Winnipeg Construction VIII

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Bdog

"If" the parcel 4 development comes into play, and "if" that parcel 4 development is so successful that it spurs unprecedented demand for the Earls site across the tracks, and "if" that demand is for a higher and better use, then it should be no problem that the Phase-2 Earls is on the north of that site. Like in other cities, the "lower" use will get bull-dozed and the towers can rise.

No one has built anything around there since the 1912 boom.

Except for the office building across the street. Or the hotel across the street. Or the large mixed use development planned for across the tracks.

Maybe no one is lining up to develop there, but it's far from some sort of no-go zone. The City's rules here are not unreasonable. Earls should try again.

Locked in for 50 years? Hardly. I mean, the existing Earls, which was going to be torn down in the original application, hadn't even been around 20 years at the time they applied...

I mean, I get that some on here would love to see mid-rise development on every downtown block, with a nice commercial main floor and offices and condos above that. But, if the market isn't there, and won't be any time soon, is it better to pick our battles (e.g. Exchange, or, dare-I-say SHED) and welcome a lively patio that fronts the street and takes out a derelict, vacant lot?

Aside from the height issue, another problem with this proposal is that there will still be a large swath of surface parking on the site. That's not really much better than the current derelict vacant lot.

[Authentic_City]

[wags_in_the_peg]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

This is the same crowd that wears their Jets jersey over their collared shirt, their distressed boot cut jeans over their dress shoes, puts glossy gel in their little remaining hair, and always smells like aftershave. And there are lots of these people in the city on their second wives looking to have a good time before they drive home over the limit. This is what drives our city and our downtown. The idea that anything else is behind it is kind of misplaced. And so while we think that it's bad, it's what we get.

We have to be careful what we wish for. I couldn't care less about these people because I'm not much of a downtown person myself, but for those who think the resurgence is happening all around us, this is who is largely driving it, unfortunately. We kick out Earl's and Rudy's and the other suburban attractions, there's no much left of downtown.

Hey I wear boot cut jeans over dress shoes!!! I agree, we need more Earls type places downtown, although TruViking believes we have enough, until we have more people downtown all the time, keep them coming in.

[bomberjet]

So the City should just bend over and let Earls circumvent the rules that are in place, just because.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

So the City should just bend over and let Earls circumvent the rules that are in place, just because.

You wouldn't want to disappoint their waitresses, now would you?

[drew]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Was it still Marquess working on it after the city refused the demo permit?

Not sure. We walked away from that a couple years back. At that time, they were planning on demo'ing and rebuilding the front third of the building (which was too far gone structurally). I think they got as far as demo'ing that front third.

It's unfortunate really. If Joe Pickup Truck hadn't screwed around with the foundation 40 or so years ago, it would have been a quick interior redo, and would have been occupied for a couple years now. Most of that building was in good shape, structurally.

A waste really.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

So the City should just bend over and let Earls circumvent the rules that are in place, just because.

Earls was there long before that particular rule. We're gaining presence with this development. It's private money even, which is even better.

[Cyro]

This is Earls most profitable location in Winnipeg. Take away it's free easy and accessible parking/or (lot), similar to other suburban locations and the profitability of the location would decrease. It's clientele whether blue collar( it seems rather distasteful to some here) is irrelevant. It should be allowed to expand but under the current guidelines, possibly even stricter. If it is so profitable now I'm sure ownership would be open to expanding in such a way to further maximize thier profits and help this rather forlorn and blighted block on Main St..Seems reasonable.

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

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

The parkng lot next door and the burnt out site is now big enough to put up a proper apartment bldg...

And the parking lot next door is own by???

Surprise surprise...

[Biff]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

That's going to be a hell of an investigation given how quickly that building came down.

And who knows what happened. It's just a very beneficial fire for somebody who was being forced to redevelop it as is. Naturally one would've preferred to demolish it.

Anyway, it's not an issue now.

In interviews of people at the scene, one local resident said she saw two people run into the building and then run out just before the fire. Believe what you will, but seeing as how the building has been regularly frequented by squatters I am sure arson would be the major focus right now.

[bomberjet]

Haha I like their waitresses of course! But it doesn't matter who was where when. They want to put up a new building. These are the rules. Just like the parking lot thing.

