HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2321  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2020, 11:40 AM
🌳🌱🌿🌴ðŸ 🌳🌱🌿🌴ðŸ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by drew View Post
That's the rub....
If everything you say is true, that is actually really infuriating. I understand that such a demolition is apparently possible given the laws/regulations in place. But I don't understand how it is possible – how it is acceptable to those in control. It feels like WPG is ripping out its historic fabric.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2322  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2020, 2:47 PM
buzzg buzzg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 7,799
I don't get the big stink around this. It's a private home that while nice and old, has no real historic value – someone in government lived there for a few years decades ago, big whoop. I agree with protecting historic public and commercial buildings and others that have actual historic value, but this is just a SFH private residence, owners should be allowed to tear it down if they want. Especially since they bought it unprotected – if it was protected before purchase, this would make sense.

Do I love the fact that a lot of the big old houses on Wellington were torn down for more modern ones? Meh, not really. But hard to tell someone that bought a home they can't tear it down and build a new one when the old one has no history other than being old. And now the land's worth more so..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2323  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2020, 3:22 PM
pspeid's Avatar
pspeid pspeid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 1,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzg View Post
I don't get the big stink around this. It's a private home that while nice and old, has no real historic value – someone in government lived there for a few years decades ago, big whoop. I agree with protecting historic public and commercial buildings and others that have actual historic value, but this is just a SFH private residence, owners should be allowed to tear it down if they want. Especially since they bought it unprotected – if it was protected before purchase, this would make sense.

Do I love the fact that a lot of the big old houses on Wellington were torn down for more modern ones? Meh, not really. But hard to tell someone that bought a home they can't tear it down and build a new one when the old one has no history other than being old. And now the land's worth more so..
I this case I agree. While Winnipeg has lost some historic buildings, some people seem to feel that "old=historically valuable", which just isn't always the case. I feel in this circumstance the "historical value" card was being placed more to preserve the ambience of the neighbourhood for the locals, rather than any real "historic" value. Nothing wrong with that of course, but as they say, change happens.
__________________
"Opinion is really the lowest form of intelligence"-Bill Bullard

"Naysayers are always predicting the present"-Anon.

"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength"-Eric Hoffer
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2324  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2020, 3:39 PM
drew's Avatar
drew drew is offline
the first stamp is free
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hippyville, Winnipeg
Posts: 7,981
Of course this comes down to opinion.

It is my opinion - especially in Winnipeg where we know better, to wait until all other options are exhausted prior to tearing something down something that is irreplaceable - especially in the name of "progress".

To me, it's mostly disappointing that no one besides this developer saw the value in this house - or that the owner sold the house knowing it would be torn down.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2325  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2020, 3:42 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
It's surprising to me that some rich dude wouldn't want to buy such an impressive house to live in... a house like that would cost millions in one of Canada's biggest cities. But that said, it doesn't bother me to see an old urban mansion get replaced with higher density that will bring more people into the area.

Was the house protected by a heritage designation? Because if it was demolished in spite of that, then it's a problem for sure. But if not, then I can live with what happened.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2326  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2020, 3:44 PM
WinCitySparky's Avatar
WinCitySparky WinCitySparky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzg View Post
I don't get the big stink around this. It's a private home that while nice and old, has no real historic value – someone in government lived there for a few years decades ago, big whoop. I agree with protecting historic public and commercial buildings and others that have actual historic value, but this is just a SFH private residence, owners should be allowed to tear it down if they want. Especially since they bought it unprotected – if it was protected before purchase, this would make sense.

Do I love the fact that a lot of the big old houses on Wellington were torn down for more modern ones? Meh, not really. But hard to tell someone that bought a home they can't tear it down and build a new one when the old one has no history other than being old. And now the land's worth more so..

Agreed, it’s just another box sitting there doing nothing that no one was ever going to invest in fixing. People projecting their feelings onto meaningless objects. Rip it down and do something meaningful with the space, rather than let it be sitting empty and having no use except as a piece of pointless nostalgia for all the local busybodies.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2327  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2020, 4:10 PM
Wpg_Guy's Avatar
Wpg_Guy Wpg_Guy is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Posts: 5,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
It's surprising to me that some rich dude wouldn't want to buy such an impressive house to live in... a house like that would cost millions in one of Canada's biggest cities. But that said, it doesn't bother me to see an old urban mansion get replaced with higher density that will bring more people into the area.

