HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5861  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2015, 9:32 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,480
^ Hahaha... OK, maybe the stakes aren't as high with this issue, but bryan has a point.
     
     
  #5862  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2015, 9:42 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,188
Jesus would likely direct Calvary Temple to build a stable to keep all the donkeys people were riding to church on.

In all seriousness if people want Calvary Temple to not demo the buildings and make a surface lot come up with a credible plan for them instead. What about something like using lots a few blocks north near Red River College that would largely be empty when Calvary needs the spaces. A partnership could then be setup with say Birchwood to use their shuttle vans which largely sit idle on Sunday to move people between the building and the further away lots. In return for the use of the vans Calvary would give Birchwood a chartable tax receipt.

I have no idea if something like that could fly but instead of thumping your fist on the desk and saying NO DEMOLITION EVER come up with a valid alternate plan and sell them on that idea instead.
     
     
  #5863  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2015, 11:14 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 16,318
Just to clarify for myself. This is more about principle than it is about the actual buildings, right? Those building look like typical 1970's crap to me. Based on the images I've looked at anyways.
     
     
  #5864  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2015, 11:51 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 15,042
No. It's about the buildings. Here is an article articulating the important role old buildings play in the economy of a neighbourhood. Especially ones like Central Park.

The second half is most applicable to this discussion.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/busines...called-home-258858291.html?device=mobile

Beyond the more obvious value of the Exchange District, old buildings in all areas of downtown represent an opportunity for growth and neighbourhood building that is often not considered when evaluating their worth to the city.

High costs of construction and corresponding rental rates often mean commercial space in new buildings is only accessible to larger companies and chain retail outlets.

The more affordable economics offered by older structures provides opportunity for start-up companies and local businesses, promoting a commercial diversity and entrepreneurship that can become a resilient backbone to the city's economy.

With the vast majority of Winnipeg's population growth coming from international immigration and migration from rural communities, the economic opportunity for small, family-owned businesses found in older buildings would seem vital for the future prosperity of the city. This small-scale local commerce is also important as the seeds for growing the vibrant neighbourhoods needed to make downtown living appealing.

People are attracted to an urban lifestyle that allows them to walk to the little grocery, coffee shop or hole-in-the-wall restaurant around the corner from their homes. Small-business owners often live nearby and service this local population. The commercial and social networks that are established by these businesses create walkable streets and livable neighbourhoods that in turn support larger development such as condominium towers. Older residential buildings provide a population diversity that is critical to creating active communities composed of people with varied ethnicities, economic backgrounds and lifestyles.

Building neighbourhoods is more than simply adding residential units. The opportunity to establish commercial and social diversity, facilitated by the low rent and small spaces typically found in old buildings is a vital component of building both a strong urban economy and urban community. Historic buildings also provide opportunity for start-up companies, arts groups and non-profit incubator organizations that are not only attracted to low rent and flexible spaces, but find value in the collaborative possibilities offered by being densely clustered with other creative industries. Old buildings throughout Winnipeg's downtown, particularly in the Exchange District, are filled with creative organizations that are central to the city's modern economy and future prosperity.

Constructing grand new buildings in isolation is rarely a path to prosperity for cities. Without an organic neighbourhood to connect them to the city, they often become islands in the downtown. With a simple change in attitude toward the value of Winnipeg's historic structures, we can begin to see them as an important asset, contributing a social and economic diversity that supports larger investment in new construction. As we develop urban-renewal strategies, the vital role old buildings play as the fundamental building blocks of neighbourhood development and entrepreneurship should be carefully considered before we hastily reduce them to rubble in the name of progress.
     
     
  #5865  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2015, 11:58 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 16,318
Yeah, makes perfect sense. So necessarily about the building structure themselves. But more about how they interact with the people of the neighbourhood.
     
     
  #5866  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2015, 12:25 AM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
Yeah, makes perfect sense. So necessarily about the building structure themselves. But more about how they interact with the people of the neighbourhood.
Exactly. The 60s and 70s spawned the heritage preservation movement as a way to save true architectural gems from the wrecking ball... the thinking has moved a bit beyond that since those early days.

