Winnipeg Construction VIII - Page 408

esquire · #**8141** Posted **Jan 12, 2016, 8:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drew

This is why attention and pressure needs to head the way of disinterested owners of underused properties.

There should be a grace period for these people to sell, and then they need to be hit with increasing property taxes up to the point where they match the number that would be there if the lot was developed.

I agree. I don't know why the property tax regime continues to give these owners such an easy ride. When the tax system makes it immensely rewarding to run a surface parking lot, don't be surprised when people won't give up their surface parking lots.

esquire · #**8142** Posted **Jan 12, 2016, 8:09 PM**

Actually, further to the 360 Main thing that Biff mentioned, there is actually a hotel pad between the north tower and the unbuilt south tower. It was meant for a low slung atrium hotel. Why not work out a deal with Artis and build there? It won't even disrupt any sacred surface parking spaces there.

drew · #**8143** Posted **Jan 12, 2016, 8:11 PM**

^ this is why we all know this hotel thing is bogus.

It's just a different way of saying "surface parking". On the upside, they may install some upscale fencing and shrubbery.

Biff · #**8144** Posted **Jan 12, 2016, 8:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drew

^ On the upside, they may install some upscale fencing and shrubbery.

.....aaaah, this actually made me spit my tea......upscale fencing, good stuff

esquire · #**8145** Posted **Jan 12, 2016, 8:18 PM**

So true. As if this spot on Main Street was the one single place downtown where a hotel would work. Give me a break.

Bait and switch, nothing more.

steveosnyder · #**8146** Posted **Jan 12, 2016, 8:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drew

This is why attention and pressure needs to head the way of disinterested owners of underused properties.

There should be a grace period for these people to sell, and then they need to be hit with increasing property taxes up to the point where they match the number that would be there if the lot was developed.

I'm all for a land value tax instead of a property (land + improvement) value tax.

Urban recluse · #**8147** Posted **Jan 12, 2016, 8:28 PM**

Hopefully Pollard can purchase the Winnipeg Hotel and the MacDonald Block, and restore these buildings. What an impact they would have. Connecting the buildings would look striking if designed properly.

Authentic_City · #**8148** Posted **Jan 12, 2016, 9:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

I'm all for a land value tax instead of a property (land + improvement) value tax.

Yes. A land value tax approach (at least downtown) has always made sense to me. Why aren't parking lots downtown taxed according to their highest and best use? This would be a pretty effective deterrent to demolition. There is no tax incentive for building owners to improve their properties or build on parking lots in the current tax regime. If only Simplicity was here to explain why this approach is wrongheaded.

drew · #**8149** Posted **Jan 12, 2016, 9:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

If only Simplicity was here to explain why this approach is wrongheaded.

(potential) developers like Pollard don't exist in Simplicity's world.

Tacheguy · #**8150** Posted **Jan 12, 2016, 9:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drew

(potential) developers like Pollard don't exist in Simplicity's world.

In fairness to Simplicity, I suspect this potential development is being driven largely by civic-mindedness rather than hard commercial considerations. Simplicity added a lot to this forum at times.

drew · #**8151** Posted **Jan 12, 2016, 10:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tacheguy

In fairness to Simplicity, I suspect this potential development is being driven largely by civic-mindedness rather than hard commercial considerations. Simplicity added a lot to this forum at times.

I am not denying that. Its just that for Simplicity, things were very much black or white. He didn't have much time (or respect) for grey.

esquire · #**8152** Posted **Jan 12, 2016, 10:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tacheguy

In fairness to Simplicity, I suspect this potential development is being driven largely by civic-mindedness rather than hard commercial considerations. Simplicity added a lot to this forum at times.

Yes. While the potential to make a buck will be there, I think civic mindedness is the dominant part of Pollard's proposal. Which is nice, it's great to see wealthy citizens step up to preserve buildings like these ones.

CoryB · #**8153** Posted **Jan 12, 2016, 10:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

You know, I was wondering about that... I had a fuzzy memory about a SOGH helipad but I couldn't quite remember if there actually was one there or not. I checked Google Maps but I couldn't find any sign of one there, so I didn't mention it.

What was the deal with that helipad? Who was it built for?

Honestly I don't know much about the old Seven Oaks pad. I remember the markings on the overhead wires near the hospital and knowing it was for aircraft. I also turned up an article on the Winnipeg Firewalled Press from 2008 confirming the site existed and saying it was never used.

Separately, I heard that the original planners for Seven Oaks had a grand vision for the site that never really materialized. It is possible the helipad was built with the hospital with the vision of a Stars like service but the funding never followed.

--

In terms of the Fortune block situation:

1. $1,000,000 bond seems way too low for a $35 million development. I would ask for $5,000,000 or even $10,000,000 bond to issue a demo permit. As different marker points were hit some of those funds could be released to help fund further phases.

