Winnipeg | 291 Bannatyne Ave | Maws Garage & Sanford Building | In Development
 

Maws Garage & Sanford Building
Location: 291 Bannatyne Ave
Developer: RIDGIX Building Solutions Inc
Architect: Northern Sky Architecture Inc
Status: In development
Documents: VARIANCE: 25-130698/B-April 24, 2025 | Appeal–June 11, 2025 | Heritage Permit Application | Historical Reports for Buildings
Project Thread
Media:

• Neighbours concerned by redevelopment plan for Exchange District building-CTV Winnipeg
• Apartment, commercial space proposal for historic Exchange buildings moves a step forward–Winnipeg Free Press

Description: New 9 Storey 115 Unit residential addition above both the Maws Garage and Sanford Buildings. Includes the redevelopment of the main floor of Maws Garage into 2 new CRU's and 36 automated parking stalls. The main floor of the Sanford Building will be redeveloped into a new CRU space, a new lobby entry, elevators and support spaces. The existing foundation and structural framing systems in both these original buildings will not be affected or altered for this project other than the steel trusses over the Maws Garage which will be refurbished and reinforced to meet current code for life safety for the CRU space below. Several frames will be relocated to help reinforce the exposed roof portion of Maws Garage. The new addition will be supported on new micro piles with no new load on the existing buildings. New facades both sides of Maws Garage.
Permits:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...50931ee7_b.jpg





Public notice of decision
On April 11, 2025 the Director of the Planning, Property and Development Department approved a heritage permit application to redevelop 291 Bannatyne Avenue (Sanford Building and Maw's Garage). This approval does not follow Historical Buildings and Resources Committee (HBRC) advice.

The HBRC advised the public service to not support the application. The proposed building additions were not considered to be subordinate to the heritage buildings. They felt that this part of the project did not follow Standard 11 of the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, which says:

“Conserve the heritage value and character-defining elements when creating any new additions to an historic place or any related new construction. Make the new work physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to, and distinguishable from the historic place.”

Winnipeg residents can appeal the Director’s decision by sending a letter of appeal. You can also attend the appeal hearing and may speak in delegation.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...45abf26f_h.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...8dc7cc72_h.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...c7ccbb34_h.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...6ff4b66e_h.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...5460b9a9_h.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...ef6fd05b_h.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...bd7015f6_h.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...4fb0ed24_h.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...0159cacc_c.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...25fe310c_c.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...d3873efc_c.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...fa4ac447_c.jpg

thankfully the design has changed...I am still very opposed to building fake old buildings in the exchange district.

We should leave heritage buildings alone in the national historic site in my opinion. An addition is fine if done sensitively, but ten storey fake old buildings on top of one storey real heritage buildings with the facades glued on like wallpaper is damaging to the district.

Idk, isn't this densification done well? It takes underused heritage buildings and puts people in one of densest parts of the city. If those finishes are all masonry and brick, why not? Seems respectful to the local context. If anything, I'd hope they'd go a little more faux-old (or traditional from a different perspective) and add some nice ornamentation for the cornices. Atm maws garage is a shell where people and pigeons piss, seems like a good upgrade to me.

curious that the floor plans seems to show the tower set back four feet but the elevations do not.

Yeah I’m not with Vike on this one, wasted space made useful is more important to me in these sorts of scenarios as long as the finish is done properly and enforced thusly.

^ fake old buildings is precisely what Heritage is requiring of this project. They just want something that is shorter.

Main floor commercial on all fronts, including restoration of the Maws garage facade for the shell of a building which is currently used for... parking. And has been since what, the past 50 years or more?

the renderings I saw were literally a suburban building with big balconies....this is very different, thankfully.

I believe that the exchange district buildings are a treasure and as a collective make one of the most special urban neighbourhoods in the country. We shouldn't be tearing them apart and adding replicas of old buildings on top of them....additions should be subservient to the heritage, not overwhelming to it.

New buildings on parking lots is different.

I definitely like that improvement.

I'm against fake old, and I don't like facadism, but this it at least a vast improvement from the original. I wish developers of this type would fill the other side of downtown, not try to infill the most sensitive areas of national historic sites. we are so lucky to have the exchange district....every intervention should be special.

The drawings look interesting, bit it would be nice to see photos of the proposed facade materials to see how closely they would approximate the vintage materials. If they come across as obvious fakery then I'd be against it, but if they can make it look decently "vintage" I don't have a problem with these plans. I like the two different colours of the buildings.

As long as the faux historical facade is done fully in brick I'm happy with it.

Same here.

you have to remember that it will not look like an old building. The walls of heritage buildings are 3 feet thick and the windows deep set. This will have 4 inch thick brick walls and the windows will be shallow on the facade.

it will have this kind of vibe

https://i.postimg.cc/qRTX9Zwf/Untitled-1.jpg

thank God it's not EIFS though.

Thank goodness the parking lot on the King side is included. If done well, this will greatly improve that block. fingers crossed!

