Winnipeg | The Exchange District | Market Lands | U/C

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

Such great use of the land. Neat concept for the food hall.

[neutroniks]

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

Maybe they can imitate something like Grand Central Market in Los Angeles for the Food Hall?

[trueviking]

Once it’s all complete that block is going to be a game changer.

[FactaNV]

What's the rough time frame on completion?

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by drew

FYI - Heritage and UDAC veto'd the balconies on this one - not the owner.

And the owner argued (successfully) that the exterior walls (other than the main floor) don't need to be masonry because the precedent was set with those truly ugly buildings across the street.

The more accurate before and after shot for this development should be the lot as it currently is compared to what it will be.

Anyways - Labroco - you of all posters on this forum should not be poo-poo'ing owners that actually want to develop their underused properties in the Exchange.

I encourage all development in the area but lament the challenges faced by the property owner / developer dealing with the City. I think you mistook who the forth line of sarcasm was directed towards…


Development is driven by Market not Capital. Parking lots exist because of auxiliary need and Market. This idea of owners holding up development has been proven wrong. Just look at the spectacular CV St Regis site back on the market after 10 years with no takers. The CV Duncan Waterfront sports plex is also back on the market after 5! Both great sites but going nowhere.

My point is private capital functions different than government agencies. On that note my vote is with the U of W development Corp.

We specialize in Historic Preservation, adaptive reuse and yes auxiliary parking. Without parking it would be impossible to lease these buildings. Vacant building are generally vacant because they have lost all utility, there is no market pressure to rent, restore or reuse. Quite frankly I’ve grown tired of the urban challenges while at the same time wishing for a better tomorrow.

Does anyone want to adopt a lovely heritage building? I know of a few beauties looking for love!

[1ajs]

wonder if the concept of co-op parking garages would work where couple land owners and area developers buy shares and build a couple for the area to keep prices from going crazy and tap into co-op grants and such

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

wonder if the concept of co-op parking garages would work where couple land owners and area developers buy shares and build a couple for the area to keep prices from going crazy and tap into co-op grants and such

Please don't give them any ideas on how to build more bloody parking downtown lol.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by FactaNV

Please don't give them any ideas on how to build more bloody parking downtown lol.

umm

unfortnatly this is a solution as we get rid of lots....... we need to do something or it creates problems we need to do planning not ignore

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by drew

FYI - Heritage and UDAC veto'd the balconies on this one - not the owner.

And the owner argued (successfully) that the exterior walls (other than the main floor) don't need to be masonry because the precedent was set with those truly ugly buildings across the street.

The more accurate before and after shot for this development should be the lot as it currently is compared to what it will be.

Anyways - Labroco - you of all posters on this forum should not be poo-poo'ing owners that actually want to develop their underused properties in the Exchange.

it's pretty hard to defend this design, Drew.

The buildings across the street are designed to the finest detail...its a finalist for a major international award...it won a Governor's General Award.......it may not be your taste, but they tried...this design does not.

They may have used metal panel, but it is layered with different transparencies....it has a full glass front wall....the massing is unique...the ground floor is transparent and active....it has an excellent ground floor experience all the way around with retail spaces on the sidewalk and covered pedestrian spaces.

The other building has parking at grade....even if the bottom floors would have used brick or something...anything....any idea at all....its completely un-considered....an extrusion of the floor plan clad in the cheapest material possible.

In a National Historic Site...and downtown in general, we should demand more than better than nothing.

[drew]

Originally Posted by trueviking

They may have used metal panel, but it is layered with different transparencies....it has a full glass front wall....the massing is unique...the ground floor is transparent and active....it has an excellent ground floor experience all the way around with retail spaces on the sidewalk and covered pedestrian spaces.

If only looks were the only important thing about a building. But people actually have to live in them too.

The pumphouse apartments cost a boatload to rent, and for that expense the owners are rewarded with fully exterior walkway to their apartment, and when they do walk in, they get to access said apartment from the outside directly thru their bedroom. Also constructed with basically a bunch of OSB and 2x6s laminated together. (i.e on the cheap).

But, hey, at least it looks good.

Some developers want a show piece, some architects want to push a design that could be their thesis in University. But some developers just want a reasonable building (working with UDAC and Heritage). There is room for everyone - even in the Exchange.

[trueviking]

Its lazy architecture...no two ways about it.....its indefensible....it doesn't have to be a showpiece....but the exchange district deserves to have architects spend more than three minutes considering their designs.....it looks like a draftsman designed it.

even beyond its lazy design, it is repellant at the ground floor...it has parking at grade...that is unacceptable....

i agree...all anyone can ask for is a reasonable building....this isn't that....it can be simple and clean, but it still needs to be considered.....it's disappointing that someone would take such a prominent site and care so little....its not about cost at all...its about effort....even using metal panel, you could do something of interest....there was just no effort.

It's disappointing that they gave HAF money to projects that care so little about the public realm....I'm pretty sure UDAC hates it too, but they have no teeth to stop it.

