Winnipeg | Exchange District | Developments & Discussions

[armorand93]

If the owner was going to turn it into condos though... would it maybe enable him to throw in a mid-rise?

[Wigglez]

Originally Posted by NewIreland

I highly doubt it! Not with the amount of development happening in the area.

Remember when that building on Albert St burnt down and they weren't allowed to just turn it into a parking lot?

Good times...

[pspeid]

Sorry guys, but i just don't feel like teeth-gnashing or recriminations on this one. It's an unfortunate occurrence, but from what I understand the result of some unforeseen circumstances during the renovation process. Kind of sad, but to me the only part of the structure that was kind of nice was the facade of the old Lodge. The rest of the building, to me, was rather bleak and uninviting.

I would say this is an opportunity to build a new, perhaps taller residential structure with some nicer street-scaling. It would not be the only new building in the area, and perhaps be more attractive to potential residents.

[armorand93]

Originally Posted by pspeid

Sorry guys, but i just don't feel like teeth-gnashing or recriminations on this one. It's an unfortunate occurrence, but from what I understand the result of some unforeseen circumstances during the renovation process. Kind of sad, but to me the only part of the structure that was kind of nice was the facade of the old Lodge. The rest of the building, to me, was rather bleak and uninviting.

I would say this is an opportunity to build a new, perhaps taller residential structure with some nicer street-scaling. It would not be the only new building in the area, and perhaps be more attractive to potential residents.

Agreed - if the Europeans can do it, why not Winnipeg?

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by Wigglez

Remember when that building on Albert St burnt down and they weren't allowed to just turn it into a parking lot?

Good times...

A few points for discussion.

I’m not usually a big fan of façadism. It reminds me of a stuffed deer head on the wall in the men’s club smoking room. With that said, some exceptional facades are worth saving and this one may fit the bill. Here in Toronto there are many examples of facades being structurally reinforced and incorporated into new development. All are ultimately underpinned and tie into the development. Some are taken apart and rebuilt. Both examples can be seen in Wpg with Mitchel Copp on Portage and the little red brick building that was reconstructed and attached to the parking garage facing old market square.

As a mid block site on a 50 foot lot the economics may be challenging for redevelopment. While my hope would be for a structure, I am assuming by September we will see parking for 10 cars with fencing and landscaping on Princess.

While one cannot take down a structure and create paid parking, one can use an adjacent lot once title has been amalgamated to provide parking for the existing structure and tenants within that building. That is what I believed will happen as it will enhance the ability to lease and attract tenants for the new redevelopment to the south. The adjacent parking lot to the north is part of the residential redevelopment across the street as well.

This building loss was not intentional by the owners and very unfortunate.

This is very different from the intentional demolition by neglect we see in the St. Charles or the St. Regis today.

[OTA in Winnipeg]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/...ge-hall-demolish-collapse-risk-1.5464737

[Ando]

I think it’s absolutely BS that the facade cannot be stabilized and saved. It’s a question of whether you want to put the resources forward to do it, and whether the City has the balls to ensure it gets done. I also find it interesting that the “incident” that occurred has never been made public.

[esquire]

^ I suppose anything can be done for the right price. But is this the building you want someone to throw $20 million or whatever other exorbitant amount at? Particularly when the interior was gutted by fire decades ago and has almost none of its original charm?

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by Ando

I think it’s absolutely BS that the facade cannot be stabilized and saved. It’s a question of whether you want to put the resources forward to do it, and whether the City has the balls to ensure it gets done. I also find it interesting that the “incident” that occurred has never been made public.

Buy it and fix it. I'm sure the owners will be grateful.

[Wpg_Guy]

The cities main priority I would imagine is getting Princess Street back open and having to stabilized the facade would keep the street closed for an extended period of time which I don’t think they are comfortable with, all of this is so unfortunate.

[Ando]

Originally Posted by Riverman

Buy it and fix it. I'm sure the owners will be grateful.

Okay trainman, thanks for coming out.

[Ando]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ I suppose anything can be done for the right price. But is this the building you want someone to throw $20 million or whatever other exorbitant amount at? Particularly when the interior was gutted by fire decades ago and has almost none of its original charm?

