Winnipeg Construction X

[GreyGarden]

I personally hope not. I think its a timeless design with good materials. The windows will obviously have to be replaced but I hope they don't try and make it look 'new'. I think of the towers at P&M, its the most handsome.

I'd much rather see 201 Portage get a reclad I think.

[peg]

Originally Posted by GreyGarden

I personally hope not. I think it's a timeless design with good materials. The windows will obviously have to be replaced but I hope they don't try and make it look 'new'. I think of the towers at P&M, it's the most handsome.

I'd much rather see 201 Portage get a reclad I think.

I agree the Richardson building should be left as is. We need to remember that these mid-century buildings are too, going to be historic buildings one day.

I know we mostly talk about the Edwardian buildings of Winnipeg's boom, but some of these mid-century buildings will have historic value too. That's why I was sad to see the PSB go (albeit for a good project).

If we massively change or alter the best examples, like the Richardson building, to fit our modern aesthetic, we risk losing the character that comes with age. That's not to say, all mid-century buildings are as 'precious' lol.

A city should be a patchwork of styles and ideas that fit together, that helps give it character!

[T'Cona]

Originally Posted by Malcsta

Forgive me if this has been discussed here already.. but what are the chances that we see a reclad of the Richardson building? I've always thought of it as an eyesore but it really stands out now that most of its neighbors are sleek glass. I think it would look great if it got the same thing done to it as 360 main.

Yes please.

It could potentially look like a shorter version of this:

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by Malcsta

Forgive me if this has been discussed here already.. but what are the chances that we see a reclad of the Richardson building? I've always thought of it as an eyesore but it really stands out now that most of its neighbors are sleek glass. I think it would look great if it got the same thing done to it as 360 main.

I rather like the Richardson as is. They could throw on some reflective glass or something to give a sleeker look I suppose but otherwise I think it looks great the way it is. The cladding looks the same today as it did when it first opened so I can't think of any good reason to alter it outside of some vague sense of keeping up with the Jones'.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Spocket

I rather like the Richardson as is. They could throw on some reflective glass or something to give a sleeker look I suppose but otherwise I think it looks great the way it is. The cladding looks the same today as it did when it first opened so I can't think of any good reason to alter it outside of some vague sense of keeping up with the Jones'.

Yeah that design I find has stood the test of time fairly well. It feels like a fairly timeless thing. I'd rather see Richardson spend their money on building other buildings on adjacent lots haha

[Jeff]

i think if they would at least fix the lightbulbs in the signs at the top or switched to their new logo it would help.

[Wigglez]

Save the money from a full reskin and put it towards creating some sort of podium to improve how it interacts with the street - specifically Lombard and Main. Portage East is such a tire fire of nonsense it doesn't really matter... keep the plaza part there.

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by Jeff

i think if they would at least fix the lightbulbs in the signs at the top or switched to their new logo it would help.

Exactly. Or even just get rid of the led ones now and Instsll them at the top. Imagine the top of the Richardson lite up like that.

And I think the building is beautiful. Enough of the glass monsters. They done exude anything. Reason for glass is it's cheaper. To build the Richardson today would be very costly. All that precast isn't cheap.

Wonder how the foundation is built. As in could it handle more floors. It seemed a thing back in the day to build robust foundations for future growth. Curry building being one of them.

[BigG]

IMHO, the Richardson Building should be left alone. Just like what optimusREIM mentioned earlier, it has stood the test of time when it comes to its' aesthetic appeal and is one of the better designed brutalist buildings in the city. RIP Public Safety Building. I agree though, that lighting will vastly improve it at night.

[ywgwalk]

Add me to the "timeless" list when discussing the Richardson Building.

Note that the logo at the top is the current logo for the parent company, JRSL. The most well known subsidiary is Richardson International, which has the logo that is probably being called the "new" logo in comments above.

Trueviking's Richardson Innovation Centre is wholly managed by the subsidiary, and therefore features the RI logo.

With that said, I have thought in the past that a full width Richardson (International) arch logo across the top of the Richardson Building would be pretty cool.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Anything is possible, but I would personally not want the Richardson Building to get a reclad. I consider it the most iconic of Winnipeg's tall buildings and I would like to see it remain with its good mid-century modern exterior.

