Winnipeg's Exchange District | East/West | Development - Page 318

trueviking · #**6341** Posted **May 14, 2024, 8:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drew

The owner of the St. Charles has kicked the tires of numerous consultant groups around the city over the years. I don't think he has any real interest in a redevelopment of the existing building, or at least actually paying for it.

agreed....he is most likely looking for the government to pay for whatever he is proposing.

ColdRain&Snow · #**6342** Posted **May 14, 2024, 9:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

agreed....he is most likely looking for the government to pay for whatever he is proposing.

The article from the Free Press said that he still hasn't applied for provincial or federal funding. I know better projects lead by better people that have been denied funding. I highly doubt the government will actually give this con-artist funding for affordable housing when they already don't have enough money to fund affordable housing projects planned by legitimate non-profit organizations.

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/br...ear-owner-says

From the article: "He said he has yet to apply for any provincial or federal funding and plans to wait until plans for the building are approved by the city."

So yeah, I wouldn't hold my breath.

NewIreland · #**6343** Posted **May 15, 2024, 3:07 AM**

Looks like the project on James Avenue and Bertha is alive again. Maybe TrueViking knows something?

trueviking · #**6344** Posted **May 15, 2024, 3:46 AM**

I don’t. But interesting. I hope it’s beautiful. I seem to recall the old proposal was fake old?

FactaNV · #**6345** Posted **May 15, 2024, 3:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

I don’t. But interesting. I hope it’s beautiful. I seem to recall the old proposal was fake old?

Anyone have an address so we can look up the old project?

BAKGUY · #**6346** Posted **May 15, 2024, 8:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff

I thought this paragraph from the article seemed ironic.

"Serhal Consulting also worked with the owner of the John C. Falls House at 36 Roslyn Rd. In 2022, the property and development committee voted in favour of removing that house from the city’s list of historical resources, which allowed for demolition. Heritage Winnipeg was also in support of that change — a rarity for the the organization — because the structure had deteriorated to a point where it could not be feasibly saved.

However, a similar fate isn’t in the cards for the St. Charles Hotel, Zaifman said."

This seems like the path Zaifman has wanted all along. I am not sure if this is foreshadowing or not.

Since 2005.. . A well to do lawyer. for many decades. . claims he did not know the rules of an historic building?
16 years and nothing.
He has blown smoke up many a hoo-ha in all those years.
He has discussed plans for the ST Charles to the media many times.
He also stripped it of all its beauty inside.. Marble, wood etc..
He always hoped it could be a parking lot.
Lets revisit this in a year or 2 and see what develops.
Likely 0.
I just read on CBC Manitoba about a new 10 floor structure he wants to build and leave the hotel continue to rot.
Can a Lawyer be a shyster?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...reet-1.7204484

Biff · #**6347** Posted **May 15, 2024, 1:35 PM**

Maybe by building the new building next to the St Charles he is hoping for a redo of the accident on Princess where the Scott Building had to be demolished when it was damaged beyond repair due to some new construction.

pspeid · #**6348** Posted **May 15, 2024, 2:29 PM**

^^Having never met the man I can't really say for sure what he's like, but my gut feeling (for what THAT'S worth) is that he's the type of guy who feels he has to get his way in everything; to "win" at all costs. Typical "zero-sum" kind of guy. He bought the St. Charles to tear it down and he's not going to let anything happen to it that doesn't fit his desire for some parking space income on that corner.

I personally think the city just needs to expropriate it at this point.

https://legacy.winnipeg.ca/ppd/Docum...sition-FAQ.pdf

bomberjet · #**6349** Posted **May 15, 2024, 3:22 PM**

I'm guessing the James @ Bertha project is the small orange building.

Any word on the James @ Amy property. Had been a parkade proposal here some time ago, which I assume died.

Biff · #**6350** Posted **May 15, 2024, 5:27 PM**

This was the previous proposal of the Bertha and James project from at least 10 or so years ago.

