Winnipeg Construction IX

[Tacheguy]

Your right, downtown renewal is not the right phrase. Fnp does have a broader "planning area" that was set out when they were established; it is an area that goes beyond the assets they own directly. It was an area the three shareholders recognized as highly relevant to the Forks. So they were pretty heavily involved in discussions around developing the baseball park (which Kent Smith didn't like by the way) and some of the other developments you mentioned. Investing in a parkade in the east exchange, using patient capital from the pp parking sale would fit their mandate in my opinion and provide them with replacement revenue.
In any event I do believe FNP is well managed and will make good decisions.

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by buzzg

The building purchase came with 44 stalls behind the building. It’ll likely be Fairchild tenants that have to find an alternative now.

My understanding is these stalls are under a long term lease to Fairchild condo and cannot be displaced... This was the reason the property was compromised and not sold for so long ... A parkade or development can though he build over and above it as a phase two if it could make any economic sense. But as suggested this new development does not have access to that parking.

[buzzg]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as it's now owned by a different company, couldn't that render any previous leases void, as they didn't sign anything with the new owners?

[CoryB]

^^ The termination of leases on the transfer of ownership would depend on the specific language of the original lease agreement.

In terms of the modern proposal for the Exchange, I thought the whole area had a heritage designation slapped over it which would likely prevent that design from happening as-is. The designation is similar to a heritage building protected status but this time applies in wider terms. The troubling aspect with that design is specifically the front façade. Having a large area of preserved turn of the century warehouse buildings is actually something used to market the area as a filming location. Having a modern building wedge in there would make filming more challenging.

[esquire]

^ Filming movies strikes me as a pretty minor economic consideration vs. having a thriving urban neighbourhood. I'm more worried about the latter than keeping the Exchange as a sound stage for one movie every couple of years. And I don't think this one building is much of an obstacle either.

How many significant movies are filmed in the Exchange District each year? More importantly, how many of those are historic period pieces that would be unable to work around this one modern building?

[Ando]

You know, it isn't a zero sum game. And why are we setting up this false dichotomy? CoryB is the guy who keeps mentioning the Exchange as existing because people need a movie set. The Exchange might be used as a movie set because it exists as an historic district, just like multiple districts around Canada and the world that attempt to preserve the character of a special neighbourhoods. The historic character hasn't stopped the Exchange from becoming a vibrant neighbourhood. In fact, it's been a plus.

[esquire]

^ You're right, it isn't a zero sum game. The Exchange will still have historic character and there will still be plenty of places to film in the Exchange.

[windypeg]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Filming movies strikes me as a pretty minor economic consideration vs. having a thriving urban neighbourhood. I'm more worried about the latter than keeping the Exchange as a sound stage for one movie every couple of years. And I don't think this one building is much of an obstacle either.

How many significant movies are filmed in the Exchange District each year? More importantly, how many of those are historic period pieces that would be unable to work around this one modern building?

The exchange stands in for modern-day NYC and Chicago at least as often as it is used as a historical backdrop. I think it's actually a pretty short list of films that have used the exchange exclusively for its historical look. I really don't think the directors of Goon or Cult of Chucky cared if there were modern buildings in the shot. We definitely shouldn't hamper development to try to keep the place frozen in time just because once upon a time they shot a western with Brad Pitt there.

[Ando]

Originally Posted by windypeg

The exchange stands in for modern-day NYC and Chicago at least as often as it is used as a historical backdrop. I think it's actually a pretty short list of films that have used the exchange exclusively for its historical look. I really don't think the directors of Goon or Cult of Chucky cared if there were modern buildings in the shot. We definitely shouldn't hamper development to try to keep the place frozen in time just because once upon a time they shot a western with Brad Pitt there.

You seem unclear on the concept of an historic district. And also unclear on the fact that the Exchange does not exist because someone needed a movie set, or because Brad Pitt may have a movie there at one time. There are always going to be some building guidelines in a coherent district but I don't see it stopping the Exchange from developing. You're making it sound like development has been frozen because of movie set concerns. Think about it for a second and realize how ridiculous that sounds.

[esquire]

^ Recognizing the character of the area by designating it as a historic district does not mean freezing it in its current state for the rest of time. New buildings have been built in the area over the decades and they will continue to be built.

[CoryB]

Ando gets it. The historical district designation that covers The Exchange is more than just about being a movie set. It is the same principal as a historic building designation but covering more than a single building. it is same as any of the community development standards that exist throughout the city. The difference with The Exchange though is, best I can remember, a height limitation and a limit of the style of the exterior style of the building.

It will be interesting to see how that proposal plays out at the community committee level, assuming it goes that far.

[esquire]

Considering the buildings that have gone up in the area over the years - 433 Main, Civic Centre, Centennial Centre, Mere, the Waterfront Drive condos, the cube, etc., I don't think the City seems intent on freezing the Exchange District in time. And that's a good thing.

