Winnipeg Construction IX

[rrskylar]

So what exactly was the net gain of knocking down the 128 year-old Shanghai Building at 228 King Street and leaving an unused garbage strewn grass lot?

[Urban recluse]

Piss poor city planning.

[DowntownBooster]

Originally Posted by roccerfeller

I know it's "skyscraperpage" and we all deep down like seeing high rises that can notably contribute to skylines...

...but smaller 6-10 storey buildings would be much better for downtown Winnipeg if we want to see such 100m+ buildings become the norm for development rather than the lone proposal that comes once or twice a decade...

Not only would a relatively steady stream of 6-10 story buildings be more feasible financially, more realistic, and contribute more quicker, it would densify downtown so much so that it could make these taller towers more feasible out of necessity

If all these empty lots are developed on with smaller scale buildings, densify the proportionally large downtown, suddenly the lots that aren't developed downtown become more scarce, more valuable, and it becomes more feasible to build taller buildings simply due to space constraints.

At least, in an ideal sense, it could work like that.

Cannot both types of development occur simultaneously? The benefit of having tall structures going up is that it helps with the impression that the city as a whole and the downtown population in particular is growing. If the height of the skyline does not change, which has been the case since 1990 when 201 Portage was completed, it perpetuates the belief among many that Winnipeg is not growing. Like it or not, that is how cities are perceived in respect to whether they are growing or not. If the skyline of Edmonton was not changing in terms of height but instead just low rise buildings were going up and out among the suburbs, it would certainly create the impression that it was not keeping pace with Calgary's growth rate.

Just as there are those living in Osborne Village or the Exchange District that would not want to live in the suburbs, there are also those that may want to live downtown but do so in a highrise like 300 Main or SkyCity for the convenience but also for the view that it provides at night with the city lights stretching out over the horizon. Some may prefer to live in a low rise as the street life may be more important to them than the view but it shouldn't preclude others the option to live in a highrise. Also, some may prefer the location downtown where 300 Main and SkyCity are to be built rather than Glasshouse so they are not confronted daily by the vagrants who populate the area by Air Canada Centre. There should be options for all who choose to live downtown.

I do think that having some taller structures go up will be more beneficial to downtown in creating a further interest and demand to live there. Just as some perceive downtown to be safer if there are more people around, some will only perceive that the city is growing (and therefore want to be a part of it) if they see the skyline reaching new heights. It's been argued on these boards on a technicality that 201 Portage is the tallest building in Winnipeg when I pointed out that the Richardson Building basically represents our tallest structure when completed in 1969. Yes, 201 Portage is taller by 13 feet but my point is that our zenith outside of 13 feet was achieved nearly 50 years ago. How many major cities in North America have gone that long of a stretch in time between a new structure of a significant difference in height (i.e more than 50 feet) eclipsing the previous tallest structure? It would be a great visual confirmation among many that Winnipeg is progressing and growing if both 300 Main and SkyCity were to rise downtown. There will be some that don't want to see these type of developments occur because they don't like change in the same way some were angered by the return of the Jets because they preferred the affordability of the Moose. However, as a city, you need growth in order to prosper and create opportunities and more choices for all who live there. Allowing the Jets to return also provided the opportunity for the Moose to return as well. In the same manner, I think allowing some highrise development to occur will provide the opportunity for successful low-rise developments to also occur throughout the downtown area. One type of development does not have to be detrimental to the other. We can instead have both.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

Piss poor city planning.

the city doesnt want any of these old buildings standing period they want them gone at the engineering lvl and planning

[goldenboi]

Originally Posted by DowntownBooster

Cannot both types of development occur simultaneously? The benefit of having tall structures going up is that it helps with the impression that the city as a whole and the downtown population in particular is growing. If the height of the skyline does not change, which has been the case since 1990 when 201 Portage was completed, it perpetuates the belief among many that Winnipeg is not growing. Like it or not, that is how cities are perceived in respect to whether they are growing or not. If the skyline of Edmonton was not changing in terms of height but instead just low rise buildings were going up and out among the suburbs, it would certainly create the impression that it was not keeping pace with Calgary's growth rate.

