Winnipeg Construction IX

[Urban recluse]

Modern and historic can blend beautifully. What pisses me off is crap like the addition to the WFP Building. Shit like that must not be permitted at all, especially within the district boundaries.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by 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.

Both Mere and Sports For Life Centre actually fall just outside the Exchange Historical District.

Source: City of Winnipeg

For buildings that fall within the limits the city has gone to great lengths to enforce its standards even on essentially condemned buildings in the district. Look at the RRC campus on Princess and the building at Princess and Bannatyne where the old exterior was torn down brick by brick and rebuilt around a new building.

The Cube stage might have gotten an exception as it was in a block at had already lost its historical significance.

Other properties in the historical district, as others have noted, were done before the designation was put in place.

Basically this makes redevelopment in the designated area more complex as the whole neighbourhood has historical status and then specific buildings in that might have their own status.

In terms of historical status also keep in mind, for Winnipeg, there are three different groups issues status: the city, the province and the feds. And some or all of them could apply to aspects of any project.

[esquire]

^ So what are the standards? Do the standards apply to older buildings or to all development?

The historic district thing keeps being raised but without any insight as to what that actually means for the proposal in question.

[Biff]

This is an absolutely beautiful addition to this block. Very surprised how they were able to creatively do something with that horrid spacer addition in-between the two historic warehouses.

I love it, and I would take this all over the Exchange. Nobody builds 100 year old buildings anymore, so don't even try.

Beautiful.

Originally Posted by 1ajs

[/IMG]

[CoryB]

From the link I provided:

(1)Historic districts constitute appropriate subjects for commemoration, and those of national significance will include one or more of the following:
(a) a group of buildings, structures and open spaces, none of which singly need be of national architectural significance, but which, when taken together, comprise a harmonious representation of one or more styles or constructions, building types, or periods;
(b) a group of buildings, structures and open spaces, none of which may be of individual historical -significance, but which together comprise an outstanding example of structures of technological or social significance;
(b) a group of buildings, structures and open spaces which share uncommonly strong associations with individuals, events or themes of national significance.

(2) Above all, an historic district of national significance must have a “sense of history”: intrusive elements must be minimal, and the district’s historic characteristics must predominate and set it apart from the area that immediately surrounds it.
--

The Exchange likely falls into aspects on both of the first two. Also the proposal for Princess seems falls into conflict with the "intrusive elements must be minimal" clause.

It isn't so much a question on the merits of the proposed building, but rather if that proposal is in keeping with the historic district status. That is the part that is at odds. It is no different than a proposal to drastically modify a historic building to the point what makes it important could be lost.

--

It is likely also worth mentioned that all three levels of government signed off on the historical district status so a variation like the awesome looking proposal would likely need to be signed off by all three government levels.

Just to be clear, I love the proposal and love the idea, just trying to point out that it has some major barriers to get past to become a reality. As sad as it is, if it instead tried to mirror the style of the building to the south of it the proposal would likely sail through with minimal extra consideration.

The alternative is likely to begin to the process of having The Exchange district delisted as a historical district.

[bomberjet]

What is the issue here? Putting up new building in the exchange historic site boundaries?

There would be zoning by-laws that dictate this? Cory's link has a couple links on the page. One being zoning bylaws. The other being a integrity statement. I don't have time now to read them, but surely something is noted in there about building aesthetics.

Edit: What defines intrusive? A 40 storey tower would be intrusive. A six storey modern building would not. That's my opinion.

[wardlow]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ So what are the standards? Do the standards apply to older buildings or to all development?

The historic district thing keeps being raised but without any insight as to what that actually means for the proposal in question.

Specific, binding standards apply only to individual buildings that are designated as heritage buildings. The standards regarding what can and cannot be changed depend on the building, and what elements of the building are protected. If it's a Grade I heritage building, chances are there's not much that can be changed on the exterior or inside. If it's a Grade III building (which 104-108 Princess is), it's much more flexible -- eg, parts of the building can be altered, it just can't be demolished.

Beyond individual protected buildings, there are only design principles and guidelines for the Exchange District Historic Site, which is part of the urban design review required for any new development downtown. This process is meant to guide final designs so that they're sensitive to the surrounding urban environment. I think this addition does a remarkable job of being faithful to the older section's geometry, and will add a bit of a pop to area without overwhelming the historic scale and heritage elements.

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by wardlow

Specific, binding standards apply only to individual buildings that are designated as heritage buildings. The standards regarding what can and cannot be changed depend on the building, and what elements of the building are protected. If it's a Grade I heritage building, chances are there's not much that can be changed on the exterior or inside. If it's a Grade III building (which 104-108 Princess is), it's much more flexible -- eg, parts of the building can be altered, it just can't be demolished.

Beyond individual protected buildings, there are only design principles and guidelines for the Exchange District Historic Site, which is part of the urban design review required for any new development downtown. This process is meant to guide final designs so that they're sensitive to the surrounding urban environment. I think this addition does a remarkable job of being faithful to the older section's geometry, and will add a bit of a pop to area without overwhelming the historic scale and heritage elements.

