Winnipeg's Exchange District | East/West | Development

[drew]

I always walk by that building and wonder how I could get my hands on it and turn it into a sweet three floor residence.

Looking at that price, I will have to hold on to that plan for a while.

[hello]

Really a shame to loose the Thomas Scott Memorial Orange Hall. I don't think the developer will leave it as a parking lot. They will probably go for extra density and build a 5 story wood frame apartment building. It is easier to build a new building then doing a heritage restoration and if they only paid 500k for the property then after insurance pays them out they will likely be better off starting from scratch.

[hello]

Any news on 138 Portgage Ave East? I'd imagine this will be coming up for sale/auction in the near future?

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by Labroco

A very aspirational price I see! LOL

Honestly the entire building has been fully upgraded with new electrical, HVAC, lighting, everything. It's really nice inside and the rooftop is wicked. Price doesn't seem that crazy to me.

My big question – anyone know if 433 Main came with the lot behind it? With that being converted and this for sale now, those two lots on Bannatyne look a lot more ripe for development now.

Originally Posted by Riverman

Who owns it now? It used to belong to Ron Chatfield. He had a suite on the top floor, his office (he was a manufacturers agent) on the second floor and a chandlery on the street level.

K9 Storm owns the building. Not sure if that's the same owner you mention.

[OTA in Winnipeg]

Originally Posted by hello

Really a shame to loose the Thomas Scott Memorial Orange Hall. I don't think the developer will leave it as a parking lot. They will probably go for extra density and build a 5 story wood frame apartment building. It is easier to build a new building then doing a heritage restoration and if they only paid 500k for the property then after insurance pays them out they will likely be better off starting from scratch.

That would be fantastic. I hope it comes to pass.

[EspionNoir]

2 million is even a bit cheap in my opinion. Look at the location, the area around it is so nice and thriving. I’d not be surprised if someone wants to develop that piece of land.

Across the street it’s the Ashdown Warehouse Loft and street-level retail & restaurants with tables on the street. 441 Main nightclub is not far away, and there are even more “Best-in-Winnipeg” places around it, not to mention things like theatres and concert halls. The average population in that area is probably also young.

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by EspionNoir

2 million is even a bit cheap in my opinion. Look at the location, the area around it is so nice and thriving. I’d not be surprised if someone wants to develop that piece of land.

Across the street it’s the Ashdown Warehouse Loft and street-level retail & restaurants with tables on the street. 441 Main nightclub is not far away, and there are even more “Best-in-Winnipeg” places around it, not to mention things like theatres and concert halls. The average population in that area is probably also young.

1344ft2 of land, 4000ft2 of floor space. At 750k one would be overpaying...

[Ando]

Originally Posted by drew

Did you miss my post?

I usually try not to miss any of your posts, especially on this issue because you appear to have such an affinity for the developer - the one who caused the destruction of a heritage building with apparently no penalty.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by Ando

I usually try not to miss any of your posts, especially on this issue because you appear to have such an affinity for the developer - the one who caused the destruction of a heritage building with apparently no penalty.

The city said there could be a $1,000,000 penalty if they weren't able to save it..

[hello]

Originally Posted by buzzg

The city said there could be a $1,000,000 penalty if they weren't able to save it..

That's great. They should impose some type of fine for negligence.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by hello

That's great. They should impose some type of fine for negligence.

They're currently working on a vacant buildings tax bylaw, I believe 1% of assessed value.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Ando

Yup, they definitely could have done it, it has been done - they are getting a free pass on this one.

My point being - this hasn't been done i.e. attempting to preserve the facade of an unstable building in Winnipeg. At least not anytime since any kind of modern safety standards have been in place.

Originally Posted by Ando

I usually try not to miss any of your posts, especially on this issue because you appear to have such an affinity for the developer - the one who caused the destruction of a heritage building with apparently no penalty.

To preface this, up until very recently, I had absolutely no skin in this game. I was not on anyone's side. Just on side with the reality of the situation - being involved in the industry - and having been part of the consulting team for 4 separate projects that have successfully converted 100 year old warehouses in the Exchange into mixed use buildings. These can be tricky buildings.

Now my situation has changed, and I will potentially be heavily involved with this project . So now I am biased. But I stand by my previous comments.

That being said, the developer is not getting away without penalty. There is still insurance to work out, additional costs for demo, and the re-design work for the replacement building, and the threat of further fines and legal issues with the City. If insurance doesn't come through, there will be years of litigation ahead, and all the costs associated. It's really not a great situation to be in, regardless of any "penalty" that may or may not come from the City.