There is a better appreciation for the fact that even architecturally unremarkable buildings can still possess good urban form and do a lot to really define the neighbourhood physically, economically and socially. The buildings represent potential that is often hard to replace in older areas. This is why surface parking lots have become a political issue in recent years...the City recognizes that surface lots (which can be a necessary evil in some cases) are generally at odds with the goal of an excellent urban environment, which is why it is generally difficult to establish one these days.
     
     
  #5867  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2015, 3:03 AM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 15,042
Think about the economics of that building. It was appraised at $800k. At 21000 square feet it would cost between 4 and 5 million dollars to replace. When you hear people say, its an old dusty building, just tear it down and build new, it isn't a simple trade. Just to get back to where you started the investment is significant.

and of course the new building would be made of coloured styrofoam not brick.

Last edited by trueviking; Apr 1, 2015 at 3:14 AM.
     
     
  #5868  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2015, 4:43 AM
Simplicity Simplicity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
Think about the economics of that building. It was appraised at $800k. At 21000 square feet it would cost between 4 and 5 million dollars to replace. When you hear people say, its an old dusty building, just tear it down and build new, it isn't a simple trade. Just to get back to where you started the investment is significant.

and of course the new building would be made of coloured styrofoam not brick.
This is exactly where my interests as a developer intersect with heritage. Let me first ascribe the caveat that I think the sacrosanct emotion tied up in the regulation is actually detrimental, but there's a value argument to be made. Winnipeg has a difficult enough time having things built in place like downtown precisely because of the cost, but a lot of these buildings would represent great financial opportunities if we could just understand that there's a huge cost savings to be had from utilizing them in their most efficient forms. Throw out the ridiculous requirements to preserve full facades and reclaim old flooring and the other nonsense, but if you could keep a financially suitable restoration tax credit going while still allowing developers the flexibility to make them their own at their feasible cost and I think you'd actually save more of these buildings.

There's almost nobody prepared to pay the required rents on new construction so the idea that it's coming behind demolition is nearly always unrealistic. But if you could keep these buildings standing without having to assign the next twenty years of the city's value over to the developer because the project is already inherently more valuable, you leave both parties better off.
     
     
  #5869  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2015, 2:30 PM
bryanscott's Avatar
bryanscott bryanscott is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
Just to clarify for myself. This is more about principle than it is about the actual buildings, right? Those building look like typical 1970's crap to me. Based on the images I've looked at anyways.
Yes, the principle. It's not about the quality or historical value of the buildings. It's about preserving the "city-ness" of that stretch of Downtown. I know (I think) I'm preaching to the choir, but surface parking perpetuates the idea that Downtown is a no-go deadzone.
__________________
Bryan Scott
http://winnipeglovehate.com
     
     
  #5870  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2015, 3:12 PM
steveosnyder steveosnyder is offline
North End Troublemaker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: YWG
Posts: 1,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryanscott View Post
Yes, the principle. It's not about the quality or historical value of the buildings. It's about preserving the "city-ness" of that stretch of Downtown. I know (I think) I'm preaching to the choir, but surface parking perpetuates the idea that Downtown is a no-go deadzone.
I think it perpetuates a "do-go" zone... But make sure you use your car and you don't stay too long. They are taking a cue from Walmart, they are aiming for 40% building coverage with 60% land-use for parking, and everyone goes to Walmart, so I think they are on to something.
     
     
  #5871  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2015, 3:16 PM
Riverman's Avatar
Riverman Riverman is offline
Fossil fuel & rubber
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ontario's feel good town
Posts: 4,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveosnyder View Post
But make sure you use your car and you don't stay too long.
Judging by the amount of car window glass on the road in that area, this is good advice.
     
     
  #5872  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2015, 3:23 PM
h0twired's Avatar
h0twired h0twired is offline
Dynamic Positivity!
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simplicity View Post
This is pretty unfortunate. It sounds like a whole pile of good intentions fell prey to the inexperience. And it sounds like he's taking some people down with him which is even more unfortunate.
Every time I heard an interview with the group starting the project I always was left with the impression that their goals were lofty and their experience was VERY limited.

Not terribly surprised the project failed.
     
