Future Winnipeg High-Rise Projects

[Kris22]

I would like to point out the Pumphouse as an example of sticking to heritage principles and waiting for the right proposal and right developer to come along. We saw many ideas for that site over the years and now we are getting a project that incorporates towers on both sides, a cool upper loft floor and a preserved heritage main floor.

Demolishing the Pal Building is not necessary. This developer simply picked the wrong site. Show some respect to heritage district or simply get out of the district and go somewhere else. Fack.

Edit: This is all hypothetical frustration of course! haha

[GreyGarden]

I know façadism gets dumped on a lot (especially in Toronto), but I wouldn't mind it in this context. 311 Portage Ave is not good execution but I actually don't hate it that much, its quite clumsy but I'm happy that its there. I think it would be a shame to see the Palamino Building completely demolished but I definitely don't think that every inch of it needs to be preserved. Maybe theres a balance to be struck.

[pacman]

Originally Posted by Biff

Just a hypothetical question here....

Would you approve the demolition of the Palamino Building to accommodate and 3 to 4 storey and podium and tower complex from 201 Portage north to the corner of Main and McDermot?

In this scenario, the plans are submitted and funding is secured based on the demolition of this one historic building.

Absolutely yes assuming the scale of the project is what you imply. I don't hate heritage buildings, I actually really like them and appreciate them (not as much as some on here but I still do). That being said, not every heritage building is equal and you can't just use a blanket statement like every building counts. The location of the building, the other buildings that DIRECTLY surround it, and actual historical significance to the City should be considered and essentially allow us to rank "old" buildings so that in certain circumstances certain buildings make sense to sacrifice. I don't buy the argument at all that this building is the gateway to the exchange. If there was a modern building on the corner of McDermot, and anything on the gravel parking lot to the south, this building would be a heritage island relative to its direct surroundings.

Let's have some perspective, the importance of this particular building specifically related to heritage significance took a nosedive when the buildings on either side of it bit the dust. For me, the fact that it sits away from the corner on prime real estate with no particular historical significance allows me to think of it as a building that can come down in the name of something significant in scope and something that would bring more life to that area.

That being said, it's a nice building and if it was somewhere else in the exchange or even across the street at some point between Lombard and Bannatyne I would be together with those of you that would be fighting to keep it.

Edit: Would be magical to pick it up and place it between 441 Main and the Confederation Life (I think) building, would fit like a glove.

[pacman]

Originally Posted by Kris22

I would like to point out the Pumphouse as an example of sticking to heritage principles and waiting for the right proposal and right developer to come along. We saw many ideas for that site over the years and now we are getting a project that incorporates towers on both sides, a cool upper loft floor and a preserved heritage main floor.

Demolishing the Pal Building is not necessary. This developer simply picked the wrong site. Show some respect to heritage district or simply get out of the district and go somewhere else. Fack.

Edit: This is all hypothetical frustration of course! haha

The bolded above I somewhat agree in that the developer should've known better before they bought the building and known that this would be an issue. However, I personally don't see the location of that building as part of a heritage district. It's literally next door to Portage and Main with 3 of the tallest buildings in the City. The age of the building makes it heritage, but the location of the building is not a heritage district, that ship has sailed for that location.

I can get behind embracing the facade in the new development if it makes sense and isn't a deal-breaker for the developer, but keeping this particular building up and turning down a large scale development that would fill the hole all the way to McDermot is a no-brainer to me even if we lose that building.

[Kris22]

Originally Posted by pacman

The bolded above I somewhat agree in that the developer should've known better before they bought the building and known that this would be an issue. However, I personally don't see the location of that building as part of a heritage district. It's literally next door to Portage and Main with 3 of the tallest buildings in the City. The age of the building makes it heritage, but the location of the building is not a heritage district, that ship has sailed for that location.

I can get behind embracing the facade in the new development if it makes sense and isn't a deal-breaker for the developer, but keeping this particular building up and turning down a large scale development that would fill the hole all the way to McDermot is a no-brainer to me even if we lose that building.

I'm sorry but you "personal" opinion of what the exchange district is does not change what it is in reality. This building is part of it. Fact. It's 50 feet away from mc Dermot which is one of the most successful streets in the district, not to mention across the street from this: https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.89659...7i13312!8i6656

Looks heritagey to me.

Take a trip to Montreal and see how they managed to preserve an entire old city and build a new one next to it.

[pacman]

Originally Posted by Kris22

I'm sorry but you "personal" opinion of what the exchange district is does not change what it is in reality. This building is part of it. Fact. It's 50 feet away from mc Dermot which is one of the most successful streets in the district, not to mention across the street from this: https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.89659...7i13312!8i6656

Looks heritagey to me.

The other side of the street looks beautiful, I love it and would gladly link arms with you in a human chain to protect it.

But for this building, there is a gravel parking lot on one side of it and a paved parking lot on the other side of it, those are facts too. It's also just as close to 201 Portage as it is to the beautiful other side of the street. The location itself as it stands in its immediate surroundings is not very "heritagey" to me and certainly not heritagey enough to prevent a large scale project from being built on its footprint.

