Winnipeg Construction VIII

[drew]

^ this area is really beginning to take off.

We just had brunch at the Sherbrook street deli. It was awesome and packed. As were all the other restaurants open today.

[esquire]

^ The 54 Maryland project has been in the public pipeline (various civic hearings) for a while now, but this is the first I've heard of something planned for 100 Maryland, kitty corner to FoodFare. It's good news, but man, I wish something would fill the vacant lot directly south of FoodFare first.

[esquire]

Went up Henderson for the first time in forever this weekend, and I noticed that this project was coming along... I had forgotten all about it.



Source: LM Architectural

Crystal is the developer, but any word as to who will be occupying it? It's a somewhat unexpected place for a new multitenant office building. It kind of looks like something you'd expect to see going on McGillivray or in some other outlying area, but it certainly works as infill. Just too bad about the parking lot out front.

[Riverman]

That is the site of the old EK city hall.

[buzzg]

Updates on Earls Main property:

They have an office tenant that will be gutting the old building and moving in, and they will build on the north parking lot, middle one will remain parking. Door will be close to Main corner, but face the lot, and there will be two patios: One off the lounge along main, and one off the wine bar facing the lot. This will be a whole-new concept for them and will be amazing.

HOWEVER: there is a law now that all new construction downtown has to be 3+ stories. They are 11 feet short. Even though they submitted plans before these new rules went in place, the city is not grandfathering them. They're going on front of the city this week to appeal. If they get rejected it could set them.back a year or more.

[roccerfeller]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Updates on Earls Main property:

They have an office tenant that will be gutting the old building and moving in, and they will build on the north parking lot, middle one will remain parking. Door will be close to Main corner, but face the lot, and there will be two patios: One off the lounge along main, and one off the wine bar facing the lot. This will be a whole-new concept for them and will be amazing.

HOWEVER: there is a law now that all new construction downtown has to be 3+ stories. They are 11 feet short. Even though they submitted plans before these new rules went in place, the city is not grandfathering them. They're going on front of the city this week to appeal. If they get rejected it could set them.back a year or more.

Cool update, thanks! Sounds like a great way to get that parking area smaller

Didn't know there was a 3 storey limit law, thats pretty neat.

edit - since when did York St turn into Mahatma Gandhi Way? (at least according to google maps) Thats pretty cool!

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by roccerfeller

Cool update, thanks! Sounds like a great way to get that parking area smaller

Didn't know there was a 3 storey limit law, thats pretty neat.

edit - since when did York St turn into Mahatma Gandhi Way? (at least according to google maps) Thats pretty cool!

It's been a year or so now, but it's just honorary!

[esquire]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Updates on Earls Main property:

Thanks for the update.

On one hand, it's easy to say that the city should insist on the 35 foot minimum height, but on the other it's entirely possible that Earls could then just pull the plug on its plans and carry on in the existing building, leaving the butt-ugly parking lot and vacant lot as they are now.

But that said, there's no question that the Earls proposal is very low-density suburban in nature and not really ideal for that stretch of Main Street right next to the planned RT corridor. On that basis I'd prefer if the City stood its ground with Earls and forced them to build something that fits in with the existing Design Guidelines.

[Flatland Metropolis]

Originally Posted by rypinion

Looks like two residential buildings on Maryland are on their way, according to the developer's twitter 54 Maryland (8 residential, 1 commercial unit) is almost under construction:

http://54maryland.ca/

Interesting, it looks like Woodsworth house will continue to survive, I almost thought they were destroying that heritage site to make way though.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by esquire

Went up Henderson for the first time in forever this weekend, and I noticed that this project was coming along... I had forgotten all about it.



Source: LM Architectural

Crystal is the developer, but any word as to who will be occupying it? It's a somewhat unexpected place for a new multitenant office building. It kind of looks like something you'd expect to see going on McGillivray or in some other outlying area, but it certainly works as infill. Just too bad about the parking lot out front.

Building is about 80% done and Crystal Construction will occupy it as their head office, professional space to be leased out with a possible retail component on the ground floor.

[bomberjet]

The building has quite the presence on Henderson. Can't miss it. Sucks a bit with the parking lot off Henderson, yes. But I can live with it.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by roccerfeller

Didn't know there was a 3 storey limit law, thats pretty neat.

Unless this is something new, it's likely the Downtown Zoning By-law provision that has a 35 foot minimum height along Portage, Main, and Broadway (I might be forgetting a few others). Not downtown-wide as far as I know.

Either way, the City needs to look at what they're trying to achieve by the height minimum. If it's good urban form, then height shouldn't necessarily be the be-all-end-all. Look at two of our most "urban" strips - Corydon and Osborne have very few buildings over 35 feet, but the urbanity is there.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by Bdog

Unless this is something new, it's likely the Downtown Zoning By-law provision that has a 35 foot minimum height along Portage, Main, and Broadway (I might be forgetting a few others). Not downtown-wide as far as I know.

Either way, the City needs to look at what they're trying to achieve by the height minimum. If it's good urban form, then height shouldn't necessarily be the be-all-end-all. Look at two of our most "urban" strips - Corydon and Osborne have very few buildings over 35 feet, but the urbanity is there.

Agreed — especially since no one's really rushing to build/redevelop on Main. Having a patio run the entire length and a business that's busy all day, every day seems like a pretty good thing for Main right now to me.