[EdwardTH]

What really perplexes me is the inconsistency. How does that project on McMillan get rejected, but this gets approved when it's inside a national historic site?

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by EdwardTH

What really perplexes me is the inconsistency. How does that project on McMillan get rejected, but this gets approved when it's inside a national historic site?

One went through a community committee meeting for rezoning and the other did not. So many inconsistencies with development approvals.

[drew]

^ not sure you guys know exactly what you are talking about - but this particular building has to go thru UDAC, Heritage and Variances. It literally has to jump through all the hoops and all the checks and balances possible.

[ColdRain&Snow]

Originally Posted by drew

^ not sure you guys know exactly what you are talking about - but this particular building has to go thru UDAC, Heritage and Variances. It literally has to jump through all the hoops and all the checks and balances possible.

Yes, but it didn't have to go to a "public hearing", I think because it's within the downtown zoning bylaw boundaries. Planning, Property, and Development processed and approved the application through an internal review. The McMillan project was reviewed by Planning, Property, and Development and they recommended it be approved, but the final say came down to the councilors at the City Centre Community Committee (who ended up voting against it). So the inconsistency is public hearing vs. no public hearing.

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by ColdRain&Snow

Yes, but it didn't have to go to a "public hearing", I think because it's within the downtown zoning bylaw boundaries. Planning, Property, and Development processed and approved the application through an internal review. The McMillan project was reviewed by Planning, Property, and Development and they recommended it be approved, but the final say came down to the councilors at the City Centre Community Committee (who ended up voting against it). So the inconsistency is public hearing vs. no public hearing.

Exactly this, internal review vs public hearing with council input.

[drew]

Originally Posted by trueviking

Its lazy architecture...no two ways about it.....its indefensible....it doesn't have to be a showpiece....but the exchange district deserves to have architects spend more than three minutes considering their designs.....it looks like a draftsman designed it.

even beyond its lazy design, it is repellant at the ground floor...it has parking at grade...that is unacceptable....

i agree...all anyone can ask for is a reasonable building....this isn't that....it can be simple and clean, but it still needs to be considered.....it's disappointing that someone would take such a prominent site and care so little....its not about cost at all...its about effort....even using metal panel, you could do something of interest....there was just no effort.

It's disappointing that they gave HAF money to projects that care so little about the public realm....I'm pretty sure UDAC hates it too, but they have no teeth to stop it.

I know about this building because I am in the consultant group - but the owner dictates all the choices on this design. Even if you were the Architect, it wouldn't look much different. Owner wants parking (and is paying lots of $$ for it), has argued successfully that ground floor commercial shouldn't be required (again, maybe not your cup of tea, but the newish building on Bertha a stone's throw away has had vacant ground floor commercial since the day it was built - 10 years ago now?).

Again, it needs to be compared to what it is now for a fair judgement, its currently a single storey, vacant 1970s warehouse.

You can cry "National Historic Site" till you are blue in the face, but all of the necessary departments at the City has OK'd everything you see. This will be putting about 80, high quality apartments (way better than what the pretty pumphouse offers) into the area. Maybe just enough new people that the Bertha building can attract some tenants for their commercial space.

As an aside, I do find it interesting how much you come to the defense of the pumphouse design - knowing the track record of the Architect. This is a firm that basically designs with the sole purpose of shopping it around for awards, and as been proven recently, can end up with buildings that get torn down in record time when said award winning design proves to be all looks and no substance. The pumphouse IMO is a great example of this - I can't imagine anyone actually wanting to live there long-term, given the shortfalls in it's usability. Take a good look at the floor plans at this building and tell me you can still defend this design - beyond what you see from the outside?

[drew]

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

Exactly this, internal review vs public hearing with council input.

Variances are public?

Also, I think anyone who has ever dealt with UDAC or Heritage reviews - would probably rather go through any other process available. They aren't a walk in the park.

[ColdRain&Snow]

Originally Posted by drew

Variances are public?

Also, I think anyone who has ever dealt with UDAC or Heritage reviews - would probably rather go through any other process available. They aren't a walk in the park.

Yes, all variances, rezoning, and conditional use permits are public and can be appealed by anyone in Winnipeg. You can even appeal variances that are approved internally (without a public hearing). I could have appealed the variances for 120 James Ave just for the heck of it if I wanted to (say I didn't like the architect or the developer). The appeal system is really easy to abuse so thankfully most people don't know about it.

https://legacy.winnipeg.ca/ppd/PublicNotices/

[davequanbury]

Originally Posted by drew

Again, it needs to be compared to what it is now for a fair judgement, its currently a single storey, vacant 1970s warehouse.

I can only imagine how challenging it is to bring a development to fruition these days. I'm certainly no architect and I'm not knowledgable about the processes at the city.

But, I'm not buying this line about "its better than what's there."

What's there is easy to tear down and build on. Its tabula rosa. Once this refridgerator of a building gets built we're all stuck with it for a long time.