FactaNV · #**6351** Posted **May 15, 2024, 5:30 PM**

Pretty building.

trueviking · #**6352** Posted **May 15, 2024, 5:54 PM**

^ so weird to put a yellow building on top of a red building. That’s not how the exchange district works. Looks like they lifted a building from the ground and plopped it on top of the other one.

drew · #**6353** Posted **May 15, 2024, 5:59 PM**

^ That render is no longer accurate.

trueviking · #**6354** Posted **May 15, 2024, 6:20 PM**

ah, thanks.

I think fake old buildings are lazy, but if it uses real brick and is clean with a good ground floor, it can work as background like this...hopefully the new version isn't a step backwards.

This is a nice example of how to add a modern addition to the roof of an old building.

FactaNV · #**6355** Posted **May 15, 2024, 6:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

ah, thanks.

I think fake old buildings are lazy, but if it uses real brick and is clean with a good ground floor, it can work as background like this...hopefully the new version isn't a step backwards.

This is a nice example of how to add a modern addition to the roof of an old building.

What do you mean by fake old? Like building in a style that was popular when the neighbourhood was established? If so I'll have to mark the calendar as it's the first time I disagree with the one and only TV haha. The exchange needs more Chicago, Romanesque and Beaux Arts architecture, not less.

drew · #**6356** Posted **May 15, 2024, 6:39 PM**

^ IMO if anything, that addition I would define as "fake old".

It's a modern addition designed to look virtually identical to the original. Based on some recent experiences with the City Heritage types, I think they encourage vertical additions on existing buildings to not attempt to match the original heritage look below, and try something different.

Anyways, the redesign of the new building on James is going a bit higher, but I don't think the interaction with the street will be too much to write home about as they are trying to maximize indoor parking potential. Its really early days on that one tho. So who knows how it will turn out in the end. Certainly better than a single story 70's cinderblock warehouse.

bomberjet · #**6357** Posted **May 15, 2024, 6:42 PM**

There's the building by HSC, Furby and McDermot, where they added to the top of the building. And used large glass windows and some brick to fit the old building. Looks really nice. The buildings not 100 years old like in the exchange, but still.

trueviking · #**6358** Posted **May 15, 2024, 6:49 PM**

oof....hopefully UDAC fights that and wins....parking at grade should be illegal in the exchange district....National Historic sites are too important to mail in new building designs.

I think my point is when they increased the height of warehouse buildings, they didn't put yellow brick on top of red brick buildings.....I think that addition is really sympathetic and most people don't even notice that it is modern....clean, simple....

all new fake old buildings is one thing, but when adding to the top of a heritage building, being sympathetic is important.....

imagine this in yellow....suddenly the addition is more of a focal point than the old building....and it is just not what they did when warehouses were increased in height....which was commonly done.

trueviking · #**6359** Posted **May 15, 2024, 6:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

There's the building by HSC, Furby and McDermot, where they added to the top of the building. And used large glass windows and some brick to fit the old building. Looks really nice. The buildings not 100 years old like in the exchange, but still.

agreed....if you are doing a modern addition on top, that's fine...do it well.....but this is pretending to be a fake old addition and is for some reason using a contrasting brick colour.....it looks like an old building from the ground on top of another old building.

drew · #**6360** Posted **May 15, 2024, 7:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

oof....hopefully UDAC fights that and wins....parking at grade should be illegal in the exchange district....National Historic sites are too important to mail in new building designs.

I think my point is when they increased the height of warehouse buildings, they didn't put yellow brick on top of red brick buildings.....I think that addition is really sympathetic and most people don't even notice that it is modern....clean, simple....

all new fake old buildings is one thing, but when adding to the top of a heritage building, being sympathetic is important.....

imagine this in yellow....suddenly the addition is more of a focal point than the old building....and it is just not what they did when warehouses were increased in height....which was commonly done.

I can only assume you haven't dealt much with UDAC lately on Exchange projects - lately. The above bolded statement holds zero weight with them and how they operate if you want to attempt a vertical addition. It's certainly reasonable, but UDAC doesn't operate to be reasonable.