Also, it's unclear what exactly satisfies that caveat. Like if the city holds strict could Earls in theory just raise the roof, or even easier, just make a strip-mall-style raised stucco sign that goes up high enough? Not that it will have this type of design though — they are investing a fortune in this location.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Agreed — especially since no one's really rushing to build/redevelop on Main. Having a patio run the entire length and a business that's busy all day, every day seems like a pretty good thing for Main right now to me.

Also, it's unclear what exactly satisfies that caveat. Like if the city holds strict could Earls in theory just raise the roof, or even easier, just make a strip-mall-style raised stucco sign that goes up high enough? Not that it will have this type of design though — they are investing a fortune in this location.

The city is trying to hold Earls to their other downtown designs. Which is strange given that they're all in existing commercial buildings downtown that have commercial above. Basically, they want Earls to construct and own the space they're leasing elsewhere and go into business as a commercial landlord in order to build the restaurant. This is exactly something this city would do. There's vacant commercial space everywhere. What makes anybody think constructing more vacant commercial space along Main is somehow preferable to a busy restaurant with a large patio lining the street? Nobody walks that stretch now and nothing is going to change that given the layout of the rest of the area...

[Biff]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Building is about 80% done and Crystal Construction will occupy it as their head office, professional space to be leased out with a possible retail component on the ground floor.

Just to clarify a bit, Crystal Properties will be using the building as their head office. Crystal Construction will still be located on Birds Hill Road. They are under the same umbrella but Crystal Properties is the development/property management portion of the company.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Bdog

Either way, the City needs to look at what they're trying to achieve by the height minimum. If it's good urban form, then height shouldn't necessarily be the be-all-end-all. Look at two of our most "urban" strips - Corydon and Osborne have very few buildings over 35 feet, but the urbanity is there.

I think the logic behind a raised minimum height on Portage, Main and Broadway is because of the sheer width of those streets. You could have Corydon lined with 2-storey buildings and it would still feel reasonably urban, but it's a narrow street compared to those others. On Main that wouldn't necessarily be the case. You need a slightly taller building to create a proper urban environment.

I don't know... on one hand having a busy restaurant basically a block closer to Portage & Main than it was before isn't a bad thing, but does the city want minimum 35 foot buildings along Main Street or not? If council gives in easily and grants an exception, then that will be the end of the 35 foot minimum.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by esquire

I think the logic behind a raised minimum height on Portage, Main and Broadway is because of the sheer width of those streets. You could have Corydon lined with 2-storey buildings and it would still feel reasonably urban, but it's a narrow street compared to those others. On Main that wouldn't necessarily be the case. You need a slightly taller building to create a proper urban environment.

I don't know... on one hand having a busy restaurant basically a block closer to Portage & Main than it was before isn't a bad thing, but does the city want minimum 35 foot buildings along Main Street or not? If council gives in easily and grants an exception, then that will be the end of the 35 foot minimum.

Not necessarily. Generally precedence is used to guide usage. It doesn't often just have carte blance application. The city can easily say that there's a history of successful operation of a restaurant here and that it's a net benefit to the city to let them expand and create more value. On the other hand, if somebody wanted to build a retail strip there at a single storey using the restaurant as grounds, both the city and developer would need a more holistic argument than 'there's already a building under 35' up the street'.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

The city is trying to hold Earls to their other downtown designs. Which is strange given that they're all in existing commercial buildings downtown that have commercial above. Basically, they want Earls to construct and own the space they're leasing elsewhere and go into business as a commercial landlord in order to build the restaurant. This is exactly something this city would do. There's vacant commercial space everywhere. What makes anybody think constructing more vacant commercial space along Main is somehow preferable to a busy restaurant with a large patio lining the street? Nobody walks that stretch now and nothing is going to change that given the layout of the rest of the area...

Yeah, and they are already playing landlord a bit and changed their plans once because of the city, and are going to lease out the old building (they were originally building on middle lot and tearing down old one). Plus, with all the planned commercial for The Forks, it'd be insane for them to build more there.

[bomberjet]

To me, it doesn't matter what currently is on the site or what is planned. Is the 35' height requirement a by-law? If so, then play by the rules. If not, then go ahead and build your new single story restaurant.

Listening to the radio this morning, people are saying "its so ridiculous because I love Earls." "Just let Earls do whatever, we can't lose them." "The only reason I go there is because of the massive parking lot". That's the real problem.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Not necessarily. Generally precedence is used to guide usage. It doesn't often just have carte blance application. The city can easily say that there's a history of successful operation of a restaurant here and that it's a net benefit to the city to let them expand and create more value. On the other hand, if somebody wanted to build a retail strip there at a single storey using the restaurant as grounds, both the city and developer would need a more holistic argument than 'there's already a building under 35' up the street'.

Let's face it, that distinction will be lost on any developer who will inevitably resort to a slightly more sophisticated version of the classic kindergartener argument of "but you let HER have a cookie so why can't I have one too?"

If the City is serious about its rules, then it needs to buckle down and say no even if that leads to the unlikely result of Earls bailing from that site. And even that wouldn't be a tragedy... a stretch of vacant lots is only marginally worse than a stretch of vacant lots with an existing suburban-style Earls on it. It also leaves the door open to a more appropriate development which isn't far fetched considering the desirability of the site... and by that I don't mean some sort of Chicago style row of highrise condos... the bar is set so low on that site that even a low-slung three storey commercial building would be better than what the Earls proponents are proposing.