You raise some good points. I agree that it is extremely important for people to have confidence in their city. But I don't think the only way to do that is to build one big tower. I think it would be a way bigger confidence boost to our city if our downtown became less of a desert wasteland. If people from the suburbs could feel safe walking around downtown at night. If you could go from the forks to the exchange without wandering through empty lots and a dingy underground mall. If you could live downtown and get all of your basic necessities within walking distance. If you could get anywhere in our city without a 2000kg piece of metal. I could go on. I love my city but there are some gaping issues that need to be fixed and they are much more subtle than to be solved by one big skyscraper.

Now Skycity is supposed to cost about $188 million. I'm pretty sure glasshouse and alt hotel costed about $75 million COMBINED. So for the price of one big sky city, we could have FOUR beautiful mid rises. Imagine the impact that would have. Instead of a few people with deep pockets getting a nice view of the prairies, we could fill FOUR lots with beautiful 20 story buildings. Put one on South Main, one on the east side of Portage and Main, one in the lot by 201 portage, and I'll let you pick where the last one will go Imagine the impact that would have on our city. Just think about it.

True North Square is twice the price of Skycity but they are planning to put four towers up with a massive public square in the middle. I think that there are so many lots to fill that we would be better off building a bunch of mid-rises than one big high-rise. Forget the "But why can't we have both?"... We can't have both because we don't have the same kind of investment that Calgary, Vancouver and Toronto are getting. And at the end of the day, what does it matter if people perceive that Winnipeg is getting better if we still haven't dealt with our most gaping issues. Hey, at least we'd have a nice shiny tower right?

[Roger Strong]

Originally Posted by goldenboi

True North Square is twice the price of Skycity but they are planning to put four towers up with a massive public square in the middle.

Um, shouldn't that be described as a small public square? Half the size of say, the Air Canada Window Park to the north?

I laughed out loud at an early rendering that had fireworks going off in the square, between the towers and with a crowd below. It made the sales literature for new houses - showing them surrounded by mature trees and no other houses rather than the subdivision they'll be crammed into - look honest.

[bomberjet]

I think anyone with common sense could figure out there would never be fireworks like that.

[DowntownBooster]

Originally Posted by goldenboi

You raise some good points. I agree that it is extremely important for people to have confidence in their city. But I don't think the only way to do that is to build one big tower. I think it would be a way bigger confidence boost to our city if our downtown became less of a desert wasteland. If people from the suburbs could feel safe walking around downtown at night. If you could go from the forks to the exchange without wandering through empty lots and a dingy underground mall. If you could live downtown and get all of your basic necessities within walking distance. If you could get anywhere in our city without a 2000kg piece of metal. I could go on. I love my city but there are some gaping issues that need to be fixed and they are much more subtle than to be solved by one big skyscraper.

Now Skycity is supposed to cost about $188 million. I'm pretty sure glasshouse and alt hotel costed about $75 million COMBINED. So for the price of one big sky city, we could have FOUR beautiful mid rises. Imagine the impact that would have. Instead of a few people with deep pockets getting a nice view of the prairies, we could fill FOUR lots with beautiful 20 story buildings. Put one on South Main, one on the east side of Portage and Main, one in the lot by 201 portage, and I'll let you pick where the last one will go Imagine the impact that would have on our city. Just think about it.

True North Square is twice the price of Skycity but they are planning to put four towers up with a massive public square in the middle. I think that there are so many lots to fill that we would be better off building a bunch of mid-rises than one big high-rise. Forget the "But why can't we have both?"... We can't have both because we don't have the same kind of investment that Calgary, Vancouver and Toronto are getting. And at the end of the day, what does it matter if people perceive that Winnipeg is getting better if we still haven't dealt with our most gaping issues. Hey, at least we'd have a nice shiny tower right?

I understand where you're coming from in regards to filling in the vacant lots downtown. That would indeed be great. I guess my point is that in the same way that people living in Osborne Village have no interest in living in the suburbs and perhaps vice versa, those that would only want to live downtown if it could be in a high-rise would not be the ones opting to go into a low-rise. It would be similar to when there were large amounts of people that had no desire to go to a Moose game no matter how much less expensive the tickets were in comparison to the Jets. There are some that just won't compromise if the only item available is not what they want. I don't think that SkyCity or 300 Main should present an obstacle to anyone wanting to construct more low-rise buildings that could fill in the vacant lots. Just as we now have both the Jets and Moose available to support, I do think that we can have multiple types of residential developments downtown to suit the various interests and price points of perspective residents.