To me, the location of THAT building is in a transition area / gray area between the exchange and modern Winnipeg. I see value in it and wouldn't want it demolished just because. For me it's about perspective and personally I think it's lower on the totem pole of importance not through any fault of it's own, but because of other circumstances that caused its neighbours to become flat land devoid of heritageyness. I will say, that if there was a heritage building beside it on the corner of Main and McDermot it would make a huge difference to me. That was a situation where "every building counts" would apply and its unfortunate because that would've been a nice gateway to the exchange instead of a building the next lot over. Oh well, not arguing with you or saying you're wrong, just defending my hypothetical position.

[esquire]

^ There's no question in my mind that there is considerable value in having critical mass in the form of an intact block. The situation across Main that pacman mentioned is a perfect example of that.

Although I suppose one has to be careful with that line of reasoning, since it could encourage landlords to be aggressive in terms of finding a building to demolish, knowing that getting rid of one in a strip could make it easier to get rid of others in the future.

[Kris22]

Originally Posted by pacman

The other side of the street looks beautiful, I love it and would gladly link arms with you in a human chain to protect it.

But for this building, there is a gravel parking lot on one side of it and a paved parking lot on the other side of it, those are facts too. It's also just as close to 201 Main Street as it is to the beautiful other side of the street. The location itself as it stands in its immediate surroundings is not very "heritagey" to me and certainly not heritagey enough to prevent a large scale project from being built on its footprint.

To me, the location of THAT building is in a transition area / gray area between the exchange and modern Winnipeg. I see value in it and wouldn't want it demolished just because. For me it's about perspective and personally I think it's lower on the totem pole of importance not through any fault of it's own, but because of other circumstances that caused its neighbours to become flat land devoid of heritageyness. I will say, that if there was a heritage building beside it on the corner of Main and McDermot it would make a huge difference to me. That was a situation where "every building counts" would apply and its unfortunate because that would've been a nice gateway to the exchange instead of a building the next lot over. Oh well, not arguing with you or saying you're wrong, just defending my hypothetical position.

I think we aren't seeing eye to eye on this because you are looking at the two vacant lots on either side but not considering that the term district refers to the whole area which spans blocks up blocks and refers to the collection of buildings as a whole. I totally agree that having one building standing alone isn't ideal and that having two, three, or a whole block full makes it "feel" more like a heritage district, but the fact is that there are a ton of buildings on the edges of our exchange district that have become outliers. (And even some right in the middle that basically stand alone). If we start to demolish these then the edges of the district slowly creep inward and new buildings will become the ones on the fringe.

Also the proximity to the portage and main towers really doesn't seem like a strong argument to me simply because there are heritage buildings on Lombard, both sides of portage, the BMO bank right at P&M, and south main. In that sense this building really isn't an outlier.



Separate train of thought, but is a large 1-block podium really even what we would want to see there? I personally think a streetscape is better with smaller lots/developments in a location like this. Maybe 10-15 storey building on the south side of the pal and then a 4-5 one on the north side?

[optimusREIM]

I was thinking more like 10-15 floors on the north lot and a 30+ storey building next to 201

[Kris22]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I was thinking more like 10-15 floors on the north lot and a 30+ storey building next to 201

Actually ya that sounds more like it haha. I thought maybe there were height restrictions on the north lot.

[pacman]

Originally Posted by Kris22

I think we aren't seeing eye to eye on this because you are looking at the two vacant lots on either side but not considering that the term district refers to the whole area which spans blocks up blocks and refers to the collection of buildings as a whole. I totally agree that having one building standing alone isn't ideal and that having two, three, or a whole block full makes it "feel" more like a heritage district, but the fact is that there are a ton of buildings on the edges of our exchange district that have become outliers. (And even some right in the middle that basically stand alone). If we start to demolish these then the edges of the district slowly creep inward and new buildings will become the ones on the fringe.

Also the proximity to the portage and main towers really doesn't seem like a strong argument to me simply because there are heritage buildings on Lombard, both sides of portage, the BMO bank right at P&M, and south main. In that sense this building really isn't an outlier.



Separate train of thought, but is a large 1-block podium really even what we would want to see there? I personally think a streetscape is better with smaller lots/developments in a location like this. Maybe 10-15 storey building on the south side of the pal and then a 4-5 one on the north side?

I don't disagree with you in principal, I think we're pretty close but I guess I see that particular block as a lost cause heritage-wise. But I see your point about demolishing an outlier causing other buildings to become the new outliers. Like I said, I wouldn't be behind demo for the sake of demo, I just wouldn't want that one particular building standing in the way of a grand project that would help that whole block and in turn help its surroundings.

Separately, I like the idea of restricting a new highrise to the gravel lot south of the Pal as long as something is done on the north side of the Pal as well. I doubt it would make sense financially, but would be nice to incorporate the Pal building facade into a redevelopment including that corner lot around the 10-12 storey mark similar to the Hamilton Building across the street. Maybe we can have our cake and eat it too?

