Winnipeg Construction VIII

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by Tacheguy

The response to the rfp will tell the tale here. The cube project didn't have that to provide balance.

I wonder how much of the RFP is going to actually going to be related to the building, though. Generally speaking, where it comes to RFPs that seek an operator for a government facility, the RFP really only speaks to the demand of the operator - it doesn't often include how much input the proponent will have. That goes especially so when they're already planning something. I liken this more to the restaurant on the Provencher bridge. If there were a true check and balance, the operator would be making the calls as to the build type, operational setup, and so forth. By the looks of it - and it's still rather preliminary - the Forks plans to construct something they're satisfied with at an aesthetic level and force the brewer to operate within those confines. That's probably a bit of a fraught relationship right off the hop (Ha!) given the manufacture of anything generally requires the most simplified, efficient layout possible. It doesn't often set up well to have needless levels.

Anyway, perhaps the RFP does give some design input, but then let the winning brewer choose their best chance for success. Don't force them to work with a firm that doesn't do factory engineering.

[Tacheguy]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

I wonder how much of the RFP is going to actually going to be related to the building, though. Generally speaking, where it comes to RFPs that seek an operator for a government facility, the RFP really only speaks to the demand of the operator - it doesn't often include how much input the proponent will have. That goes especially so when they're already planning something. I liken this more to the restaurant on the Provencher bridge. If there were a true check and balance, the operator would be making the calls as to the build type, operational setup, and so forth. By the looks of it - and it's still rather preliminary - the Forks plans to construct something they're satisfied with at an aesthetic level and force the brewer to operate within those confines. That's probably a bit of a fraught relationship right off the hop (Ha!) given the manufacture of anything generally requires the most simplified, efficient layout possible. It doesn't often set up well to have needless levels.

Anyway, perhaps the RFP does give some design input, but then let the winning brewer choose their best chance for success. Don't force them to work with a firm that doesn't do factory engineering.

Good points. One thing to keep in mind is that a small footprint for that site is a necessity. Let's see if investors can work with that design constraint or not.

[Cyro]

http://mytoba.ca/news/design-for-new-craft-brewery-at-the-forks-market-is-revealed/

It's a friggin see through conceptual rendering..nothing more..let the RFP for Sept.30th run it's course. It may not even happen. Slow day on the forum.

[robertocarlos]

Where is the elevator for wheelchair access. If it has any public money it must be accessible.

[dennis]

I noticed in the images that the structure leads into the forks market. In the first picture, there seems to be an attachment to the forks market also.

[dennis]

Perhaps the brewpub will have a some adjoining space in the forks market building.

[rypinion]

Originally Posted by dennis

I noticed in the images that the structure leads into the forks market. In the first picture, there seems to be an attachment to the forks market also.

The actual "restaurantish" part is inside the Market.

[cllew]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ One would think that the architects would have fundamental issues like that addressed in the design... I mean, it's possible that they haven't, but I'd be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt here.

There is a major architect in Winnipeg that has stated in the news a few weeks ago that he had no idea that stadiums require field access for concerts.

I am sure that if we asked lay people on the street they would have thought field access was a fundamental issue to have in a stadium design.

Unless they are explicitly told in writing what the client wants they could design anything that is close.

[trueviking]

the disrespect to architects as professionals here is hilarious....residential developers are not experts in everything.

I can guarantee, a lot of research was done into the requirements of the functionality of the building...no disrespect meant to anyone's son.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by cllew

There is a major architect in Winnipeg that has stated in the news a few weeks ago that he had no idea that stadiums require field access for concerts.

I am sure that if we asked lay people on the street they would have thought field access was a fundamental issue to have in a stadium design.

Unless they are explicitly told in writing what the client wants they could design anything that is close.

as in all professions, not everyone is equal....if you had issues with a dentist, doctor, lawyer or even cab driver, would you assume all others are the same?

[Pinus]

Originally Posted by trueviking

the disrespect to architects as professionals here is hilarious....residential developers are not experts in everything.

I can guarantee, a lot of research was done into the requirements of the functionality of the building...no disrespect meant to anyone's son.

I wouldn't pay too much attention to the negative cynics around here. The pessimism and self-loathing on the Winnipeg threads makes for a terrible forum experience overall, and does nothing to promote constructive conversation. It's difficult to want to participate in any conversation regarding Winnipeg around here when all you get is constant self-loathing and pessimistic blather.

I'm aware of the work you have done here in the city, Brent. I wish we had more credible and respectable posters like you contributing to the conversation around here.

[cllew]

Originally Posted by trueviking

as in all professions, not everyone is equal....if you had issues with a dentist, doctor, lawyer or even cab driver, would you assume all others are the same?

the point I was trying to make is that the client has to be involved and not just look at the bottom line and hope that the professional gets it right and then the client gets surprised in the end with expensive change orders for what should be in the initial plans.

I am doing my roof and found that in the estimates some professional roofers missed some vents. While I am sure that the actual roofing crew would have replaced them, I would charged extra for the supplies. That omission made their price lower than the contractors who were able to count the vents needed and included them in their quote.

[LilZebra]

FWIW & IMHO, the Beer Building is fugly.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by jimj_wpg

FWIW & IMHO, the Beer Building is fugly.

I concur, even uglier than the other blight on the Forks site called the Scotia Bank Stage!

Seems to me the Forks still hasn't got a clue about what it's identity is or what it even should be.

Thank god the moron Katz didn't get his way or there would be a giant water park at the Forks probably followed by a mini golf course and go-kart track....