Yeah, I think this would be a major improvement. It basically builds on top of underused one story heritage structures by creating tasteful density. I can’t see anything wrong with what’s being proposed here.

Three feet thick on the foundation maybe. The exterior walls will vary from 12 to 24 inches depending on the number of brick courses thick it is. But they thin out as you go up. I've done several repurposing projects with exchange buildings over the years.

But, you do know that Heritage has a requirement for window setback as well. That being said, these new builds will also have a thick wall assembly.

4" brick + 1" airspace + 4 to 6" of insulation + plus a 4 to 6" steel stud back up + 0.5" drywall. That adds up to about a 17.5" thick assembly leaving lots of room to set the windows back from the outside.

missing caption:

faux modern heritage on the cheap is appalling to architects but tends to disappear visually for everyone else

above is a late 80s building in toronto (it's a supportive housing development) that was built to try and match/echo design elements from the neighbouring buildings. it's unsuccessful, but it sort of doesn't really matter. same with the mckim building tbh.

Looking at Google Street View, Maws garage and the Exchange Event Centre are currently in a sad state. Peeling paint, windows boarded up, missing bricks, dented metal flashing, pigeon feces … This proposal looks like a huge improvement over the current state. I’m excited to see the heritage elements restored while adding some density to the area.

This is possibly me being ignorant, but I'm surprised 3D printing isn't used more to replicate authentic-looking vintage building elements. Maybe it's cost-prohibitive, but I'd think that some clever boots should be able to scan and replicate things like mouldings and cornices in a way that looks more authentic than the clumsy-looking roof they have on the McKim (aka "big 4 sales") building.

So based on 'heritage' status, what would be the alternate? Leave them as single story buildings. One of which is literally already a garage that looks like a dump?

New building fills in the street with CRU's, lots of units and has a neat parking system as well.

What's the thought on the old westcoast building across the street half painted in grey?

It doesn't just look like a dump; it smells like one :yuck:

I have always hated this paint job especially. The red brick above looks so handsome.

BellMedia

Interesting that $1000 appeal fee, makes it less attractive to throw bulk frivolous appeals at every project bitter residents want to oppose.

I don't really get the Heritage aspect here. Sure the buildings are slightly old in Winnipeg terms. But come on. The one building is a complete dump. So just because they're Heritage we're destined for status quo? It's been status quo for decades and the place is a dump.

This new building is a great compromise...What exists is low impact, low impression. This elevates the nearby area. I love & appreciate heritage buildings but this is preposterous..Get a life.. A block away, there will be a 16 floor building as well as the 9 floor under construction now, on Marketlands, the former PSB site.

What's still heritage of that building though? It's been painted over grey, the original windows have been covered up. The interior has already been gutted and has been operating as a night club for decades. The other end of the Maws garage is literally a shell with a gravel parking lot that looks like it's from a scene in Fight Club.

Never heard of a fee to appeal a project before. Maybe they're talking about a court appeal, rather than a municipal appeal?

$955 is the municipal appeal fee for downtown project - it's listed on page 26 of this City document http://legacy.winnipeg.ca/ppd/fees/p...nd-charges.pdf.

This project was appealed http://residentsoftheexchangedistric...gnore-heritage

I don't understand people's insistence on perfection in the Exchange. Yes the area is of great historical value, but Winnipeg isn't Paris and the Exchange isn't Champs-Elysees. We shouldn't overestimate people's willingness to invest in the area. Shutting down serviceable proposals in the hopes of a possible future masterpiece seems self-defeating, we've seen that landowners are liable to leave lots and properties vacant or in disrepair. It's not going to be a seamless replica of a Chicago style midrise, or an architectural achievement on its own, but there's nothing in this proposal so offensive its outweighs the investment and population gained in the exchange.

I get the push to preserve heritage, but refusing to allow most changes to historical buildings is more likely to turn the area into a dingy, crumbling open-air museum than anything else.

The design looks nice to me. Way better than what's there now. Plus it adds more residents to the Exchange.

People have no idea how difficult it can be to get adaptive re-use projects thru all of the checks and balances with various City departments.

There are only a handful of developers that are willing to do the work, and I have been lucky enough to work on a number of the projects that actually get done.

It's not big time big pocket developers doing this work (they won't accept the risks and margins) its the smaller local developers that actually care enough about the City and area that are willing to make it work. Frivolous appeals, unrealistic requirements are all par for the course. Even on this board, there are very vocal opinions - which is fine - but don't have any basis in financial reality.

I disagree...we are so lucky to have a national historic neighbourhood in the centre of our city...it has been the driver of urban renewal for thirty years....it deserves to be treated with care...its not about money...its about trying to do good design.....development being expensive is a crutch...we should all demand better.

^ the only issue that Heritage has with this particular project AFAIK is the height (and as we know, that cat is out of the bag based on developments in the East exchange).

