Winnipeg | Exchange District | Developments & Discussions

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Both of those buildings are on the same title, but with two separate addresses - 216 Pacific and 221 Rupert. They both belong to the same greater fools than the Aboriginal organization that had it in advance of them who were gifted the building by Barry Shenkarow. They had a $6MM renovation planned put together by what was Corbett Cibinel at the time, and they got rid of it when they realized what disastrous shape it was in compounded by its Heritage II status (at the time). The family that bought it ran into all kinds of engineering issues including picking up hundreds of thousands in bills related to shoring the sidewalks underneath and around it because the old tunnels around the building were caving in.

So they lost/are losing a bunch on it?

Also, if those tunnels are (on) city property doesn't the city have to keep them stable (Are they city or private?). Like they would have to if there was issues with the sidewalk. I know that other building (on Sargeant?) the city wasn't responsible for but that was partly because of where the property line was I believe.

EDIT: Found the article about this here. It's kind of ridiculous that the city won't pay for it. Is it going to benefit one specific person? Yes, but if it's on CoW property it's their problem to deal with. The asphalt part of the sidewalk that is blocked off (visible in previous map link) is still there to this day, so I'm curious what, if any, work was actually done. There was no WFP follow up.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by buzzg

So they lost/are losing a bunch on it?

Also, if those tunnels are (on) city property doesn't the city have to keep them stable (Are they city or private?). Like they would have to if there was issues with the sidewalk. I know that other building (on Sargeant?) the city wasn't responsible for but that was partly because of where the property line was I believe.

EDIT: Found the article about this here. It's kind of ridiculous that the city won't pay for it. Is it going to benefit one specific person? Yes, but if it's on CoW property it's their problem to deal with. The asphalt part of the sidewalk that is blocked off (visible in previous map link) is still there to this day, so I'm curious what, if any, work was actually done. There was no WFP follow up.

They lost their appeal and had to fix it at their expense. It's possible they've sued the city to recover, but I haven't heard and the court registry is down for maintenance.

The argument was that the storage tunnels were originally built to service the building. They've become unnecessary over time, but they would still be required to be decommissioned by the building's owners. It's sort of interesting, actually. In property law there's the old adage of "Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos" which is Latin for "whoever's is the soil, it is theirs all the way to Heaven and all the way to Hell" meaning that one would require an easement of sorts to address this underground encroachment. But I guess things weren't always so procedural over a hundred years ago.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

They lost their appeal and had to fix it at their expense. It's possible they've sued the city to recover, but I haven't heard and the court registry is down for maintenance.

The argument was that the storage tunnels were originally built to service the building. They've become unnecessary over time, but they would still be required to be decommissioned by the building's owners. It's sort of interesting, actually. In property law there's the old adage of "Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos" which is Latin for "whoever's is the soil, it is theirs all the way to Heaven and all the way to Hell" meaning that one would require an easement of sorts to address this underground encroachment. But I guess things weren't always so procedural over a hundred years ago.

So are they technically "by law" not owned by anyone? It's just interesting because it's a significant public safety issue if the sidewalk is starting to fall in... and the city just patched it and blocked it off.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by buzzg

So are they technically "by law" not owned by anyone? It's just interesting because it's a significant public safety issue if the sidewalk is starting to fall in... and the city just patched it and blocked it off.

Well, by law they're not on the owner's title. That's as far as it goes. But the city can claim that the building has been illegally encroaching on their land for over a century and as such has what are known as squatter's rights. In other words, it's their responsibility now even if there's nothing formal documenting it. And since it's doing damage - or at least becoming a danger to the public - it's for them to remediate given that they've received all the benefit over the past century. Whether the court agrees is another matter altogether.

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Well, by law they're not on the owner's title. That's as far as it goes. But the city can claim that the building has been illegally encroaching on their land for over a century and as such has what are known as squatter's rights. In other words, it's their responsibility now even if there's nothing formal documenting it. And since it's doing damage - or at least becoming a danger to the public - it's for them to remediate given that they've received all the benefit over the past century. Whether the court agrees is another matter altogether.