     
  #5873  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2015, 3:26 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
Judging by the amount of car window glass on the road in that area, this is good advice.
Funny you should say that... it's the one place where I've had my car broken into... about 9 years ago. The window was jimmied open, but I popped it right back into place with no damage at all. Always been a little leery of parking west of the Towne at night ever since!
     
     
  #5874  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2015, 3:42 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,188
^^ It is really sad as that part of Winnipeg seems to be exactly the type of environment people would like to see downtown. The reality though seems we keep building it and having it fail.
     
     
  #5875  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2015, 3:45 PM
Labroco's Avatar
Labroco Labroco is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 844
The church is already surround by parking lots! Most are not used on Sunday ...

The lot right across from their front doors although not owned by them had been offered to them for Sunday use GRATIS in the past !! That's 12,000 ft! If they hold off on the demo I'm sure something could be worked out. There is rent available from the condemed buildings in an as is basis...

Also do churches pay less or no realty taxes and will this in fact decrease the tax base or will the new assessed value be $2,000,000 creat more income in taxes although add to downtown's continuing architectural and urban bankruptcy?

Do the really think another 30 stalls will fill the pews faster?
     
     
  #5876  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2015, 3:47 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labroco View Post
The church is already surround by parking lots! Most are not used on Sunday ...
Now that you mentioned it, it would be interesting to see just how busy those parking lots get on Sunday...
     
     
  #5877  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2015, 4:01 PM
Simplicity Simplicity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labroco View Post
The church is already surround by parking lots! Most are not used on Sunday ...

The lot right across from their front doors although not owned by them had been offered to them for Sunday use GRATIS in the past !! That's 12,000 ft! If they hold off on the demo I'm sure something could be worked out. There is rent available from the condemed buildings in an as is basis...

Also do churches pay less or no realty taxes and will this in fact decrease the tax base or will the new assessed value be $2,000,000 creat more income in taxes although add to downtown's continuing architectural and urban bankruptcy?

Do the really think another 30 stalls will fill the pews faster?
The churches themselves are all considered exempt institutional property so they don't pay property tax. They should probably pay a 'payment-in-lieu', but I can't guarantee that's the case. And how their lots are taxed is probably even fuzzier. If the church is leasing some of those spaces, are they considered church property or a commercial lot? That would be the question. And if they aren't leasing them during the day, are they that integral to the church's missions that they also go exempt.

EDIT: Did a little digging. From the Municipal Assessment Act, this would exempt a religious institution.

(i) is owned by a religious denomination and is occupied and used by the denomination primarily

(i) as a church, synagogue or place of religious worship,

(ii) as a religious retreat house, or

(iii) for religious instructional purposes,

to a maximum exemption of 0.81 hectare;

So, the lot would be exempt from the municipal portion of the tax bill but not the school portion because it does not satisfy the requirements for exemption under sections 25 and 26. But, if the lot was used to generate revenue and not primarily as church property to augment the offering (with parking in their mind considered a requirement), they would then give up that exemption on the lot. The Church itself would still be exempt.

Last edited by Simplicity; Apr 1, 2015 at 4:14 PM.
     
     
  #5878  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2015, 4:03 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,188
Even if Calvary Temple needed to pay for use of the lots in the evenings and weekends couldn't it be offset by potential rent gained from the buildings they reportedly are looking to demo? Also how busy are those lots of a prime weekday daytime?
     
     
  #5879  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2015, 4:07 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
Even if Calvary Temple needed to pay for use of the lots in the evenings and weekends couldn't it be offset by potential rent gained from the buildings they reportedly are looking to demo? Also how busy are those lots of a prime weekday daytime?
Interesting idea. A nice capital asset that you use the cash flow from to pay for arrangements with the nearby surface lot owners for reserved parking spaces on Sundays.

Simplicity needs to broker a deal here... win win win.
     
     
  #5880  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2015, 4:17 PM
Simplicity Simplicity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
Interesting idea. A nice capital asset that you use the cash flow from to pay for arrangements with the nearby surface lot owners for reserved parking spaces on Sundays.

Simplicity needs to broker a deal here... win win win.
I don't think there's much value in those properties at the moment. The Luke's space is pretty large and I'm not sure who fills that building if Luke's doesn't.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:58 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.