Winnipeg | Exchange District | Developments & Discussions

[drew]

Originally Posted by trueviking

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

Well sure, but what cost is too much?

It was priced out, and the numbers are outrageous.

[drew]

Maybe a bigger concern about this is what is the purpose of the insurance if it is not capable of protecting against this kind of situation?

Either the insurance was too low, or the quotes to fix the problem were too high. Probably a combination of both.

For a heritage protected building, perhaps the requirement of the building permit should be put in place that the insurance is to a level necessary to protect all the heritage elements.

[trueviking]

Selective demolition and reconstruction of the front facade was more than the insurance? That seems crazy. I know what the insurance was. Seems like it could have covered that. That’s too bad.

I think because it is stone not brick that makes it more difficult. But that’s also what made it special. It wasn’t just a warehouse.

[drew]

Part of the issue is that companies are pricing out the work without a great amount of detail to go with, and compressed timelines. So everything gets pumped up cost wise.

But the numbers quoted rounded up to 10 million and not 5.

Absolutely crazy.

And that was just to rebuild the fascia. You still need to price in the building behind it.

[drew]

Originally Posted by trueviking

🞵🞵🞵🞵 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.

Never said it was ok, but yes, 🞵🞵🞵🞵 does happen all the time in construction.

Buildings don't usually suffer catastrophic foundation damage as a result of 🞵🞵🞵🞵 happening, but this is kind of an extreme case.

In my line of business we fix A LOT of contractor nonsense.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by drew

Part of the issue is that companies are pricing out the work without a great amount of detail to go with, and compressed timelines. So everything gets pumped up cost wise.

But the numbers quoted rounded up to 10 million and not 5.

Absolutely crazy.

And that was just to rebuild the fascia. You still need to price in the building behind it.

Geezus. How is that possible.

[Bdog]

I find this lynch mob mentality here appalling, but not necessarily surprising. I mean, this is seriously how we treat the good guys? The developers and contractors that have been renovating and saving buildings around the Exchange? The people who are actually putting their money where their mouths are: Not just talking a big heritage game from a forum, but risking their livelihoods on it. It's a shame. Next time a building owner comes forward at City Hall saying they don't want heritage status, I hope we don't see all those "Why in the world would they be opposed to having heritage status" posts again. It's pretty clear.

[trueviking]

Nobody is lynching them but they don’t deserve a free pass for a very careless mistake. It’s a shame but they were working on a heritage building in a national historic site. There is a responsibility to ensure these types of errors are not made. They are lucky it didn’t collapse and kill anyone.

The trade who caused the loss of an important heritage building made a significant mistake. It is fair to criticize that.

It is a real shame the insurance didn’t cover it. That’s what insurance is supposed to be for.

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by drew

Part of the issue is that companies are pricing out the work without a great amount of detail to go with, and compressed timelines. So everything gets pumped up cost wise.

But the numbers quoted rounded up to 10 million and not 5.

Absolutely crazy.

And that was just to rebuild the fascia. You still need to price in the building behind it.

As for the building insurance... there is no way a claim would be approved for more than the purchase price less land value and depreciation. If the building was purchased for 500k, the insurance may cover the demo which will be in that range +/-.

If a boat was $10,000,000 new and sold 30 years later for 500k. The insurance will only cover a portion of this purchase price as it represents fair market value. The owner of the policy will not get enough to buy a new boat! Never!

It’s all very unfortunate but we must remember these are the good guys spending money on buildings in an attempt to achieve exactly what we all wish for on this forum.

Save the rage for neglectful building owners and indifferent and incompetent bureaucrats who are the biggest impediments to change in the area...

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Labroco

As for the building insurance... there is no way a claim would be approved for more than the purchase price less land value and depreciation. If the building was purchased for 500k, the insurance may cover the demo which will be in that range +/-.

If a boat was $10,000,000 new and sold 30 years later for 500k. The insurance will only cover a portion of this purchase price as it represents fair market value. The owner of the policy will not get enough to buy a new boat! Never!

It’s all very unfortunate but we must remember these are the good guys spending money on buildings in an attempt to achieve exactly what we all wish for on this forum.

Save the rage for neglectful building owners and indifferent and incompetent bureaucrats who are the biggest impediments to change in the area...

I guess I'm wondering that if we let the good guys get away with it, how in the hell are we supposed to begin policing the demolition by neglect crowd

[Ando]

Originally Posted by Bdog

I find this lynch mob mentality here appalling, but not necessarily surprising. I mean, this is seriously how we treat the good guys? The developers and contractors that have been renovating and saving buildings around the Exchange? The people who are actually putting their money where their mouths are: Not just talking a big heritage game from a forum, but risking their livelihoods on it. It's a shame. Next time a building owner comes forward at City Hall saying they don't want heritage status, I hope we don't see all those "Why in the world would they be opposed to having heritage status" posts again. It's pretty clear.

Wow, I think you are being overly sensitive. Clearly, the developers have some admirers on here but that doesn’t mean people who care about the Exchange and heritage can’t ask questions. This is a unique building and it happened on their watch. That aren’t immune to criticism. There seems to be a lot of mystery at least publicly about what happened. The City also seems to have made a very rapid move to complete demolition of a structure you won’t see the like of again.