The legal term for this is called prescription rights...
Many heritage bldgs along Main Street had or have a similar condition.
When the sidewalk on Main was being replaced we simply bricked in to our property line and the city regained control of the void adjacent to our property.

The city filled in the void with sand and replaced the sidewalk.
Our cost incurred was only the masonry. That was fair.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by Labroco

The legal term for this is called prescription rights...
Many heritage bldgs along Main Street had or have a similar condition.
When the sidewalk on Main was being replaced we simply bricked in to our property line and the city regained control of the void adjacent to our property.

The city filled in the void with sand and replaced the sidewalk.
Our cost incurred was only the masonry. That was fair.

Yeah, prescriptive rights, squatter's right, adverse possession; they're all more or less the same given that these areas aren't on title. It's essentially an involuntary transfer that, in your case, you agreed to rescind given that they gave rise to a liability in your case. My guess is that if there was value in the real property, you may have exercised your rights in a bit of a different way

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Yeah, prescriptive rights, squatter's right, adverse possession; they're all more or less the same given that these areas aren't on title. It's essentially an involuntary transfer that, in your case, you agreed to rescind given that they gave rise to a liability in your case. My guess is that if there was value in the real property, you may have exercised your rights in a bit of a different way

No question!

I'm suggesting that property owner may decide to act on their issues in a similar way if the city would still agree to it...

Everyone is becoming quite litigious lately...

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by Labroco

No question!

I'm suggesting that property owner may decide to act on their issues in a similar way if the city would still agree to it...

Everyone is becoming quite litigious lately...

Perhaps you'd approach this differently given you've seen lots of appreciation in your investments over many, many years of having held them, but I steer clear of heritage redevelopment for reasons just like this. These properties can become so complex in ways that go well beyond what developers are well-versed in - not so much the legal side, but the historical aspects - that they become fools errands. If you're buying in at today's valuations there's no pot of gold at the end of those rainbows. And I see it so often where somebody who doesn't know what they don't know buys one at what they perceive as a discount and realizes their free lunch disappears after the first engineers report.

I can't blame them for trying to sue. At some point your only option is to hope you can recoup something through the legal process...

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by Labroco

No question!

I'm suggesting that property owner may decide to act on their issues in a similar way if the city would still agree to it...

Everyone is becoming quite litigious lately...

didnt hydro do some weirdnes with that room as well on u guys?

[cllew]

Originally Posted by Labroco

The legal term for this is called prescription rights...
Many heritage bldgs along Main Street had or have a similar condition.
When the sidewalk on Main was being replaced we simply bricked in to our property line and the city regained control of the void adjacent to our property.

The city filled in the void with sand and replaced the sidewalk.
Our cost incurred was only the masonry. That was fair.

Same thing was done for a lot of buildings on Portage Ave when it was repaved years ago. I recall watching dump trucks placing lots of fill between the curb and the buildings back then.

[TimeFadesAway]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Yeah, prescriptive rights, squatter's right, adverse possession; they're all more or less the same given that these areas aren't on title. It's essentially an involuntary transfer that, in your case, you agreed to rescind given that they gave rise to a liability in your case. My guess is that if there was value in the real property, you may have exercised your rights in a bit of a different way

The other question is does the property line actually sit at the border between the sidewalk and the building. In most older residential areas in Winnipeg, the front (street facing) property line actually extends halfway into the sidewalk. You can see surveyors marks in many of the sidewalks walking down streets in Wolseley, the West End or Centennial neighbourhoods.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by TimeFadesAway

The other question is does the property line actually sit at the border between the sidewalk and the building. In most older residential areas in Winnipeg, the front (street facing) property line actually extends halfway into the sidewalk. You can see surveyors marks in many of the sidewalks walking down streets in Wolseley, the West End or Centennial neighbourhoods.

Yeah, definitely. In this case it traces the sidewalk, though. It would be city property.

[trueviking]

variance application up for a new 'drinking establishment' and sidewalk patio where rag pickers used to be.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by trueviking

variance application up for a new 'drinking establishment' and sidewalk patio where rag pickers used to be.

Sort of topical, but I've heard the Albert St. cocktail joint is for sale if anybody wants it. That's Maw's and this place all within a couple months. Both seemingly successful places.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Sort of topical, but I've heard the Albert St. cocktail joint is for sale if anybody wants it. That's Maw's and this place all within a couple months. Both seemingly successful places.

