Winnipeg Construction VIII - Page 172

bomberjet · #**3421** Posted **Jun 16, 2014, 4:20 PM**

I thought MLL was going into SoPo. Too pricy for them?

CoryB · #**3422** Posted **Jun 16, 2014, 6:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I thought MLL was going into SoPo. Too pricy for them?

This process could just be a formalization of the SoPo pricing and location for MLLC.

esquire · #**3423** Posted **Jun 16, 2014, 6:18 PM**

^ So MLLC will lease pricy new space from Chipman-controlled businesses when there is existing office space on the market?

...is this another indirect subisdy for the Jets?

drew · #**3424** Posted **Jun 16, 2014, 6:24 PM**

^ If MLCC renting space is the catalyst to SoPo moving forward - I am all for it.

The Bay, I am fairly certain will not suffer the same fate as Eaton's, even if it goes dark in the near future. The Bay needs a huge investment at some point, but it needs more than just an relocated government office to justify the cost.

Are there any other large blocks of office space available downtown, other than the CWB building?

Biff · #**3425** Posted **Jun 16, 2014, 6:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drew

Are there any other large blocks of office space available downtown, other than the CWB building?

I am not connecting dots here, but apparently the Fortress/Mady proposal has said that they have received larger than perceived interest in the podium office space in their SkyCity Centre project.

I had heard the most likely place for MLL would be at SoPo.

esquire · #**3426** Posted **Jun 16, 2014, 6:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drew

The Bay, I am fairly certain will not suffer the same fate as Eaton's, even if it goes dark in the near future. The Bay needs a huge investment at some point, but it needs more than just an relocated government office to justify the cost.

Considering The Bay has been looking for a saviour for going on a decade, you seriously have to wonder what it's fate is likely to be. MLLC is probably going to be the last crown corp to relocate for a while, and if they go elsewhere you have to wonder who would be motivated to take on such a massive and costly project.

It seems that we are no closer to finding a new use for The Bay than we were 10 years ago... I wonder if it's time to start thinking about life after The Bay? I mean, we got used to a Portage Avenue without Eaton's...

drew · #**3427** Posted **Jun 16, 2014, 6:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

Considering The Bay has been looking for a saviour for going on a decade, you seriously have to wonder what it's fate is likely to be. MLLC is probably going to be the last crown corp to relocate for a while, and if they go elsewhere you have to wonder who would be motivated to take on such a massive and costly project.

It seems that we are no closer to finding a new use for The Bay than we were 10 years ago... I wonder if it's time to start thinking about life after The Bay? I mean, we got used to a Portage Avenue without Eaton's...

It is a concern - but the building is simply on another scale - quality wise, versus Eaton's'. The only thing Eaton's had going for it was size.

Incidentally, has anyone else read those little 3D displays that are located at each corner of the Bay along Portage? The one that shows how the main level used to have a covered promenade or arcade along (I assume) the north, east and west perimeters of the building. It was eventually removed in the 20s or 30s but I think it would have really added to the grandness of the building. The Bay in Calgary still has these covered arcades, and it is very cool. The one in Winnipeg would have been that much larger.

Anyway - I really wish they would have left those in place in Winnipeg. One benefit today would have been a major reduction in leasable area on the main floor...

esquire · #**3428** Posted **Jun 16, 2014, 6:53 PM**

Not sure what this is about, but I see that the owner of 272 Main Street (the former IKON Office Equipment building that recently had its historic facade restored) has applied to have it delisted from the heritage building roster:

http://www.winnipeg.ca/CLKDMIS/ViewDoc.asp?DocId=13659&SectionId=&InitUrl=

drew · #**3429** Posted **Jun 16, 2014, 6:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

Not sure what this is about, but I see that the owner of 272 Main Street (the former IKON Office Equipment building that recently had its historic facade restored) has applied to have it delisted from the heritage building roster:

http://www.winnipeg.ca/CLKDMIS/ViewDoc.asp?DocId=13659&SectionId=&InitUrl=

I have heard thru the grapevine, that some consultants screwed up big time in that building. So much so that it is not safe for occupation.

esquire · #**3430** Posted **Jun 16, 2014, 7:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drew

I have heard thru the grapevine, that some consultants screwed up big time in that building. So much so that it is not safe for occupation.

