Winnipeg Construction VIII

[esquire]

Originally Posted by drew

Hearing some other Architects discuss this project, the beef with the cube is that it was over budget, did not function as expected, and had some serious life safety issues. All big no-no's for what an Architect should be striving to provide their customers.

To top it all off, they receive an award for this design - and cheerfully accept it, knowing they did not provide their customer what was expected.

From my layman's standpoint it's hard not to love the Cube, but there have been enough comments in the news media from credible sources to that effect that it can't help but colour my judgment of it.

I really like 546's work and I'd love to see more of it go up around town, but it is a bit surprising that something with significant design deficiencies like the Cube would receive an award like this. I can only assume that the GG Awards don't take those types of issues into account?

[drew]

Originally Posted by esquire

From my layman's standpoint it's hard not to love the Cube, but there have been enough comments in the news media from credible sources to that effect that it can't help but colour my judgment of it.

I really like 546's work and I'd love to see more of it go up around town, but it is a bit surprising that something with significant design deficiencies like the Cube would receive an award like this. I can only assume that the GG Awards don't take those types of issues into account?

^ I think to the average person, the cube looks cool.

However, I would hope an award like this would be based on more than just looks. Based on my (admittedly smallish) sample size of local Architects, there is a universal dismay at this project getting this award.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by DonaldSmith

None of this made any sense. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I feel terribly for you. That was basic level reading comprehension stuff there.

I will say it again: 546 Architecture specializes in blowing the budgets of inexperienced developers who are driven by the concept of a vanity project. Not unlike the firm itself.

Was it clear this time?

[DonaldSmith]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

I feel terribly for you. That was basic level reading comprehension stuff there.

I will say it again: 546 Architecture specializes in blowing the budgets of inexperienced developers who are driven by the concept of a vanity project. Not unlike the firm itself.

Was it clear this time?

Provide examples other than the OMS.

[pegcityfan]

Most including myself agree the Cube looks absolutely awesome. I wish we had more public art and lighting structures like it.

However, other than aesthetics, I don't personally know a musician or sound guy who prefers this new "stage" over the old one for numerous valid reasons. Kind of like the stadium, is this a case of an inexperienced architect in this kind of project who didn't consult with the right people? Is it a usable stage and has it improved over the years? Hell yes. But it's design, sight lines, size, materials, etc... will always keep it from being a great stage for musicians, sound techs & spectators.

Secondly was the RFP not to protect Old Market Square somewhat from the elements? At the very least from rain?

[1ajs]

yes we need more public art and live music

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by DonaldSmith

Provide examples other than the OMS.

Sure. Would you also like me to include projects that were dead-on-arrival and consequently never got developed?

I realize you probably work there, but don't take it so personally, kiddo. Architects wouldn't know the first thing about a budget and they certainly rarely know the final tally of the damage.

In any case, just off the top of my head: 1) That atrocity on Grant that looks like a prison cell and still has a unit unsold because nobody ever thought twice about putting a family in a fishbowl adjacent a bus stop at grade. 2) The abortion known as the YouCube developments. You might recognize them by the unique architectural queues like torn Typar and exposed OSB. Mostly because they've run short of cash. I wonder why. 3) The project at the corner of Broadway and Honeyman. Commercial flat roof and a commercial HVAC unit on the roof to service 4-units. That's some solid advice right there. Probably part of the reason it's still incomplete 5 years later. 4) 90 Bole Street. 25% discount on all units! Get 'em here! I can't blame 546 for that one completely - an owner would have to be complicit in that sort of short-sighted stupidity - but holy shit. I wonder how many more elements of that design are going to be scaled back before it's literally an overbuilt steel barn that has manifested as more of an eye-sore than anything else.

And let us never - ever! - forget about that fucking spaceship. That is some awesome shit right there. If anybody actually paid for that design, well, shame on them, but Sasa Radulovic must've seen that mook coming for miles. I realize there are stupid people everywhere, but it isn't the job of the architect to use somebody else's money to exercise his own masturbatory design fantasy.

