Winnipeg Construction IX

[drew]

Originally Posted by DowntownBooster

The final product is totally different. The only thing similar is the shape. Other than that they look nothing alike. Rather than even bothering with a fancy design they could easily have come out with a rendering that resembled the final product.

I disagree. They aren't totally different.

There is no mistaking that the concept and final product are one and the same.

The rendering would have not been used for the City permitting process - just for marketing purposes only. We cannot use that rendering as a judgement for what the City assumed they were getting and what we ended up with. For that, you would need to see what the actual elevations that were submitted, and it probably looks a lot like what ended up getting built.

[esquire]

NewPort looks great with its fresh coat of paint... it went from a beigy kind of off-white to white again. The paint hides the seams in the panels very well, so it looks like a nice uniform whole.

It looks like they've also put up new Rogers signage at the top as well. The net effect is that NewPort is starting to resemble the Rogers building in Calgary...

[BKB]

Originally Posted by esquire

NewPort looks great with its fresh coat of paint... it went from a beigy kind of off-white to white again. The paint hides the seams in the panels very well, so it looks like a nice uniform whole.

It looks like they've also put up new Rogers signage at the top as well. The net effect is that NewPort is starting to resemble the Rogers building in Calgary...

The beigy kind of off-white is concrete. In my opinion they are altering the architectural style of the building and creating a long term maintenance issue.

[buzzg]

Yeah I agree BKB – it does look a bit fresher and cleaner but most people would never notice the difference. Almost impossible to tell other than where you can see both side-by-side where it's not done yet. Negligible difference, but now they'll have to keep the paint maintained forever.

Also signage is the same – it was all replaced ~2 years ago.

[Urban recluse]

The Radisson could use the same LOL

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

The Radisson could use the same LOL

THAT would actually make a big difference – it's heavy, dark, old-looking "gravel" concrete, where NewPort was much lighter and more modern looking.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by BKB

The beigy kind of off-white is concrete. In my opinion they are altering the architectural style of the building and creating a long term maintenance issue.

It looked painted before too... it wasn't the same as the Radisson which was clearly the unaltered original colour of the material. Now it just looks like actual white.

If you look at an older picture of the building, it looked whiter than it did until the paint job began.

[buzzg]

That Metropolitan sign is cool. RIP.

[Geebrr]

Downtown looked so clear and colorful and clean.

[Urban recluse]

Shopping downtown back then would have been so exciting.

[Geebrr]

The Bank of Montreal sign looks about 10,000 X nicer

[esquire]

^ I always thought it was weird how Bank of Montreal was behind that tower in 1971, then a dozen years later they were behind a new, taller tower at 333 Main, and then in the 90s they practically withdrew their executive presence from Manitoba altogether.

[Geebrr]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ I always thought it was weird how Bank of Montreal was behind that tower in 1971, then a dozen years later they were behind a new, taller tower at 333 Main, and then in the 90s they practically withdrew their executive presence from Manitoba altogether.

I guess we owe them?

They still have a cool presence at P&M...blocked by ugly barricades.

[Pinus]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ I always thought it was weird how Bank of Montreal was behind that tower in 1971, then a dozen years later they were behind a new, taller tower at 333 Main, and then in the 90s they practically withdrew their executive presence from Manitoba altogether.

Banks seem to be coming back to the city centre once more, just look at TD and RBC. I'd wager it isn't too long before BMO makes a splash in Winnipeg's CBD again.

[DowntownBooster]

Originally Posted by drew

I disagree. They aren't totally different.

There is no mistaking that the concept and final product are one and the same.

The rendering would have not been used for the City permitting process - just for marketing purposes only. We cannot use that rendering as a judgement for what the City assumed they were getting and what we ended up with. For that, you would need to see what the actual elevations that were submitted, and it probably looks a lot like what ended up getting built.

The point is that they shouldn't bother with the fancy looking rendering to begin with even if it is just for marketing purposes only. If there is no intention for the final product to look anything like the initial drawing then skip the false hype and just actually draw something that will actually look the same as what is to be built. The only thing similar in this case is the overall shape of the structure. It's like showing someone a picture of a crystal glass ornamental round ball and then presenting them with one of those red, white and blue rubber balls and saying - "okay, here you go".

[BKB]

Originally Posted by esquire

It looked painted before too... it wasn't the same as the Radisson which was clearly the unaltered original colour of the material. Now it just looks like actual white.

If you look at an older picture of the building, it looked whiter than it did until the paint job began.

It is unpainted concrete. It looks whiter because the concrete is newer in the photo.

[Urban recluse]

Originally Posted by DowntownBooster

The point is that they shouldn't bother with the fancy looking rendering to begin with even if it is just for marketing purposes only. If there is no intention for the final product to look anything like the initial drawing then skip the false hype and just actually draw something that will actually look the same as what is to be built. The only thing similar in this case is the overall shape of the structure. It's like showing someone a picture of a crystal glass ornamental round ball and then presenting them with one of those red, white and blue rubber balls and saying - "okay, here you go".

Exactly. The rendering and the final product: big difference.

[Geebrr]

Do we get skies that blue any more? The Richardson building also looks better than ever.

That picture is awesome.

[drew]

Originally Posted by DowntownBooster

The point is that they shouldn't bother with the fancy looking rendering to begin with even if it is just for marketing purposes only. If there is no intention for the final product to look anything like the initial drawing then skip the false hype and just actually draw something that will actually look the same as what is to be built. The only thing similar in this case is the overall shape of the structure. It's like showing someone a picture of a crystal glass ornamental round ball and then presenting them with one of those red, white and blue rubber balls and saying - "okay, here you go".

Hey - I don't disagree. However the only people that might possibly have a reason to be upset would be whomever leased the main floor commercial space - if they leased it strictly on how that render looked.

The rest of us (even the renters of the apartments) have no personal stake in how that building ended up looking like it looked. I guess you could say that we elect the councilors who in the end have the power to impose stricter exterior design requirements...

How often to we get initial renders that look exactly like the final product? A project like this gets one render. It doesn't get continuously updated while the project progresses into detailed design.

[BAKGUY]

I get the feeling / premonition some thing large in scale will be announced for downtown Winnipeg in short order.