Winnipeg | 300 Main St.- Phase II 360 Main St. | 465 Ft | 42F | Completed - Page 29

biguc · #**561** Posted **Apr 17, 2016, 2:44 AM**

Well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Urban recluse · #**562** Posted **Apr 17, 2016, 2:48 AM**

I would seriously question the sanity of anyone who would compare the former Sears tower and Empire State Building to the Richardson Building.

BigG · #**563** Posted **Apr 17, 2016, 2:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimj_wpg

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.

The Boyd Building should never, ever be recladded. That's crazy talk.

Urban recluse · #**564** Posted **Apr 17, 2016, 3:03 AM**

Indeed. No heritage building should be recladded.

BAKGUY · #**565** Posted **Apr 17, 2016, 4:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigG

The Boyd Building should never, ever be recladded. That's crazy talk.

Totally Agree. The Boyd is a classic.

Bluenote · #**566** Posted **Apr 17, 2016, 12:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

Indeed. No heritage building should be recladded.

And 40 years ago the Boyd was just like the Richardson. And people would have probably wanted to reclad it. So just send some love to the Richardson as in 30 more years it will be one of a kind.

WhipperSnapper · #**567** Posted **Apr 17, 2016, 1:43 PM**

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.

Precast concrete must be nearing end of life.

esquire · #**568** Posted **Apr 17, 2016, 1:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Precast concrete must be nearing end of life.

If that's the case then it's a different story, but I haven't heard of any such problems with that or buildings of similar design or vintage around here.

LilZebra · #**569** Posted **Apr 17, 2016, 2:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

I would seriously question the sanity of anyone who would compare the former Sears tower and Empire State Building to the Richardson Building.

Exactly.

I was watching a documentary on Youtube about the construction of the Sears tower and how the company over estimated how much more space they didn't get to use.

17 years later they sold it, and more recently it's now called Willis Tower (who is Willis, IDK).

Have been up to the top in both Richardson (1970, age 4), and Sears Tower (2007, age 41).

IDK for how long they kept the Observation Deck on the Richardson. It was also Manitoba's 100th anniv, so it was part of the celebration of that.

Worked a few weeks on the 14th floor of 360 Main when it was the Agriculture
Canada - National Grains Bureau (1990).

Been up to the 10th of TD Centre for Manpower Temporary Services in the 1990s.

Have a friend who had leased some space with Regus on the 18th floor of TD Centre.

Last year went (first time) 12th floor restaurant in Raddisson Hotel.

It wasn't until the mid- late-1980s till Richardson decided to spice up their building with the 'R' at the top, and it wasn't until the early 2000s when they designed some sort of decent plaza on the bottom.

They don't seem to do much unless someone (Downtown BIZ?) pushes them to do it.

Urban recluse · #**570** Posted **Apr 17, 2016, 2:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluenote

And 40 years ago the Boyd was just like the Richardson. And people would have probably wanted to reclad it. So just send some love to the Richardson as in 30 more years it will be one of a kind.

Apples and oranges. If I were old enough back then, no public opinion would have swayed me; turn of the last century architecture is special based on materials and design. Brutalist architecture is simply devoid of creativity and any artistic details, despite the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"; that is false.

BigG · #**571** Posted **Apr 17, 2016, 2:52 PM**

I'm not a fan of Brutalist Architecture, but it does have its merits. I actually like the taxation building on Stapon Rd. Although, that's one man's opinion.

Andy6 · #**572** Posted **Apr 17, 2016, 3:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

Apples and oranges. If I were old enough back then, no public opinion would have swayed me; turn of the last century architecture is special based on materials and design. Brutalist architecture is simply devoid of creativity and any artistic details, despite the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"; that is false.

It's supposed to be devoid of "artistic details" ... that's the whole point. Bolted-on fake doodads, mail-order terra cotta "carvings" and structural details that don't actually serve the function they're pretending to are nothing but cheap appeals to the tastelessness of the untutored masses. Say what you like about the Richardson Building - at least it's not another painted elephant in Winnipeg's circus of architectural schmaltz.