Was the house protected by a heritage designation? Because if it was demolished in spite of that, then it's a problem for sure. But if not, then I can live with what happened.
And I had a heritage designation a few years ago it was DListed and moved to the commemorative list which offers zero protection.
__________________
Winnipeg Act II - March 2024

Winnipeg | A Picture Thread - Updated October 2023

In The Future Every Building Will Be World-Famous For Fifteen Minutes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2328  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2020, 11:10 AM
🌳🌱🌿🌴ðŸ 🌳🌱🌿🌴ðŸ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 166
As Drew said, this is a "huge loss" – "such a waste." I think at least a couple other people on this site might agree.

But obviously several here do not, and so I won't go on about it after this post – especially with those who see anyone with a different viewpoint as nostalgic busybodies projecting their feelings onto empty objects. Probably not going to change your minds, eh?

By the way, is someone a busybody because they care about something they don't live in or own?

I don't quite get the vision of historic value described in some of these posts. Seems to be based on whether a 'historically significant' person lived there, with the architecture or urban environment being irrelevant. So what is the threshold for that exactly in the Manitoban context? Louis Riel? Burton Cummings? Teemu Selanne?

In Europe, they used to only protect individual monuments and buildings. Large parts of central Paris, Lyon, etc. were nearly razed in the 20th century in the name of progress before it was recognized that historical structures would lose much of their character and value if isolated.

In that vein, when some Middle Eastern sheikh buys up a building in Paris today, they are doing it (besides the financial motives or whatever) because they like the charm of the overall urban landscape – which yes, does include new architectural structures integrated amidst the old. And concerning the attitude that because something is a "private residence, owners should be allowed to tear it down if they want", as you know that it not so easily possible in such a city. For good reason.

So, curious: is the Exchange District historically valuable? As happened in many other places in North America, it wasn't considered so until a certain era (when people realized areas like that might also have an economic value, if nothing else). My understanding is that it was in large part saved through a lack of pressure to demolish it, and that now its historic value is due in large part to it being a collection of buildings – not just some individual structures left here and there.

I have never lived in the Exchange District, but when I did live in WPG (and every summer I have come back), I have gone there, shopped there, etc. So I don't fully understand the comment that "the 'historical value' card was being [played] more to preserve the ambience of the neighbourhood for the locals". This is your city too, isn't it? What does it matter if you don't live in that area? Personally speaking, I feel better in nice/interesting surroundings whether I live in them or not. Don't you? Wouldn't one want to increase those across the city?

And while I have felt almost 100% agreement with other comments I've seen from esquire on this site, I was under the impression that there remains lots of room available in Winnipeg for increasing density without having to knock down a beautiful old home that according to Drew was in 'perfect shape'. Could it not have been divided up if that was the only option? Or build new laneway-type homes on the property if increased density was the only chance to save it? It's not like there were no possible avenues to explore; I am going on what TV said, and he would know more than I.

Indeed, I don't know all the ins and outs of why this house wasn't protected in the end, or the controversy over listings in the city (although I have seen that there is a controversy). Here is one link I saw about this particular house: http://heritagewinnipeg.blogspot.com...-crescent.html

And here is another example of many which apparently also has no protection: https://heritagewinnipeg.com/blogs/t...e-carey-house/

Anyway, we shall see if the replacement for this pile of rubble is as nice or better and helps a bunch more people live in the area. As optimusReim noted, based on past history on Wellington Crescent, I wouldn't hold my breath. But I guess anything is possible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2329  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2020, 6:25 PM
Biff's Avatar
Biff Biff is offline
What could go wrong?
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 8,702
Looks like the City is declaring the surface lot on the NW corner of Osborne and Stradbrook as surplus. Hopefully someone will buy it to develop....not as a surface lot.

http://clkapps.winnipeg.ca/DMIS/View...onId=&InitUrl=

Item 25
__________________
"But a city can be smothered by too much reverence for its past. The skyline must keep acquiring new peaks, because the day we consider it complete and untouchable is the day the city begins to die." - Justin Davidson - May 2010 Issue of New York
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2330  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2020, 7:17 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
^ Good news.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2331  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2020, 7:45 PM
Kris22 Kris22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 595
Prime spot for some funnelators!!

