. In this case, I'm unaware of any historic moments that occurred at 38/44 Albert St., but surely the "heritage" of urbanity that is the Exchange District is worth protecting in and of itself. Preventing buildings like these from being levelled and turned into still more parking lots that only repel people from the area is consistent with that.

And thanks for the bons mots, rgalston.

[1ajs]

this was posted on newwinnipeg

* Mr. Z
* CommentTime5 hours ago edited

delete quote
This issue is close to my heart so please let me vent.

If the city were serious about developing the Exchange District they would first realize that developers can’t make a buck in converting empty warehouse space or developing parking lots due to market failure.

To attract development and create a demand leading to a strong Historical District matched by none other three things need to occur.

1. Properties need to be assembled by the City. Just buy up everything available and then enter into development agreements with existing owners who are basically paralyzed from exercising their own development ideas because of failing economics. “The Financial Incentives”.
2. A series of small plans creating active areas of activity in the Exchange are needed. “The Vision”.
3. City then needs to then create partnerships with developers. In exchange for mixed-use projects, storefronts at street level, integrated parking, housing that is affordable and office spaces, the city should freeze property taxes for 25 years or more. Developers then need to bring in the residents, the office workers, the restaurants and the shop owners. “Implementation”.

The combination of land assembly and tax forgiveness should be enough to cover the gap and get property owners off their duffs.

A City that understands this distinguishes itself in turn creating economic spin-off from increased assessments surrounding the area to. This would give a jolt to the public who would then believe a bit more in our city and Downtown.

This would persuade the private sector to come back to the downtown as opposed to the suburbs where it is simpler and profitable to develop.

No public funding required for the widening of roads or construction of new bridges needed to deal with the ensuing congestion. No additional transit buses and drivers nor new routes either. The city would not have to buy additional snow removal equipment nor hire any new operators to run or maintain the roads and sidewalks! By the time 25-year tax incentive comes to an end the City will be ahead of the game.

Penalizing parking lot owners by having them pay more taxes is not an approach that will really lead to anywhere. The failing economics is the reason why they are not excited about redevelopment. Increase their taxes and they will just increase the daily parking rate by 50 cents or a dollar, that’s it.

This is not rocket science. In doing this we would not even be able to call ourselves pioneers or innovators. Its been done before!

How bad does the public want a world class Exchange District that is unsurpassed?
How bad do our youth want this?
How smart are our city leaders?
How much balls do our planners have to push our leaders? (they may get fired)

It is this lack of drive and creativity and financial smarts among our so-called leaders that keeps us poor and ugly.

[rgalston]

Small storefronts serve big purpose in Exchange District
By Robert W. Galston


The problem with being a developer in Winnipeg’s Exchange District is that so many buildings get in your way.

This is the dilemma facing the new owners of the now vacant St. Charles Hotel at the corner of Notre Dame and Albert Street, who want to convert it to a boutique hotel. In spite of a large parking lot already adjacent to the St. Charles, the owners say they will need even more parking facing Albert Street, and the old house and storefronts next door, along with their tenants, would have to go. With so much parking, perhaps it would be more appropriately called a boutique motel...


That's all for now.

[drew]

^ excellent article rgalston... has this been published?

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by drew

^ excellent article rgalston... has this been published?

Keep writing stuff as good as that and you'll end up on city council.

[rgalston]

Thanks, guys.