[Ando]

Originally Posted by esquire

Considering the buildings that have gone up in the area over the years - 433 Main, Civic Centre, Centennial Centre, Mere, the Waterfront Drive condos, the cube, etc., I don't think the City seems intent on freezing the Exchange District in time. And that's a good thing.

Do your homework. The Exchange Historic designation has only existed since 1997 so many of the buildings you mention aren't relevant. I daresay that the old City Hall might still be standing if the historic designation had been in place. Even the new buildings on Waterfront however, for the section that is deemed to be part of the Exchange, are subject to some guidelines, such as height restrictions. To a certain extent, aspects of the Exchange will be"frozen" as you call it because that is part of being part of a collection of historic buildings. For example, it presumably won't be possible to blow the sides out of a bunch of designated heritage buildings to build the overhead concourses that many Winnipeggers seem to regard as essential. i don't see any of this preventing the Exchange from becoming a vibrant place, it's amazing the transition over the past decade.

[esquire]

Buildings like Mere and the condos in the West Exchange are recently-built. Same with the Sport For Life Centre. Some of them incorporate typical Exchange District elements like traditional masonry, but they are modern designs. Existing buildings are protected(which is the point of the historic district designation), but there are a lot of situations where you have parking lots or too-far-gone buildings like the one in question on Princess which will ultimately see new development. That's where you'll see modern design which will compliment the older buildings in the area.

[windypeg]

Originally Posted by Ando

You know, it isn't a zero sum game. And why are we setting up this false dichotomy? CoryB is the guy who keeps mentioning the Exchange as existing because people need a movie set. The Exchange might be used as a movie set because it exists as an historic district, just like multiple districts around Canada and the world that attempt to preserve the character of a special neighbourhoods. The historic character hasn't stopped the Exchange from becoming a vibrant neighbourhood. In fact, it's been a plus.

Originally Posted by windypeg

The exchange stands in for modern-day NYC and Chicago at least as often as it is used as a historical backdrop. I think it's actually a pretty short list of films that have used the exchange exclusively for its historical look. I really don't think the directors of Goon or Cult of Chucky cared if there were modern buildings in the shot. We definitely shouldn't hamper development to try to keep the place frozen in time just because once upon a time they shot a western with Brad Pitt there.

Originally Posted by Ando

You seem unclear on the concept of an historic district. And also unclear on the fact that the Exchange does not exist because someone needed a movie set, or because Brad Pitt may have a movie there at one time. There are always going to be some building guidelines in a coherent district but I don't see it stopping the Exchange from developing. You're making it sound like development has been frozen because of movie set concerns. Think about it for a second and realize how ridiculous that sounds.

That is a bizarrely salty response to someone who just completely agreed with you. I was trying to say - in response to others who voiced concerns about how it would affect the block for film purposes - that modern buildings are fine for the exchange and we shouldn't be afraid to mix new with old. Development isn't frozen, I didn't say it was. I also did not suggest the exchange exists to be a movie set, in fact I said the exact opposite, that new development should proceed, as it already is. I mentioned how rarely films use the exchange as a historical setting to demonstrate how modern development won't hurt the film potential much.

All I meant was modern buildings can be fine in a heritage district. Apparently I don't understand what a historical district is but so far I've suggested it should not be treated as a movie set that's frozen in time and that it should be a place where modern development can mingle with historical architecture, within certain design guidelines. Like I'm not even sure what your stance on the Princess st. building is. Are you thinking the design isn't good enough for a historical district? If you're ok with it then why are you giving me a hard time for also being ok with it?

[Wpg_Guy]

Red River Campus beside the facade is completely new modern building also the global food institute addition to the royal bank so there is lots of newer buildings that fit into the exchange,

[Urban recluse]

It is pathetic wanting and expecting the Exchange to be a museum; staying as is. A vibrant neighborhood offers various forms of housing, including high-rises. The Byward Market is a great example, not to mention every other city with large inventories of heritage buildings. Mixing new architecture with old creates a dynamic, interesting neighborhood.

[buzzg]

There's lot's of buildings in the Exchange that don't fit the heritage mould. 98 Market is a recently built example, Bedford Parkade, the building that was planned for the old Bodegoes site. Any new build would not appear like a heritage building, and that's OK.

The argument we should preserve as-is for the film industry is moot as the city now has a "we don't give a shit" attitude when in comes to infra/streetscape design in the area. It's horrifying to me that the same unpainted, modular traffic light/sign poles are going up in the Exchange as in Sage Creek. Can we seriously not have black painted signal poles to match the sidewalk lighting? Hot pink bike racks don't seem very 1919 to me either.

[Urban recluse]

The owner of 103 Princess was allowed to paint part of his building with what looks like primer. Let's not pretend the Exchange is more than it actually is. Some of you need to travel if you want to see vibrant districts.

[buzzg]

^Yeah, don't think they would have painted over brick in dark grey in 1923.