Winnipeg Construction IX

[esquire]

^ If you don't like the chop it up proposal then you really won't like my opinion that The Bay should be demolished if a use can't be found for it. There is nothing more depressing that I can think of than some kind of half-baked solution where the upper floors of The Bay get chopped up with a bunch of partitions to create depressing looking U of W classrooms.

The Bay is a beautiful building but it's obviously not one that lends itself to easy adaptive re-use. And as the Eaton's example shows us, it isn't necessarily the end of the world if we lose a formerly grand department store.

I guess what it boils down to for me is that the range of options floated for The Bay over the last 20 years all range between the undignified and impossible, and at a certain point you just need to cut bait and move on.

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by esquire

I guess what it boils down to for me is that the range of options floated for The Bay over the last 20 years all range between the undignified and impossible, and at a certain point you just need to cut bait and move on.

I understand your feeling of frustration, and if a legitimate developer came up with an idea to redevelop that corner without the existing building, I might agree. However, as far as I know (and I could easily be wrong), there has been no-one step forward who wants to fill this role. I think re-purposing The Bay building has to be a "civic pride" project, as the economics of saving it as-is don't appear to make a enough sense for a single private developer to take on the job. I could, see, however, some kind of dedicated consortium of public and private groups who may want to work together and have a "let's get this done" attitude to get the ball rolling. Perhaps we need a person or group within the downtown redevelopment organizations that is dedicated just to this project to get it going.

[esquire]

^ I agree, and I'd love to see it happen. But given that the last 20 years haven't yielded any good ideas, I'm not sure what will be different in the next 20. I guess we can hang on and hope that a boom happens which might make some sort of adaptive reuse viable, but without that boom I'm just not convinced that the right conditions will be there.

We can still have something awesome on that corner... It just might not be an old department store

[Bluenote]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ I agree, and I'd love to see it happen. But given that the last 20 years haven't yielded any good ideas, I'm not sure what will be different in the next 20. I guess we can hang on and hope that a boom happens which might make some sort of adaptive reuse viable, but without that boom I'm just not convinced that the right conditions will be there.

We can still have something awesome on that corner... It just might not be an old department store

Want a good idea.

Here This is what should have been done.

Postage Place in all its disaster should and could have all been stuffed into the bay building. The Bay and a Grocer could be anchor tenants. The rest of the floors made into an actual mall. Again you'd still want to open up the roof an have some sort of atrium, doesn't have to be huge, but daylight makes people feel more at ease.

They have a parkade that should never have been sold off, this could have been free parking for mall patrons, if you had a receipt from one of the vendors in the mall.

The building is so large you could even add some sort of water park, or again that atrium could be the central theme to it all with a huge water feature.

Being on the main bus route, and in a fairly active area with the University and the short distance to Osborne village area would be a boon for those who don't want to go to the burbs for a mall.

I don't consider Postage Place a mall anymore. What it will end up being is offices and maybe some retail and a good court.

Mall of America is a multi story mall for example. West Edmonton mall is like all other malls spread out. I like the multi story version tbh.

But imagine Mall of America stuffed into the Bay building, albeit a smaller version.

[Urban recluse]

Hopefully we hear an update soon:

https://www.westerninvestor.com/news/sas...udson-s-bay-winnipeg-flagship-1.23387229

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Bluenote

Want a good idea.

Here This is what should have been done.

Postage Place in all its disaster should and could have all been stuffed into the bay building. The Bay and a Grocer could be anchor tenants. The rest of the floors made into an actual mall. Again you'd still want to open up the roof an have some sort of atrium, doesn't have to be huge, but daylight makes people feel more at ease.

The whole point of Portage Place was to turn Portage Avenue into a downtown Polo Park by joining Eaton's and the Bay with a big indoor mall. Doing that was supposed to boost the declining fortunes of Eaton's and the Bay while simultaneously getting rid of the sleazy establishments that lined the decaying north side of Portage. In a Costco/Amazon world where even most suburban malls are dying, I doubt that anyone would be interested in creating another downtown mall in Winnipeg. If the Bay is saved, it would most likely be by turning it into government offices or a classroom building for U of W, I expect.

