HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4801  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 8:13 PM
ywgwalk ywgwalk is offline
Formerly rypinion
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Exchange District, Winnipeg
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peggerino View Post
Walking through pleasant residential neighbourhoods is nice. I'm in West Broadway, so I have access to quite a few areas I like, including Corydon, Wolseley, Armstrong Point, walk to the Fork, and the Rivertrail. I have friends in the exchange that go to Stephen Juba Park, St. B, and the Forks a lot. Bike infra isn't all that bad either, good trails along the rivers and with the active streets pretty safe access to Assiniboine Park and other areas. Biking through Wolseley is magical on certain days and I love having access to activities like that.
But think of all the storm water retention ponds you're missing out on.
     
     
  #4802  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 8:22 PM
1ajs's Avatar
1ajs 1ajs is offline
ʇɥƃıuʞ -*ʞpʇ*-
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: lynn lake
Posts: 26,518
biking the city is fun getting out into the burbs that trails are nice but they are point to point links and u dont see much other then grass and cars.. though if u take the trans canada trail gets bit different specialy by charlswood and assinboin forrest now thats fun to explore
     
     
  #4803  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 8:56 PM
Jeff's Avatar
Jeff Jeff is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Winnipeg|MB
Posts: 2,317
The Yellow Ribbon Trail from Silver Ave. all the way to Sturgeon Creek is quite pleasant as well!
__________________
instagram: @jeff_vernaus
     
     
  #4804  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 9:20 PM
Pegoise Pegoise is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 25
Live in South Osborne, very walkable for everyday needs, but I especially appreciate that when walking for recreation in the summer you can be several degrees cooler walking in the shade rather than on the newly minted pathways in the 'burbs in the blazing sun. Much more pleasant (as long as the elms hold out)
     
     
  #4805  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 9:57 PM
1ajs's Avatar
1ajs 1ajs is offline
ʇɥƃıuʞ -*ʞpʇ*-
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: lynn lake
Posts: 26,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pegoise View Post
(as long as the elms hold out)
as the elms die lobby for new trees hell we should really be lobby for a tree replacement plan for paterns in the types of trees and create something unique as we loose the elms
     
     
  #4806  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 11:20 PM
borkborkbork's Avatar
borkborkbork borkborkbork is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
that's nice...can we put that one downtown instead?
have you seen their first phase? be careful what you wish for
     
     
  #4807  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 2:50 AM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 16,249
At what point will the smith street clunker come before the downtown committee for variance.

I see in that render they have a variance file for it and people reviewed the plans. So when would it come public? Will it? Is it possible for it not too?
     
     
  #4808  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 12:12 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,480
Good question.

As an aside, I love the level of concern we all have regarding this building... I feel like we need a running ticker at the bottom of the screen, something like:

"SMITH STREET TOWER PROPOSAL CRISIS: HOUR 61"
     
     
  #4809  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 1:13 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 16,249
hahaha
     
     
  #4810  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 1:51 PM
pacman pacman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 244
So many complaints about the "Smith Street Clunker" and so little praise. It's not going to win any design awards as is and sure as hell could be a lot better in an ideal world, but I cannot get over the negativity surrounding a 40+ floor building proposed for a mid-block, development that gets rid of a condemned building and parking lot amongst an ocean of crap and surface parking lots.

People don't drive Toyota Corollas instead of Teslas because they actually prefer to drive that economic shitbag (no offense corolla owners). People are doing their best to build something substantial within their means and are getting shit on here because it has an ugly podium and a tacky "fedora".

I have no dog in this fight, and would certainly prefer something a lot prettier, but I'm not going to refuse a Budweiser because I'd rather have Dom Perignon. Bottom line is it looks like there are finally private developers looking to build substantial projects downtown seemingly unsolicited and I think, even though their proposals don't measure up to other people's lofty standards, they should be applauded rather than pissed on by people who talk a big talk but rarely actually put their own money where their mouth is.

It's not my first choice design, but I'm definitely not going to be offended by it. And if I was asked I would definitely steer some constructive criticism towards the design while still being positive.
     
     
  #4811  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 2:19 PM
Winnipegger Winnipegger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by pacman View Post
So many complaints about the "Smith Street Clunker" and so little praise. It's not going to win any design awards as is and sure as hell could be a lot better in an ideal world, but I cannot get over the negativity surrounding a 40+ floor building proposed for a mid-block, development that gets rid of a condemned building and parking lot amongst an ocean of crap and surface parking lots.

People don't drive Toyota Corollas instead of Teslas because they actually prefer to drive that economic shitbag (no offense corolla owners). People are doing their best to build something substantial within their means and are getting shit on here because it has an ugly podium and a tacky "fedora".