...or a signature residential building with a CRU.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2332  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2020, 7:50 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by í ¼í¼³í ¼í¼±í ¼í¼¿í ¼í¼´í ¼í½ View Post
As Drew said, this is a "huge loss" – "such a waste." I think at least a couple other people on this site might agree.

...

Anyway, we shall see if the replacement for this pile of rubble is as nice or better and helps a bunch more people live in the area. As optimusReim noted, based on past history on Wellington Crescent, I wouldn't hold my breath. But I guess anything is possible.
Shortened up your comment for readers sake.

Not sure how long you lived in Winnipeg. It's a fairly suburban oriented place. The exchange is such a gem, but is completely underutilized because people are scared of downtown. People are literally scared for their life to go downtown. "I sawed on the news's there was some troubles" type people.

For most things, people see old as junky. Winnipeg is not terribly old. Oldest buildings are from early 1900's. The one that was demo'd surely could've been saved. But for the sake of someone's pocketbook, it will be replaced.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2333  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2020, 8:48 PM
Curmudgeon Curmudgeon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 935
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
..

For most things, people see old as junky. Winnipeg is not terribly old. Oldest buildings are from early 1900's. The one that was demo'd surely could've been saved. But for the sake of someone's pocketbook, it will be replaced.
Funny, I see many new-builds, esp. residential, as junky. They look cheap and age very poorly, even after less than a decade.

There are quite a number of structures from the 1880s and 90s, including quite a few houses in the inner city, and a few even older than that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2334  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2020, 8:50 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,702
Totally. Old stuff is usually build with better materials. Even my 1960's home vs a new build. Perception though.

I thought the oldest building in Winnipeg is 1890's. Some stuff from mid 1800's still around I guess. Most functional building are 1880's and newer. Seems the rest are old house museums and some churches.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2335  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2020, 9:03 PM
zalf zalf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 658
Quote:
Old stuff is usually build with better materials.
I'm pretty sure Survivorship Bias is playing a role here. That isn't to say that most modern buildings aren't made from crappy materials, but the few that are made to last will have people in the 2100s remarking on how people made things so much better a hundred years ago.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2336  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2020, 9:50 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,702
I suppose.

But it goes hand in hand with the decline of quality materials and workmanship. In every aspect of life.

Fir vs spruce. Plywood vs. OSB. Metal vs plastic. Go even further back where you have timbers and brick framing. We don't build stuff like that anymore because it's too expensive. Money is the crux of everything.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2337  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2020, 3:05 PM
Biff's Avatar
Biff Biff is offline
What could go wrong?
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 8,702
I understand all the arguments here. For the most part I would have liked it to have been saved. The practical side of me says if no one could be found to have a use for it then it is what it is.

Everyone says save it. But who saves it? The seller wants out - I think we all agree they should be able to sell. Lots on here say they should have (could have) found a buyer to live in it.....really, who? When you list you home for sale, do you care what the next buyer does with it? You get your price and move on. There was nothing legally protecting it so as long as the buyer is within the law, why cant he do what he wants with the property? (Obviously different with a heritage property)

Everyone has big opinions with others money but really in this situation what can anyone do?

Is it fair to sit on the property until the perfect buyer comes forward to save the structure? Again, who's money is being tied up to wait for this. If it is so desirable, why did no one buy it for that purpose? How long does it realistically sit before it is ok to move on?

It sucks that this house was demolished but with other peoples money at stake it is what it is.
__________________
"But a city can be smothered by too much reverence for its past. The skyline must keep acquiring new peaks, because the day we consider it complete and untouchable is the day the city begins to die." - Justin Davidson - May 2010 Issue of New York

Last edited by Biff; Dec 2, 2020 at 3:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2338  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2020, 3:43 PM
WinCitySparky's Avatar
WinCitySparky WinCitySparky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff View Post
I understand all the arguments here. For the most part I would have liked it to have been saved. The practical side of me says if no one could be found to have a use for it then it is what it is.

Everyone says save it. But who saves it? The seller wants out - I think we all agree they should be able to sell. Lots on hear say they should have (could have) found a buyer to live in it.....really, who? When you list you home for sale, do you care what the next buyer does with it? You get your price and move on. There was nothing legally protecting it so as long as the buyer is within the law, why cant he do what he wants with the property. (Obviously different with a heritage property)

Everyone has big opinions with others money but really in this situation what can anyone do?