[Ando]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I guess I'm wondering that if we let the good guys get away with it, how in the hell are we supposed to begin policing the demolition by neglect crowd

Totally agree. It’s the slippery slope. If I was Zaifman, I would start doing “renovations” inside the St.Charles where a few “accidents” might happen that suddenly require demolition.

[BAKGUY]

How long before The St Charles owned and neglected by Lawyer Ken Zaifman falls down or deteriorates to a point it can no longer be saved? Seems nobody is following up on that building and avoiding it like the plague..losing it would be even worse especially since some buildings that caught on fire under his ownership were already demolished...Any news on where the St Charles Hotel is in viability?

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Labroco

As for the building insurance... there is no way a claim would be approved for more than the purchase price less land value and depreciation. If the building was purchased for 500k, the insurance may cover the demo which will be in that range +/-.

If a boat was $10,000,000 new and sold 30 years later for 500k. The insurance will only cover a portion of this purchase price as it represents fair market value. The owner of the policy will not get enough to buy a new boat! Never!

It’s all very unfortunate but we must remember these are the good guys spending money on buildings in an attempt to achieve exactly what we all wish for on this forum.

Save the rage for neglectful building owners and indifferent and incompetent bureaucrats who are the biggest impediments to change in the area...

I think there’s plenty of rage for both. I don’t really see them as connected.

$10m is a crazy amount of money for a 50 foot wide, three storey facade.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by trueviking

I think there’s plenty of rage for both. I don’t really see them as connected.

$10m is a crazy amount of money for a 50 foot wide, three storey facade.

The 10m figure sounds suspect. What would they be bracing the facade with? Solid gold?

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

The 10m figure sounds suspect. What would they be bracing the facade with? Solid gold?

I’m not suggesting that was the cost of the work but just using an example of how insurance works. A policy will work towards an insured value ( market value 500k, less depreciation less land costs, NOT the cost to replace a structure. The boat was an analogy to explain the process...

I am not totally exempting this building owner but would suggest the city must use bigger teeth on delinquent building owners in the Exchange. ( there really are not that many buildings at risk any more).

If I can turn over another stone in this discussion...

The residential grants really were the best thing for these buildings...

New builds seem to be economical as of late...

[bomberjet]

Regarding insurance. You can buy insurance for basically anything. It's just the upfront cost. Singers insure their voices, athletes insure their bodies.

I have vehicle replacement insurance, from a private company not MPI's junk, that will pay me the full value of an equivalent brand new vehicle in the event mine is written off. For years to come. Even if my vehicle if worth half as much as a brand new one.

Since people like to crash into me, I paid the upfront cost to save me the headaches later. 3 vehicles in 5 years written off due to stupid people crashing into me. All in the Lag and Reenders area which I frequent quite a bit. None of them my fault. There was a 4th accident that was minor, again not my fault.

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Regarding insurance. You can buy insurance for basically anything. It's just the upfront cost. Singers insure their voices, athletes insure their bodies.

I have vehicle replacement insurance, from a private company not MPI's junk, that will pay me the full value of an equivalent brand new vehicle in the event mine is written off. For years to come. Even if my vehicle if worth half as much as a brand new one.

Since people like to crash into me, I paid the upfront cost to save me the headaches later. 3 vehicles in 5 years written off due to stupid people crashing into me. All in the Lag and Reenders area which I frequent quite a bit. None of them my fault. There was a 4th accident that was minor, again not my fault.

Sorry but no...

Exchange buildings are not insured for “replacement cost”.

I don’t and am unaware of anyone who does. A policy for a $30,000 auto is very different than a multimillion dollar building. Most owners will place lability, rental interruption, content and some building cost. The loss of the Jarvis Bldg to fire for example would be north of $20,000,000 to replace. As it was bought for less than $1,000,000 they will be lucky to get enough for the full demo...

I use the example of the purchase of an old boat... insurance will never replace it regardless of what one may think...


I’m just trying provide the forum with the challenges faced by the buildings and the owners...

[bomberjet]

Sorry for being unclear. That's not what I meant. My vehicle was merely an example.

There are all sorts of insurance policies that can be purchased. It's the cost of the policy that potentially makes it unfeasible in most cases. Or unnecessary.

In the case of heritage buildings. Would it not be possible to assess ahead of time. If this building were to have major damage during construction and require demolition, it would cost $10 million to save the façade. This being a requirement of the local municipality, the city in this case, so being a requirement of the project.

I'm sure you could get an insurance policy for such a case. The cost of that policy would be the question. $10 mil isn't really that much for insurance in the construction industry. Some of the projects I work on have much higher costs associated than that. One current high profile Winnipeg project is undergoing such a case right now. The airport another case. Of course those are much larger projects than this building on Princess.

[plrh]

Wouldn't the contractor's insurance cover the damage? I assume the owner would sue them and their insurance would come into play?

What responsibility would the structural engineer take on this building? I would be surprised if they could do structural modifications without a stamp.