2. If the owner has such a viable business plan for a hotel in downtown why not sell the Fortune Block, et all to Pollard for over $1,000,000 and then buy the "One Portage and Main" surface lot that has been on the market for years for $1M. End of the day not needing to pay the demo costs at St Mary's and Main you end up ahead. Sounds like the hotel talk is all hot air to try and stall action on the Fortune Block site so the buildings can rot some more.

3. Instead of issuing a full caveat declare the façades historical as there seems to be minimal left on the interiors to preserve. Then left the owner and Pollard duke it out privately for the site.

4. If Pollard's interest is based on helping preserve Times Change(d) will Pollard help bankroll their relocation to another site downtown? Would be nice if they could do something on one of those surface lots on Fort near the Spectrum if they do need to relocate.

trueviking · #**8154** Posted **Jan 12, 2016, 10:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drew

^ this is why we all know this hotel thing is bogus.

It's just a different way of saying "surface parking". On the upside, they may install some upscale fencing and shrubbery.

maybe the area needs a 'neighbourhood park' like they got in Chinatown when they demolished the shanghai.

I wonder how that imminent development is progressing?

Authentic_City · #**8155** Posted **Jan 12, 2016, 11:46 PM**

Nice view up there.

cllew · #**8156** Posted **Jan 13, 2016, 12:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoryB

Hope the HSC helipad sees more use than the one Seven Oaks Hospital had.

Last time I heard of the SOGH pad being ready for use was when the Pope was at Birds Hill Park. Apparently the medical emergency plan was to fly him there to the Seven Oaks ER for treatment if required.

Labroco · #**8157** Posted **Jan 13, 2016, 2:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drew

^ this is why we all know this hotel thing is bogus.

It's just a different way of saying "surface parking". On the upside, they may install some upscale fencing and shrubbery.

The applicant is a major hotel developer along with Stride who has done countless large projects. They are not interested in creating a parking lot.

The reason this site is preferred is because it's value is in FUTURE cash flow as there is none for the site now...

The parking lots already have cash flow and are not about to give that up for a marginally larger return. If there was a big win to build the owners would. When's the last time you saw a for sale sign on a parking lot? Never!

Even with CV development incentives they will be hard pressed to get any takers.

I'm a huge fan of historic historic preservation but sometime things are just old and not "Historic"

The idea of building façadism is as obnoxious as stuffing your pet dog and leaving him on a shelf!

If Mr Pollard actually acquires these buildings and restores them I'm buying a round at the Peg Brewery when it opens next month!🍺

He should save the St Charles and put Times in there. That's a way more important battle.

drew · #**8158** Posted **Jan 13, 2016, 2:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Labroco

The applicant is a major hotel developer along with Stride who has done countless large projects. They are not interested in creating a parking lot.

The reason this site is preferred is because it's value is in FUTURE cash flow as there is none for the site now...

The parking lots already have cash flow and are not about to give that up for a marginally larger return. If there was a big win to build the owners would. When's the last time you saw a for sale sign on a parking lot? Never!.

Exactly the problem. We need more for sale signs on lots downtown. So let's give these people some incentives to sell, or make them pay more to the city coffers if they don't. There is no good reason that seemingly every new development in this town needs to knock over something first. Especially when there are an abundance of empty lots in all directions. This really needs to change.

And yes, in this burg old does equal historic. Especially old along this stretch of Main.

Andy6 · #**8159** Posted **Jan 13, 2016, 3:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Labroco

The applicant is a major hotel developer along with Stride who has done countless large projects. They are not interested in creating a parking lot.

I'm a huge fan of historic historic preservation but sometime things are just old and not "Historic"

Maybe - but these things are not among those things.

trueviking · #**8160** Posted **Jan 13, 2016, 4:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Labroco

The applicant is a major hotel developer along with Stride who has done countless large projects. They are not interested in creating a parking lot.

The reason this site is preferred is because it's value is in FUTURE cash flow as there is none for the site now...

The parking lots already have cash flow and are not about to give that up for a marginally larger return. If there was a big win to build the owners would. When's the last time you saw a for sale sign on a parking lot? Never!

Even with CV development incentives they will be hard pressed to get any takers.

I'm a huge fan of historic historic preservation but sometime things are just old and not "Historic"

The idea of building façadism is as obnoxious as stuffing your pet dog and leaving him on a shelf!

If Mr Pollard actually acquires these buildings and restores them I'm buying a round at the Peg Brewery when it opens next month!🍺

He should save the St Charles and put Times in there. That's a way more important battle.

If there is a real development happening it is easy to de-list the building. But forgive me for not jumping in glee over a vague show of interest in a building type that is nearly impossible to make work in downtown Winnipeg.