Winnipeg | 300 Main St.- Phase II / 360 Main St. | ~142M | 465 Ft | 42F | U/C

[roccerfeller]

Originally Posted by pspeid

According to https://winnipeg.ca/cao/pdfs/population.pdf, population of the city is forecast in 2018 at 765,800, CMA is forecast at 842,900! (stats from Conference Board of Canada) I think both are healthy numbers, and obviously the CMA is one that the city may prefer to use to encourage economic investment in the city. It's a bit worrisome to me, though that the geographic area used to calculate the CMA is pretty large. Are they just padding the stats or is this typical for this type of calculation?

They’re not padding it up, CMA is actually defined by 50% or more of that community’s population works in the “core” (I.e Winnipeg). So it’s not just the area itself, as there are communities in the area that are not calculated as part of the CMA population because they do not have 50% of more commuting (I.e. people working there)

This is why Selkirk is not part of the Winnipeg CMA but East/West St Paul, Headingly are, or places farther away than Selkirk are part of the CMA but Selkirk itself isn’t counted.

I should also add, Winnipeg CMA seems like a large area but it’s all about context. It’s about in line with other communities proportionally. For instance, Edmonton has a really large area for CMA which is well beyond the physical boundaries in other cities including Winnipeg. But, at least 50% of them are commuting to Edmonton and work in Edmonton so they are fair game for CMA as they meet statscan’s criteria. My cousin’s secretaries commutes 5x a week from Okotokes to NW Calgary for work, another one from high river which is even further away. I have a colleague in Winnipeg who commutes every working day from steinbach to Winnipeg. These seem like long drives for those of us (myself included) who are more city centric but for some people it’s completely normal. I would never do that myself but for others it’s no big deal, and some will say it’s about the same commute time as going through rush hour traffic in other cities

[roccerfeller]

Originally Posted by GreyGarden

I suspect that we won't see a new tallest for quite some time which is frankly very okay with me. However, when we do I suspect that it will be a hotel with residences. Similar to what Sutton is building but all consolidated into one tower.

You’re probably right. But one never knows. For example 300 main was announced out of nowhere (for myself it was, as for the general public) ... I thought Winnipeg would be getting a steady (every one - two years) stream of buildings in the 60-80m height range. And then hello 300 Main St. Haha

People said the same thing about the Bow in Calgary, and all of a sudden Brooksfield was announced out of no where. I distinctly remember criticism from NIMBYs out there (yes, we had them in Calgary too) about the look of the building and how it’s too big and something of that nature and someone replying with “we won’t ever see a taller structure for many, many years so let’s enjoy this one)

Few years later, Brooksfield announced.

After than, our neighbour to the North, not known for the same heights seen in Calgary, came with a big surprise in the form of Santec tower which will be the tallest in the province.

I know there’s completely different underlying market and demand factors in Alberta and those cities plus their respective sizes vs Winnipeg, but we will be marching towards 900k CMA and I could see a 150+m tower announced out of nowhere
Or at least if not a new tallest, something in the 110-140m range

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Winnipeg could get on the top 10 list if there is another nationwide crash in construction as there was in the early and mid 90s and something gets built here during that time. 300 Main probably would have been near or at the top of the 1998 version of the list, TNS probably would have been on there too.

EDIT: I just checked the diagrams, and from 1993-1999 there was only one building in all of Canada that went up during that time that was taller than 300 Main will be... just Simcoe Place in downtown Toronto which was 8m taller.

there was stuff in calgary taller that went up in the 90's

[optimusREIM]

^ a few towers in the neighborhood of 110 to 130 meters would really help the skyline fill in. I could see some larger proposal of at least 100m at 416 main for example be announced within the next couple of years. We know Harvard has an interest in developing that lot.

[roccerfeller]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

there was stuff in calgary taller that went up in the 90's

And for some of those buildings, Calgary was smaller then, than Winnipeg is today. But to be fair 1ajs, that’s where the discussion of market needs and demands then comes in, as well as other factors that dictate taller buildings ... Winnipeg still doesn’t have that kind of office demand downtown (Wolf may be able to expand on that more/give the facts)

[esquire]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

there was stuff in calgary taller that went up in the 90's

In other cities too. But not during the time period I mentioned, at least if the diagrams are correct.

[wardlow]

Originally Posted by esquire

I still can't visualize what the building's actual footprint will be...

The tower itself is set back from Main further than 360 Main. Not as bulky as 360 (or the original tower for the 300 site shown in the 1970s concept plan), which I like. More elegant.


***
Also, the 1913 recession ended Winnipeg's run at the head of Canada's tall building pack, and I don't think we're about to catch up any time soon. But that bothers me about as much as a resident of Austin or Nashville is bothered their respective city doesn't have any buildings taller than 200 metres. That is to say, not at all.

