Winnipeg | 291 Bannatyne Ave | Maws Garage & Sanford Building | In Development

[neutroniks]

Originally Posted by tron_javolta

Haha neutroniks yeah that is about right.

Mr Tall Forehead, it isn’t my appeal, I live in the burbs. I logged on here because someone posted incorrectly that the city doesn’t charge for appeals. The city does do that so I thought I'd correct the record. You later posted that the “appeal will end up delaying construction by at least 4-6 months perhaps wasting a construction season.” You don't actually know any of that to be true. The developer said this project is in the "early stages."

My point isn’t that this appeal is necessarily right or wrong. It’s that appeals are an important part of the system and can help work issues out. People (like you) should not be online posting against some appeal they aren't party to when they don’t actually know the relevant facts. Doing that is a weird way to spend your time. Go enjoy the beautiful weather and as neutroniks put it let the city see hear the folks (engineering info, business cases etc) and “let the appeal go through it’s process.” Don't rush to post baseless hypotheticals online.

I never said/agreed with anything. I just summarized your rant.

Ironic that you go on to say "Doing that is a weird way to spend your time" when you say you logged on, just to write paragraphs talking in circles defending your position.

... Doing that is a weird way to spend your time.

[drew]

Originally Posted by tron_javolta

Drew, you used "probably" twice in your post. And then you posted that it is not accurate that you have to pay almost $1000 to appeal or that the appeal doesn't relate to structural damage. In terms of the latter, I posted two links that directly show you are wrong about those calls. The fee for appeal is $955 and that was reported by CTV and is on the City link I posted. The fact that the appeal relates to possible structural damage is in the text of the appeal on the other link. And we have lost two heritage buildings recently due to problems with the structure during construction and another in the Exchange semicollapsed when the neighbouring foundation failed. What is your evidence for your certainty that the appeal is unwarranted? Just let the hearing happen and have cases made. And in terms of the extra floor being needed, that may be true. But they should make that case at the hearing. That should not just be an assumed fact. What I am bothered is your certainty that an appeal is frivolous when they appealer have made a case with letters from engineers and your certainty that the extra floor is needed when you have no evidence, just a bunch of "probablys."

I am an engineer, you want me to use more firm language than "probably" - you are going to need to pay me a lot more for my time!

But anyways, you keyed in on one of my posts, but totally ignored post #53 that basically mic-dropped your whole argument about

The reason I even logged onto this site again was that I think its wrong that a citizen has to pay almost 1000 dollars just to get the city to consider possible damage to their structure

But yes, I will take you at your word that you are just a concerned person out in the burbs who took a very specific interest in this very specific project.

[tron_javolta]

neutroniks, I wasn't saying you agreed, but that your summary was accurate. Calm down lol. You're right I should log off. I think it more normal though not good haha to post a reply correcting an incorrect statement (the city doesn't charge for appeals) than to baselessly accuse an appeal of killing a project by delaying 2025 construction when the developer himself says its a project in the early stages.

Drew, I don't care whether you think I am the appealer or not. I am not. I live in Fort Garry. I posted for the first time after someone on here made the incorrect statement that the city doesn't charge for appeals. Should we just let incorrect statements stand? Re the City requirement for geotech analysis, your "mic drop" (lol): we have lost multiple heritage buildings to facade collapses in the very recent past all of which would have gone through similar processes. The Free Press wrote recently that we almost lost another in the Exchange due to its neighbour's foundation issues. It seems fine to me for neighbours to want to double check the decision making here when clearly the regular process is not catching all the issues. Not to mention their appeal cites facade stability and other physical impacts on neighbouring buildings and other stuff. You wrote earlier that people do not understand the realities of development. Well you also do not know everything some project they are not involved in. All I am asking for is that people on here cite facts and have some humility instead of thinking they know everything about situations they are not part of.

[drew]

^ I am not aware of any recent buildings that were lost as part of a new construction project happening adjacent to them. If I am wrong, please specify which projects they were.

216 Princess collapsed because the contractor removed a basement slab when they weren't supposed to and it resulted in the foundation wall buckling inwards. This is not the same situation as this project.

