Winnipeg Construction VIII

[Urban recluse]

I sense Martens (Artis REIT) cares more about the area as a whole than Oxford did.

[bomberjet]

It's a glorified food court now. And the food sucks.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by drew

Yes, it's certainly more of a "service" mall more than a destination. There really is no point to going in there after hours, or even on the weekend.

It has deteriorated to this point even with the barriers in place. If anything, encouraging a more inviting pedestrian environment outside could get more people going there after hours.

You're likely right. It's not like you could even expect a scenario where everyone would decide to walk outside instead of going underground so a bunch of storefront shops will open up and eat Winnipeg Square's lunch, because there are hardly any CRUs to rent at Portage and Main anyhow. There is the main floor space at 201Portage that fronts right on to P&M which has been vacant since the tower was built (!) which could conceivably accommodate a restaurant, but that's about it. There is nothing else right at the corner. Wpg Square is the only game in town around there.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by windypeg

You should have actually attended the talk. He was very explicit about the two cities being wildly different, not drawing direct comparisons and not thinking something from one city can be copy/pasted to another.

Is it really that inconceivable that someone might have a room at the Fairmont and walk over to a game at MTS Centre? Or someone might be staying at the humphry on main and walk to a restaurant in the east exchange? The corner connects the downtown and its current state is unacceptable. Anyway the argument that no one walks there is moot. You get what you plan/build for. Design and intersection for no pedestrians and thats what you'll get, and vice-versa.

I can give a talk on just about anything with the theme being the topic you want me to push for the right price pay someone enough and they'll say anything you want heard, who really is behind the push to open Portage and Main, don't think the public gives two shits one way or another because the re-opening would effect so few.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by drew

Yes.

But: I favour LRT over BRT, and I also support removing buses from the downtown area altogether and replacing them with a modern network of streetcars.

First off let me get this straight, I bus from NK to the U of M lets say, so I bus from NK to the edge of downtown (as in your plan no buses run downtown) I catch a streetcar and travel to the other side of downtown to a bus stop where I can then catch another bus to the U of M. Makes a lot of sense.

You favour LRT over BRT but you still support BRT, and why do you support BRT and what is the advantage of BRT over express transit from downtown to the U of M?

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by esquire

There is the main floor space at 201 Portage that fronts right on to P&M which has been vacant since the tower was built (!) which could conceivably accommodate a restaurant

I am fairly certain for whatever reason that main floor space is actually not available for lease. I know in the past it was accessible to people working in the building and had tables and chairs in it so perhaps it is a lunch room for TD? I never looked into it in any depth. There was a time before the Starbucks opened in the old travel agency it felt like that space would have been perfect for something like a Starbucks. That said when Starbucks did move in their were shoehorned into a relatively small and awkard space that is adjacent to the vacancy you mention. It still feels odd Starbucks didn't try and grab more space if it was available.

[rrskylar]

remove post

[hexrae]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

I can give a talk on just about anything with the theme being the topic you want me to push for the right price pay someone enough and they'll say anything you want heard, who really is behind the push to open Portage and Main, don't think the public gives two shits one way or another because the re-opening would effect so few.

This thread is starting to heat up.

Do tell, we know who would be behind a push to keep the intersection closed. So let's hear the other side of the story.

[cllew]

Originally Posted by CoryB

I am fairly certain for whatever reason that main floor space is actually not available for lease. I know in the past it was accessible to people working in the building and had tables and chairs in it so perhaps it is a lunch room for TD? I never looked into it in any depth. There was a time before the Starbucks opened in the old travel agency it felt like that space would have been perfect for something like a Starbucks. That said when Starbucks did move in their were shoehorned into a relatively small and awkard space that is adjacent to the vacancy you mention. It still feels odd Starbucks didn't try and grab more space if it was available.

I was actually surprised that when the Asper's had Global, they did not take that space for their news set as to have Portage and Main in the background. Sort of what CBC news did at one time here in Winnipeg.

[drew]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

First off let me get this straight, I bus from NK to the U of M lets say, so I bus from NK to the edge of downtown (as in your plan no buses run downtown) I catch a streetcar and travel to the other side of downtown to a bus stop where I can then catch another bus to the U of M. Makes a lot of sense.

You favour LRT over BRT but you still support BRT, and why do you support BRT and what is the advantage of BRT over express transit from downtown to the U of M?

You live in NK. You need to deal with the consequences. Of which a commute to the university is your least concern.

Obviously my plan is not something that would come to fruition, but if it ever did, I assume there would be a route available for you to avoid downtown. I just think buses have no place downtown. They rip up the roads, don't deal wellwin traffic and quite frankly, the quality of drivers has really dropped in recent years.

I do happen to think that the current super express is probably almost as good as BRT to uofm. But I also want something relatre to rapid transit to get done. So I am willing to start with something that isn't ideal if the ends juatify the means.

[Only The Lonely..]

Originally Posted by trueviking

it was confirmed last night that if one property owner declines, they will be able to force another 40 year closure. This was given to them in 1988....staggering.

Holy Cow!!

That is sooo wrong that an agreement like this can tie the hands of generations of Winnipeggers.

If the owners of 360 Main can impose those conditions, than we as Winnipeggers should demand that they do something about the other half city block that they demolished for that eye sore.

They should have to complete the project that they started in the 70's by building the hotel and second tower, otherwise the deal is off.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..

Holy Cow!!

That is sooo wrong that an agreement like this can tie the hands of generations of Winnipeggers.

If the owners of 360 Main can impose those conditions, than we as Winnipeggers should demand that they do something about the other half city block that they demolished for that eye sore.

They should have to complete the project that they started in the 70's by building the hotel and second tower, otherwise the deal is off.

