Winnipeg's Exchange District | East/West | Development

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by biguc

Does it even need to be a tower though? There have been a couple recent massing exercises--at Osborne and Gertrude and the Parmalat site--that showed that it's possible to get the same density as a short tower with a lower building that just fills up the block. Looking at the drawings, there's not a lot of room around the tower, but I don't see why they couldn't use the whole log, rejig the floor plants on the higher floors to actually use the bike rooms and storage rooms, and end up with a nine floor building that works for everyone.

And, if they're so worried about costs, nix the underground parking.

I agree. It could likely be closer to the allowable height and still work. I suspect the marketability of views is what is driving the height. I think if it was a 10% variance it would have been approved. It's tough for planning to approve 50% variances no matter what they are. Bureaucrats would never take that risk without pushing it on to city council.

[Biff]

I was told it will happen even if changes are required.

[bomberjet]

Great news.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by trueviking

It was only rejected at planning. The Councillors will likely approve it in the appeal hearing.

That's encouraging. Hopefully it won't have to be trimmed back much if at all, but Biff's comment above is certainly positive.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Totally agree, this is a tough one. I love what the did with John Hirsch and the city/BIZs overall hope to make back lanes more usable and pleasant. This would be the first new build to "front" onto one of these upgraded lanes of JHP or Elgin, and does have CRUs facing... but also the parking entrance. Which sucks.

However, I actually don't know what's worse... do you have the parking entrance coming off the park-like back lane, or cutting through the sidewalk on Bannatyne? The easy/obvious answer is no parking here, but not sure a developer would do that, or city would agree. Maybe if the city would actually build a public parkade nearby (like many cities do and we were promised) that would be a good alternative to trying to get parking into every new development in the area.

I do think the issue of parking in the Exchange is a bit of a red herring. A lot of people want to live car free. Winnipeg generally does a poor job of providing that option. Conversations about parking in one of the few parts of the city that comes close tend to go around in circles but miss the point: people who live there don't want it.

[bomberjet]

I've heard it both ways those. People who live there don't own cars. But parking is always a premium and the existing lots are cash cows.

[biguc]

I think that's more to do with office parking. New residential keeps going up without parking and every time it's, "where are they going to park?" and they just keep on not.

Originally Posted by trueviking

Agreed. Another dumb one isn't required downtown but everywhere else you need a variance to not have plantings along the sidewalk in front of your building., if you build something on Portage Avenue outside of downtown, or Provencher Boulevard or Osborne, you have to have foundation plantings. What kind of city requires a row of dead shrubs along the sidewalk?!

At what point do you just set fire to the whole book of zoning and start from scratch with something that isn't oriented towards 1950s suburbia? I think the answer should be obvious.

[Ando]

Two page spread in today’s Globe Real Estate section on the “UFO” by 5468796. Interesting read on how the space available and shape influenced the design.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real...-in-designing/

[trueviking]

how is that thing still getting national press?

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by biguc

At what point do you just set fire to the whole book of zoning and start from scratch with something that isn't oriented towards 1950s suburbia? I think the answer should be obvious.

all the streets with 1960's caveats forcing buildings to be set back 10' from the property line so in 100 years when all the buildings have been replaced they can add a car lane, is another one that drives me insane.

[Ando]

Originally Posted by trueviking

how is that thing still getting national press?

It seems to capture people’s imagination.

[trueviking]

yeah...its cool for sure...but its old news already.

[Wpg_Guy]

Height limit of 110 feet was supported by the Standing Policy Committee on Property and Development, Heritage and Downtown Development.

[NewIreland]

Well shit! Good ole' Winnipeg. Enjoy the empty rotting parking lot.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by NewIreland

Well shit! Good ole' Winnipeg. Enjoy the empty rotting parking lot.

Is a difference of 25 feet (I'm assuming 2 storeys off the top?) going to derail the project?

[NewIreland]

Originally Posted by esquire

Is a difference of 25 feet (I'm assuming 2 storeys off the top?) going to derail the project?

35... and yes, the developer will likely pack their bags. Now there will be no point in having a setback because that'll look ridiculous if they lop off the top floors. It looked asthetically pleasing and completely fine. Thanks Nimby's ... these are the same losers who want to keep P&M closed.

[GreyGarden]

I don't agree that these are the same people that wanted P&M closed. Unlike P&M, I heard valid arguments on why we shouldn't allow mid block tall buildings in the Exchange that seemed to be founded in good urbanism. Personally I really liked the proposal as proposed, good materials, nice looking, but also the opponents made some valid points.

Part of my support for this project stems from the fact that development of parking lots in Winnipeg is rare so I'm often of the view that we should just take what we can get and run with it - especially when the materials look good. This is part of the struggle I think we find ourselves in - how much can we really ask from Developers. If we were in Toronto and we could be pretty confident that another proposal would be just around the corner, than I may agree with the people against this project and argue for better urban design from our developers and city.

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by NewIreland

35... and yes, the developer will likely pack their bags. Now there will be no point in having a setback because that'll look ridiculous if they lop off the top floors. It looked asthetically pleasing and completely fine. Thanks Nimby's ... these are the same losers who want to keep P&M closed.

The development will still happen, the office podium is pre-leased, they will find a way to make it work.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by NewIreland

35... and yes, the developer will likely pack their bags. Now there will be no point in having a setback because that'll look ridiculous if they lop off the top floors. It looked asthetically pleasing and completely fine. Thanks Nimby's ... these are the same losers who want to keep P&M closed.

35, I stand corrected. I guess that's closer to 3 or 4 floors off the top which is a more significant proportion.

You have to wonder what kind of 'win' the committee thinks it's getting here. I mean, either you want to limit the Exchange to four storeys or you're OK with taller builds. If it's OK with 110 feet which is already taller than its neighbours, then what difference would a few more storeys at the top make? What a bizarre process.

[bomberjet]

I think the 110' number is based on a nearby building. Can't remember which.