[🌳🌱🌿🌴🍁]

As Drew said, this is a "huge loss" – "such a waste." I think at least a couple other people on this site might agree.

But obviously several here do not, and so I won't go on about it after this post – especially with those who see anyone with a different viewpoint as nostalgic busybodies projecting their feelings onto empty objects. Probably not going to change your minds, eh?

By the way, is someone a busybody because they care about something they don't live in or own?

I don't quite get the vision of historic value described in some of these posts. Seems to be based on whether a 'historically significant' person lived there, with the architecture or urban environment being irrelevant. So what is the threshold for that exactly in the Manitoban context? Louis Riel? Burton Cummings? Teemu Selanne?

In Europe, they used to only protect individual monuments and buildings. Large parts of central Paris, Lyon, etc. were nearly razed in the 20th century in the name of progress before it was recognized that historical structures would lose much of their character and value if isolated.

In that vein, when some Middle Eastern sheikh buys up a building in Paris today, they are doing it (besides the financial motives or whatever) because they like the charm of the overall urban landscape – which yes, does include new architectural structures integrated amidst the old. And concerning the attitude that because something is a "private residence, owners should be allowed to tear it down if they want", as you know that it not so easily possible in such a city. For good reason.

So, curious: is the Exchange District historically valuable? As happened in many other places in North America, it wasn't considered so until a certain era (when people realized areas like that might also have an economic value, if nothing else). My understanding is that it was in large part saved through a lack of pressure to demolish it, and that now its historic value is due in large part to it being a collection of buildings – not just some individual structures left here and there.

I have never lived in the Exchange District, but when I did live in WPG (and every summer I have come back), I have gone there, shopped there, etc. So I don't fully understand the comment that "the 'historical value' card was being [played] more to preserve the ambience of the neighbourhood for the locals". This is your city too, isn't it? What does it matter if you don't live in that area? Personally speaking, I feel better in nice/interesting surroundings whether I live in them or not. Don't you? Wouldn't one want to increase those across the city?

And while I have felt almost 100% agreement with other comments I've seen from esquire on this site, I was under the impression that there remains lots of room available in Winnipeg for increasing density without having to knock down a beautiful old home that according to Drew was in 'perfect shape'. Could it not have been divided up if that was the only option? Or build new laneway-type homes on the property if increased density was the only chance to save it? It's not like there were no possible avenues to explore; I am going on what TV said, and he would know more than I.

Indeed, I don't know all the ins and outs of why this house wasn't protected in the end, or the controversy over listings in the city (although I have seen that there is a controversy). Here is one link I saw about this particular house: http://heritagewinnipeg.blogspot.com...-crescent.html

And here is another example of many which apparently also has no protection: https://heritagewinnipeg.com/blogs/t...e-carey-house/

Anyway, we shall see if the replacement for this pile of rubble is as nice or better and helps a bunch more people live in the area. As optimusReim noted, based on past history on Wellington Crescent, I wouldn't hold my breath. But I guess anything is possible.