Winnipeg Construction VIII - Page 370

Riverman · #**7381** Posted **Oct 15, 2015, 5:42 PM**

Maybe he can't afford to fix it.

headhorse · #**7382** Posted **Oct 15, 2015, 6:12 PM**

not a rendering for the Fortune Block site, but this is on Verne Reimer's website:

http://www.vernereimer.com/our-work/multi-family-mixed-use/234-main-street/

esquire · #**7383** Posted **Oct 15, 2015, 6:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by headhorse

not a rendering for the Fortune Block site, but this is on Verne Reimer's website:

http://www.vernereimer.com/our-work/multi-family-mixed-use/234-main-street/

Are you sure? That appears to literally be the site where the Fortune Block sits, and Google Maps would confirm that.

Not that this is anything more than some conceptual blue-skying by the owner or some other prospective owner, mind you.

bomberjet · #**7384** Posted **Oct 15, 2015, 7:03 PM**

234 Main St. That's the place.

Cyro · #**7385** Posted **Oct 15, 2015, 7:34 PM**

Actually this is a bit confusing guys but there are 2 distinct Historical buildings listed for the images/address were looking at....(try 226-234)

The Fortune Block is located at 234 Main St., Next to St Mary's....the 226..is the MacDonald Block, next to and south on Main of the Fortune Building.

So technically HH post is correct. There are 2 buildings from Reimers website(conceputal blocks in the image), one at 4F(Fortune), the other at..16F??(MacDonald Building)...

CoryB · #**7386** Posted **Oct 15, 2015, 7:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

Yes I do. But there are economic reasons to not maintain the building. If there is no market for the upper floors (and there isn't otherwise they would be occupied), why spend the money on fixing them up?

If there is no market for the upper floors today it seems questionable that there would be market for that same space in a newly constructed building at that same location.

esquire · #**7387** Posted **Oct 15, 2015, 7:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoryB

If there is no market for the upper floors today it seems questionable that there would be market for that same space in a newly constructed building at that same location.

Considering that buildings in every direction from there have tenants on their upper floors, I'd say that this is more of an issue with a building left to rot for the last 40 years than with the market for space downtown.

BubberMiley · #**7388** Posted **Oct 15, 2015, 7:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

Maybe he can't afford to fix it.

Then he should put it up for sale.

Cyro · #**7389** Posted **Oct 15, 2015, 7:57 PM**

While others are discussing the feasibility of this property,and 2 empty floors, 1300K + sq. ft. business location, the owner is looking at a base rent of 17K..that doesn't include, Hydro, Heat, water etc..adding + 3K annually...This is just my/others estimate for properties of the same type/area/ and useage...

Riverman · #**7390** Posted **Oct 15, 2015, 8:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BubberMiley

Then he should put it up for sale.

There is a building on Princess in similar condition that has been for sale for five years. Putting a dilapitated building for sale does not mean anyone will buy it.

Face it, the lot is worth a lot more with the building gone.

esquire · #**7391** Posted **Oct 15, 2015, 8:34 PM**

^ Well, now that he's run it into the ground it's the only feasible option, isn't it? The time to sell was 25 years ago when someone could have still salvaged the place.

For a law and order kind of guy you sure don't seem to have a problem with people flouting the Winnipeg Building By-law.

the_jaf · #**7392** Posted **Oct 15, 2015, 8:36 PM**

Maybe they'll turn that Arby's on Regent into a Wendy's or Pizza Hut

bomberjet · #**7393** Posted **Oct 15, 2015, 8:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_jaf

Maybe they'll turn that Arby's on Regent into a Wendy's or Pizza Hut

Wendy's would be da bomb!

cllew · #**7394** Posted **Oct 15, 2015, 8:58 PM**

Has to be something radical going in to take the building right down to the ground.

If I recall properly when the Wendy's on Henderson closed the building was kept more or less intact and renovated into the Starbucks and sun tan place

Riverman · #**7395** Posted **Oct 15, 2015, 10:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Well, now that he's run it into the ground it's the only feasible option, isn't it? The time to sell was 25 years ago when someone could have still salvaged the place.

For a law and order kind of guy you sure don't seem to have a problem with people flouting the Winnipeg Building By-law.

No market for the space, no sense spending the money on it. 🞵🞵🞵🞵 the by-law, nobody enforces it anyway. A row of perfectly good buildings was just torn down to make way for a parking lot, remember?

RLS_rls · #**7396** Posted **Oct 16, 2015, 10:47 AM**

That "Culture not condos" letterboard on the front of the Fortune Block...

It'd be funny if that condo tower concept materialised.

cheswick · #**7397** Posted **Oct 16, 2015, 11:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RLS_rls

That "Culture not condos" letterboard on the front of the Fortune Block...

It'd be funny if that condo tower concept materialised.

They could name the condo tower, the "culture not" condos

emeraldeyes · #**7398** Posted **Oct 16, 2015, 1:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheswick

They could name the condo tower, the "culture not" condos

That really appeals to my wry sense of humour but hopefully it doesn't go that far.

esquire · #**7399** Posted **Oct 16, 2015, 1:54 PM**

^ That stretch of Main seems like a fairly marketable area... east-facing condos would have postcard-pretty views of The Forks, although I guess they could get blocked out if something other than an Earls restaurant were to go up across the street.

Labroco · #**7400** Posted **Oct 16, 2015, 2:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

No market for the space, no sense spending the money on it. 🞵🞵🞵🞵 the by-law, nobody enforces it anyway. A row of perfectly good buildings was just torn down to make way for a parking lot, remember?

While I am an advocate of strong consistent heritage laws and enforcement one had to ask why is designation on this property happening right now and not 20 years ago if it's important? It's not as if it's in the exchange district and one can argue there is a need to preserve the character or street scape of the area.

They are not asking for a demo permit but just that the building not be designated.

Just because it is old does not make it important.

If they do not grant a
" temporary parking use" and perhaps link any demolition permit to a development permit with a large performance bond in place, then a useful discussion could be had as to the true value and merit of taking it down if this is where the discussion is ultimately going.

I have a bigger issue with the demolition of the Carlton Hotel and the displacement of a 100 people or the creation of more "temporary parking lots" in this day and age.

The exceptions are being made for Hydro, Friends of Fort Garry and CV not Joe bldg owner.

We need a level open and consistent playing field to encourage smart development by smart people.

Without these very basic rules, private money will be parked elsewhere at the expense of the city and its tax base. (No pun intended).