Amongst people (read: other architects) who haven't the faintest clue how to actually bring a project to fruition, they're rock stars. Amongst experienced people who actually need something done on time and on budget, they couldn't be further from the top of the list.

EDIT: How could I forget the Avenue Building!?

[1ajs]

avenue building is a really bad example.
its realy hard to budget for a building like that when theres allot of damaged thats un- known when u make ur origonal budgets......... and concirdering it turned out really good

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

avenue building is a really bad example.
its realy hard to budget for a building like that when theres allot of damaged thats un- known when u make ur origonal budgets......... and concirdering it turned out really good

It turned out well because the government continued to throw money at it until it was complete. That's not how somebody measures project success. Perhaps if somebody knew the spigots to the taxpayer's money weren't operational, they would have done some further due diligence.

No private developer dependent entirely on their own resources would have left massive items to chance.

[DonaldSmith]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Sure. Would you also like me to include projects that were dead-on-arrival and consequently never got developed?

I realize you probably work there, but don't take it so personally, kiddo. Architects wouldn't know the first thing about a budget and they certainly rarely know the final tally of the damage.

In any case, just off the top of my head: 1) That atrocity on Grant that looks like a prison cell and still has a unit unsold because nobody ever thought twice about putting a family in a fishbowl adjacent a bus stop at grade. 2) The abortion known as the YouCube developments. You might recognize them by the unique architectural queues like torn Typar and exposed OSB. Mostly because they've run short of cash. I wonder why. 3) The project at the corner of Broadway and Honeyman. Commercial flat roof and a commercial HVAC unit on the roof to service 4-units. That's some solid advice right there. Probably part of the reason it's still incomplete 5 years later. 4) 90 Bole Street. 25% discount on all units! Get 'em here! I can't blame 546 for that one completely - an owner would have to be complicit in that sort of short-sighted stupidity - but holy shit. I wonder how many more elements of that design are going to be scaled back before it's literally an overbuilt steel barn that has manifested as more of an eye-sore than anything else.

And let us never - ever! - forget about that fucking spaceship. That is some awesome shit right there. If anybody actually paid for that design, well, shame on them, but Sasa Radulovic must've seen that mook coming for miles. I realize there are stupid people everywhere, but it isn't the job of the architect to use somebody else's money to exercise his own masturbatory design fantasy.

Amongst people (read: other architects) who haven't the faintest clue how to actually bring a project to fruition, they're rock stars. Amongst experienced people who actually need something done on time and on budget, they couldn't be further from the top of the list.

Thanks for confirming you have no knowledge on this subject.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by DonaldSmith

Thanks for confirming you have no knowledge on this subject.

Nobody needed to hear it here, dude. It's already well known. That's why the whole Cube thing is a hilarious joke. It's precisely the way projects with 546 go - over time and over budget. And yet they're being given an award for it.

But they're also the sort of things I would expect the architectural community to disregard because time and money are only the two most important variables in the real world.

[biguc]

I just came back from Minneapolis and they're building 6 floor mixed-use buildings like crazy down there. The thing is, they're stick frame. Anyone else think it's time Winnipeg relaxed its building codes? I may be wrong but I think stick frame here is limited to 4 floors, which restricts their construction to cheap land in the burbs. Letting developers build 2 extra floors would definitely help their margins on more expensive land, with obvious benefits for infill.

From my understanding the current limit dates back to the 19th century, which makes it a dinosaur of a regulation with no regard for improved fire suppression within buildings or the existence of an effective fire department.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by biguc

I just came back from Minneapolis and they're building 6 floor mixed-use buildings like crazy down there. The thing is, they're stick frame. Anyone else think it's time Winnipeg relaxed its building codes? I may be wrong but I think stick frame here is limited to 4 floors, which restricts their construction to cheap land in the burbs. Letting developers build 2 extra floors would definitely help their margins on more expensive land, with obvious benefits for infill.