[Bluenote]

Originally Posted by goldenboi

You raise some good points. I agree that it is extremely important for people to have confidence in their city. But I don't think the only way to do that is to build one big tower. I think it would be a way bigger confidence boost to our city if our downtown became less of a desert wasteland. If people from the suburbs could feel safe walking around downtown at night. If you could go from the forks to the exchange without wandering through empty lots and a dingy underground mall. If you could live downtown and get all of your basic necessities within walking distance. If you could get anywhere in our city without a 2000kg piece of metal. I could go on. I love my city but there are some gaping issues that need to be fixed and they are much more subtle than to be solved by one big skyscraper.

Now Skycity is supposed to cost about $188 million. I'm pretty sure glasshouse and alt hotel costed about $75 million COMBINED. So for the price of one big sky city, we could have FOUR beautiful mid rises. Imagine the impact that would have. Instead of a few people with deep pockets getting a nice view of the prairies, we could fill FOUR lots with beautiful 20 story buildings. Put one on South Main, one on the east side of Portage and Main, one in the lot by 201 portage, and I'll let you pick where the last one will go Imagine the impact that would have on our city. Just think about it.

True North Square is twice the price of Skycity but they are planning to put four towers up with a massive public square in the middle. I think that there are so many lots to fill that we would be better off building a bunch of mid-rises than one big high-rise. Forget the "But why can't we have both?"... We can't have both because we don't have the same kind of investment that Calgary, Vancouver and Toronto are getting. And at the end of the day, what does it matter if people perceive that Winnipeg is getting better if we still haven't dealt with our most gaping issues. Hey, at least we'd have a nice shiny tower right?

Larger towers tend to attract a different clientele. Mainly people with excess money. Smaller ones tend to be mid income people. And even smaller tend to be single people or just apartments. I'm speaking of downtown mainly.

Taking a huge tower and thinking that you could split it up into smaller ones to fill in vacant lots is also short sighted. We don't want to JUST fill up empty lots. Because one day those lots will be needed for development other then just filling up lots. We are a city with a heritage of unique old buildings that needs to be saved. So if all the lots are filled up in say 10 years. What will happen then. We will start tearing down our heritage. Examples are all over downtown of that thinking as it was very prominent in the 80's.

And one other thing that high towers tend to bring to a city is a metropolitan feel. Lots of people in the burbs always comment on Calgary and it's towers and now Edmonton and it's new skyline. You do not hear people talking about Regina or Saskabush or even Ottawa. All are nice cities. But they do not have that metro feel like the others. You want people to have the googly eyed feeling of downtown as that's what's going to get them to move there. Not a bunch of low rise buildings as this ain't Paris.

[Urban recluse]

If the demand is there, heritage buildings will be redeveloped, incorporated into new towers.

The market dictates what developers build. Tall towers: hey, bring them on.

[Bluenote]

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

If the demand is there, heritage buildings will be redeveloped, incorporated into new towers.

The market dictates what developers build. Tall towers: hey, bring them on.

Yes and no. If it's just a warehouse style heritage building then sure. But one with an amazing interior would be lost when they just save the facade.

[Urban recluse]

No, the interiors would be protected (ie: Union Bank). I am no proponent of saving only the facades, even warehouses deserve to have interior features saved.

[roccerfeller]

Originally Posted by DowntownBooster

Cannot both types of development occur simultaneously? The benefit of having tall structures going up is that it helps with the impression that the city as a whole and the downtown population in particular is growing. If the height of the skyline does not change, which has been the case since 1990 when 201 Portage was completed, it perpetuates the belief among many that Winnipeg is not growing. Like it or not, that is how cities are perceived in respect to whether they are growing or not. If the skyline of Edmonton was not changing in terms of height but instead just low rise buildings were going up and out among the suburbs, it would certainly create the impression that it was not keeping pace with Calgary's growth rate.