Having neighboring properties allowing existing foundations to deteriorate is a concern, but also not the same situation as this project.

[neutroniks]

If you're talking about the building that forced Ms Browns to move, that was due to owner neglect. Not due to construction.

[tron_javolta]

Fine but none of this says that some extra time or care should not be taken when work is being done on or beside heritage buildings. Why are you so angry that there is an appeal?

[drew]

^ who is angry?

The reason I even logged onto this site again was that I think its wrong that a citizen has to pay almost 1000 dollars just to get the city to consider possible damage to their structure

I already pointed out to you very specifically that the City already has processes in place for these exact situations. You seem to be the one that isn't listening to the facts.

[tron_javolta]

Drew, you seem angered about this appeal insofar that you have posted seven times on here defending this project or saying an appeal is not needed. All I'm saying is that appeals are a fine and normal part of the process and that its fine for the neighbours to pay for one given the context of the project.

[drew]

^ not angry. Maybe triggered is a better term.

I feel the need to point out when someone is posting something is demonstrably false.

And now you have me involved in this circular argument about the same thing over and over again. But, I am done for now. Good luck with your appeal.

[tron_javolta]

Drew, its not my appeal. I also feel the need to point out when someone posts something demonstrably false, why I even logged on here when someone said the city doesn't charge for appeals. Its funny you cannot imagine someone uninvolved thinking it's fine to appeal stuff but you're on here fighting an appeal for a stranger. Unless you are involved.

[neutroniks]

[tron_javolta]

neutroniks, most of what I just posted are things I had not said before.

[neutroniks]

The first half of it, you've repeated several times. You say "logged on" but you created your account a day after this project was posted by Wpg_Guy, which is just too convenient. Where were you when they were building the new build on Bannatyne that, while was built on a parking lot, is built to a height that set a new precedent for the Exchange.

The second half was said in a condescending tone with personal attacks sprinkled in. Drew has debated your opinions without personally attacking you. Do you see where I'm going with this?

[bomberjet]

So anyway, when's the appeal being heard and/or when can we expect this thing to move forward?

[tron_javolta]

It was unwise to make things personal. I am sorry for that. I stand by my point that I am not the appealer but feel that appeals are an important part of civic governance.

[neutroniks]

All good. No single building is going to satisfy every single one of us forum posters. Just try to be objective in opinions moving forward.

[cllew]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

So anyway, when's the appeal being heard and/or when can we expect this thing to move forward?

From what I can see on the city site the hearing is June 11/25.

[Wpg_Guy]

Appeal has been posted

Appeal–June 11, 2025 | Heritage Permit Application

[DonaldSmith]

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

Appeal has been posted

Appeal–June 11, 2025 | Heritage Permit Application

Dumb shit that is holding this city back:

Nearby property owners have appealed the variances raising a number of concerns. This
includes the existing parking challenges in the area. The negative impact that the development
will have on the existing poor condition of nearby streets. The structural impact of the
development on nearby heritage buildings. The damage the development will have on the
character of the area. As well as the overall height of the new building which is seen as too tall
for the area.
The Downtown Zoning Bylaw does not have a minimum parking requirement meaning no
parking is required on site. For this development, the developer has decided to include parking
which will provide options for tenants to park on site.
The maximum height permitted in the Character Sector is 100 feet and the applicant is
requesting a height variance of 106 feet. It is important to note that the approval of the variance
is based on the review of the incremental impacts of the additional six feet, not whether a
building of 100 feet should be located here. Any perceived damage to the character of the area
is subjective and not appropriate as part of the evaluation of the requested variances. esthetic
considerations, as mentioned above, are reviewed through the Urban Design Review and
Heritage Permit process.

In terms of structural impact, all building permit applications include a structural review and have
requirements for vibration monitoring. This is not discussed at the variance application phase
and is a private matter between the applicant and building owners, not the general public.

[Mr Tall Forehead]

Originally Posted by DonaldSmith

Dumb shit that is holding this city back:

No kidding.