From my understanding the current limit dates back to the 19th century, which makes it a dinosaur of a regulation with no regard for improved fire suppression within buildings or the existence of an effective fire department.

Bingo. The engineering with respect to laminated wood materials has come a long way since the 19th century and doesn't represent a marked departure from strengths and capacities typically associated with concrete and steel anymore. This is an issue both the national and provincial codes have been lagging way behind on.

[drew]

Originally Posted by biguc

I just came back from Minneapolis and they're building 6 floor mixed-use buildings like crazy down there. The thing is, they're stick frame. Anyone else think it's time Winnipeg relaxed its building codes? I may be wrong but I think stick frame here is limited to 4 floors, which restricts their construction to cheap land in the burbs. Letting developers build 2 extra floors would definitely help their margins on more expensive land, with obvious benefits for infill. .

Only Manitoba could adjust their Codes for this. Winnipeg doesn't have the authority. The Manitoba Building Code is also essentially the National Building Code (NBC), with some very minor tweaks.

The long and short of it is big changes to the NBC are usually preempted by larger provinces, especially Ontario, changing their provincial codes first. So until Ontario changes their Code to allow wood framed buildings over 4 floors, it likely won't happen here.

[biguc]

I know the province loves to throttle the city any time it tries to make its own way, but is there any real reason the city couldn't take matters into its own hands?

[drew]

Originally Posted by biguc

I know the province loves to throttle the city any time it tries to make its own way, but is there any real reason the city couldn't take matters into its own hands?

The city isn't nearly smart enough.

[Authentic_City]

Originally Posted by biguc

I just came back from Minneapolis and they're building 6 floor mixed-use buildings like crazy down there. The thing is, they're stick frame. Anyone else think it's time Winnipeg relaxed its building codes? I may be wrong but I think stick frame here is limited to 4 floors, which restricts their construction to cheap land in the burbs. Letting developers build 2 extra floors would definitely help their margins on more expensive land, with obvious benefits for infill.

From my understanding the current limit dates back to the 19th century, which makes it a dinosaur of a regulation with no regard for improved fire suppression within buildings or the existence of an effective fire department.

Why stop at 6 stories. How about 20 stories built of wood?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/home...y-buildings-made-of-wood/article5308574/

[Winnipeg Architect]

Originally Posted by drew

Only Manitoba could adjust their Codes for this. Winnipeg doesn't have the authority. The Manitoba Building Code is also essentially the National Building Code (NBC), with some very minor tweaks.

The long and short of it is big changes to the NBC are usually preempted by larger provinces, especially Ontario, changing their provincial codes first. So until Ontario changes their Code to allow wood framed buildings over 4 floors, it likely won't happen here.

B.C. has already many 6 level wood frame buildings.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Winnipeg Architect

B.C. has already many 6 level wood frame buildings.

True, but I stand by my view that until Ontario does it, Manitoba won't.

Who knows though, maybe BC has enough clout to affect the NBC.

[North_Regina_Boy]

Originally Posted by biguc

I just came back from Minneapolis and they're building 6 floor mixed-use buildings like crazy down there. The thing is, they're stick frame. Anyone else think it's time Winnipeg relaxed its building codes? I may be wrong but I think stick frame here is limited to 4 floors, which restricts their construction to cheap land in the burbs. Letting developers build 2 extra floors would definitely help their margins on more expensive land, with obvious benefits for infill.

From my understanding the current limit dates back to the 19th century, which makes it a dinosaur of a regulation with no regard for improved fire suppression within buildings or the existence of an effective fire department.

BC has relaxed its building standards on wood construction. I would think that this should be nationally. However, then there are the events like in Hamilton?? Southern Ontario anyway. Where the building caught fire. Or even the Hotel under construction in Regina.

If done right it could happen (and should happen)