Winnipeg's Exchange District | East/West | Development - Page 103

Urban recluse · #**2041** Posted **Apr 27, 2017, 1:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy6

That's really too bad. Old filling stations are a wonderful part of architectural history but everything must yield before the onslaught of the glass boxes.

Well, considering Winnipeg has next to none, the more glass boxes the better. What downtown has is an overabundance of boring 70s architecture.

trueviking · #**2042** Posted **Apr 27, 2017, 4:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

Yep, much better than what is there now. Looks good. Ideally it would be a few floors higher, but other than that, love all the glass. Obviously it is a part of 90 Albert.

oof.

Urban recluse · #**2043** Posted **Apr 27, 2017, 4:40 AM**

Now, about this f*ckin mess:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.89753...8i6656!6m1!1e1

Urban recluse · #**2044** Posted **Apr 27, 2017, 4:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

oof.

It offends you huh? LOL

trueviking · #**2045** Posted **Apr 27, 2017, 5:38 AM**

The design is fine stand alone. I like glass boxes as much as anyone. But in this location, personally, I'd like to see an exploration of something that is both modern and contextual. There is such a strong architectural language in the area that could inspire a really rich modern face for the Exchange. It seems like a missed opportunity not to challenge the design with being wholly modern but also fitting in. Complimenting the character of the area, not ignoring it.

Call me old fashioned but to me context matters in the the Exchange District.

If it's going to be a featureless glass box I would ditch the brick bands. Either do it or don't. Make it a perfect glass box. Apple-storish.

trueviking · #**2046** Posted **Apr 27, 2017, 5:41 AM**

I also think the atrium needs better resolution.

esquire · #**2047** Posted **Apr 27, 2017, 10:55 AM**

Looks like it's about to get busy in the Exchange... RRC officially unveils its plans for expansion of the Princess Street Campus today.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/m...lgin-1.4086516

wags_in_the_peg · #**2048** Posted **Apr 27, 2017, 12:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

Looks like it's about to get busy in the Exchange... RRC officially unveils its plans for expansion of the Princess Street Campus today.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/m...lgin-1.4086516

That's great news! According to FreePress $40 mil from Feds for "RRC Innovation Centre"the new development may bring as many as 1,000 new students to the downtown in addition to the more than 2,000 already there."

trueviking · #**2049** Posted **Apr 27, 2017, 12:59 PM**

That is great news. I'm looking at you U of M.

optimusREIM · #**2050** Posted **Apr 27, 2017, 1:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

That is great news. I'm looking at you U of M.

While I think it would be great for the uofm to establish a greater presence downtown, I'm not sure that it makes much practical sense.

Biff · #**2051** Posted **Apr 27, 2017, 1:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

If it's going to be a featureless glass box I would ditch the brick bands. Either do it or don't. Make it a perfect glass box. Apple-storish.

Funny, when I heard glass box I too was thinking Apple Store as well. I like the idea, but like you do not like the brick bands.

esquire · #**2052** Posted **Apr 27, 2017, 1:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff

Funny, when I heard glass box I too was thinking Apple Store as well. I like the idea, but like you do not like the brick bands.

We tend to like even our newer buildings to incorporate some sort of homage to their predecessors. I mean, we have not one but two modern buildings downtown designed to remind us of Eaton's:

It strikes me as the architectural equivalent of wearing three different shades of blue at once. Sometimes a stark contrast just works better.

I presume this box will undergo some sort of design review... maybe at that point someone will tell the developer that it's OK to be a little bolder.

bomberjet · #**2053** Posted **Apr 27, 2017, 1:48 PM**

Ooh, ya.. I like the Vancouver glass box much better.

The OMS one looks like its picked up from the law courts and dropped down in the Exchange. Or taken the 360 Main cladding and salvaged it for re-use.