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by drew

My point being - this hasn't been done i.e. attempting to preserve the facade of an unstable building in Winnipeg. At least not anytime since any kind of modern safety standards have been in place.



To preface this, up until very recently, I had absolutely no skin in this game. I was not on anyone's side. Just on side with the reality of the situation - being involved in the industry - and having been part of the consulting team for 4 separate projects that have successfully converted 100 year old warehouses in the Exchange into mixed use buildings. These can be tricky buildings.

Now my situation has changed, and I will potentially be heavily involved with this project . So now I am biased. But I stand by my previous comments.

That being said, the developer is not getting away without penalty. There is still insurance to work out, additional costs for demo, and the re-design work for the replacement building, and the threat of further fines and legal issues with the City. If insurance doesn't come through, there will be years of litigation ahead, and all the costs associated. It's really not a great situation to be in, regardless of any "penalty" that may or may not come from the City.

I hope the developer will be able to continue imminently with renovation of the existing building...

This construction disaster and impending litigation will drag on unfortunately.

[1ajs]

friend sent me this photo. interesting they tore the whole party wall off.

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

friend sent me this photo. interesting they tore the whole party wall off.

There is nothing to carry the load of all those floor joists unless they are supported behind the plywood. This building is very susceptible in its current condition to fire as well. Very precarious situation ...

[drew]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

friend sent me this photo. interesting they tore the whole party wall off.

The middle building in what was that three building group was built last, so it was supported on the existing exterior walls of the original outer two buildings.

The new building to replace the SMB will also need to reintroduce support for that side of the middle building. Just another complication...

[Ando]

Originally Posted by drew

My point being - this hasn't been done i.e. attempting to preserve the facade of an unstable building in Winnipeg. At least not anytime since any kind of modern safety standards have been in place.



To preface this, up until very recently, I had absolutely no skin in this game. I was not on anyone's side. Just on side with the reality of the situation - being involved in the industry - and having been part of the consulting team for 4 separate projects that have successfully converted 100 year old warehouses in the Exchange into mixed use buildings. These can be tricky buildings.

Now my situation has changed, and I will potentially be heavily involved with this project . So now I am biased. But I stand by my previous comments.

That being said, the developer is not getting away without penalty. There is still insurance to work out, additional costs for demo, and the re-design work for the replacement building, and the threat of further fines and legal issues with the City. If insurance doesn't come through, there will be years of litigation ahead, and all the costs associated. It's really not a great situation to be in, regardless of any "penalty" that may or may not come from the City.

That was my point - it’s hard to be objective if you are linked to the developer. I’m glad that there will be some consequences associated with this unfortunate incident. That said, the real problem on this issue is the City’s ineffectiveness in enforcing any kind of standards on owners of buildings that are sitting around for decades empty and unused or under-utilized and being demolished by neglect.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

That was a gas station before? IIRC. There has been a very wide approach from Arthur St there for a long time. With the patio being installed across the approach. So seems at some point cars were permitted onto the property. Looks like they've been parking cars there sine at least May 2019, based on Street View.

Anyone know what's happening with the new building?

The Line Up used that space to park cars during the winter when the patio wasn't operating for quite some time... years IIRC. But it's ugly now that the building is gone and the entire site is being used for parking. I walked by today and I was wondering when construction would start... at least the ongoing renovations next door are a positive sign.

Incidentally, I also walked by Neehow on Albert and I appreciated their nice storefront. I realize it costs a lot of money but it's nice to see businesses put some effort into their signage and overall appearance... it lifts up the area.

[headhorse]

^neehow and meal box have been open for a bit now, but that stretch of Albert is rough... no active storefronts and the huge parkade makes it tough for pedestrians. I can't even tell what's open in the Albert anymore. plus there has been scaffolding around the Electric Railways building for over a year now with seemingly no work, plus the abandoned St Charles... the streetscape looks like shit.

the spot opening on the corner of Bannatyne and Main (old antiques and funk) is a clothing store.. don't think they're planning any sort of re-development

I think someone asked earlier, the lot behind the Community/Parlour and Antiques and Funk building is owned by someone separately.. who has absolutely no plans or desire to have that space as anything other than a parking lot.

[esquire]

^ That's what made Neehow noticeable, it's like the one positive development on a stretch that has become horrible.

It's funny, 20 years ago Albert was actually one of the better, livelier (if somewhat gritty) streets in the Exchange. Now it looks like a ruin, especially the southern end. It's embarrassing.