Winnipeg | Exchange District | Developments & Discussions

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by bon_vivant

^ I really like The Bend, very cool building. I'd like to see more of that, and fewer ersatz "historic" designs.

Don't love ersatz historic if what it means is cheap materials and carricature design. But I do also think that we need to stop being allergic to building with more traditional architectural styles. Modern (colloquial, not the technical term) architecture is fine in some scenarios, but I think I (and many others) would prefer stuff that is more traditional in most use cases.

And just to finish that thought, it really wasn't until the last 70 years or so that architecture has really shifted in terms of the overall impression of what the construction looks like. Don't get me wrong, I think there is definitely a place for contemporary styles, but it would get really tiresome if everything was totally contemporary. Maybe mix in a little more Raymond Hood (of tribune tower fame) with the black corrugated metal.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by trueviking

I agree....and in another part of downtown, I'm fine with bad architecture filling parking lots...but we are so lucky to have the exchange district national historic site in the centre of our city. Most cities would kill for that fortune.

I think we owe it to future generations to treat it with the same care and consideration that past generations did for us.

I understand 100% what you are saying, and I know we shouldn't just settle. The thing is, that lot has been empty for as long as I have been alive (that is a while) and we aren't really a mecca for developers clamoring for project sites. I know it is not ideal, but the design is trying to fit in and it will bring 100 units to a vacant lot that could spur on future developments close by.

Who knows, in 25 years when the facade fails maybe it could be clad in a more suitable material.

[bon_vivant]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Don't love ersatz historic if what it means is cheap materials and carricature design. But I do also think that we need to stop being allergic to building with more traditional architectural styles. Modern (colloquial, not the technical term) architecture is fine in some scenarios, but I think I (and many others) would prefer stuff that is more traditional in most use cases.

And just to finish that thought, it really wasn't until the last 70 years or so that architecture has really shifted in terms of the overall impression of what the construction looks like. Don't get me wrong, I think there is definitely a place for contemporary styles, but it would get really tiresome if everything was totally contemporary. Maybe mix in a little more Raymond Hood (of tribune tower fame) with the black corrugated metal.

I'm fine with most architectural styles as long as there's authenticity in the execution and sensitivity to the surroundings. When done right, different styles can complement each other. For historic sites, it's not a crime to lean towards more traditional styles, but I do like to see some modern buildings that artfully represent the times we are in (not the bleak, generic white high-rises as of late). Again, it's all about execution, authenticity, and just plain good design. What I don't want to see is another Fort Garry Place monstrosity.

[peg]

Originally Posted by Biff

Who knows, in 25 years when the facade fails maybe it could be clad in a more suitable material.

This is my hope for a lot of the crappy facades around town. lol

[drew]

Originally Posted by peg

This is my hope for a lot of the crappy facades around town. lol

Every facade that isn't part of a solid, multi-wythe brick/stone wall (i.e. 100+ years old) has a 50ish year or less lifespan.

Even modern brick facades have rain screens, brick-ties, insulation, etc. behind them that will need to be exposed and replaced/remediated at some point in their foreseeable future.

I think we need to stop actively stopping developments for purely cosmetic purposes. Getting people into these areas of the City is more important than if the building is finished in metal or brick.

Either way, UDAC and Heritage already make development in the Exchange as hard as possible for well meaning developers.

[peg]

Originally Posted by drew

I think we need to stop actively stopping developments for purely cosmetic purposes. Getting people into these areas of the City is more important than if the building is finished in metal or brick.

Agree 100%

[Mr Tall Forehead]

Originally Posted by drew

Every facade that isn't part of a solid, multi-wythe brick/stone wall (i.e. 100+ years old) has a 50ish year or less lifespan.

Even modern brick facades have rain screens, brick-ties, insulation, etc. behind them that will need to be exposed and replaced/remediated at some point in their foreseeable future.

I think we need to stop actively stopping developments for purely cosmetic purposes. Getting people into these areas of the City is more important than if the building is finished in metal or brick.

Either way, UDAC and Heritage already make development in the Exchange as hard as possible for well meaning developers.

Well said. Couldn’t agree more.

[1ajs]

we need to stop designing stuf with 20yr life cycles for one. like infrastructure 20yr life cycle why not 100 year? its crazy

[xubiqtss]

Originally Posted by drew

Every facade that isn't part of a solid, multi-wythe brick/stone wall (i.e. 100+ years old) has a 50ish year or less lifespan.

Even modern brick facades have rain screens, brick-ties, insulation, etc. behind them that will need to be exposed and replaced/remediated at some point in their foreseeable future.

I think we need to stop actively stopping developments for purely cosmetic purposes. Getting people into these areas of the City is more important than if the building is finished in metal or brick.

Either way, UDAC and Heritage already make development in the Exchange as hard as possible for well meaning developers.

Does this actually happen? How often is a project really stopped for aesthetic reasons? A serious project will not be ended by asking them to cough up some cash for brick cladding on the podium...

[drew]

^ absolutely it does. Especially in the Exchange.

There are judgments on exterior finishes, window styles/make-up, totally unnecessary setbacks, and often a complete lack of common sense or consistency one project to another. These often result in costs to developers that take a project from viable to unviable (whether by cost or constraints on interior layouts or both).

I get that certain standards need to be met - but at some point the reality of undeveloped land or underdeveloped buildings needs to be the priority over a unicorn of a building.