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

Hopefully we hear an update soon:

https://www.westerninvestor.com/news/sas...udson-s-bay-winnipeg-flagship-1.23387229

That's an interesting article, and still very relevant, having only been published a few months ago. Not to sound self-congratualtory (though I guess I do) it sounds like what I was suggesting needs to happen in an earlier post. I always have great ideas....after everyone else has thought about it, of course!

As far as Portage place goes, I can see it continue to change into a business/service mall with a bit of retail, as opposed to a fully retail development.

[EspionNoir]

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

Hopefully we hear an update soon:

https://www.westerninvestor.com/news/sas...udson-s-bay-winnipeg-flagship-1.23387229

Mmmmmm international buyers.
I feel like Winnipeg is actually secretly being speculated by people from other countries.

[trueviking]

The bay will take $30 million in government money to make viable. I worked on a legit proposal about a year ago. Another problem is the bay still wants $20 mil for the building.

Considering the government gave true north $40 mil for true north square, it’s not out of the question. Just not desperate enough yet. Once the bay leaves maybe.

Only solution is multi use. Hotel, residential, office, education, retail. Still falls short though without a subsidy.

[trueviking]

I’d love to see a redevelopment with the bay staying on the bottom two floors. They are not opposed to staying but don’t want to accept a long lease.

[EspionNoir]

Yeah, so help from government makes sense considering the situation. I hope it gets to move toward soon.

[Urban recluse]

I am all for government money to be contributed to preserving an architectural showpiece. I would hope the Bay remains a tenant.

[peg]

I think that they should create an atrium inside, it would make for an interesting and unique development while preserving the facade.

But yeah, no matter what ends up happening, I do hope that The Bay stays in there to some extent. Its cool to have that legacy.

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by trueviking

The bay will take $30 million in government money to make viable. I worked on a legit proposal about a year ago. Another problem is the bay still wants $20 mil for the building.

Considering the government gave true north $40 mil for true north square, it’s not out of the question. Just not desperate enough yet. Once the bay leaves maybe.

Only solution is multi use. Hotel, residential, office, education, retail. Still falls short though without a subsidy.

I agree. Without some gov't money (and possibly tax incentives) a re-development is unlikely. I also am also not against using public money (though I am certain there would be the predictable bleats of "not one thin dime of my money..." from the usual quarters. I'd prefer some news about this sooner, rather than later, but yes it may take a dramatic move from The Bay (e.g. "we're closing the store on (date)") to get people moving.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by pspeid

I agree. Without some gov't money (and possibly tax incentives) a re-development is unlikely. I also am also not against using public money (though I am certain there would be the predictable bleats of "not one thin dime of my money..." from the usual quarters. I'd prefer some news about this sooner, rather than later, but yes it may take a dramatic move from The Bay (e.g. "we're closing the store on (date)") to get people moving.

Where i'm not really keen on the government giving money to the project I much prefer temporary tax breaks such as no property taxes for the first 5 years or something like the value of the property pre renovation is what the property tax will be for the first 5 years. Something that saves the developer the amount of $30 million without the government actually coughing up cash.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by trueviking

The bay will take $30 million in government money to make viable. I worked on a legit proposal about a year ago. Another problem is the bay still wants $20 mil for the building.

Considering the government gave true north $40 mil for true north square, it’s not out of the question. Just not desperate enough yet. Once the bay leaves maybe.

Only solution is multi use. Hotel, residential, office, education, retail. Still falls short though without a subsidy.

What is the rough breakdown of the $40 million TNS contribution? That's way higher than what I thought public subsidies came in at.

Sounds like a deal is a long way off for The Bay, though... HBC wants $20 million for the building, the government has to be in for $30 million minimum, and on top of that HBC won't sign a long term lease? The prospects don't look great at this point.

But as has been said, maybe a shuttered Bay might force some hands.

[EspionNoir]

Maybe. But 300 Main was delayed for quite a long time. There’s a lot of uncertainty here as no public announcement has been made. I’d say no matter how long it takes change is eventually going to happen, and with the 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 of the development momentum currently it shouldn’t be too long.