Is it fair to sit on the property until the perfect buyer comes forward to save the structure? Again, who's money is being tied up to wait for this. If it is so desirable, why did no one buy it for that purpose? How long does it realistically sit before it is ok to move on?

It sucks that this house was demolished but with other peoples money at stake it is what it is.

Amen
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2339  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2020, 3:52 PM
🌳🌱🌿🌴ðŸ 🌳🌱🌿🌴ðŸ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 166
Originally Posted by bomberjet...

"Not sure how long you lived in Winnipeg."

Not my birthplace, but from around 1980–97, with a year in Stockholm during that period. Then for most of 2014. Two degrees from the U of M. So around 18 years, plus I have come back to Manitoba every summer over the past 20 years, except this year. So some presence over ~38 years. Not sure if you are inferring something, but I think I know it at least a little bit. My team is the Jets, however difficult that can be.

"It's a fairly suburban oriented place."

Oh, I was under the impression that areas like Roslyn, Osborne Village, etc. had higher population densities than suburban ones. Is that not the case? I haven't looked at the 2016 Census information, but I would have thought that there are still some fairly dense central neighbourhoods. Is that not true anymore? https://winnipeg.ca/census/2016/default.asp

Anyway, it is not like that suburban orientation is in people's DNA there, like it is physiological or something. It has obviously not always been the case.

For example, I saw that they have finally put the downtown Bay out of its misery – a place that I always tried to buy stuff from when there [one time I couldn't find something which I shortly afterwards found at the Bay while passing through Montreal... Realized that that would of course be interpreted by the Bay execs as someone in Montreal wanting it rather than in Winnipeg].

But you know, it actually looks like people used to go there, even dress up a bit while doing so haha...


- Library and Archives Canada

In any case, I suppose that that balance has been shifting somewhat to the suburbs but as Brent Bellamy touched on in an article, I wonder how much of that has to do with the same policies that have encouraged urban sprawl everywhere.
https://www.numberten.com/blog/26-ur...half-the-story

"The exchange is such a gem..."

True. Although given a few people's attitudes, it is probably a lucky thing that any of it survived.

".... but is completely underutilized because people are scared of downtown. People are literally scared for their life to go downtown. "I sawed on the news's there was some troubles" type people."

I guess. As that B.B. article alludes to, it's a carrot-and-stick thing. If there were more people there, people would feel safer. No different than any other city.

"For most things, people see old as junky."

Not sure what this means. If it is junky it is junky. There are many old things that 'people' do not see as junky. I guess the people you are referring to are the ones hiding out in the suburbs. That house was not junky, by any objective standard.

"Winnipeg is not terribly old. Oldest buildings are from early 1900's."

In the Canadian context, Winnipeg is a historic city. It is similar in my mind to a place like St. Louis for the U.S. – a gateway to the West. As an aside, I was thinking that this painting must be one of the oldest European representations of the Forks, from 1821.


- "Winter fishing on ice of Assynoibain & Red River" (LAC)

And to take the example of Paris again, large swathes of central Paris only date from the latter part of the 19th century, when decrepit (and probably not-so-decrepit) neighbourhoods dating back to medieval times and before were destroyed in battles or razed by Haussmann. But it wasn't like he was replacing them with crap.

"The one that was demo'd surely could've been saved."

Yes – it is a huge loss.

"But for the sake of someone's pocketbook, it will be replaced."

Yeah, for the sake of someone's pocketbook. Let's hope not with crap. By the way, what an Einstein-like contribution to the debate this was!



Congratulations to him, I guess. And I will stop shouting at the clouds here now...

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2340  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2020, 4:35 PM
buzzg buzzg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 7,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff View Post
Looks like the City is declaring the surface lot on the NW corner of Osborne and Stradbrook as surplus. Hopefully someone will buy it to develop....not as a surface lot.

http://clkapps.winnipeg.ca/DMIS/View...onId=&InitUrl=

Item 25
I was actually going to ask about this as on the weekend I drove by and the sign on the old Basil's now says "FOR SALE/LEASE TURNKEY RESTAURANT + NEW DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY" ... was wondering if maybe Basil has some sort of FROR as its next door.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:25 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.