Just as there are those living in Osborne Village or the Exchange District that would not want to live in the suburbs, there are also those that may want to live downtown but do so in a highrise like 300 Main or SkyCity for the convenience but also for the view that it provides at night with the city lights stretching out over the horizon. Some may prefer to live in a low rise as the street life may be more important to them than the view but it shouldn't preclude others the option to live in a highrise. Also, some may prefer the location downtown where 300 Main and SkyCity are to be built rather than Glasshouse so they are not confronted daily by the vagrants who populate the area by Air Canada Centre. There should be options for all who choose to live downtown.

I do think that having some taller structures go up will be more beneficial to downtown in creating a further interest and demand to live there. Just as some perceive downtown to be safer if there are more people around, some will only perceive that the city is growing (and therefore want to be a part of it) if they see the skyline reaching new heights. It's been argued on these boards on a technicality that 201 Portage is the tallest building in Winnipeg when I pointed out that the Richardson Building basically represents our tallest structure when completed in 1969. Yes, 201 Portage is taller by 13 feet but my point is that our zenith outside of 13 feet was achieved nearly 50 years ago. How many major cities in North America have gone that long of a stretch in time between a new structure of a significant difference in height (i.e more than 50 feet) eclipsing the previous tallest structure? It would be a great visual confirmation among many that Winnipeg is progressing and growing if both 300 Main and SkyCity were to rise downtown. There will be some that don't want to see these type of developments occur because they don't like change in the same way some were angered by the return of the Jets because they preferred the affordability of the Moose. However, as a city, you need growth in order to prosper and create opportunities and more choices for all who live there. Allowing the Jets to return also provided the opportunity for the Moose to return as well. In the same manner, I think allowing some highrise development to occur will provide the opportunity for successful low-rise developments to also occur throughout the downtown area. One type of development does not have to be detrimental to the other. We can instead have both.

Originally Posted by Bluenote

Larger towers tend to attract a different clientele. Mainly people with excess money. Smaller ones tend to be mid income people. And even smaller tend to be single people or just apartments. I'm speaking of downtown mainly.

Taking a huge tower and thinking that you could split it up into smaller ones to fill in vacant lots is also short sighted. We don't want to JUST fill up empty lots. Because one day those lots will be needed for development other then just filling up lots. We are a city with a heritage of unique old buildings that needs to be saved. So if all the lots are filled up in say 10 years. What will happen then. We will start tearing down our heritage. Examples are all over downtown of that thinking as it was very prominent in the 80's.

And one other thing that high towers tend to bring to a city is a metropolitan feel. Lots of people in the burbs always comment on Calgary and it's towers and now Edmonton and it's new skyline. You do not hear people talking about Regina or Saskabush or even Ottawa. All are nice cities. But they do not have that metro feel like the others. You want people to have the googly eyed feeling of downtown as that's what's going to get them to move there. Not a bunch of low rise buildings as this ain't Paris.

I agree with both of you, with a lot of what you guys are saying. DowntownBooster, you make a fantastic point about the "zenith" being achieved 50 years ago. Bluenote, you also make a very good point about not wanting to tear down older buildings.

But the thing is Winnipeg doesn't have the same market conditions or climate to make buildings that tall frequently feasible. Maybe when Winnipeg gets closer to Edmonton's CMA population size we'll see more of those skyline changers come, but even when Edmonton was very similar in population to Winnipeg, I mean within 50k people, it had taller towers and more of them comparatively. Same with Calgary. But they had different market conditions; different market realities at that time, and it is even more true today.

I don't know what the answer is. I was just thinking from an ideal sense, maybe that is the answer...drive up the need to build taller by driving change to create more favourable "high rise" development conditions.

The office market isn't there right now, I don't see that changing any time soon but i also don't know enough about if the office market might suddenly change in the near future (within 5 yrs), so residential towers are the the answer to realistic skyline changes but projects like 300 main are the rare exception, not the rule.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by roccerfeller

I agree with both of you, with a lot of what you guys are saying. DowntownBooster, you make a fantastic point about the "zenith" being achieved 50 years ago. Bluenote, you also make a very good point about not wanting to tear down older buildings.

