Winnipeg | Exchange District | Developments & Discussions

[Gravity Wins]

At least the new building is taller. A bit of added density is nice.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Temperance

It didn't exactly just fall over on its own. The new building is fine but the old building obviously had more merit. Developers should pay a hefty price when they vandalize heritage buildings.

?? I am not sure I follow.

The developer was not standing beside the previous building pushing it into the ground. The contractor made a mistake resulting in catastrophic damage.

Nothing was intentional, and it's now up to the insurance companies and layers upon layers of litigation to figure out who is going to pay.

The developer in this case paid a hefty price in getting his project delayed by ~18 months. Raking up enormous debt and having to delay (possibly shelve) other projects in the Exchange as a result.

There were no winners here.

[zen-kz]

I like this new building. At least it is built in the “warehouse-like” style and does not look odd in surrounding. Thanks God it is not a black cargo container like many of new builds in Exchange and OV

[T'Cona]

Originally Posted by zen-kz

I like this new building. At least it is built in the “warehouse-like” style and does not look odd in surrounding. Thanks God it is not a black cargo container like many of new builds in Exchange and OV

Completely agree.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by drew

?? I am not sure I follow.

The developer was not standing beside the previous building pushing it into the ground. The contractor made a mistake resulting in catastrophic damage.

Nothing was intentional, and it's now up to the insurance companies and layers upon layers of litigation to figure out who is going to pay.

The developer in this case paid a hefty price in getting his project delayed by ~18 months. Raking up enormous debt and having to delay (possibly shelve) other projects in the Exchange as a result.

There were no winners here.

Legally there was recourse which I think is the real problem. Of course rebuilding the thing in situ is very expensive, but perhaps the negligent contractor should be brought to heel for the mistake, or their insurers. I understand people don’t have the stomach for that often, but this is a case where a protected building could have been mandated to be rebuilt. They’ve done similar things in England. One case of a developer being ordered to rebuild to original spec a building they had illegally demolished. It doesn’t appear to be the case here that this was intentional, but the remedies exist, we just need the political will. It seems like we give up far too easily at the slightest hint of a challenge.

[drew]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Legally there was recourse which I think is the real problem. Of course rebuilding the thing in situ is very expensive, but perhaps the negligent contractor should be brought to heel for the mistake, or their insurers. I understand people don’t have the stomach for that often, but this is a case where a protected building could have been mandated to be rebuilt. They’ve done similar things in England. One case of a developer being ordered to rebuild to original spec a building they had illegally demolished. It doesn’t appear to be the case here that this was intentional, but the remedies exist, we just need the political will. It seems like we give up far too easily at the slightest hint of a challenge.

There was nothing illegal about this. Permits were active.

I guess you need to decide just how much you loved that previous building.

Requiring the previous building to be re-built is obviously not realistic. But even if by some method there was the requirement for this to happen - the developer would simply walk away.

The remaining two buildings would be tied up in litigation for years (i.e. remaining empty). The damaged building would still be demolished, so it's gone no matter what.

Is it worth keeping that block dark for ~ 5 years, minimum just to rebuild the Scott Memorial Block? Again, knowing nothing nefarious occurred?

I think we got the best result out of a bad situation. The development moved forward, and the building was replaced.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by drew

There was nothing illegal about this. Permits were active.

I guess you need to decide just how much you loved that previous building.

Requiring the previous building to be re-built is obviously not realistic. But even if by some method there was the requirement for this to happen - the developer would simply walk away.

The remaining two buildings would be tied up in litigation for years (i.e. remaining empty). The damaged building would still be demolished, so it's gone no matter what.

Is it worth keeping that block dark for ~ 5 years, minimum just to rebuild the Scott Memorial Block? Again, knowing nothing nefarious occurred?

I think we got the best result out of a bad situation. The development moved forward, and the building was replaced.

Nefarious or not, my point is that there is recourse for this sort of stuff, and if it’s a negligent contractor, then perhaps the contractor can bear the burden of liability. It’s all about making it happen politically. If we allow this sort of thing too frequently, some less savoury developers may be inclined to have “accidents” going forward.

