Winnipeg's Exchange District | East/West | Development

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by joshlemer

Anyone know if the Thomas Scott Memorial Hall ended up getting demolished this weekend? Or if it will be?

It’s still standing

[Ando]

Originally Posted by Labroco

City has demanded the facade be saved and stabilized or the owners will face a million dollar fine. There was no permit taken out for the work which created the catastrophic damages to the building.

Will be interesting to see how this story plays out...

Very unfortunate.

So I guess I was correct in my suspicion that it was incompetent people sillybuggering around and to trying to cut costs by evading the rules. Good for the City, this is the kind of intervention I was suggesting.

[buzzg]

I hope they're able to save it, but at the same time I hope the city absolutely railroads them and sucks them dry to set some precedent for possible seizure of buildings like the St. Charles, Peck, etc.

[LilZebra]

Originally Posted by GreyGarden

^ I agree. It seems to me that the major problem is that there isn't the market or the demand to make preserving, re-purposing and developing all of these old wonderful buildings make financial sense. I'm not really sure what the City can do about that other than continue (or improve) their efforts to drive up value and interest in the area.

As Winnipeg's population reaches 1 million, there may be more pressure to save more of these buildings for loft or office use.

So hold it on the demolitions.

[drew]

Originally Posted by buzzg

I hope they're able to save it, but at the same time I hope the city absolutely railroads them and sucks them dry to set some precedent for possible seizure of buildings like the St. Charles, Peck, etc.

I think this is a bit of a different situation versus the St. Charles and Peck Bldgs.

In this case we have an owner that is actively re-purposing these buildings - not sitting on derelict property allowing it to rot. The building damages happened over the course of the construction. Big difference.

The needs to be accountability, but save your ire for the delinquent owners.

[Ando]

I think you are splitting hairs. An owner who doesn’t pay for proper permits and causes the potential destruction of a building is not much different than an owner that practises demolition by neglect. Possibly worse.

[drew]

From what I know, the owner had permits in place.

In any case, there hasn't been official word to corroborate Labroco's statement of the fine or the lack of permit, so let's reserve judgment until that happens.

[trueviking]

the concern is that if the screws are tightened, the developer may just walk. This is a good developer. It was a very unfortunate mistake, nothing nefarious like St. Charles. I hope the insurance can be used to save the façade...or at least re-build it after selective demolition, but I'm not sure that's possible because it is so fragile.

[wardlow]

Originally Posted by trueviking

This is a good developer. It was a very unfortunate mistake, nothing nefarious like St. Charles. I hope the insurance can be used to save the façade...or at least re-build it after selective demolition, but I'm not sure that's possible because it is so fragile.

I'll second this. As I understand it, their permits were all in order. And even if they were not, it would be entirely unfair to lump the developers into the same category as owners/pretend developers of the St. Chalres Hotel, etc. They don't even exist on the same planet. The developers of the Scott Memorial Lodge and the building next door actually *do* things, specifically, they actually redevelop old buildings in the Exchange District.

This is simply an unfortunate accident. Maybe the contractor actually doing the work in the basement was negligent in his job that day, but the developers sure as hell are not.

Right now the basement is filled with gravel as an emergency measure to try and keep the building from falling over. I really hope the facade can be saved -- it's a beautiful facade that provides a great little terminating vista for Rupert Avenue -- but it remains to be seen.

[bomberjet]

Can someone enlighten me on the whole basement floor slab thing. Seems these are structural elements to the building? Or they become defacto structural elements holding the building together after 100 years.

If a piece of concrete in the basement is all that holds the building together, JFC. This has come up a couple times recently.

[drew]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Can someone enlighten me on the whole basement floor slab thing. Seems these are structural elements to the building? Or they become defacto structural elements holding the building together after 100 years.

If a piece of concrete in the basement is all that holds the building together, JFC. This has come up a couple times recently.

The concrete slab provides the support along the base of the foundation wall to resist the horizontal pressure exerted from the back-fill on the exterior side of the wall.

If this slab is removed without either taking the pressure away (excavating the exterior back-fill) or providing supplemental support (shoring) - there is a very real risk of the foundation wall being pushed inward or buckling inward.

[BAKGUY]

So, when will Ken Zaifman have the St Charles Hotel confiscated from him? Do we need to wait for it to be total loss? This building is kind of like a gateway to The Exchange district. He has had over a dozen years now and does near nothing.. Waiting for it to fall so he can destroy it...Market conditions are better than ever. Anybody know or care?

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by drew

The concrete slab provides the support along the base of the foundation wall to resist the horizontal pressure exerted from the back-fill on the exterior side of the wall.

If this slab is removed without either taking the pressure away (excavating the exterior back-fill) or providing supplemental support (shoring) - there is a very real risk of the foundation wall being pushed inward or buckling inward.

Thanks for the info.

But like is it designed this way originally? Is it the same in say a house? I understand the technical points, but seems like a risky thing. Especially if the floor heaves.

[drew]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Thanks for the info.

But like is it designed this way originally? Is it the same in say a house? I understand the technical points, but seems like a risky thing. Especially if the floor heaves.

Yes (although in 100 year oldish buildings, it's probably a design by accident).

Same condition in a typical house with the basement slab.

Heaving of a grade supported slab is not usually a concern.

[headhorse]

It’s very fixable (to save it all, not just the facade), just comes down to if the owner is willing to spend the money.

[drew]

^ anything is fixable given an unlimited budget.

In this case, it's what is worthwhile to keep. i suspect the answer is just the front facade.

The rest of the building, with the exception of a few interior finishes, is not worth spending money on when a new replacement will not only be better, but also cheaper.

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by drew

^ anything is fixable given an unlimited budget.

In this case, it's what is worthwhile to keep. i suspect the answer is just the front facade.

The rest of the building, with the exception of a few interior finishes, is not worth spending money on when a new replacement will not only be better, but also cheaper.

A new building utilizing the original facade actually seems like a better solution than simply utilizing the existing building in some ways. More flexibility with regards to design, height, etc. Of course, budget, as always in the big factor.

[headhorse]

why will it be better? cheaper for who?

[drew]

Originally Posted by headhorse

why will it be better? cheaper for who?

Let's presume the new replacement building can go up an extra floor (or more). Can have more units to rent (more people in the exchange). Can have higher ceiling heights. Can be more energy efficient.

As TV indicated, if you hammer on the developer to fix, straighten and stabilize a 110 year old wood and masonry building - he will walk. And you be left with the two remaining buildings sitting empty as this case winds it way through the legal process. And that's not even getting into the fact that repairing this building to go back to what it was (a la those little alien ships in Batteries Not Included) is not remotely in the realm of being realistic.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by drew

^ anything is fixable given an unlimited budget.

In this case, it's what is worthwhile to keep. i suspect the answer is just the front facade.

The rest of the building, with the exception of a few interior finishes, is not worth spending money on when a new replacement will not only be better, but also cheaper.

It's possible that the façade isn't even able to be saved. regardless of money. I agree though, at this point the façade is the best we can hope for.