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by drew

^ absolutely it does. Especially in the Exchange.

There are judgments on exterior finishes, window styles/make-up, totally unnecessary setbacks, and often a complete lack of common sense or consistency one project to another. These often result in costs to developers that take a project from viable to unviable (whether by cost or constraints on interior layouts or both).

I get that certain standards need to be met - but at some point the reality of undeveloped land or underdeveloped buildings needs to be the priority over a unicorn of a building.

To be fair, I think we can afford to be somewhat selective in the Exchange, there's no shortages of space to build downtown and adjacent areas.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by drew

Every facade that isn't part of a solid, multi-wythe brick/stone wall (i.e. 100+ years old) has a 50ish year or less lifespan.

Even modern brick facades have rain screens, brick-ties, insulation, etc. behind them that will need to be exposed and replaced/remediated at some point in their foreseeable future.

I think we need to stop actively stopping developments for purely cosmetic purposes. Getting people into these areas of the City is more important than if the building is finished in metal or brick.

Either way, UDAC and Heritage already make development in the Exchange as hard as possible for well meaning developers.

disagree....the exchange is an important neighbourhood....temporary materials like painted styrofoam should not be allowed on primary facades.

The exchange has been a catalyst for downtown development because of its architecture.....it has a permanence and an elegance that people are attracted to...we shouldnt throw that away...good architecture is not just about looking pretty....its about how it makes you feel.....this has true economic impact....buildings with poor design and materials that do not feel permanent have an impact on the feel of an entire neighbourhood....It is short sighted to allow developers to build with temporary feeling materials that fade and weather, especially in a NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE.....it deserves better than suburban developer crap.

Developers can afford better cladding...they choose to squeeze every penny out of their projects.....and bad design is not just about cladding...things like parkades at the ground floor are just as bad....a bike room is not ground floor activation....simply just being creative instead of mailing in ham-fisted design....architects should be forced to try....my experience is that if they get rejected by UDAC, planning or heritage, there are very good reasons for it....they need to try harder.

You should see what its like to develop in other cities....they have all kinds of qualitative requirements...we need to get over this lowest common denominator psyche.

The new building on Osborne is brick where it matters...it has lots of glazing at the ground floor....it has indoor parking and a terraced setback....that was done by a typical developer within a typical developer budget.....if you cant afford that in the exchange district, you need to try harder.

[drew]

^ don't worry about painted styrofoam - you can't use it in any of these more recent proposals as it does not constitute a non-combustible assembly

It's brick/stone/metal or bust. And only roxul-type insulation IIRC.

[ColdRain&Snow]

I noticed there's a variance application for 101 Paulin St (the parking lot beside Gord Dong Park). I believe this was one of the projects that received money from the Housing Accelerator Fund. Glad to see that the project is moving along quickly. Did anyone manage to grab a photo of the variance application signage while it was still up?

https://legacy.winnipeg.ca/ppd/PublicNotices/detail/VARIANCE-24-277735%2FB

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by ColdRain&Snow

I noticed there's a variance application for 101 Paulin St (the parking lot beside Gord Dong Park). I believe this was one of the projects that received money from the Housing Accelerator Fund. Glad to see that the project is moving along quickly. Did anyone manage to grab a photo of the variance application signage while it was still up?

https://legacy.winnipeg.ca/ppd/PublicNotices/detail/VARIANCE-24-277735%2FB

going to change that area quite a bit if that goes though cool

miss my studio at 318 ross was fun living around there

[ColdRain&Snow]

Looks like the City has approved the new development at 228 King St. This project was previously announced as part of the Housing Accelerator Fund. Glad to hear this project is moving forward.

https://legacy.winnipeg.ca/ppd/PublicNotices/detail/VARIANCE-24-277953%2FB

From the HAF announcement:

"228 King St. & 261 Princess St. (Winnipeg Chinatown Development Corporation): This project will create 54 units in Chinatown, including affordable and rent-geared-to-income units."

https://winnipegsun.com/news/local-news/winnipeg-feds-hand-out-25m-for-housing-development-projects

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by ColdRain&Snow

Looks like the City has approved the new development at 228 King St. This project was previously announced as part of the Housing Accelerator Fund. Glad to hear this project is moving forward.

https://legacy.winnipeg.ca/ppd/PublicNotices/detail/VARIANCE-24-277953%2FB

From the HAF announcement:

"228 King St. & 261 Princess St. (Winnipeg Chinatown Development Corporation): This project will create 54 units in Chinatown, including affordable and rent-geared-to-income units."

https://winnipegsun.com/news/local-news/winnipeg-feds-hand-out-25m-for-housing-development-projects

Neat! Any renders?

[ColdRain&Snow]

Originally Posted by Biff

King & Alexander

It's this project here that we discussed a few months ago. Looks like it is moving forward. Hopefully construction will start this spring/summer.

[WinCitySparky]

Beauty

[BAKGUY]

Originally Posted by ColdRain&Snow

It's this project here that we discussed a few months ago. Looks like it is moving forward. Hopefully construction will start this spring/summer.

I am not seeing any CRU's. Since this faces King Street, I know the city' vision was to bring back retail on King.
Also, since most of Chinatown resembles a war zone, Hopefully a couple more HAF related developments around this area get approved before a federal shift in government.