Winnipeg Construction VIII - Page 302

Riverman · #**6021** Posted **Apr 8, 2015, 10:21 PM**

Hmm, comparing Banff to Winnipeg. Kind of like comparing Paris to Pauingassi.

Arts · #**6022** Posted **Apr 8, 2015, 10:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

Hmm, comparing Banff to Winnipeg. Kind of like comparing Paris to Pauingassi.

Not only is it an unequal comparison, but there are also 5 city owned public parking lots within a 1.5 block radius of the Banff Earls

err I just checked, there are actually 3 plus one parkade.

cllew · #**6023** Posted **Apr 9, 2015, 4:16 PM**

Quote:

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.

Just received an email news release from WPD and they made some arrests regarding the fire at 44 Hargrave ST

Two 13-year-old males, a 12-year-old female, 14-year-old female and 15-year-old female are facing the following charges:

Arson causing damage to property
Arson with disregard for human life
Break, enter and commit arson
Possession of incendiary material

They were released on a promise to appear.

Jimbo · #**6024** Posted **Apr 10, 2015, 12:34 PM**

Bunch of punk ass Indians. call me racist.

Jimbo · #**6025** Posted **Apr 10, 2015, 12:35 PM**

Repost.

Shekelbender · #**6026** Posted **Apr 10, 2015, 3:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Bunch of punk ass Indians. call me racist.

biguc · #**6027** Posted **Apr 10, 2015, 4:28 PM**

Racists.

They're 12-15. Kids do dumb shit.

BKB · #**6028** Posted **Apr 10, 2015, 4:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Bunch of punk ass Indians. call me racist.

Racist and I will add stupid as well.

rypinion · #**6029** Posted **Apr 10, 2015, 4:36 PM**

Agree with above.

In other news, Earls' plans to build a copy of the St. Vital Centre parking lot at Main and York have been denied.

esquire · #**6030** Posted **Apr 10, 2015, 4:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rypinion

In other news, Earls' plans to build a copy of the St. Vital Centre parking lot at Main and York have been denied.

Good.

HomeInMyShoes · #**6031** Posted **Apr 10, 2015, 4:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rypinion

Agree with above.

In other news, Earls' plans to build a copy of the St. Vital Centre parking lot at Main and York have been denied.

Hooray!!!

CoryB · #**6032** Posted **Apr 10, 2015, 5:49 PM**

That Earl's plan needed to attempt some level of concession with the City and they didn't. They didn't meet the height requirement, did not about the surface parking lot and further their action would likely increase the difficulty of developing that lot going forward. It would have been nice to see them propose a wider location along the street front, no surface parking visible from Main, tow levels of parking overhead with dressing to look like offices. Put that proposal on the table and well it isn't mixed use it is more in keeping with the image being pursued for that area.

The unanswered question is will Earl's now call a press conference and rant about how this City isn't developer friendly and they are putting all their plans on hold?

Simplicity · #**6033** Posted **Apr 10, 2015, 6:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoryB

That Earl's plan needed to attempt some level of concession with the City and they didn't. They didn't meet the height requirement, did not about the surface parking lot and further their action would likely increase the difficulty of developing that lot going forward. It would have been nice to see them propose a wider location along the street front, no surface parking visible from Main, tow levels of parking overhead with dressing to look like offices. Put that proposal on the table and well it isn't mixed use it is more in keeping with the image being pursued for that area.

The unanswered question is will Earl's now call a press conference and rant about how this City isn't developer friendly and they are putting all their plans on hold?

You want a restaurant to build a parking structure for itself?

We're leaving the yard here, people. This is Winnipeg. Those lots are desired by exactly nobody. Their value lies in being a gravel slab at about 30% occupancy and we want to dictate land usage on a stretch of Main that is surface parking and some nondescript office buildings? Let's get real. You want to develop the Exchange? Fine. You want to develop the SHED? Okay. You want to develop the stretch of Portage around the U of W? It's being worked on. That's like 3 square miles! And people wonder why everything is completely half-assed. Pick a couple of things and do them right. Stop pretending like every bit of our sprawling downtown is strategic and sacrosanct development territory. It isn't. It never has been. That's why it's all derelict.

biguc · #**6034** Posted **Apr 10, 2015, 6:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoryB

The unanswered question is will Earl's now call a press conference and rant about how this City isn't developer friendly and they are putting all their plans on hold?

I'm dying.

esquire · #**6035** Posted **Apr 10, 2015, 6:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoryB

The unanswered question is will Earl's now call a press conference and rant about how this City isn't developer friendly and they are putting all their plans on hold?

Even if they did, who cares? It's not like downtown Winnipeg is short of places to get a mediocre steak sandwich.

rypinion · #**6036** Posted **Apr 10, 2015, 6:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Their value lies in being a gravel slab at about 30% occupancy and we want to dictate land usage on a stretch of Main that is surface parking and some nondescript office buildings?

So surface parking and nondescript office buildings is the problem, your solution is to let Earls... continue with surface parking and add a nondescript office building?

Simplicity · #**6037** Posted **Apr 10, 2015, 7:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rypinion

So surface parking and nondescript office buildings is the problem, your solution is to let Earls... continue with surface parking and add a nondescript office building?

This is complete oversimplification of the point. it's only a problem for those who want to see it as one and the justification for that is apart from reality - everybody's worried about a long-standing successful restaurant taking the place of what exactly? And because it's about 8 or 9 feet too short? This is just a cop out for the real issue which is that urbanists don't like Earls.

Why are we stopping here? Why not contend that the city is at the precipice of greatness and only allow buildings that are ten-storeys in height?

The point is that we are planning for something that's unlikely to ever occur. In exchange for that, we're stopping valuable development on a site that's historically been nothing and is very likely to continue in that vein.

rypinion · #**6038** Posted **Apr 10, 2015, 8:08 PM**

Is the proposed development valuable though? It seems marginally better than what's there already, and locks the land into that use for 20 more years.

rypinion · #**6039** Posted **Apr 10, 2015, 8:10 PM**

Aside from the ownership difference that Simplicity points out, this just feels like Canalta Hotel redux.

trueviking · #**6040** Posted **Apr 10, 2015, 9:00 PM**

I'm optimistic the Railside land will see successful development. There are plans happening for south main. Earl's can and should do better. No loss. Good for the City for actually sticking to a by-law.

I'm an urbanist and I hate the Main Street Earl's.