Winnipeg | 300 Main St.- Phase II 360 Main St. | 465 Ft | 42F | Completed - Page 28

Biff · #**541** Posted **Apr 16, 2016, 3:36 AM**

I wonder why the designers of the Richardson Building chose to square the building to Portage East rather than Main St?

Urban recluse · #**542** Posted **Apr 16, 2016, 4:02 AM**

I have to say anew that the Richardson Building recladded in glass, a la Brookfield Place in Calgary, would modernize the skyline, adding much needed brightness to the downtown.

jmt18325 · #**543** Posted **Apr 16, 2016, 4:53 AM**

Leave it alone.

BAKGUY · #**544** Posted **Apr 16, 2016, 5:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

https://twitter.com/mayor_bowman

This view will be spectacular when 300 Main and the recladding of 360 Main are finished. Bonus if the parking lot adjacent to Wawanesa gets filled with a tower tall enough to be noticed.

Absolutely. Perhaps yet another building or 2 between Wawanesa and 300 Main Street as well?

LilZebra · #**545** Posted **Apr 16, 2016, 9:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmt18325

Leave it alone.

The issue with the Richardson building is that it feels way too "heavy" because of the stone fascade.

It could also benefit from modern glass design, which will help reduce energy consumption.

Bluenote · #**546** Posted **Apr 16, 2016, 3:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

I have to say anew that the Richardson Building recladded in glass, a la Brookfield Place in Calgary, would modernize the skyline, adding much needed brightness to the downtown.

Leave it alone. If we start refacing everything we will end up losing heritage again. How many buildings did we reface only to remove it and try and restore what was originally there. The Richardson is a unique building. It's also the first tall building in Winnipeg and was and is the most prominent building in our downtown for the last 40 years.

What it needs is some proper lighting. A new R at the top and it will look better.

It's funny. No one wants to reclad the little RBC tower and yet you want to reclad the Richardson.

Bluenote · #**547** Posted **Apr 16, 2016, 4:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimj_wpg

The issue with the Richardson building is that it feels way too "heavy" because of the stone fascade.

It could also benefit from modern glass design, which will help reduce energy consumption.

Then we better start tearing down or refacing most of downtown with glass as they look to heavy. All these new towers are glass. Eventually all we will see is glass. If you want glass visit Vancouver.

As for energy consumption. I doubt an all glass is going to be better then one with less glass like the Richardson. All the Richardson would need to up its energy code is new windows and it would surpass a all glass building.

BigG · #**548** Posted **Apr 16, 2016, 4:11 PM**

Having different architectural styles in our downtown is is a wonderful thing. I like the Richardson just the way it is. I agree that we should leave it alone. Eventually the glass-type buildings and more colour will dominate the downtown in the future.

esquire · #**549** Posted **Apr 16, 2016, 4:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigG

Having different architectural styles in our downtown is is a wonderful thing. I like the Richardson just the way it is. I agree that we should leave it alone. Eventually the glass-type buildings and more colour will dominate the downtown in the future.

Agreed. Recladding such a well-done and iconic building would be a very shortsighted thing to do. I can't imagine that it's being seriously considered, though.

buzzg · #**550** Posted **Apr 16, 2016, 5:53 PM**

Richardson just needs a good pressure wash, especially at the top, and some better lighting. It'd be cool to see those LEDs go all the way up, and/or light up the top part. Even though it's small and simple I've always loved that blue light strip on the MTS building.

Urban recluse · #**551** Posted **Apr 16, 2016, 5:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluenote

Leave it alone. If we start refacing everything we will end up losing heritage again. How many buildings did we reface only to remove it and try and restore what was originally there. The Richardson is a unique building. It's also the first tall building in Winnipeg and was and is the most prominent building in our downtown for the last 40 years.

What it needs is some proper lighting. A new R at the top and it will look better.

It's funny. No one wants to reclad the little RBC tower and yet you want to reclad the Richardson.

The RBC Building can be left as is because it is not drab; it is bright in an otherwise dreary skyline.

BAKGUY · #**552** Posted **Apr 16, 2016, 7:55 PM**

I go on a lot about Radisson and how ugly it looks. I have no idea what they could do but it almost disappears into the skyline.
I agree lighting it up like they did years back under different ownership would help and same with The Delta @ 350 St Mary Ave. .
They both used to light up. years back
Also, The Kensington Bldg on Portage Avenue can use some help. It looks fine on 3 sides but that blah backside which is looking Portage Ave to the west, shows 18 floors of concrete. Anyone else agree?

BigG · #**553** Posted **Apr 16, 2016, 8:01 PM**

The Kensington to me, for sure needs work, especially the eastern exposure. You are absolutely correct, Bakguy. I have to agree with you.

Urban recluse · #**554** Posted **Apr 16, 2016, 9:28 PM**

I concur. Both the Radisson and the Kensington wall need Recladding.

biguc · #**555** Posted **Apr 16, 2016, 11:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff

I wonder why the designers of the Richardson Building chose to square the building to Portage East rather than Main St?

Lombard Place looks like Portage East was supposed to end up as wide as Portage West, until it's blocked by the tiny building at the end. I actually think it would be pretty great if Portage East had been widened and straightened to connect directly to Provencher. All the nice buildings down that stretch are gone now anyway.

As for the west side of the Kensington, I propose setting up scaffolding for a few months, then taking it down when the whole side of the building is covered with graffiti. Or, plant a bunch of vines at the bottom and let them crawl upward.

LilZebra · #**556** Posted **Apr 16, 2016, 11:30 PM**

Dollarama, Boyd, Power (orig. Investors Group) bldgs. ...Reclad.

Replace the cornerstone of "The Jail" (Millennium Library) from 1977 to 2005.

79, 83 and 87 Smith demolished for a mid-rise apt./condo.

Urban recluse · #**557** Posted **Apr 17, 2016, 1:29 AM**

The library compared to Calgary's and the proposed Edmonton one is, well, anyway...

Urban recluse · #**558** Posted **Apr 17, 2016, 2:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

Agreed. Recladding such a well-done and iconic building would be a very shortsighted thing to do. I can't imagine that it's being seriously considered, though.

No, it would be a serious step in bringing Winnipeg into the 21st century by transforming a dreadfully drab skyline into one that gleams. As one of the tallest buildings in the city, this tower could be a symbol of renewal and inspiration, just as 360 Main will be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Edmonton - WSP Tower

Before/Current:

http://i.imgur.com/bOZDVyj.jpg
Jaybee on c2e

After:

http://manascisaac.com

biguc · #**559** Posted **Apr 17, 2016, 2:24 AM**

No way. The Richardson building is a modernist classic. Diversity in a skyline is way more visually appealing than uniform contemporaneity.

Should New York reclad the Empire State building? Chicago the Sears tower? Should Hong Kong start planning for a future where the Bank of China needs a new look?

360 Main features a badly aged facade--and I mean that literally. Bare metal is visible on the panels. I'm sure the windows are failing. It needs a reclad, it's just convenient that it also wants one.

Urban recluse · #**560** Posted **Apr 17, 2016, 2:37 AM**

Really bad examples, as both are stunning towers, one art deco, one which could be built today and not be dated. The Richardson Building = the three Ds: dreary, dull and drab.