Well, i’m not suggesting anything can be done about the interior but there have been other successful salvages of facades in the Exchange. I’m guessing the parkade that was pieced back together brick by brick cost quite a bit. In the article in the link below, the only clear reason given by the City is that they want to have the street completely open. Each loss of a building like this in the Exchange can’t ever be replaced, and at the same time, each loss paves the way for further losses, with the City appearing to no plan at all when it comes to derelict buildings like the St. Charles. I also think the lack of detailed reporting on what exactly happened is strange, just references to an incident.


https://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/in-pictures-...ing-condemned-to-be-demolished-1.4813134

[esquire]

^ I hear you. But unlike RRC or the King parkade, this is a very urgent situation... With the other examples, the buildings weren't going anywhere so the developers could take time to get the project together. With this building it needs to happen literally now, and that's a daunting challenge.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Riverman

Buy it and fix it. I'm sure the owners will be grateful.

Oooooor....don’t carelessly destroy the heritage of our city.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Labroco

A few points for discussion.

I’m not usually a big fan of façadism. It reminds me of a stuffed deer head on the wall in the men’s club smoking room. With that said, some exceptional facades are worth saving and this one may fit the bill. Here in Toronto there are many examples of facades being structurally reinforced and incorporated into new development. All are ultimately underpinned and tie into the development. Some are taken apart and rebuilt. Both examples can be seen in Wpg with Mitchel Copp on Portage and the little red brick building that was reconstructed and attached to the parking garage facing old market square.

As a mid block site on a 50 foot lot the economics may be challenging for redevelopment. While my hope would be for a structure, I am assuming by September we will see parking for 10 cars with fencing and landscaping on Princess.

While one cannot take down a structure and create paid parking, one can use an adjacent lot once title has been amalgamated to provide parking for the existing structure and tenants within that building. That is what I believed will happen as it will enhance the ability to lease and attract tenants for the new redevelopment to the south. The adjacent parking lot to the north is part of the residential redevelopment across the street as well.

This building loss was not intentional by the owners and very unfortunate.

This is very different from the intentional demolition by neglect we see in the St. Charles or the St. Regis today.

It will not be allowed to be a parking lot. I can assure you of this.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by pspeid

Sorry guys, but i just don't feel like teeth-gnashing or recriminations on this one. It's an unfortunate occurrence, but from what I understand the result of some unforeseen circumstances during the renovation process. Kind of sad, but to me the only part of the structure that was kind of nice was the facade of the old Lodge. The rest of the building, to me, was rather bleak and uninviting.

I would say this is an opportunity to build a new, perhaps taller residential structure with some nicer street-scaling. It would not be the only new building in the area, and perhaps be more attractive to potential residents.

It wasn’t unforeseen circumstances.

[drew]

Originally Posted by trueviking

Oooooor....don’t be negligent and carelessly destroy the heritage of our city.

OK, but let's clarify negligent and careless here. Is it the developer who is actively upgrading and converting these buildings into mixed use blocks, or is it owners that sit needlessly on these buildings neglecting them for decades?

I mean, 🞵🞵🞵🞵 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 in construction, sometimes even despite everyone's best efforts or intentions.

The developer and contractor here have proven track records in this type of work.

Good grief you guys.

[drew]

Originally Posted by trueviking

the concern is that if the screws are tightened, the developer may just walk. This is a good developer. It was a very unfortunate mistake, nothing nefarious like St. Charles. I hope the insurance can be used to save the façade...or at least re-build it after selective demolition, but I'm not sure that's possible because it is so fragile.

And there you go.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by drew

OK, but let's clarify negligent and careless here. Is it the developer who is actively upgrading and converting these buildings into mixed use blocks, or is it owners that sit needlessly on these buildings neglecting them for decades?

I mean, 🞵🞵🞵🞵 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 in construction, sometimes even despite everyone's best efforts or intentions.

The developer and contractor here have proven track records in this type of work.

Good grief you guys.

🞵🞵🞵🞵 shouldn’t happen in construction. And if it does, that doesn’t mean it’s ok. This was a mistake that should not have happened. They are good developers and there was certainly no intention. That doesn’t excuse it. The trade that caused it should have known better.

[trueviking]

I still think the facade could have been saved, or rebuilt.