This project is well outside of the Exchange National Historic Site and does NOT fall under the more restrictive design controls and guidelines. This is a great project and I applaud the group taking on this economically marginal redevelopment. I hope it works out for them...

The units are well located for RRC and a hug boost to tired corner.

On a separate note...

I enjoy the discussion, debate and discourse here but one's position may be tainted regardless of point of view if comments are not civil and respectful.

[Wolf13]

Are we all forgetting what the modern component is replacing? New and old can blend, and clearly the corner block maintains historical integrity. The exchange lends fewer opportunities to be bold, and this one nails it while keeping the intended feel of the neighbourhood

Originally Posted by Ando

At least Recluse has an excuse, given her mental health issues. Not sure what Riverman's excuse is.

I honestly wonder how cool you think you must be with comments like this... I dunno the whole story but that seems to qualify as way out of bounds...

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

The proposed building on princess is pretty innocuous but also classy if you ask me

Agreed!

[OTA in Winnipeg]

.

[Urban recluse]

This site has been screaming for development for decades. This is such a milestone.

[1ajs]

aww will the usual suspects cut it out wth the bickering not cool next spat will get the suspensions sent out... just cralwed out of the bush from a 30hr work stint..... time for bed..

[Urban recluse]

Time for a drink!!! Lol

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by Labroco

This project is well outside of the Exchange National Historic Site

Actually the corner of Princess and Bannaytne where this project is proposed for is within the National Historic Site. If the same project was one block west though it would be outside the boundaries of the site.

The important note here that is very relevant to this project is:

"a historic district of national significance must have a “sense of history”"

Plunking down a very modern building in the area seems to be directly in conflict with the above value. Also it isn't so much about the interior of the building as the presence it presents on the street.

Again, it is a wonderful building, a great project and replaces something that really needs an upgrade. The challenge is it needs to accomplish all those things while also being respectful of the historic site aspect of the Exchange. Sadly it fails on that last point. It is no different than say gutting a historic building to put in an expansion of a hydro substation.

[bomberjet]

^What would you propose Cory?

Something like what they've done in St. B? Where new buildings must have 3 of 6 of their design requirements. Such as faux French looking crap tacked on to buildings? Like someone else mentioned, nobody builds 100 year old buildings.

[Urban recluse]

Rules are meant to be broken.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Actually the corner of Princess and Bannaytne where this project is proposed for is within the National Historic Site. If the same project was one block west though it would be outside the boundaries of the site.

The important note here that is very relevant to this project is:

"a historic district of national significance must have a “sense of history”"

Plunking down a very modern building in the area seems to be directly in conflict with the above value. Also it isn't so much about the interior of the building as the presence it presents on the street.

Again, it is a wonderful building, a great project and replaces something that really needs an upgrade. The challenge is it needs to accomplish all those things while also being respectful of the historic site aspect of the Exchange. Sadly it fails on that last point. It is no different than say gutting a historic building to put in an expansion of a hydro substation.

It’s too brash. It’s trying to upstage the type of architecture that this district represents. And I’m doubtful that it will look anything other than awkward in real life. So it’s an interesting concept, but not for there.

[windypeg]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Actually the corner of Princess and Bannaytne where this project is proposed for is within the National Historic Site. If the same project was one block west though it would be outside the boundaries of the site.

The important note here that is very relevant to this project is:

"a historic district of national significance must have a “sense of history”"

Plunking down a very modern building in the area seems to be directly in conflict with the above value. Also it isn't so much about the interior of the building as the presence it presents on the street.

Again, it is a wonderful building, a great project and replaces something that really needs an upgrade. The challenge is it needs to accomplish all those things while also being respectful of the historic site aspect of the Exchange. Sadly it fails on that last point. It is no different than say gutting a historic building to put in an expansion of a hydro substation.

This design is 1000% better than some tacky faux-heritage crap that tries to look like a historic building but actually looks like hot garbage. A "sense of history" is pretty vague, I don't think it means every new building has to try to trick people into thinking it's from 1912. It just has to respect its surroundings and not clash with them. Some sort of super-modern abstract glass explosion, like what they did at the ROM, would not meet the standards in my opinion. But this design is handsome and simple, doesn’t distract from its surroundings, with nice straight lines that really evoke the beams inside many of our historic buildings. It’s a perfect fit. I also don't see at all how this is like putting a substation in a gutted building. It's pretty much the total opposite.

[wardlow]

Here is an example from another historic warehouse district, New York's SoHo, of a new (circa 2010) building totally fitting in to the historic streetscape, without pretending it could possibly recreate the architectural details of a 19th-century building. More important than replicating details and materials is replicating the scale and building dimensions.

[wardlow]

Originally Posted by CoryB

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

Unless this project involves a variance or conditional use application that's appealed, this project won't be going to Council.