Winnipeg | Exchange District | Developments & Discussions

[esquire]

Originally Posted by trueviking

millions cheaper.

Its too bad the city didn't get together with them and the manitoba museum to build a parkade somewhere else. Then this building could have been on grade and we wouldn't be killing two blocks with parking...if the other one ever gets built.

I think you're right, but the city has painted itself into a corner on this issue. The right thing to do would have been to address the parking issue back when Sport Manitoba first showed an interest in their current building... basically the city should have told them, in no uncertain terms and before they started raising money for the project that ground-level parking in their building was a no-go. Then they could have partnered up with some other Exchange District interests to get something done.

But at this point, what is the city supposed to do? It would be ridiculous to pull the rug out from under Sport Manitoba at this stage in the game, especially when doing so would probably mean that the surface parking lot currently on the site will remain in place for another decade.

I would want the city to say no to a surface level parkade on a busy pedestrian street like Graham, Portage or even Waterfront, but at this location on the edge of the Exchange by the Disraeli Freeway where few pedestrians tread, I'd say there's more to lose by derailing the project.

Unfortunately, the time to fix this project was 2010.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by windypeg

The museum has a big surface lot across from Martha street studio, between Martha and Main. Would have been perfect for a parkade.

I'd actually like to see something significant fronting on Main Street instead of a big block-long parkade. I recall someone mentioned that site was cleared to make way for a MPI HQ before Schreyer lost the 1977 election and the plan fell through. Always wondered what that would have looked like... any renderings floating around out there?

[CoryB]

Why even bother with something fronting on the Main in that area? From Alexandar to William about the only building fronting onto Main is the United Way building. Very little can be done to change that as the Concert Hall and Pantages create a huge dead spot most of the time. With the museum fronting onto Rupert and City Hall fronting into its own courtyard. Overall it is one of the most pedistrean unfriendly areas in all of downtown and is likely to permanently stay that way.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Why even bother with something fronting on the Main in that area? From Alexandar to William about the only building fronting onto Main is the United Way building. Very little can be done to change that as the Concert Hall and Pantages create a huge dead spot most of the time. With the museum fronting onto Rupert and City Hall fronting into its own courtyard. Overall it is one of the most pedistrean unfriendly areas in all of downtown and is likely to permanently stay that way.

Not with a little effort. The block that contains the McLaren, a parking lot and a single-storey easily replaceable RBC branch holds some potential, as does the block immediately to the north of it. Then you have the United Way and a proper urban block to the north of that (minus the parking lots near Logan).

Giving up on Main Street would be sheer folly. That's what putting a parkade on Main Street would do... CV did that farther north with the WRHA building, let's not repeat that mistake in a different area.

[oftheMoon]

Does anyone know what's going on with the 62M condo (flying saucer) at the far north end of Waterfront Dr? I don't pass it often, but seems the concrete elevator shaft portion of the building has remained the same for some time now. Maybe I'm just missing work being done, but if it is, it seems to be quite slow.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by oftheMoon

Does anyone know what's going on with the 62M condo (flying saucer) at the far north end of Waterfront Dr? I don't pass it often, but seems the concrete elevator shaft portion of the building has remained the same for some time now. Maybe I'm just missing work being done, but if it is, it seems to be quite slow.

I see action there every so often. My guess is that maybe it's the same builders as YouCube and they're just really damn slow.

[Tacheguy]

Originally Posted by buzzg

I see action there every so often. My guess is that maybe it's the same builders as YouCube and they're just really damn slow.

just noticed new height on it yesterday. I guess it is a go. that area is getting interesting. cant wait for the micro brewery on pacific.

[cllew]

Originally Posted by esquire

I'd actually like to see something significant fronting on Main Street instead of a big block-long parkade. I recall someone mentioned that site was cleared to make way for a MPI HQ before Schreyer lost the 1977 election and the plan fell through. Always wondered what that would have looked like... any renderings floating around out there?

The building was in two sections with a connection over Pacific street (sort of like City place to MTS Center) as the Wpg aqueduct branch #1 running in the middle of Pacific precluded the street being closed for a continuous building at ground level.

I can't recall what surface finishes were like but I know that most of the staff was happy to relocate to the City Place (back then Eaton Place) site back in the fall of 1980 from the Bank of Montreal tower at 330 Portage.

