Winnipeg | Downtown | True North Square | U/C - Page 352

esquire · #**7021** Posted **Oct 13, 2020, 7:03 PM**

^ Interesting... looking at that last diagram in the appeal documents, it looks like Wawanesa's tower will be just about as tall as Manitoba Hydro Place (not including the solar chimney part).

Graham and Carlton is shaping up to be second only to Portage and Main for sheer density at a single intersection in this city.

bomberjet · #**7022** Posted **Oct 13, 2020, 8:08 PM**

Neat. I don't remember seeing anything like this for the other recent tall developments downtown. We're always using renders from the press or getting heights from people in the know (Biff).

23 storeys, ~93m. If someone can use their TV show enhancement skills (enhance... enhance... enhance...) and get the actually parapet height, that'd be sweet. They list 92.2m to top of the river fin. But I can't make out the other elevations.

The Unknown Poster · #**7023** Posted **Oct 13, 2020, 8:27 PM**

The athletic had a story today about Gaglardi (they're the owners of this development, right?). Mostly about the Dallas Stars but noting how Gaglardi's core businesses have suffered and they are looking to save money any way they can (and want the Stars playing in front of fans asap).

bomberjet · #**7024** Posted **Oct 13, 2020, 8:29 PM**

He owns Sutton Place yup. And as expected is why it's not moving along.

Biff · #**7025** Posted **Oct 14, 2020, 1:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Neat. I don't remember seeing anything like this for the other recent tall developments downtown. We're always using renders from the press or getting heights from people in the know (Biff).

23 storeys, ~93m. If someone can use their TV show enhancement skills (enhance... enhance... enhance...) and get the actually parapet height, that'd be sweet. They list 92.2m to top of the river fin. But I can't make out the other elevations.

I think the reason we are seeing this here is because they are going for increased height and density in the variance. You don't generally see a developer going for this in Winnipeg. Usually they draw up a taller building and arrive at a lower height and density.

buzzg · #**7026** Posted **Oct 14, 2020, 2:27 PM**

The report seems pretty adamant they reject the variance, as the Floor Area Ratio is almost double what they're allowed there. And they were already granted to go over with the initial proposal Reading the report I tend to agree with it. It's also crazy they proposed a private approach off Graham, which would be the first – sounds like maybe TN trying to use their pull at the city to get whatever they want.

I hope council does the right thing here and listens to the experts.

esquire · #**7027** Posted **Oct 14, 2020, 2:41 PM**

It would be unfortunate if the City rejected the appeal. The planners seem to keep going back to this theme:

"The applicant’s inability to meet the required FAR suggests the building is too large for the site. An overbuilt development in this area has potential erode the character of Graham Avenue, which is largely a human-scale, pedestrian-oriented street."

It sounds like they're talking about Corydon... have the planners ever walked down Graham? With the exception of the few buildings between Edmonton and Vaughan, Graham is lined with very large buildings that tower over passers-by. There is an even taller building directly across the street from the Wawanesa site. The proposed tower is totally in line with the scale of its surroundings.

If the original proposal passed muster then there is absolutely no reason why adding a few storeys should somehow make it unacceptable. The tower is supposed to be part of the TNS complex, it's not like the developer is going to just decide to move it over to Portage Avenue because the planners don't think Graham is the right place for it.

bomberjet · #**7028** Posted **Oct 14, 2020, 2:46 PM**

Could they make it skinnier and taller? I'm no expert on urban development, but looks like it would git in quite nicely with the rest of the surrounding properties.

buzzg · #**7029** Posted **Oct 14, 2020, 3:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

It would be unfortunate if the City rejected the appeal. The planners seem to keep going back to this theme:

"The applicant’s inability to meet the required FAR suggests the building is too large for the site. An overbuilt development in this area has potential erode the character of Graham Avenue, which is largely a human-scale, pedestrian-oriented street."

It sounds like they're talking about Corydon... have the planners ever walked down Graham? With the exception of the few buildings between Edmonton and Vaughan, Graham is lined with very large buildings that tower over passers-by. There is an even taller building directly across the street from the Wawanesa site. The proposed tower is totally in line with the scale of its surroundings.

If the original proposal passed muster then there is absolutely no reason why adding a few storeys should somehow make it unacceptable. The tower is supposed to be part of the TNS complex, it's not like the developer is going to just decide to move it over to Portage Avenue because the planners don't think Graham is the right place for it.

