Winnipeg | 98 Market | 18M | 6F | U/C

Cyro · #1 Posted **Apr 6, 2016, 6:15 PM**

Quote:

WORK will soon get underway on what is believed to be the first rental-apartment complex ever built within the city’s Exchange District National Historic Site.

- 64/65-unit apartment complex
- $13.5-million
- Developer: Albert Cheung
- Start: Now Completion: Sept:2017

WFP Source: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/bus...364635741.html

CBC Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...plex-1.3396625

Cyro · #2 Posted **Apr 6, 2016, 6:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by oftheMoon

Construction fencing going up at 98 Market today!

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

Awww yeah!

I think this one deserves its own thread ........

Any indication as to what the revised project will look like?

Urban recluse · #3 Posted **Apr 6, 2016, 6:36 PM**

I hope the Juliet balconies have been omitted.

esquire · #4 Posted **Apr 6, 2016, 6:41 PM**

Thanks for starting the thread, cyro! I read on twitter that apparently, the site has been a surface parking lot since 1949... it'll be nice to see such a longstanding blemish eliminated.

scryer · #5 Posted **Apr 6, 2016, 8:38 PM**

I'm wondering if the whole black/charcoal colouring is going to be a Winnipeg theme? Little black devils anyone?

I'm a little underwhelmed by the project. I mean yeah, I'm glad that a surface parking lot is biting the dust. But I would have preferred to have seen a faux-heritage brick mid-rise go up in that area instead. The current design seems a little out of place in the middle of the heritage district.

Anyone know if brick exteriors are expensive?

bomberjet · #6 Posted **Apr 6, 2016, 8:41 PM**

Yes brick expensive. Especially on rentals.

oftheMoon · #7 Posted **Apr 6, 2016, 9:06 PM**

I think the design makes for a good transition from the newer builds on Waterfront to the heritage classics on James and Market.

biguc · #8 Posted **Apr 6, 2016, 9:11 PM**

Just noticed the baby lawn along Bertha. weird.

Urban recluse · #9 Posted **Apr 6, 2016, 9:51 PM**

Faux heritage buildings can look amazing, but the brick would be pricey, and since these are rentals, not worth it. Modern architecture can also look fabulous mixed with heritage architecture. The above design is awful.

trueviking · #10 Posted **Apr 6, 2016, 9:52 PM**

brick $40 per square foot.
hardie board $20 per square foot.
stucco $15 per square foot.

Urban recluse · #11 Posted **Apr 6, 2016, 9:57 PM**

I have seen all three used on buildings, and they can all work in harmony. Small amounts of colored stucco can be nice.

biguc · #12 Posted **Apr 7, 2016, 4:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

Faux heritage buildings can look amazing, but the brick would be pricey, and since these are rentals, not worth it. Modern architecture can also look fabulous mixed with heritage architecture. The above design is awful.

The funny thing is, rentals often get better quality materials and construction. They're investments that the owner needs to last in order to generate as much long-term income as possible. Condos are built to make a quick buck and their materials and construction reflects that. Look no further than Conrad House, on River, which is a steel and masonry rental building, vs every low-rise condo built in the Village in the last few years, which are invariably stick frame with hardy-board or stucco.

Urban recluse · #13 Posted **Apr 7, 2016, 4:54 PM**

I would have to say it depends on the developer.

biguc · #14 Posted **Apr 7, 2016, 5:02 PM**

Yeah, there are definitely developers who build cheap-ass rentals. H20 comes to mind, although they originally intended those to be condos. But I would suggest that developers who put up cheaply built rentals are often shooting themselves in the foot. Condo buyers are on the hook for whatever repairs their crappy buildings need in the future. Not so with renters.

That said, building a cheap rental in an up and coming area could pan out well. Taking H20 as an example again, when those buildings start falling apart in 20-30 years, it would behove the owner to simply tear them down and build something more profitable on land that's become more desirable. In that case, a low initial investment is wise.

Urban recluse · #15 Posted **Apr 7, 2016, 5:08 PM**

The city should not allow such crap to be built though. H20 is disgusting, and at the very least, the city should have demanded brick on the first couple of floors.

esquire · #16 Posted **Apr 7, 2016, 5:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

The city should not allow such crap to be built though. H20 is disgusting, and at the very least, the city should have demanded brick on the first couple of floors.

Yeah, I'm fine with 98 Market given that it's OK and it's in a low-visibility location anyway. But H20 should never have been allowed as built.