[esquire]

^ Thanks, clew. Would have been interesting.

On a different matter, I see that fencing has gone up for the new Hydro substation on Notre Dame. And the disgraceful demolition of the Luke's building across the street is nearly complete.

[buzzg]

It just keeps getting better.

Sport Manitoba wants city hall to waive all development fees related to the construction of its $26-million field house in the Exchange District.

LINK

While I understand this is a non-profit organization, this is a little much. If they can't afford to do this volleyball thing with out these fees, maybe they need to rethink the business plan again. I hope to god the city doesn't fold (again). If the volleyball being here is such a great thing for the city, sure the spinoff benefits will cover the costs........

[esquire]

Originally Posted by buzzg

It just keeps getting better.



LINK

While I understand this is a non-profit organization, this is a little much. If they can't afford to do this volleyball thing with out these fees, maybe they need to rethink the business plan again. I hope to god the city doesn't fold (again). If the volleyball being here is such a great thing for the city, sure the spinoff benefits will cover the costs........

This is getting a little ridiculous. The parking thing, fine, OK, the City got caught with its pants down on that one. But waiving the development fees? If they've bitten off more than they can chew, time to either ramp up the fundraising or scale down the project.

[biguc]

It's about time this city got a real planning department instead of leaving these decisions in the hands of yokel councillors while letting semi-autonomous CentreVenture's corruption show run amok. Even if this city had the most steamy-hot market in the country I wouldn't touch developing here with Sam Katz's 🞵🞵🞵🞵.

[Tacheguy]

Originally Posted by biguc

It's about time this city got a real planning department instead of leaving these decisions in the hands of yokel councillors while letting semi-autonomous CentreVenture's corruption show run amok. Even if this city had the most steamy-hot market in the country I wouldn't touch developing here with Sam Katz's 🞵🞵🞵🞵.

Yup. We used to have a decent planning department (Tom Yauk, Doug Kelscics and that crew), but Susan Thompson and others thought they had too much power. Hence the era of the super executive. Interesting to observe the tension in Toronto between the chief planner and the mayor. That seems healthy to me, as it gets voters thinking about things they would normally tend to let slide..

[Simplicity]

^^ The real issue is that you spend months upon months - sometimes years! - developing plans to the contentment of the planning department, public works, water & waste, etc., and one councilor can kill it or drastically amend it with next to no substantial consideration or knowledge in the course of 20 minutes if it suits his or her particular agenda at the moment. And this happens far more than what's reported. We only ever hear about these publicly funded projects downtown because politicians and QUANGO bureaucrats loving having their names circulating in the media, but the real detriment comes on the smaller projects that contribute to the more granular nature of neighbourhoods that are killed or amended to death at nearly every public meeting.

Somebody may not like that proposed development on Waterloo, but 180 signatures in opposition don't arise from a singular design element - these are people vehemently opposed to development of any kind. And of course the planning department will be overruled by the community committee for political reasons. It's amazing that people don't recognize the dissonance inherent in opposing the things that make their neighbourhoods even remotely livable. Can you imagine if somebody proposed a 7-11 on Academy today?

[trueviking]

^^^ YES.

community committees must be removed.

http://www.numberten.com/blog/26-urban-d...opers-local-opposition-can-scuttle-plans

[Tacheguy]

The Globe website has a pretty extensive and interesting article on Waterfront Drive. not sure how to post a link....

[Authentic_City]

Originally Posted by Tacheguy

The Globe website has a pretty extensive and interesting article on Waterfront Drive. not sure how to post a link....

This one?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on...on-red-river-waterfront/article25058093/

[rkspec]

Do this....then paste it here as a reply

[Tacheguy]

Originally Posted by rkspec

Do this....then paste it here as a reply

thanks

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by trueviking

^^^ YES.

community committees must be removed.

http://www.numberten.com/blog/26-urban-d...opers-local-opposition-can-scuttle-plans

Well, that was interestingly prescient. I have to admit, I hadn't read the article, but my first hand experience is enough. It's nice to see there's at least a common wavelength. The issue with this line of thinking - as I've seen it, anyway - is that the councilors use these meetings as opportunities to campaign. It's mostly just public grandstanding with very little substance. Taking these sorts of opportunities away from them means they have to find them elsewhere. It's a lot easier to sit behind a desk and let the opportunities come to you.