I have no dog in this fight, and would certainly prefer something a lot prettier, but I'm not going to refuse a Budweiser because I'd rather have Dom Perignon. Bottom line is it looks like there are finally private developers looking to build substantial projects downtown seemingly unsolicited and I think, even though their proposals don't measure up to other people's lofty standards, they should be applauded rather than pissed on by people who talk a big talk but rarely actually put their own money where their mouth is.

It's not my first choice design, but I'm definitely not going to be offended by it. And if I was asked I would definitely steer some constructive criticism towards the design while still being positive.
I have to disagree because your analogies don't really speak to the significance of a city's skyline and how it affects the city's overall image and perception abroad. If this was a 20 story proposal, it would be a little bit different, but this proposal could be the second tallest structure in our city and will be front and centre to a lot of future skyline shots.

Nobody is arguing that private investment of this magnitude is a good thing for our downtown, but when the second tallest and most recent high-rise in your city looks like an oversized commie block that would better fit into the Worthington Neighborhood north of St. Vital Mall, it seemingly says a lot about the state of investment in your downtown.

Without sounding too sentimental and abstract, downtowns are the heart of a city and when most people think of a city they are only vaguely familiar with, their experiences of the downtown area often come to mind. For better or for worse, an ugly skyline can taint peoples perceptions of your city without ever stepping foot in it, and this can ultimately have an indirect and psychological effect on things like tourism and private investment.

There is something to be said about having a modern, attractive, and glassy skyline that suggests to the viewer that the city is doing "well" and growing. Unchanging and ugly skylines suggest private investment has lost interest and the city is well past its golden age, which can act as a signal to future investors and residents that they may wish to look elsewhere because why investment or move somewhere where no-one else is willing to move or invest?

Like it or not, skylines are basically an "executive summary" of what is occurring in a city. Tower cranes suggest progress and interest, glass and modern architecture suggest people are willing to invest and pay for quality, height suggests busy-ness, density, and a sense of importance.

On the contrary, ugly structures that dominate the view like in the proposal will ultimately give the perception of frugality, lack of taste, and a lack of willingness to pay for quality. Again, perfectly fine as a smaller structure, but less acceptable when it will be around the second tallest building in the city.

To get back to your car example - sure, people would love to drive better cars if they could afford them. But like it or not, humans are quick to judge based on outward appearance. There is a reason people in client and sales-driven industries tend to lease luxury vehicles - to appear successful to potential clients, which hopefully inspires confidence and trust between the potential client and sales person. Imagine you wanted to sell your house - obviously for the best price possible. If you had ten seconds to judge two different real estate agents, would you prefer to take the one driving a brand new BMW 8 series (even though it is leased) or would you prefer the agent who out-righted owned his rusty 1998 beige Corolla? Most people, if only going by their 10 second impression, would chose the one who appeared more successful thanks to the shiny car.
     
     
  #4812  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 2:36 PM
borkborkbork's Avatar
borkborkbork borkborkbork is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,702
Also, "it's ugly, but we can't afford to be choosy" is a perspective for a city planner or municipal planner to take.

This is a discussion forum about buildings. It's for people who care about urban form. You don't go onto a Telsa forum and post pictures of your Corolla and expect them to give you a thumbs up and attaboy.

(And also, this building is not a Corolla, it's a Nissan NV. It achieves its stated function with the absolute least attention to aesthetics possible.)
     
     
  #4813  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 2:39 PM
optimusREIM's Avatar
optimusREIM optimusREIM is offline
There is always a way
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 3,252
Hey, if the choice is surface lot in perpetuity or this, I think the choice is clear.
__________________
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm."
Federalist #10, James Madison
     
     
  #4814  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 2:43 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winnipegger View Post
There is something to be said about having a modern, attractive, and glassy skyline that suggests to the viewer that the city is doing "well" and growing. Unchanging and ugly skylines suggest private investment has lost interest and the city is well past its golden age, which can act as a signal to future investors and residents that they may wish to look elsewhere because why investment or move somewhere where no-one else is willing to move or invest?

Like it or not, skylines are basically an "executive summary" of what is occurring in a city. Tower cranes suggest progress and interest, glass and modern architecture suggest people are willing to invest and pay for quality, height suggests busy-ness, density, and a sense of importance.

On the contrary, ugly structures that dominate the view like in the proposal will ultimately give the perception of frugality, lack of taste, and a lack of willingness to pay for quality. Again, perfectly fine as a smaller structure, but less acceptable when it will be around the second tallest building in the city.
If, in addition to the option A of an ugly 42-storey tower and the option B of the status quo (vacant lot) we had a third option, say a tastefully designed 20-storey tower in the vein of Glasshouse or dCondo, it's safe to say most of us would pick that. But I am not aware that there is a third option here. It's either A or B.