Continuing to see smaller/shorter projects that redevelop underbuilt sites (apartments going up on Roslyn Rd behind Safeway) or giant historic craters (True North Square) is just fine with me. You might not be able to see this change while driving into Winnipeg on McPhillips, or even from the postcard spot on Tache, but you sure can see it when you're walking around the city.

[esquire]

^ Thank you for posting that. That clears things up.

The only thing I'm not crazy about with the way that Winnipeg Square was ultimately realized is the significant amount of underutilized frontage along Fort. I wish the southern end of the site could have been arranged in such a way as to accommodate twins which would have filled out the block a little more, although I'm not going to complain about what we ended up with either.

[windypeg]

Originally Posted by wardlow

The tower itself is set back from Main further than 360 Main. Not as bulky as 360 (or the original tower for the 300 site shown in the 1970s concept plan), which I like. More elegant.


***
Also, the 1913 recession ended Winnipeg's run at the head of Canada's tall building pack, and I don't think we're about to catch up any time soon. But that bothers me about as much as a resident of Austin or Nashville is bothered their respective city doesn't have any buildings taller than 200 metres. That is to say, not at all.

Continuing to see smaller/shorter projects that redevelop underbuilt sites (apartments going up on Roslyn Rd behind Safeway) or giant historic craters (True North Square) is just fine with me. You might not be able to see this change while driving into Winnipeg on McPhillips, or even from the postcard spot on Tache, but you sure can see it when you're walking around the city.

Agreed. As much as I would love to see a couple of 200m+ towers pop into the skyline, we need infill throughout our sprawling downtown. I'd rather have a bunch of 5-10 story buildings go up on surface lots than have one 50-story (but I would love a 50-story nonetheless). Fill in the streetscape down at ground level before we worry too much about filling in the skyline. But I do realize this is SkyscraperPage not StreetscapePage and we like tall towers.

[wardlow]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Thank you for posting that. That clears things up.

The only thing I'm not crazy about with the way that Winnipeg Square was ultimately realized is the significant amount of underutilized frontage along Fort. I wish the southern end of the site could have been arranged in such a way as to accommodate twins which would have filled out the block a little more, although I'm not going to complain about what we ended up with either.

Yeah, with the loading ramps staying put, Fort Street isn't going to look much better at sidewalk level. Really too bad.

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by windypeg

Agreed. As much as I would love to see a couple of 200m+ towers pop into the skyline, we need infill throughout our sprawling downtown. I'd rather have a bunch of 5-10 story buildings go up on surface lots than have one 50-story (but I would love a 50-story nonetheless). Fill in the streetscape down at ground level before we worry too much about filling in the skyline. But I do realize this is SkyscraperPage not StreetscapePage and we like tall towers.

I agree. Saskatoon is an example of a downtown that feels like it has a dynamic urban "vibe" when you are walking around at street level, though they can't really claim that many tall structures. At this point I would love to see another tall (20+ storey) building on the gravel lot near P & M, and then smaller structures filling in those empty lots.

[BAKGUY]

It is of my belief that GWL or possibly a combined GWL & I G could materialize at some point.
They are both owned by the same parent company.

GWL is scattered all over and this would bring it all together.Even if a new tower like 40 floors was proposed and built, GWL could likely fill that with a medium sized floor plate. MB HYDRO was too large a footprint.
It needed to be minimum 10 - 15 floors taller.

[EspionNoir]

Originally Posted by roccerfeller

You’re probably right. But one never knows. For example 300 main was announced out of nowhere (for myself it was, as for the general public) ... I thought Winnipeg would be getting a steady (every one - two years) stream of buildings in the 60-80m height range. And then hello 300 Main St. Haha

People said the same thing about the Bow in Calgary, and all of a sudden Brooksfield was announced out of no where. I distinctly remember criticism from NIMBYs out there (yes, we had them in Calgary too) about the look of the building and how it’s too big and something of that nature and someone replying with “we won’t ever see a taller structure for many, many years so let’s enjoy this one)

Few years later, Brooksfield announced.

After than, our neighbour to the North, not known for the same heights seen in Calgary, came with a big surprise in the form of Santec tower which will be the tallest in the province.

I know there’s completely different underlying market and demand factors in Alberta and those cities plus their respective sizes vs Winnipeg, but we will be marching towards 900k CMA and I could see a 150+m tower announced out of nowhere
Or at least if not a new tallest, something in the 110-140m range

Yeah. Once I dived into the MB Hydro thread and found people saying that it would be the only development for another 20 years. Then we see many others being built. Hope the status quo will be broken soon this time.

[Urban recluse]

When MB Hydro's tower was finished, we had no reason to believe anything similar would be built for a couple of decades.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by wardlow

Yeah, with the loading ramps staying put, Fort Street isn't going to look much better at sidewalk level. Really too bad.