But the thing is Winnipeg doesn't have the same market conditions or climate to make buildings that tall frequently feasible. Maybe when Winnipeg gets closer to Edmonton's CMA population size we'll see more of those skyline changers come, but even when Edmonton was very similar in population to Winnipeg, I mean within 50k people, it had taller towers and more of them comparatively. Same with Calgary. But they had different market conditions; different market realities at that time, and it is even more true today.

I don't know what the answer is. I was just thinking from an ideal sense, maybe that is the answer...drive up the need to build taller by driving change to create more favourable "high rise" development conditions.

The office market isn't there right now, I don't see that changing any time soon but i also don't know enough about if the office market might suddenly change in the near future (within 5 yrs), so residential towers are the the answer to realistic skyline changes but projects like 300 main are the rare exception, not the rule.

Winnipeg already has more office buildings than it needs, and True North Square will put the cap on that sort of development for a long time. The worst thing that could happen would be more office towers, because all they're going to do is to 🞵🞵🞵🞵 existing tenants out of Portage & Main, whose buildings will then pull tenants out of the Exchange District, reducing the incentive to redevelop buildings in that area. Winnipeg is not the sort of city whose economy calls for corporate offices in expensive downtown office towers. That's a reality that can't simply be wished away.

Maybe there will be some demand for apartment/condo living downtown, but that will come as the result of a downtown that is improved in other ways. It's not likely to be the cause of an improved downtown. It's better to focus on the smaller things that will improve downtown and make actual, rational people actually want to spend their own money to build there and live there. Endless rounds of subsidies won't do it.

[wags_in_the_peg]

Heard today that Capitol Ford Lincoln by Polo Park has plans to be Capitol Ford only and move Capitol Lincoln to a NEW build dealer in the Ikea area. They are the only Lincoln dealer in MB as Parkside lost theirs.

[horrorbro123]

Originally Posted by wags_in_the_peg

Heard today that Capitol Ford Lincoln by Polo Park has plans to be Capitol Ford only and move Capitol Lincoln to a NEW build dealer in the Ikea area. They are the only Lincoln dealer in MB as Parkside lost theirs.

Wait What? Captial Ford Is Kicking Out Lincoln St James Location In Favorite Of Seasons Of Tuxedo What The

[esquire]

Originally Posted by horrorbro123

Wait What? Captial Ford Is Kicking Out Lincoln St James Location In Favorite Of Seasons Of Tuxedo What The

It actually makes good sense... the current site is pretty small for two lines of cars. This way they move Lincoln to its own standalone site in an area where a bunch of luxury dealerships are congregating, and then they have more room for Ford on the existing site by Polo Park.

[wags_in_the_peg]

Originally Posted by esquire

It actually makes good sense... the current site is pretty small for two lines of cars. This way they move Lincoln to its own standalone site in an area where a bunch of luxury dealerships are congregating, and then they have more room for Ford on the existing site by Polo Park.

exactly! they aren't "kicking" anyone out, they are building a "probably fancy schmancy" delearship for their luxury line. Makes a lot of sense to me, Ikea area (South Winnipeg in general) has the wealthiest people living there, hence the Audi, Mercedes and now Lincoln dealerships congregrating to the area. 10 minutes from river heights / tuxedo / bridgewater /lindenwoods.

[esquire]

^ I always forget that there's still a Ford dealership in the inner city area... one of my vehicles is a Ford and I get it serviced at Midtown way out on Waverley. Your post has reminded me to book my next service appointment at Capitol instead!

[pollswpg]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Anybody seen or heard of any issues with the new pedestrian signal at Main and Assiniboine?

Story by CTV notes the main issue is vehicles not stopping at the traffic signal. So enforce that 🞵🞵🞵🞵, what the hell! They're making it out to be some kind of issue with the way the City installed the crosswalk.

Vehicles should be stopping. It's a poorly designed intersection that don't have clear stop lines.

That being said, another part of the issue is pedestrians/cyclists pushing the cross button.....then just waiting for traffic to clear up -- then they cross. So then the light still changes to red when there's no traffic around.

In a perfect world, we'd have some sort of a pedestrian/cyclist overpass there....but we don't have the finances/priorites for that.

I'm thinking wishfully with the future rapid and active transit developments....maybe that could be included? Probably not though.