I wonder if the Exchange is just reaching a breaking point for restaurants and bars? I mean, there's a critical mass of people there but it's not THAT big. You add a few more spots and suddenly the crowds thin out dramatically.

Case in point, I went to the Freep café this week for the first time in a couple of years... when that place was new, you had to be there by noon to get a table. Now there's crickets, despite having a phenomenal space and pretty good food. But since then, so many new eateries have been added, it's no surprise that people have moved on to others.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by esquire

I wonder if the Exchange is just reaching a breaking point for restaurants and bars? I mean, there's a critical mass of people there but it's not THAT big. You add a few more spots and suddenly the crowds thin out dramatically.

Case in point, I went to the Freep café this week for the first time in a couple of years... when that place was new, you had to be there by noon to get a table. Now there's crickets, despite having a phenomenal space and pretty good food. But since then, so many new eateries have been added, it's no surprise that people have moved on to others.

Trendy people like trendy things.

Hey, anybody heard anything about Bronuts lately? Talk of the town there for a few weeks.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by trueviking

variance application up for a new 'drinking establishment' and sidewalk patio where rag pickers used to be.

Yeah the boys from Blacklist are opening that place, hoping to be open by back to school time, should bring in a good crowd, they have a big young following. Really good to see something a little different from the "hipster" look and feel.

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Sort of topical, but I've heard the Albert St. cocktail joint is for sale if anybody wants it. That's Maw's and this place all within a couple months. Both seemingly successful places.

That place did a horrible job launch, no buzz, no talk, barely a whisper they exist. When you don't open well you have a problem. I also heard management was not good and all the staff left.

Originally Posted by esquire

Case in point, I went to the Freep café this week for the first time in a couple of years... when that place was new, you had to be there by noon to get a table. Now there's crickets, despite having a phenomenal space and pretty good food. But since then, so many new eateries have been added, it's no surprise that people have moved on to others.

I actually think the food has gotten pretty bad. When the chef Dom (formerly of Civitas) had a heart attack a few years ago (he's fine now) he decided to sell his majority stake, and its now run by a Korean family. The food went down hill and the hours were sporadic for a while. They also don't play music almost ever so it's really awkward in there.

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Trendy people like trendy things.

Hey, anybody heard anything about Bronuts lately? Talk of the town there for a few weeks.

Judging from talking to people around, lots of ppl got really annoyed that they always ran out of donuts, and that they weren't even that good. Plus, when you close at 2pm you're losing a lot of your coffee market.

--
I do have to agree that we may be close to/reached that threshold for these places in the Exchange, however all the places struggling and closing seem to be doing so due to their own issues like management and marketing, so I really don't see a problem rising — it's the natural flow of turnover that happens in every market.

I actually notice way more people on the streets in the Ex now than compared to even a year or two ago. Especially at lunch.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by buzzg

I actually think the food has gotten pretty bad. When the chef Dom (formerly of Civitas) had a heart attack a few years ago (he's fine now) he decided to sell his majority stake, and its now run by a Korean family. The food went down hill and the hours were sporadic for a while. They also don't play music almost ever so it's really awkward in there.

Really? Seemed OK to me... no worse than what was there before. And there are a couple of Korean options now which is nice to have. The food there never struck me as being absolutely top-notch, just good basic lunch food.

I actually notice way more people on the streets in the Ex now than compared to even a year or two ago. Especially at lunch.

Yeah, I'll agree with you there. It's a livelier neighbourhood... it's not just during the Fringe and Jazz fests that you see the streets hopping any more.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Sort of topical, but I've heard the Albert St. cocktail joint is for sale if anybody wants it. That's Maw's and this place all within a couple months. Both seemingly successful places.

Was bone empty last night, even with the Fringe on. No one in the Yellow Dog either. I would hate to see the Dog go.

[trueviking]

that albert street cocktail joint is brutal. It looks like the owner filled his shopping cart at home depot and decorated his space with it. Its really the worst ambiance I have ever seen. The cultured stone/kitchen countertop bar gives me hives.