TimeFadesAway · #**2054** Posted **Apr 27, 2017, 1:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

The design is fine stand alone. I like glass boxes as much as anyone. But in this location, personally, I'd like to see an exploration of something that is both modern and contextual. There is such a strong architectural language in the area that could inspire a really rich modern face for the Exchange. It seems like a missed opportunity not to challenge the design with being wholly modern but also fitting in. Complimenting the character of the area, not ignoring it.

Call me old fashioned but to me context matters in the the Exchange District.

If it's going to be a featureless glass box I would ditch the brick bands. Either do it or don't. Make it a perfect glass box. Apple-storish.

How would the new building codes affect this design? Or do they just apply to residential? It looks like a lot of window space to have without requiring expensive efficiency tradeoffs.

esquire · #**2055** Posted **Apr 27, 2017, 1:54 PM**

As to the building that the box would replace...

I hear what Andy6 is saying about the value of filling stations with historic character. If it were situated in a lesser area I think I might be swayed by that. But ultimately I think this corner is simply too important to be permanently occupied by what is not much more than a small, disposable automotive-age building. I'd prefer something that makes full use of the site.

Besides, apart from the roof, the building's original character has been stripped away. It just looks like a nondescript commercial structure now. If it had been kept up better through the years I think there would be a more compelling argument for saving it.

bomberjet · #**2056** Posted **Apr 27, 2017, 1:58 PM**

Not sure I like the idea of the building extending all they way out to the point in the property in OMS. Kind of blocks the area.

The RRC thing is the one where they were going to build over top of the old building, IIRC. Or were they just butting up to the old building with the new ones. I guess we'll see what the plan is in a short while.

trueviking · #**2057** Posted **Apr 27, 2017, 2:04 PM**

those buildings are not in the exchange district though. What I don't understand is that there are quite prescriptive exchange district design guidelines.

I understand the contrast is what its going for but that's just so easy. The site deserves richness and texture. Just because it has curtain wall doesn't mean its good. It still needs to be designed with sensitivity. Especially when its a person's house. Is all that glass going to be left open?

There has to be some recognition that it sits on the most central site of a national historic neighbourhood....does that context mean nothing?

this is the type of architecture I would like to see as modern insertions into the exchange district.

trueviking · #**2058** Posted **Apr 27, 2017, 2:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

As to the building that the box would replace...

I hear what Andy6 is saying about the value of filling stations with historic character. If it were situated in a lesser area I think I might be swayed by that. But ultimately I think this corner is simply too important to be permanently occupied by what is not much more than a small, disposable automotive-age building. I'd prefer something that makes full use of the site.

Besides, apart from the roof, the building's original character has been stripped away. It just looks like a nondescript commercial structure now. If it had been kept up better through the years I think there would be a more compelling argument for saving it.

just because it is replacing a non-descript building doesn't mean we cant expect good design for its replacement.

Also, those non-descript buildings make great homes for little restaurants that make living in the exchange district interesting.

Also, its a national historic site because it is an intact collection of buildings from the same period. that includes the non-descript buildings. Most of them are non-descript actually. How many do we lose until the collection is no longer significant?

Is a person's house on that critical site a better use?

esquire · #**2059** Posted **Apr 27, 2017, 2:12 PM**

^ I'd be OK with that building, looks like it must be in a European city? It's still an attractive, quality modern design. What I want to avoid is the lame attempt at faux-historical. Like Recluse said, this is perhaps the worst example in the city:

It's so hard to get that kind of thing right, and I'm sure the skill and material required to do it properly would completely ruin the project's budget. That's why curtain wall would be preferable IMO. Far less risk of an architectural catastrophe.

trueviking · #**2060** Posted **Apr 27, 2017, 2:15 PM**

agree completely...that's my point...just because its 'modern' doesn't mean its appropriate. That site deserves more finesse than simply a featureless curtain wall. It has an amazing context of texture to draw inspiration from. It can be modern and still respect the area....its too easy to just say its a glass box.