Winnipeg Construction IX

[buzzg]

I'm blown away people are unhappy with this proposal. It's perfect. How do you propose we fill in surface lots then if we can't build "modern" buildings? I realize the middle building is old (it is not "heritage") but the facade is an eyesore, it needs to be replaced.

There are numerous examples of modern buildings built within the heritage zone since desgination that wouldn't "fit in" in a period movie set. Shucks.

- McDermot ave faux-heritage disgusting parkade
- WPS Credit Union
- Bedford Parkade
- Every condo building on Waterfront
- 98 Market (looking down Market at it, all you see is heritage buildings)
- RRC Roblin & Paterson
- Upcoming two Pumphouse buildings

Might be more I'm missing that I'm not sure of the date of construction (McKim parkade, for example)

[esquire]

^ That list is why I don't think there is any substance behind the concerns that this plan is going to somehow lead to the ruin of the Exchange District as we know it. Even though it may be the natural inclination of Winnipeggers to want that outcome, the Exchange was never meant to be frozen in time like some sort of architectural taxidermy display.

Add to that list the Hydro substation, the deer + almond restaurant building, the Cube... I'm sure there are others I'm forgetting too.

[buzzg]

I think d+a is was built pre-designation in 1997, and the substation doesn't fall in the boundaries, but you're right about the Cube.

Here are the designation boundaries:

https://winnipeg.ca/ppd/image/Heritage/Exchange-District-National-Historic-Site.jpg

[bomberjet]

So the only thing of substance that I can find in terms of guidelines are the words pulled out yesterday. 'intrusive elements must be minimal'. What does that mean exactly is open for interpretation. Are we going to see CMHR's go in, likely not.

The proposal we're discussing looks just fine to me.

[Urban recluse]

Originally Posted by 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.

Totally.

[Urban recluse]

Originally Posted by buzzg

I'm blown away people are unhappy with this proposal. It's perfect. How do you propose we fill in surface lots then if we can't build "modern" buildings? I realize the middle building is old (it is not "heritage") but the facade is an eyesore, it needs to be replaced.

There are numerous examples of modern buildings built within the heritage zone since desgination that wouldn't "fit in" in a period movie set. Shucks.

- McDermot ave faux-heritage disgusting parkade
- WPS Credit Union
- Bedford Parkade
- Every condo building on Waterfront
- 98 Market (looking down Market at it, all you see is heritage buildings)
- RRC Roblin & Paterson
- Upcoming two Pumphouse buildings

Might be more I'm missing that I'm not sure of the date of construction (McKim parkade, for example)

Don't give them another thought. It's like on All in the Family when Edith made a Caesar salad, and Archie couldn't understand it. Some people are just ignorant, and their taste is dubious.

That example Wardlow posted shows what a vibrant neighborhood looks like, and the sooner we see many more new developments in the Exchange (especially mid-rises), the sooner the Exchange will evolve into an exciting neighborhood.

[wags_in_the_peg]

Originally Posted by 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.

LOVE that!

[roccerfeller]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

this?





https://legatumdevelopment.co/

This looks great!!! (i'm many pages behind on updates...holidays eh)

[Riverman]

That works. The middle building is a tear-down at best.

[buzzg]

Anyone know what’s being built on Wellington Crescent (south side) near Gertrude I believe it was? There’s a huge excavation going on, and signs up for 2Architecture - but no info on their site.

[trueviking]

^ condo. There is one going up on either side of the existing building.

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Anyone know what’s being built on Wellington Crescent (south side) near Gertrude I believe it was? There’s a huge excavation going on, and signs up for 2Architecture - but no info on their site.

this ooglay thing:

[Urban recluse]

Brent, do you know if 104 Princess is getting any kind of tax break/TIF/something else?

[Urban recluse]

That is f*ckin ugly. No surprise it was approved. The city clearly has no respectable people in Planning.

[Kris22]

^Agreed. Using a "pop of colour" in a failed attempt to hide a hideous and cheap design. What exactly is that siding material, too? Kinda reminds me of that atrocity on south Pembina near the UofM with the coloured balconies on what is essential a giant shed. See: https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.8079997,-...bb4wq8t4v8Ke8I9MNB5wQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
and also this other new shed that popped up in land lakes https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.8398578,-...JWWfepeOjHdFM7fKdjXDg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[Labroco]

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.

I believe you are incorrect on this point.

The boundary runs throughout the the middle of the street so the buildings to south on princess are in and the buildings to the north are out. ( as per the documents I am looking at "The Exchange District National Historic Site"). I'm sorry I do not know how to add images to these posts for added clarification.

[Urban recluse]

Originally Posted by Kris22

^Agreed. Using a "pop of colour" in a failed attempt to hide a hideous and cheap design. What exactly is that siding material, too? Kinda reminds me of that atrocity on south Pembina near the UofM with the coloured balconies on what is essential a giant shed. See: https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.8079997,-...bb4wq8t4v8Ke8I9MNB5wQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
and also this other new shed that popped up in land lakes https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.8398578,-...JWWfepeOjHdFM7fKdjXDg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Pathetic eh?

[Kris22]

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

Pathetic eh?

Especially for Wellington Crescent which has many beautiful homes and nicely finished condo towers. The examples I posted were on shitty streets like Pembina and Bishop Grandin so it isn't as bad as on a street like Wellington. I really am surprised something this cheap would be approved for that location. A lot of the infill condos in that area have been quite nice.

[buzzg]

Yeah that's a brutal design for anywhere, let alone a street like Wellington Crescent. They should be ashamed and the city shouldn't just approve anything that comes along – it's not like that's an underdeveloped area where the "anything is better than what's there" argument could be made. At the very least if the design is going to be that dull, use wood like the project they did down the street.

Question for TV as an outsider – it seems like a lot of these local architecture companies producing a lot of these basic, cheap designs (that they would deem "modern") are borne of recent, young U of M grads... has the school lost is way? Or does the problem fall moreso on the developers and city for being cheap and approving ugly, respectively?

[BigG]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

this ooglay thing:

Grey and Teal? Guess we're back to the late 80's.