Yeesh... so efforts to revitalize a heritage building will result in its demolition?!?

Riverman · #**3431** Posted **Jun 16, 2014, 7:08 PM**

Committee OKs new Dawson Trail subdivision

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/Committee-OKs-new-Dawson-Trails-subdivision-263317531.html

trueviking · #**3432** Posted **Jun 16, 2014, 7:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

Not sure what this is about, but I see that the owner of 272 Main Street (the former IKON Office Equipment building that recently had its historic facade restored) has applied to have it delisted from the heritage building roster:

http://www.winnipeg.ca/CLKDMIS/ViewDoc.asp?DocId=13659&SectionId=&InitUrl=

a week after CV announces a focus to revitalize that area, delist/demolish application.....brutal

[img]

imgurl[/img]

drew · #**3433** Posted **Jun 16, 2014, 7:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

Yeesh... so efforts to revitalize a heritage building will result in its demolition?!?

Not sure about that, but it would require significant work to get it safe again (structural mostly I believe).

Good consultants cost money, and more often than not, you get what you pay for.

Only The Lonely.. · #**3434** Posted **Jun 16, 2014, 7:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drew

Not sure about that, but it would require significant work to get it safe again (structural mostly I believe).

Good consultants cost money, and more often than not, you get what you pay for.

I'm totally ignorant on this, so indulge me.

But, I always thought the city planning department was the fail safe on catching shoddy drawings. Presumably, some engineer signed off on it, and then someone from the planning office followed suit before work could commence on 272 Main.

I didn't think a mess-up was possible.

drew · #**3435** Posted **Jun 16, 2014, 7:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..

I'm totally ignorant on this, so indulge me.

But, I always thought the city planning department was the fail safe on catching shoddy drawings. Presumably, some engineer signed off on it, and then someone from then planning office followed suit before work could commence on 272 Main.

I didn't think a mess-up was possible.

Things aren't so cut and dry with renovating 100 year old buildings.

The city will catch some stuff, but really it's just a cursory review. Your stamp is on it, not theirs. It's all your liability.

Biff · #**3436** Posted **Jun 16, 2014, 7:52 PM**

Regardless what ever happens there is absolutely no way the City should allow the facade of that building to be destroyed. It was lost once and covered up for decades. Only until recently the tin shed was removed displaying the beauty beneath.

bomberjet · #**3437** Posted **Jun 16, 2014, 7:53 PM**

Some engineer could've signed off saying it was all good. How's the city engineer sitting at their desk supposed to know really?

Would they go out to the building prior to approving to perform an inspection? I would hope so. I'm assuming this consulting engineer would've done calculations, inspections of their own and these would be provided to the City for their own inspection.

bomberjet · #**3438** Posted **Jun 16, 2014, 7:54 PM**

I always love those old buildings, how the blocks around the arch perfectly align with the rows of horizontal blocks. Very detailed and I think it looks awesome. Maybe not painted red, but none the less.

drew · #**3439** Posted **Jun 16, 2014, 7:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Some engineer could've signed off saying it was all good. How's the city engineer sitting at their desk supposed to know really?

Would they go out to the building prior to approving to perform an inspection? I would hope so. I'm assuming this consulting engineer would've done calculations, inspections of their own and these would be provided to the City for their own inspection.

The City doesn't complete inspections on larger projects, at all. Just houses. It is the consultants responsibility to inspect, and also their responsibility to certify it for occupation at the end of the project.

Biff · #**3440** Posted **Jun 16, 2014, 8:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I always love those old buildings, how the blocks around the arch perfectly align with the rows of horizontal blocks. Very detailed and I think it looks awesome. Maybe not painted red, but none the less.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe the facade is painted red. It is a type of stone. Minneapolis has a lot of heritage masonry buildings with this reddish brick..........I think!