While Fort won't obviously be ideal, it does appear from the render that the Fort entrance will be expanded and upgraded, and entrance Fort & Graham will be expanded and wrapped around the corner. Also looks like there may be some terraces facing Fort from 330 Main.

Plus there's the mystery Vendome project, which, maybe, will incorporate the Fort Street Clinic and perhaps some of the parking lot next door. And the big lot on Graham suddenly becomes much more attractive for development, and the bike lane(s) going in and the possibility of transforming this to a main gateway into the Exchange... while it will take some time, I think Fort is far from doomed. Could be a completely different block in 5-10 years.

Originally Posted by pspeid

I agree. Saskatoon is an example of a downtown that feels like it has a dynamic urban "vibe" when you are walking around at street level, though they can't really claim that many tall structures. At this point I would love to see another tall (20+ storey) building on the gravel lot near P & M, and then smaller structures filling in those empty lots.

Said this recently in another thread... I love downtown Saskatoon, and would definitely argue on average, it's much more vibrant than downtown Winnipeg. But the Exchange is getting there.

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

When MB Hydro's tower was finished, we had no reason to believe anything similar would be built for a couple of decades.

Yeah, big government projects are generally no indicator of the market whatsoever.

--

I think with all I said above, and what many others have here – we're at the point it's IMPERATIVE the City, CentureVenture, both BIZs, and The Forks get their collective acts together and plan out what types of development to focus on in what areas.

We're not gonna be able to bring amazing streetfront vibrancy to every street downtown for decades – it's simply too big. So lets focus the right development types (both use and design) to appropriate streets/areas. How do we better connect all these areas downtown? In terms of perceived connection, walkability, transit and AT, and improved traffic.

For example: Lets focus on small, dense storefronts on Broadway, Graham, Fort & Garry, and maybe Edmonton/Kennedy. Fort & Garry then become fantastic walkable streets that lead to the Exchange. Maybe "cut our losses" around the convention centre, and big office/commercial developments that won't add lots of extra life around it can go there – the RBCCC has already killed any signs of life in the 5 blocks around it, so if there's other plans that would do that, just keep them there.

[Wpg_Guy]

• Video Link

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by windypeg

Agreed. As much as I would love to see a couple of 200m+ towers pop into the skyline, we need infill throughout our sprawling downtown. I'd rather have a bunch of 5-10 story buildings go up on surface lots than have one 50-story (but I would love a 50-story nonetheless). Fill in the streetscape down at ground level before we worry too much about filling in the skyline. But I do realize this is SkyscraperPage not StreetscapePage and we like tall towers.

It’s not really mandatory. If Winnipeg can’t have self-respect until it’s competitive in tedious SSP “look at all our tall towers” boasting matches, it will never have self-respect. It’s best to look elsewhere for things to be proud of, such as an attractive human-scaled city that is enjoyable at street level and isn’t as claustrophobic, ahistorical or monotonous as places with hundreds of cookie-cutter 40 and 50 storey towers.

[esquire]

^ Having some nice towers dotting the skyline is not necessarily incompatible with an attractive city that has pleasant, walkable streets. I don't see it as a choice between one or the other... there is room for both.

No question filling in the gaps in the downtown streetscapes should be the priority, but towers have a role to play as well.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by BAKGUY

It is of my belief that GWL or possibly a combined GWL & I G could materialize at some point.
They are both owned by the same parent company.

GWL is scattered all over and this would bring it all together.Even if a new tower like 40 floors was proposed and built, GWL could likely fill that with a medium sized floor plate. MB HYDRO was too large a footprint.
It needed to be minimum 10 - 15 floors taller.

IG has had massive layoffs and moved their call centre from portage place to one Canada centre. They have excess capacity there. Also moving some responsibilities to Toronto and the Mackenzie offices there. Don’t see them neeeding any office space any time soon.

[windypeg]

Originally Posted by BAKGUY

It is of my belief that GWL or possibly a combined GWL & I G could materialize at some point.
They are both owned by the same parent company.

GWL is scattered all over and this would bring it all together.Even if a new tower like 40 floors was proposed and built, GWL could likely fill that with a medium sized floor plate. MB HYDRO was too large a footprint.
It needed to be minimum 10 - 15 floors taller.

Originally Posted by cheswick

IG has had massive layoffs and moved their call centre from portage place to one Canada centre. They have excess capacity there. Also moving some responsibilities to Toronto and the Mackenzie offices there. Don’t see them neeeding any office space any time soon.

And GWL is pouring huge money into their HQ reno right now, so I don't see them moving. They do rent a ton of space elsewhere downtown but that's not head office stuff so I don't see them building a new tower for it.