[optimusREIM]

I think that the building would make a beautiful lobby to some larger incorporated building

[esquire]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I think that the building would make a beautiful lobby to some larger incorporated building

Theoretically it could work. But I have my doubts as to whether it could be pulled off.

Personally I'm not a fan of the Toronto obsession with facadism where you keep the front of some 2 storey greengrocer/apartment at the base of a 40 storey condo tower. It just looks goofy.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by Biff

Just a hypothetical question here....

Would you approve the demolition of the Palamino Building to accommodate and 3 to 4 storey and podium and tower complex from 201 Portage north to the corner of Main and McDermot?

In this scenario, the plans are submitted and funding is secured based on the demolition of this one historic building.

Assuming it was a one off and not a new precedent to disregard heritage (and that it wouldn't turn into a P+M style mess)... yes.

If someone said "I cannot guarantee zero fallout" I'd still say yes, but acknowledge what I'm now complicit in.

Originally Posted by Tacheguy

I don’t want Winnipeg to become Calgary’s poor cousin by letting new developments nibble away at the only asset we have making us unique. I would err on the side of preservation. There is lots of land for development.

Our only asset cannot be our past. Furthermore, an asset inherently provides value.

In many cases, heritage has prevented progress and positive evolution.

If heritage CAN be preserved, effectively maintained and operated (ie profitable), or honoured as something replaces or "augments" it, fantastic.

But many Winnipeggers and heritage advocates seem to think that heritage cannot ever suffer even in the slightest sense if we want a modern development. Sometimes we gotta be able to simply weigh the pros and cons and make an honest pro-development decision.

[joshlemer]

Originally Posted by esquire

Theoretically it could work. But I have my doubts as to whether it could be pulled off.

Personally I'm not a fan of the Toronto obsession with facadism where you keep the front of some 2 storey greengrocer/apartment at the base of a 40 storey condo tower. It just looks goofy.

For example, this one has to be the stupidest looking thing I've ever seen.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.65391...7i16384!8i8192

[pspeid]

This may be a simplistic question to some, but why does the current Palomino Club building need to be destroyed in order to develop the large empty strip of land next to it? It's not that large a piece of land! I am sure there are architects skilled enough to design a building that would fit into that space, builders capable enough to construct it and accountants savvy enough to make it financially worthwhile.

[Biff]

My hypothetical question in this instance was specific to this location because there is a heritage building with empty lots on both sides. Quite a unique block with the south end being a modern glass and steel tower and the north end a 100+ year old protected heritage zone.

I was just curious as to peoples thoughts.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by pspeid

This may be a simplistic question to some, but why does the current Palomino Club building need to be destroyed in order to develop the large empty strip of land next to it? It's not that large a piece of land! I am sure there are architects skilled enough to design a building that would fit into that space, builders capable enough to construct it and accountants savvy enough to make it financially worthwhile.

Fair comment. The former McIntyre Building site alone is still pretty substantial, I would think you could build a tall tower on it. Then if a much smaller building was built at McDermot and Main (let's say no more than 5 or 6 storeys) and attached to the Bank of BNA building, it could revitalize it.

I used to look out my office window at that corner and daydream about building a very modern boutique hotel on that corner, and using the Bank of BNA building as the hotel lobby.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by esquire

Fair comment. The former McIntyre Building site alone is still pretty substantial, I would think you could build a tall tower on it. Then if a much smaller building was built at McDermot and Main (let's say no more than 5 or 6 storeys) and attached to the Bank of BNA building, it could revitalize it.

I used to look out my office window at that corner and daydream about building a very modern boutique hotel on that corner, and using the Bank of BNA building as the hotel lobby.

I agree although I think you'd be able to make a compelling case for a 10 to 15 floor hotel. It would be located almost in a perfect place. That would also be a fantastic lobby. The club hasn't really done too much to modify the main part of the building

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by pacman

The bolded above I somewhat agree in that the developer should've known better before they bought the building and known that this would be an issue. However, I personally don't see the location of that building as part of a heritage district. It's literally next door to Portage and Main with 3 of the tallest buildings in the City. The age of the building makes it heritage, but the location of the building is not a heritage district, that ship has sailed for that location.

I can get behind embracing the facade in the new development if it makes sense and isn't a deal-breaker for the developer, but keeping this particular building up and turning down a large scale development that would fill the hole all the way to McDermot is a no-brainer to me even if we lose that building.

I can't agree with the logic that because there is a modern tower and a vacant lot on the same block, this heritage building "doesn't count". It's a heritage building in a heritage district, period. With that attitude we chip away at the exchange one block at a time until its gone and commit the very same mistake we narrowly avoided in the past. Even if Harvard puts a really nice facade together for their podium, behind the facade is a big monolith that probably won't do that much at street level. Let's be honest, the podium would be 90% parking garage. The exchange's big strength is a diverse mix of buildings on smaller lots, let's not ruin that. Plus those lots can be developed on their own. I'd rather wait 10 years and get a block with 4 diverse buildings of various scales on the block instead of essentially 1 big monolithic complex. Unless they're building something of True North Square scale & quality, that's a no from me. If Harvard wants to build their big monolith though I know a surface lot on Graham that would be perfect ...