I'm feeling modernist this morning for some reason...

Jeff · #**573** Posted **Apr 17, 2016, 7:45 PM**

360 Main has aged wayyyyyy better than 201 portage. There's trees growing out of no where facing portage and main off the mezzanine floor facing the intersection. I think it will age badly compared to the Richardson tower.

Urban recluse · #**574** Posted **Apr 17, 2016, 11:24 PM**

Settling for the mundane is why Winnipeg is now battling to become a vibrant city. For so many decades, a lack of vision and flare has resulted in downtown being dominated by remnants of a time where buildings were built to look like, well, streets, and they blend in with the streets. Nothing about Winnipeg at this point screams modern.The concrete monolith's dominating the Winnipeg skyline are cold and uninviting. Cities that gleam from so much glass, and boast fine, beautifully cared for historic architecture are the cities people love to be in. The Richardson building would be acceptable to me if there were numerous gleaming towers around it. As it stands now, it is dreadfully dull.

esquire · #**575** Posted **Apr 18, 2016, 12:18 AM**

^ Sounds to me like the issue is lack of new development nearby as opposed to any problems with the Richardson Building itself.

optimusREIM · #**576** Posted **Apr 18, 2016, 12:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Sounds to me like the issue is lack of new development nearby as opposed to any problems with the Richardson Building itself.

Agreed. It's not exactly vibrant given that much of the land to the east and south of Richardson is dead surface parking. I think that if the lots between there and shaw park as well as south main and the railside lands were developed and built out it would go a long way to revitalizing the look of Richardson. Especially if a couple of shinyglass skyscrapers went up.

Pinus · #**577** Posted **Apr 18, 2016, 12:58 AM**

Someone had mentioned that Artis was proposing a hotel for the pad between 300 and 360 Main, and written a link to that article and I can't find the article itself on the FP website. I can't seem to find that post anymore. Does anyone if this was actually true or not?

Tacheguy · #**578** Posted **Apr 18, 2016, 1:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinus

Someone had mentioned that Artis was proposing a hotel for the pad between 300 and 360 Main, and written a link to that article and I can't find the article itself on the FP website. I can't seem to find that post anymore. Does anyone if this was actually true or not?

Yes he said he was working towards a hotel there. Just a glint in his eye at this stage though.

GarryEllice · #**579** Posted **Apr 18, 2016, 1:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

Cities that gleam from so much glass, and boast fine, beautifully cared for historic architecture are the cities people love to be in.

The cities that I love to be in are the ones that are full of life. Gleaming glass skyscrapers look lovely in pictures but they don't really make much of a difference to day-to-day life at street level.

I think you've got the causation backwards. Vibrant cities attract development, and in the current era much of that development is clad in gleaming glass. Having lots of glass buildings is a result of urban success, not a cause of it.

biguc · #**580** Posted **Apr 18, 2016, 1:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluenote

And 40 years ago the Boyd was just like the Richardson. And people would have probably wanted to reclad it. So just send some love to the Richardson as in 30 more years it will be one of a kind.

Exactly. It's like people celebrating the pending demise of the PSB, ignorant to the fact that when the old city hall came down, many people celebrated the demise of such an "ugly" building.

There are some things that people universally agree make a building look good, and in as much as they do, we can agree there are certain objective aesthetic values. Beyond that, what we value aesthetically is subject to the same market forces as anything. Scarcity increases value. This city used to wipe its 🞵🞵🞵 with its neo-classical building stock, until everyone realized they weren't going to get any more and started caring about them. Now, some are similarly short-sighted with respect to our modernist buildings, some of which are quite fine indeed.

Our skyline may look brown and drab now--enough to cheapen the value of any part of it. But I consider us lucky to have avoided accumulating many inanely whimsical, candy-coloured po-mo buildings. And in ten years when you look at booming cities like Toronto and realize their skyline is a tedious mass of blue-grey glass, you'll wish you could still see the varied styles of Commerce Court, the BMO Tower, and Scotiabank.