All the other buildings have setbacks and/or wider sidewalks though, this is right to the property line and straight up. I don't know if you've walked down Graham past TNS but the sidewalk experience isn't exactly pleasant. They pretty much ignored Graham (and Hargrave) except for the corners where they enter their "public" (re: private) plaza.

EDIT: However looking at the renders again, if there is that big cantilever as planned, I think it'd be ok as they've made some open space. Just hope the cantilevered part to the west is actually active and not just blank stairwells like the other buildings.

bomberjet · #**7030** Posted **Oct 14, 2020, 3:56 PM**

This location also has 4 lanes on Graham, with parking at the curb. So the sidewalk will be narrow. TNS completely ignored Graham and Hargarve all together Which is sad.

But yes as you mentioned, they have a tall open area under the building for entrance. And they have a setback along Carlton. So from a pedestrian experience, only the part on Graham where they wanted to have the parkade entrance would be tight. The parkade is for 20 cars and 90 bikes. Yes they're providing indoor bike storage!

GreyGarden · #**7031** Posted **Oct 14, 2020, 3:57 PM**

As long as the building interacts somewhat, even on the corner, with Graham I'd be totally okay with this. As long as its not a repeat of 225 Carlton's interaction with Graham, that is truly awful. It looks like the building opens up to the corner.

esquire · #**7032** Posted **Oct 14, 2020, 4:09 PM**

225 Carlton will look better once the corner CRU is occupied...

LilZebra · #**7033** Posted **Oct 14, 2020, 4:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzg

All the other buildings have setbacks and/or wider sidewalks though, this is right to the property line and straight up. I don't know if you've walked down Graham past TNS but the sidewalk experience isn't exactly pleasant. They pretty much ignored Graham (and Hargrave) except for the corners where they enter their "public" (re: private) plaza.

A breakfast restaurant rather than what we're stuck with, an Assiniboine Credit Union would have helped animate that corner.

Having the transit stop there hasn't really helped much to bring more street life since the bus stop opened a few months ago.

zalf · #**7034** Posted **Oct 14, 2020, 5:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

"[...] An overbuilt development in this area has potential erode the character of Graham Avenue, which is largely a human-scale, pedestrian-oriented street."

It's disheartening enough to hear the "neighbourhood character" argument trotted out to block a residential duplex infill. Using it to block a downtown highrise from being a bit taller is bizarre.

bomberjet · #**7035** Posted **Oct 14, 2020, 5:29 PM**

I suppose they need to set the precedent for all the developers clamoring to build high rises downtown. Don't want them blocking out the sun you know.

Biff · #**7036** Posted **Oct 14, 2020, 5:48 PM**

From the zoning listing

Jeff · #**7037** Posted **Oct 14, 2020, 7:46 PM**

literally dozens of lots downtown where wawanesa could expand with set-backs probably not being an issue and they choose to cram themselves onto this spot lol.. i know "location, location, location" but still.. it'd be nice if they were forced to go even taller!

esquire · #**7038** Posted **Oct 14, 2020, 7:49 PM**

^ Yeah, it's kind of a nice change where a downtown development actually maximizes the use of a site. I guess the planners must not be used to such an approach here?

Kris22 · #**7039** Posted **Oct 14, 2020, 8:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff

literally dozens of lots downtown where wawanesa could expand with set-backs probably not being an issue and they choose to cram themselves onto this spot lol.. i know "location, location, location" but still.. it'd be nice if they were forced to go even taller!

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Yeah, it's kind of a nice change where a downtown development actually maximizes the use of a site. I guess the planners must not be used to such an approach here?

Haha I was just thinking this. It's rare we have this kind of density in Winnipeg and I'd rather them get a variance and cram it in than move to a lot somewhere further away and build a stubby tower. Our downtown being large and spread out is what creates so many deadzones and I'd personally like to see all of Graham built up from the Bay to Main.

Spocket · #**7040** Posted **Oct 15, 2020, 12:59 AM**

Well, obviously True North chose that site because they own it whereas they don't own all the other ones. Could they have bought another one? Probably but why? Or maybe nobody else wants to sell their lucrative parking lots. At the end of the day, it makes the most sense for the company to concentrate their projects for construction purposes at the very least.