To optimusREIM's point above, even a somewhat underwhelming tower is still going to project a much, much better image for downtown than leaving the lot vacant in hopes that something better will come down the road. We have surface parking lots downtown that date back to the streetcar days... these things don't always change fast. Sometimes you have to take the bird in the hand.

I will give the proposal this much, it sure has given us something to talk about and debate
     
     
  #4815  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 2:45 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 16,249
Maybe the render sucks and it'll turn out nicer than that. The podium is ugly. But the tower part isn't that bad. They can't all be masterpieces.

I'd take that building no problem.
     
     
  #4816  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 2:50 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
Maybe the render sucks and it'll turn out nicer than that. The podium is ugly. But the tower part isn't that bad. They can't all be masterpieces.

I'd take that building no problem.
Agreed. I suspect if the podium part of the rendering wasn't so bad, this would have been far better received. That is really what is dragging the whole thing down. Fix that part and then it just becomes a passable filler building.
     
     
  #4817  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 3:05 PM
drew's Avatar
drew drew is online now
the first stamp is free
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hippyville, Winnipeg
Posts: 8,862
It gets a big "meh" from me. I could take it or leave it.

It does look better in profile though.
     
     
  #4818  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 3:35 PM
pspeid's Avatar
pspeid pspeid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 2,593
I agree with pacman on this one. This isn't the most beautiful or inspiring design possible, but personally I am not horrified by it. Call me common (maybe even vulgar), but I don't think every building in a downtown area has to be a work of art. Sure I'd love this one to be the second coming of Sky City, but that ship has sailed (or sunk, if that's a better analogy).

What will people think of the city? Well, if this one gets constructed to the proposed height, I think people may be impressed that two 40+ storey towers were built recently, along with several new business, residential, hotel (whenever the Sutton Place hotel gets completed) and art & culture buildings in the past few years. I think potential investors are driven first by potential profit, and if they see the downtown as a place to make the level of profit they are looking for, they will invest.

I doubt one would hear the statement "Let's build in downtown Winnipeg....oh, wait, there's a mediocre-looking building, let's go to Saskatoon instead". of course i could be wrong, I don't hang around developer's board rooms that much.

And no slight on Saskatoon, I like that city.
__________________
"Opinion is really the lowest form of intelligence"-Bill Bullard

"Naysayers are always predicting the present"-Anon.

"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength"-Eric Hoffer
     
     
  #4819  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 3:54 PM
pacman pacman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 244
I understand people wanting to emotionally become "Guardian of Winnipeg's Skyline - for the sake of our kids and grandkids", we all want the best for Winnipeg. I just think that some of the reaction here has gone well beyond that.

Obviously people didn't like my Corolla analogy and don't think its appropriate. I completely understand and agree with Winnipegger's realtor analogy but I think it is equally inappropriate for this discussion. I'm not a developer but I don't think their choice of investment in the city is going to be dictated by the quality of the second tallest tower in the city.

I understand that the buildings in a city's skyline are a reflection of the city itself, and if anything reflects classic Winnipeg stereotypes it is cheap and boring. I'm not saying we should strive to be cheap and boring, but I don't get offended and insulted by it. Saving our skyline from the horrors of a tall ugly building is not worth the effort from me, but maybe I'm just lazy compared to you guys lol.
     
     
  #4820  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 5:46 PM
TRiToNDREyJA's Avatar
TRiToNDREyJA TRiToNDREyJA is offline
Create and Conquer
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 226
Both parties are completely valid on this debate, but I will say this. It's not that this proposal falls just a bit shy of lofty expectations we may have developed hearing the '50 storey' rumours.

This tower literally looks like it'll be a conrete & hardie board commie block with a box parking podium with zero intent to interact with the street.

There's a huge gradient of factors in a city like Winnipeg that's had so little activity for the last few decades, only picking up recently. Given that, we should have a very wide set of expectations and tolerance for what we want to see and what we welcome from developers from a design standpoint. This proposal as seen though falls close to the borderline of being tolerable in our cities case though IMO, even with all things considered.

And by that I mean on the wrong side of the borderline unfortunately.

BUT... with some small changes which I hope we'll see, it can cross over the borderline to the other side & become something most people can be even just a little happy about without just clinging to the height & scale of it. Even only one of these few things can make it palatable.

- Fix the freaking podium, it's lazy and ugly. Modelling from the drawings I found it's literally a perfect square extruded along the width of the tower, that's pretty telling.

- Make the windows an architectural element instead of a bare necessity, join them up vertically maybe. That would give this building a small visual positive.

- If you're gonna keep the hat, light it up like in the renders. If they light up under the balconies like shown then maybe IRL it will look pretty good actually. I've not been much of a critic of hats myself.


That's my dollar of talk as opposed to just my 2 cents... to me it doesn't seem unreasonable.
__________________
Never "know" your place, create it instead
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:31 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.