I'm not against Earl's at all and I welcome their rebuild. As the current location is quite dated in terms of decor. I just want everyone to play by the rules.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Biff

In interviews of people at the scene, one local resident said she saw two people run into the building and then run out just before the fire. Believe what you will, but seeing as how the building has been regularly frequented by squatters I am sure arson would be the major focus right now.

The building was gutted of all finishes, and was just exposed wood decking, wood joists and some wall studs, and roof full of tar. There was nothing left to slow the fire. Arson or not, this fire would have spread quickly.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Labroco

The parkng lot next door and the burnt out site is now big enough to put up a proper apartment bldg...

And the parking lot next door is own by???

Surprise surprise...

The parking lot next door AFAIK is owed by the same person who owns that small office building it serves. Not the same owner as the building that burned down.

Unless something changed in the last year or so.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Biff

In interviews of people at the scene, one local resident said she saw two people run into the building and then run out just before the fire. Believe what you will, but seeing as how the building has been regularly frequented by squatters I am sure arson would be the major focus right now.

I don't know how they would have managed to run in and out when the building was closed off by hoarding.

At risk of sounding like a broken record, this is Marquess's fault. But, like Zaifman and the Albert st. Business block, they've insta-demolished the building before they can do any kind of investigation. I bet a faulty surge protector caused this fire too.

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

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

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by Biff

In interviews of people at the scene, one local resident said she saw two people run into the building and then run out just before the fire. Believe what you will, but seeing as how the building has been regularly frequented by squatters I am sure arson would be the major focus right now.

Don't get me wrong, Biff, I don't think there's any other cause for this fire than straight up arson. I'm merely proclaiming there's some plausible deniability.

But to me it's strange. This place sat vacant for ten years with people going in and out. Then somebody tries to demolish it - can't- and it's now the victim of arson at the hands of some random, homeless firebug? Okay. It sure is convenient, but okay.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

This is good to see. I hope it's successful. There's a lot of space around Portage and Burnell for some solid infill, since the old bus garage is gone. I'd love to see that space built up and turn the stretch of Portage between Arlington and Banning into some kind of neighborhood hub for Wolsely and the resurgent West End. Too bad there's so much car-oriented development around there.

Do any of you remember when they tore down the old Winnipeg Supply building and built the extra-suburban LC and Shoppers? The developers--rightfully--took a lot of heat and defended themselves by saying they weren't building in an urban area, and that their development was closer to Polo Park than downtown. What a crock of shit. This block, and to an even greater extent the block between Maryland, Sherbrook, Portage, and Broadway, are prime examples of why the city shouldn't be allowing suburban junk to clutter up urban neighborhoods. Sherbook is taking off, and this section of Portage could easily follow. But these dead blocks will stand as a major impediment to building a cohesive environment.

[CoryB]

If Earls can find an office tenant for their old Main St restaurant space why is it so challenging to find a similar tenant for a potential third floor office space that would meet the zoning by-laws?

It would also seem that allowing the development to proceed, in any form, will just further entrench that surface parking lot as a nearly permanent fixture downtown. Perhaps the city should consider making Earls an offer: meet the height requirement or give up the surface parking. The danger there is they walk away completely.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

So the City should just bend over and let Earls circumvent the rules that are in place, just because.

I'll just preface my comment with the fact that I think I've been clear about my thoughts on Earls. I'll only say that I think they deserve at least a modicum of consideration for something outside the existing by-law for at least one reason. Earl's invested in downtown Winnipeg in the mid-nineties when you could barely get somebody to stop at a red light on their way through downtown. Since, they've become the most successful downtown enterprise and for that they deserve consideration.

And let's not kid ourselves. If this was Mark Chipman and his band of merry hogs at the trough looking to put a VLT lounge in a single storey directly beside Union Station for the purposes of subsidizing the MTS Center, there would be no push-back whatsoever. There's something to be said for private enterprises who have invested in downtown using their own funding long in advance of whimsical by-laws designed to guide development that may never come.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by biguc

I don't know how they would have managed to run in and out when the building was closed off by hoarding.

At risk of sounding like a broken record, this is Marquess's fault. But, like Zaifman and the Albert st. Business block, they've insta-demolished the building before they can do any kind of investigation. I bet a faulty surge protector caused this fire too.

That incident is exactly what came to mind for me too. It's amazing how well timed some of these fires can be.