Winnipeg Construction VIII

[1ajs]

do we even know what the erls build will look like?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

do we even know what the erls build will look like?

Yeah, there's a low-res pic in the City's administrative report. It looks like a vast step up over the existing 90s design at that location, but there's no question it's more appropriate for a Kenaston or Regent-type suburban setting than for a principal downtown thoroughfare.

[Phil's neighbour]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

do we even know what the erls build will look like?

It's shown in this appeal (sorry, don't know how to paste it in):

http://clkapps.winnipeg.ca/DMIS/ViewDoc.asp?DocId=14236&SectionId=&InitUrl=

[cllew]

Duplicate of above posting.

[1ajs]

let them build it

[bomberjet]

Looks nice for an Earl's. But more of a St. Vital Centre parking lot location that a downtown, potentially high profile location. That stretch of Main St. has huge potential. IMO more so than say SoPo, Centrpoint or SkyCity.

Like I said. If there's nothing in the zoning by-laws preventing it, can the City reject it based on "we want something taller?"

[1ajs]

anyone read the blip about the parking lot on garry and broadway what a laugh some one at dorchester screwed themselfs

REASON FOR THE REPORT
• The parking lot was first developed as accessory parking for the adjacent apartment and
was part of the same property. Zoning Enforcement recently discovered that the parcel
had since been severed off as its own property, and turned into a non-accessory
commercial parking facility. As a result, the parking lot is now subject to current design
and development standards under the Downtown Winnipeg Zoning By-law.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by 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.

I didn't listen to anything on the radio and the Earls crowd isn't really 'my people', but virtually nothing in this city is built without varying some component of it.

[buzzg]

I think really the whole thing here is going to be about why the city isn't grandfathering them, and if that holds up. They submitted plans before the variance changed, so they should really not have to follow the new rules.

From the report:

As part of the Complete Communities Zoning By-Law Alignment project, the Downtown Winnipeg Zoning By-Law was amended in 2014 to include minimum building heights for new development Downtown...

So, yes, this is a brand-new rule.

It is noted that 219 Main Street is the terminus of St. Mary Avenue and therefore has the potential to be a visual landmark, with framed sightlines down St. Mary.

This is like saying "PLEASE, build us a tower here."

Minimum building heights also ensure that the scale of development is reflective of the existing level of services and infrastructure.

Going by this would mean they should be able to level the site and put up a couple tool sheds.

A development is deemed to be in compliance as long some habitable
portion of the building meets this height.

This is going to be the sticking point.

[Riverman]

It is not the terminus of St. Mary, it is the beginning. It is a one way street away from Main!

[buzzg]

Honestly, the engineer's arguments (page 21) are very convincing. They're actually reducing parking, the parking lot will be screened by greenery, ownership isn't changing.

I also find it interesting that they HAD to leave a setback for future Main Street transit expansion... does the city know something we don't? (re: no more RT in Union Station).

[1ajs]

44 hargrave is no more




image source https://www.facebook.com/leslie.bester?fref=photo

[esquire]

^ It was bound to happen sooner or later with all those years as unsecured squatter's den. It was a festering sore on the neighbourhood and although it was a handsome building at one point, I can't say I'm sorry to see it go.

[1ajs]

wonder what will happen with the site

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by esquire

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.

The city can be serious anything it wants, but it's been serious about developing that stretch for a long time and nothing is coming. Sabino owns the lot. The highest value is coming to him from Earls who puts up their multi-million dollar building and earns a nice living for a long time. Since Sabino isn't building anything there and nobody putting up a vacant low-rise is giving him anywhere close to what Earls will, the alternative is more likely a surface lot until Winnipeg achieves a critical mass of urban density that justifies the same valuation (read: never), or a bustling restaurant.

Take your pick.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ It was bound to happen sooner or later with all those years as unsecured squatter's den. It was a festering sore on the neighbourhood and although it was a handsome building at one point, I can't say I'm sorry to see it go.

That's one of the more beneficial fires I've seen in a long time. Marquess must be completely devastated.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

That's one of the more beneficial fires I've seen in a long time. Marquess must be completely devastated.

Yeah, so convenient that the insurer is going to go to the wall on it. There can't be any easy money coming from this incident.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

The city can be serious anything it wants, but it's been serious about developing that stretch for a long time and nothing is coming. Sabino owns the lot. The highest value is coming to him from Earls who puts up their multi-million dollar building and earns a nice living for a long time. Since Sabino isn't building anything there and nobody putting up a vacant low-rise is giving him anywhere close to what Earls will, the alternative is more likely a surface lot until Winnipeg achieves a critical mass of urban density that justifies the same valuation (read: never), or a bustling restaurant.

Take your pick.

I don't think it's a case of "never". If the parcel 4 development takes shape nicely, then the site in question will become very marketable. It could be ripe for a nice project in a decade from now.

I could handle sitting on the existing arrangement for another 10 years in the hopes of getting something better instead of locking in a single storey suburban-style restaurant for the next half-century.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

That's one of the more beneficial fires I've seen in a long time. Marquess must be completely devastated.

Gem owned that building?

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by esquire

I don't think it's a case of "never". If the parcel 4 development takes shape nicely, then the site in question will become very marketable.

That's a big if. We have someone willing to invest money to improve the site right now. Go with it.