That wasn't the deal, though. City Council at that time was eager for development and building and paying for the parking garage and the underground at P&M (and ensuring that the P&M crosswalks would be closed more or less permanently) was the price to get it.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Andy6

That wasn't the deal, though. City Council at that time was eager for development and building and paying for the parking garage and the underground at P&M (and ensuring that the P&M crosswalks would be closed more or less permanently) was the price to get it.

Oh right the parkade the city owned until 2009 that brought in $2M annually in profits, Katz and his organization decided it had to go and convinced council to sell it for $24 million netting $23.6 million with $400K going to Shindico (big surprise) for brokering the deal. Some of the money from the sale was to go to fixing the Civic Parkade (how's that working out) Oh and the city got a great building that does so much for the surrounding area, Smith Carter must cringe every time someone mentions that it's their spawn.

[Only The Lonely..]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Oh right the parkade the city owned until 2009 that brought in $2M annually in profits, Katz and his organization decided it had to go and convinced council to sell it for $24 million netting $23.6 million with $400K going to Shindico (big surprise) for brokering the deal. Some of the money from the sale was to go to fixing the Civic Parkade (how's that working out) Oh and the city got a great building that does so much for the surrounding area, Smith Carter must cringe every time someone mentions that it's their spawn.

Speaking as a former Smith Carter employee, the Trjzec tower was one of their forgotten children. The original architects / engineers were long gone..and by the 90s after the Arlington
street lab was built SC was a mostly scientific / health care / institutional builder.

[Urban recluse]

Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..

Holy Cow!!

That is sooo wrong that an agreement like this can tie the hands of generations of Winnipeggers.

If the owners of 360 Main can impose those conditions, than we as Winnipeggers should demand that they do something about the other half city block that they demolished for that eye sore.

They should have to complete the project that they started in the 70's by building the hotel and second tower, otherwise the deal is off.

Even if the centre portion was built to add life to that stretch, it would have had a greater impact as opposed to what currently exists; potentially storefronts could have been included or easily converted to now. The tragic demolition of that block would have been easier to accept if we were given what was shown in the rendering.

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by windypeg

You should have actually attended the talk. He was very explicit about the two cities being wildly different, not drawing direct comparisons and not thinking something from one city can be copy/pasted to another.

Is it really that inconceivable that someone might have a room at the Fairmont and walk over to a game at MTS Centre? Or someone might be staying at the humphry on main and walk to a restaurant in the east exchange? The corner connects the downtown and its current state is unacceptable. Anyway the argument that no one walks there is moot. You get what you plan/build for. Design and intersection for no pedestrians and thats what you'll get, and vice-versa.

I could care less either way but it shouldn't be a priority for public money IMO. If some private entity(ties) wants to pay to make the intersection pedestrian friendly, I'm all for it. If the city has to foot the bill, forget it.

I've been to plenty of cities/districts that are more urbanist utopia-esque where you have to walk a block or two in a different direction to dodge a LRT or transitway. Just view P&M in that context. If you're at the Fairmont, you can walk a block north and cross, walk through the Exchange a bit to get to the MTS Centre, or walk through the underground concrete jungle if you choose.

[trueviking]

Well, do you mind spending $250 million on an underpass for Waverley West residents? Or how about their $50 million overpass for no reason?

We spend billions on roads and bridges, a few million on our central intersection is not unreasonable. This idea that the private sector should pay for roads because they are not in the suburbs is absurd. Do you only support infrastructure investment if it makes cars go faster? Is that your criteria? If it is for pedestrians you expect the private sector to pay for it?

[trueviking]

This suggestion that because it is physically possible to get from one side to the other is ridiculous. Instead of walking 30 metres all you have to do is go two blocks out of your way or down a circuitous route of stairs and elevators. Really?

How can anyone suggest that there has been no impact on pushing pedestrians away from the surface of the earth? The area has thousands of people there every day yet empty storefronts are everywhere. Surface parking lots exist right at the intersection and others surround it. The area is a black hole because there are no people. Clearly the existing route does not work. If it's ok to say pedestrians can walk farther if they want it is just as reasonable to suggest it is fair for cars to have to wait another 45 seconds.

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by trueviking

Well, do you mind spending $250 million on an underpass for Waverley West residents? Or how about their $50 million overpass for no reason?

We spend billions on roads and bridges, a few million on our central intersection is not unreasonable. This idea that the private sector should pay for roads because they are not in the suburbs is absurd. Do you only support infrastructure investment if it makes cars go faster? Is that your criteria? If it is for pedestrians you expect the private sector to pay for it?

Not at all to pretty much of the questions.

I see opening P&M as an idea with extremely limited upside. The biggest upside probably is as an FU to vehicles for certain proponents of it. On the whole it is very 'meh.'

Was it a dumb idea to close it to pedestrians and build the underground in the first place? Yes. Part of a long history of caving to developers.

Is it a problem now in the context of our city (where we can't even operate our underwhelming transit system at that underwhelming level we expect for one example)? Not really. We have numerous public events which still use/close the intersection and our two main streets. What's going to change? If there is an appetite in the business community to develop some street level, pedestrian friendly development at that corner, the land owners should be willing to kick in some up front, no?

[robertocarlos]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Oh right the parkade the city owned until 2009 that brought in $2M annually in profits, Katz and his organization decided it had to go and convinced council to sell it for $24 million netting $23.6 million with $400K going to Shindico (big surprise) for brokering the deal. Some of the money from the sale was to go to fixing the Civic Parkade (how's that working out) Oh and the city got a great building that does so much for the surrounding area, Smith Carter must cringe every time someone mentions that it's their spawn.

The parking fees have doubled or more since 2009.