[optimusREIM]

Basic massing model of what I'd like to see for the bay. See my earlier posts to get a bit more context.



I feel like the area outside between the bay building and my proposed development could be some kick 🞵🞵🞵 amenity space for tenants or house one of the best patios in the city.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by trueviking

I've personally worked on at four redevelopment options for the bay...every one of them cut a big hole in the middle....like a giant doughnut.

That FOUR different proposals went to a design stage and not a single one of them proceeded to build speaks volumes, not about the quality of trueviking's designs but rather the challenges in finding an alternate use for the Bay building space.

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Why? Why couldn't we turn it into something amazing like this. I swear this is the exact attitude that keeps Winnipeg from realizing its potential. The reason places like Naples have these awesome buildings is because they decided that they could and would do it. I'm not saying that we do stuff like this on the public purse, but just outright dismissing ideas because they're not things that we've done here before is a little ridiculous.

It isn't to dismiss the idea and have a self defeated attitude but rather being a realist. We can't get people with access to the public purse to even do the most basic renovation to the space to occupy it.

I actually had the fortune to visit Galleria Umberto I in person this year. It was built with what would be government funding today and was actually undergoing some major upkeep/renovations, again with government money. The kind of money that would be needed to turn The Bay building into anything even remotely similar is just never going to be on the table, even if there is an NHL hockey team moving into the place after it is finished. It cost $133.5 million CAD to build Bell MTS Centre and it is no where near the spectacle of Galleria Umberto I.

The reason places like Naples have these wonderful buildings is that essentially "the public purse" built them. In terms of modern buildings in Winnipeg the RRC Exchange campus and the CMHR would be the best examples of the public purse trying to build meaningful buildings that aren't done on the absolute cheap.

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

I wonder if they could just plow an extension of Graham right through The Bay without having to destroy half the building?

Definitely not an expert on floor loads and similar but I suspect running a transit mall across the floor plate of the existing building would likely exceed the weight rating for the floor plate, and that is without even considering if the elevators are in the way as others have said. The idea has merit on the surface but not sure it is realistically actionable.

Originally Posted by esquire

^ If you don't like the chop it up proposal then you really won't like my opinion that The Bay should be demolished if a use can't be found for it. There is nothing more depressing that I can think of than some kind of half-baked solution where the upper floors of The Bay get chopped up with a bunch of partitions to create depressing looking U of W classrooms.

Things like classrooms, U of W or otherwise, or an art gallery space make a certain level of sense for The Bay redevelopment as these are uses that can be done with limited access to natural light.

The one I think could be absolutely killer would be for the School of Fine Arts and the Faculty of Architecture to move into the Bay building after some significant renovations. Then instead of isolating these students on the Fort Garry campus you put them right into where the professionals in their field are and where you can walk out the door of your class building in see their works in the real world.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by CoryB

That FOUR different proposals went to a design stage and not a single one of them proceeded to build speaks volumes, not about the quality of trueviking's designs but rather the challenges in finding an alternate use for the Bay building space.



It isn't to dismiss the idea and have a self defeated attitude but rather being a realist. We can't get people with access to the public purse to even do the most basic renovation to the space to occupy it.

I actually had the fortune to visit Galleria Umberto I in person this year. It was built with what would be government funding today and was actually undergoing some major upkeep/renovations, again with government money. The kind of money that would be needed to turn The Bay building into anything even remotely similar is just never going to be on the table, even if there is an NHL hockey team moving into the place after it is finished. It cost $133.5 million CAD to build Bell MTS Centre and it is no where near the spectacle of Galleria Umberto I.

The reason places like Naples have these wonderful buildings is that essentially "the public purse" built them. In terms of modern buildings in Winnipeg the RRC Exchange campus and the CMHR would be the best examples of the public purse trying to build meaningful buildings that aren't done on the absolute cheap.

Big fan of the RRC building, I honestly believe though that the bay being redone in the style I described would be a bigger benefit to the city than the CMHR