[Riverman]

WTF is wrong with a go-kart track?

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by trueviking

the disrespect to architects as professionals here is hilarious....residential developers are not experts in everything.

I can guarantee, a lot of research was done into the requirements of the functionality of the building...no disrespect meant to anyone's son.

Nobody's disrespecting architects, but we all know exactly how public procurement procedures work. How you could possibly have a design for something and no operator is a little absurd given that the operator's preferences are obviously very important. And I would think you'd be the first to protect that viewpoint given that functional design is one of the hallmarks of modern architecture.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by Pinus

I wouldn't pay too much attention to the negative cynics around here. The pessimism and self-loathing on the Winnipeg threads makes for a terrible forum experience overall, and does nothing to promote constructive conversation. It's difficult to want to participate in any conversation regarding Winnipeg around here when all you get is constant self-loathing and pessimistic blather.

I'm aware of the work you have done here in the city, Brent. I wish we had more credible and respectable posters like you contributing to the conversation around here.

First of all, TrueVike is a big boy - he doesn't need a pep talk.

Secondly, isn't this such a precious viewpoint; that the value of something lies within just how positively it can be spun. That's what Twitter and political campaigns are for. There's is literally zero correlation between the credibility of something and how you choose to digest it. If I tell you that the city is terrible at creating high rents and thus does a poor job of creating exceptional new downtown development, that's not going to change because your outlook is "more positive". Or when other facts about Winnipeg are laid out - low downtown parking rates, heavy preference toward suburban living, reliance upon retail power centres - those aren't matters of credibility or respectability just because you have delicate sensibilities and you think that lying to yourself is a matter of self-loathing. Winnipeg is a middle class city. I'm sorry, but you'll just have to hold your tears, put on your big boy pants, and deal with that.

If you want to a board that produces good commentary and thoughtful dialogue, then my suggestion to you is to actually make it. Too-precious, high-handed moralizing about how integral it is to look on the bright side doesn't contribute anything.

Little throwaway comments about how excited you are about something are meaningless. Do some research into something, maybe apply your professional background in some capacity, and bring some valuable perspective. Don't just get all indignant and pout about people's outlook on a small, middle of the road city that you've been brainwashed to think has more potential than it does.

[rypinion]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

How you could possibly have a design for something and no operator is a little absurd given that the operator's preferences are obviously very important.

The Forks is a different beast though. I'm sure The Forks is expecting to be able to choose between a few different operators all very willing to work within their declared parameters.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by rypinion

The Forks is a different beast though. I'm sure The Forks is expecting to be able to choose between a few different operators all very willing to work within their declared parameters.

Willing and capable often turn out to be quite different, though.

We only have to look as far as the restaurant on the Provencher bridge to see what can happen when political expedience ultimately trumps good sense. It's a really cool concept to put a restaurant on that bridge, but it ultimately required extensive engineering feats with things as basic as the mechanical system that lead to insurmountable utility costs all because the design was done before an operator was found. And there are still countless people who submit RFPs to run this place even though those who have done it before will swear up and down it can't be run profitably.

What I'm really saying is: put out an RFP for somebody who has proven they can micro-brew beer in a profitable, sustainable way, vet them financially to make sure they have the stability to stick it out, grant them some form of rental subsidy on the land, and let them invest in building a micro-brewery that's to their liking. Doing this in a backwards fashion only increases the risk.

Let go of the thing as a required public art piece. The goal should be the viability of the brewer in the long term and insuring against the continual turnover of the occupant because the design constrains the objective in some very fundamental way.

[Pinus]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

First of all, TrueVike is a big boy - he doesn't need a pep talk.

Secondly, isn't this such a precious viewpoint; that the value of something lies within just how positively it can be spun. That's what Twitter and political campaigns are for. There's is literally zero correlation between the credibility of something and how you choose to digest it. If I tell you that the city is terrible at creating high rents and thus does a poor job of creating exceptional new downtown development, that's not going to change because your outlook is "more positive". Or when other facts about Winnipeg are laid out - low downtown parking rates, heavy preference toward suburban living, reliance upon retail power centres - those aren't matters of credibility or respectability just because you have delicate sensibilities and you think that lying to yourself is a matter of self-loathing. Winnipeg is a middle class city. I'm sorry, but you'll just have to hold your tears, put on your big boy pants, and deal with that.

If you want to a board that produces good commentary and thoughtful dialogue, then my suggestion to you is to actually make it. Too-precious, high-handed moralizing about how integral it is to look on the bright side doesn't contribute anything.

Little throwaway comments about how excited you are about something are meaningless. Do some research into something, maybe apply your professional background in some capacity, and bring some valuable perspective. Don't just get all indignant and pout about people's outlook on a small, middle of the road city that you've been brainwashed to think has more potential than it does.

I have my own issues with how this city has developed, believe me. I have several friends and family that work for both the city and province and I could tell you stories that would make you cringe. I agree that we have a ways to go. But there is a difference in constructive criticism vs. immature commentary. Your response to me, for instance.

There is a clear snide attitude where there doesn't need to be. What's the point in that? What does it accomplish? Perhaps a personal victory for yourself, but nothing more for anyone else. You can disagree with me but without getting personal.

Myself, I was very negative for a long time. But I'm choosing to focus on the positive while still being aware of the downfalls that still occur. We can have a dialogue with both positive and negative constructive criticism without getting personal. Don't you think that would make for a more enjoyable forum experience? That is all I'm saying.