[BAKGUY]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Nefarious or not, my point is that there is recourse for this sort of stuff, and if it’s a negligent contractor, then perhaps the contractor can bear the burden of liability. It’s all about making it happen politically. If we allow this sort of thing too frequently, some less savoury developers may be inclined to have “accidents” going forward.

Speaking of which, Mr. H Reiss had to rebuild the building he allowed to fall into disrepair on King St or no parkade would have been allowed to proceed. The City made him rebuild the exterior. 100 King St.. https://www.google.com/maps/place/100+Ki...dea3ba983!8m2!3d49.8981276!4d-97.1415202

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by BAKGUY

Speaking of which, Mr. H Reiss had to rebuild the building he allowed to fall into disrepair on King St or no parkade would have been allowed to proceed. The City made him rebuild the exterior. 100 King St.. https://www.google.com/maps/place/100+Ki...dea3ba983!8m2!3d49.8981276!4d-97.1415202

They also received millions in subsidies from the city to do so.

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

They also received millions in subsidies from the city to do so.

$2.3M, $1.5 of which was a direct grant and $800K of which was TIF

[Temperance]

Originally Posted by drew

?? I am not sure I follow.

The developer was not standing beside the previous building pushing it into the ground. The contractor made a mistake resulting in catastrophic damage.

Nothing was intentional, and it's now up to the insurance companies and layers upon layers of litigation to figure out who is going to pay.

The developer in this case paid a hefty price in getting his project delayed by ~18 months. Raking up enormous debt and having to delay (possibly shelve) other projects in the Exchange as a result.

There were no winners here.

To be clear, I don't think the building was intentionally demolished and I don't think we have any evidence to indicate that. But, I think that saying the building "fell over" is also grossly mischaracterizing the situation, by removing any human role (negligence/recklessness). I think it's a shame when natural causes (i.e. storms) destroy a heritage structure, but it's really unacceptable for contractors/developers to do so. We cannot be cavalier about it - the Exchange District would be nothing without those buildings, and it is already a shadow of its former self due to many demolitions in past years.

I think the new building is acceptable, when considered in isolation, but when we consider the circumstances, and the effect on the neighborhood, it's a significant downgrade.

[Bdog]

Sounds like we're back to where we were a few years back where the forum was calling for the developer's head. Keep it up and there aren't going to be too many investors or developers looking to take on the enormous risks associated with renovating and rehabbing heritage buildings.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by Bdog

Sounds like we're back to where we were a few years back where the forum was calling for the developer's head. Keep it up and there aren't going to be too many investors or developers looking to take on the enormous risks associated with renovating and rehabbing heritage buildings.

I’m going to be honest with you but I don’t think developers care about what anonymous users on Skyscraper forum post. Even if they did the criticisms are still valid and we shouldn’t be bootlickers for developers just because they rehab a building (almost always with sizeable funding and subsidies provided by the government)

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

I’m going to be honest with you but I don’t think developers care about what anonymous users on Skyscraper forum post. Even if they did the criticisms are still valid and we shouldn’t be bootlickers for developers just because they rehab a building (almost always with sizeable funding and subsidies provided by the government)

I'm saying that if the draconian punitive measures that have been called for here were ever actually implemented, you could kiss most heritage renovation projects goodbye.

[buzzg]

These “draconian punitive measures” would be just as eligible for insurance as any other issue.

[drew]

^ not necessarily.

The costs to make the SMB safe to simply work on was estimated between 2 and 5 million.

No one carries that kind of insurance. And even if they did, the insurer needs to be willing to pay. They generally don't without a fight.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by drew

^ not necessarily.

The costs to make the SMB safe to simply work on was estimated between 2 and 5 million.

No one carries that kind of insurance. And even if they did, the insurer needs to be willing to pay. They generally don't without a fight.

But if the city decided that they would just put their foot down then there would be no choice.

[drew]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

But if the city decided that they would just put their foot down then there would be no choice.

Choice for what?

The developer would just walk away.

IIRC, there is still the opportunity for the City to levy a fine against this development for the loss of the building.

However, regardless of the loss of the building, the development and re-use of 2/3's of the original block still went forward for the betterment of the neighborhood.

[T'Cona]

Let's just hope the adjacent lot is replaced with something spectacular.

[bomberjet]

I was by there today and the building fits in well.