That's it. Every other concern they had was addressed, and no existing heritage structures are being removed - only added on to with... wait for it...brick - glorious brick!

There is also main floor commercial space on all fronts. If there was a couple arches thrown in, we would have the Number10 trifecta!

Again, My comment it to the NIMBYS, a block away on the former PSB site, Marketlands, will be a 16 floor tower, so what's the issue here? I hope their appeal is Squashed to smithereens.

It looks like a pretty good project. But I doesn't seem fair to call an appeal that costs almost $1000 frivolous. That's especially because their longest section is on the effect of work on neighbouring buildings. We've lost two old brick buildings to collapses during alterations in the last decade. Care should be applied here. Especially since some of that required work here is just to fit parking inside the old buildings.

Good points^

Not to mention the only reason there is even the possibility of an appeal here is that they sought a variance. Why not just build a 100 foot tall building like the zoning asks for? The middle of Paris is almost all 5 or 6 storeys, about 60 feet, making it the densest city in Europe. 100 feet seems high enough here. Especially since these are additions to precarious old heritage buildings in a historic district and there's plenty of empty parking lots for even more density.

^ the extra height probably allows for one more floors worth of units which is likely the difference between this being a viable project or not.

So the appeal is to ensure ‘care’ is given during construction and to whittle it down to 100 feet from 106.1 feet…?

This $900 appeal will end up delaying construction by at least 4-6 months perhaps wasting a construction season and end up increasing costs by maybe, what, 5% in the interim?

Yeah, I’d say it’s frivolous…

Drew, you say the extra floor probably makes the difference. But shouldn't evidence be required if a developer wants to bend rules? Many shorter financially viable infills have been built recently including one with more heritage work at 138 Portage.

Mr. Tall Forehead, I hope this project works out and a lot of it looks good but this doesn’t seem as simple you say. I’m very YIMBY but the developer could have avoided the appeal by not needing a variance ie by being under 100 feet, which seems like good level of density for the area. The developer has not shown why they need to break the rule plus the structural concern for adjacent buildings with rubble foundations seems legit.

A public objection to a 6 foot height variance is supposed to address somebody’s concern about rubble foundations in the area how? If the building was proposed at 99 feet I guess they would just have to trust the City’s established permitting process…

Mr Tall Forehead, your complaint was about the appeal. I am just pointing out that the developer opened the door to appeal by asking for a variance. They could have avoided that by doing 8 or 9 storeys instead of 10.

Yeah, the rubble foundation might still have been a problem either way. I do not think 2 engineering companies would have contributed to an appeal if there was no possibility of an issue. But regardless of the appeal, looking into that possible issue seems important and would have caused a delay. So why are you so bothered by the appeal?

I am Yes In My Backyard but do you think you should just automatically let people break rules and have literally no recourse process of any kind? I am Yes In My Backyard but not if it actually might literally harm neighboring buildings. This is different than not wanting a zoning compliant apartment building or duplex next door. The developer wants rules bent for them when the rules actually accommodate something pretty big. If the Exchange District was filled with rule following 6 to 8 storey buildings it would be great.

I already noted why I have a problem with the appeal. It will delay, add costs and as drew notes, possibly impact viability of a project proposing to inject some life into a couple of decrepit buildings.

It’s swell that engineers have contributed to the appeal but they (or more likely the people that hired them) may be disappointed because, unless I’m mistaken, the focus of the hearing will be the issue that was involved in the variance - which is a whopping 6.1 feet of height (basically Nik Ehlers without skates).

But in objecting to the appeal you aren't responding to any of the actual substance of it. All your points are hypothetical, ie "possibly impact viability" and "may be disappointed" etc. But some times some slowness is fine. The reason I even logged onto this site again was that I think its wrong that a citizen has to pay almost 1000 dollars just to get the city to consider possible damage to their structure. That should have already been dealt with which would take time anyway.

I’m done. Good luck with your appeal.

LOL it is not my appeal. Are you the developer?

I do know from experience that an appeal to fix an issue for a project beside your house even at great cost can help. I want infill but there are case by case differences and builders or the city are not always right and appeals wrong.

You have no proof delay might kill the project or that the foundation problem is false. A hearing will be good as both sides can make their arguments and show proof. I think the hearing is pretty soon too.

In my experience it can pay to take time to fix problems early. Hopefully we get a project that satisfies everyone. If that means they adjust the foundation and it is a bit shorter that seems fine.

Let me tell you, big picture, it is better to take two extra months than cause years of structural problems for neighbours.

hear what ur saying but plp are looking at what they can legaly use to apeal somthing thats got the feel of cookie cutter the scale is off for that spot the travelers building gives the block a unique feel id rather see the old spegeti factory building get rebuilt to orig hight and the garage next door left at its current hieght. and uses


the question we need to ask is why is it u need to build at that scale to make it profitable? is this result of how property tax gets jacked up and then add ur mortage and u will loose money as a result of doing a small scale projec? taxation based on value need to end