On that note, what drives skyscraper reclads like 360 Main? Is it mainly by a need to fix problems with the existing building envelope, or is marketing a factor (i.e. sprucing up a tired looking building's image)? If everything is working as it should, would anyone ever consider a reclad?

Curtain wall has a limited life span. If you own a curtain wall building or are a condo owner in one, best be putting aside money every year because you will eventually be in for a very costly replacement.

All windows need replacing after 25-30 years. But when your entire building is covered in a giant window, it can be expensive.

[esquire]

^ Interesting, thanks for the explanation. There are a few significant curtain wall buildings downtown but I can't think of many that dramatically altered their appearance the way that 360 Main did. I remember 333 St. Mary and 360 Broadway looked slightly different after reclads a few years back but most wouldn't have noticed the difference. Credit Union Central on Garry and the Kensington Building on Portage have never changed their appearance to my recollection.

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by pmuhar

Bentley Homes

confidence in this project 📉📉📉

[Ando]

Interesting article on the issue of how to densify downtowns and the debate over skyscrapers vs smaller scale development. It’s in the context of the Montreal mayoral race, with the two main candidates falling on opposite sides of the issue. The three experts quoted in the article take differing approaches but agree that, rather than focusing on tall buildings, Montreal should concentrate on filling in old industrial sites and vacant lots with mid-rise human scale development, “which tends to create neighbourhoods that are more walkable, and transit-friendly.”
https://www.thestar.com/politics/2021/04...skyscrapers-higher-than-mount-royal.html

[peg]

RWB site is moving quite fast.

[Biff]

Already taller that Sutton Place.

[buzzg]

I love the Richardson building's form, but I think the LEDs they installed 10 years ago actually made it worse. It was a good idea, but only doing a single row near the bottom makes it look like they just cheaped out and just taked 'em on (they did). Would love to see more hidden lighting go all the way up or at the top.

Agree any "reclad" of the building should just be replacement of the windows. It really bugs me, there's actually 3 or 4 floors that have a different colour windows and it's quite noticeable during the day. Not sure if there were issues or maybe the tenants wanted less tinting, but I'd love to see all new windows that are less tinted – especially on the main floor! I'd be all for the city putting a limit on main floor tints like cars, makes the sidewalk so uninviting.

---

As for RWB, I wonder if they've just advanced/rushed it more than initially planned to take advantage of the restrictions right now in hopes of having as little interruption as possible once they can have shows again?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by buzzg

I love the Richardson building's form, but I think the LEDs they installed 10 years ago actually made it worse. It was a good idea, but only doing a single row near the bottom makes it look like they just cheaped out and just taked 'em on (they did). Would love to see more hidden lighting go all the way up or at the top.

Agree any "reclad" of the building should just be replacement of the windows. It really bugs me, there's actually 3 or 4 floors that have a different colour windows and it's quite noticeable during the day. Not sure if there were issues or maybe the tenants wanted less tinting, but I'd love to see all new windows that are less tinted – especially on the main floor! I'd be all for the city putting a limit on main floor tints like cars, makes the sidewalk so uninviting.

That could be a tough sell due to safety concerns, especially in a downtown like ours where streetfront retail is in low demand and a lot of main floors end up as office space as a result. I work in a building where, sad to say, women in main floor offices were getting unwanted attention from certain passers-by which ended up with some of the main floor windows being obscured.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Ando

Interesting article on the issue of how to densify downtowns and the debate over skyscrapers vs smaller scale development. It’s in the context of the Montreal mayoral race, with the two main candidates falling on opposite sides of the issue. The three experts quoted in the article take differing approaches but agree that, rather than focusing on tall buildings, Montreal should concentrate on filling in old industrial sites and vacant lots with mid-rise human scale development, “which tends to create neighbourhoods that are more walkable, and transit-friendly.”
https://www.thestar.com/politics/2021/04...skyscrapers-higher-than-mount-royal.html

Interesting. Appropriate for the exchange district thread discussion. Thanks for sharing.

[Peggerino]

IIRC, the UM City Planning school came out with something like that also for downtown. A studio class suggested a building height maximum to complete more projects and have more surface parking lots developed. By having the building heigh max, they argued that you wouldn't have one or two buildings eating up all the demand for downtown residential and leaving those parking lots undeveloped.