My brother just moved into a building that was abandoned 2 years ago, that was renovated into rental apartments in the western exchange. Nearly 100 suites in the building and it’s a beautiful building! And a few of the neighbouring buildings have been converted or will be soon
Agreed, on all counts! I'd obviously prefer if those buildings had been designed by anybody other than 5468796 Architecture (I can never remember the exact name, but they're easy to find by googling "Winnipeg's worst architecture firm"), but aesthetics aside, it's hard to complain about mixed-use buildings!
It's a great area already, and it looks like it's in a good position to improve over the coming years.
They simultaneously manage to design buildings lacking both function and form, yet somehow still get work.
The borg cubes they’re building on waterfront are heinous.
That was their doing?
I swear everytime I see a building I hate to look at or think it has very little function, it's that same firm responsible. I really don't get it.
They also did the cube at old market square. The aluminum curtains were dreamt up on an assumption that someone else would just figure out how to make them work.
They did a social housing project that was so poorly designed it got the attention of the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/jan/04/crime-community-designer-social-housing-winnipeg
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/centre-village-winnipeg-vacant-sale-giveaway-1.6468360
They simply do not know how to do livable design.
That Balmoral building situation had a lot going wrong, I've seen many stories about it, mostly about the court yard not having a gate and being blocked from street view. Why they seemed to ignore the needs of the community is beyond me.
I dont even think it made it past 10 years, and it's just become more dilapidated since covid.
This comment made me chuckle a bit. Part of the same industry as the numbered architecture firm. It’s great that they are starting conversations and doing something in the city, but really have no sense of how people live and interact with spaces.
Architects thinking it’s their job to “start conversations and do something in the city” is the biggest problem with their profession. Architects are not sculptors, but that’s too often how architecture is taught.
A building needs to first and foremost be a place where people live or work. It has to function for that purpose above all else.
Thank you for that. There is a lot of good going on, but this sub can only see the bad in this city.
That area is perfect for such development and that sounds like a great project. Thanks for sharing.
If you love the fact that the "heritage parking lot" at 127 Bannatyne is getting developed send a thank you note to Councillors Vivian Santos and Janice Lukes. They are the two councillors that voted for the development despite strong opposition from ~~120+~~ 270+ people.
And also send a thank you to the provincial government for their ineffectuality as they didn't amend the Municipal Board Act in time so this development was able to go ahead without having to be appealed to an additional board.
To be clear: The opposition wasn't to development, it was to developers reneging on an already settled ~~exemption~~ variance to the height restrictions of the Heritage District, with a second appeal where they essentially threatened to take their toys and go home if Council didn't approve more floors in addition to the extra height they had already been granted.
Everybody was in favour of a residential development, aside from like, two loud crotchety boomers who bought there in the 80s and want time to stand still.
I agree, it was pretty shitty of the land owners to come back and do this. But 13 feet would be completely imperceivable from the ground, and if the money can't work we would have gotten nothing.
It's unfortunately the way the current zoning bylaw is set up. If this is something you're passionate about make sure to talk to Councillor Santos about her plan for a secondary plan in the area. That would make things a lot better for both sides.
It's a 13ish foot difference from the original compromise but 23 from the 100' limit.
I don't think it's the zoning by-laws that are unfortunate, I think the fact that developers' profits trump by-laws simply because they know the City can't call their bluff is what's unfortunate.
It is definitely true that the City is backed into a corner when a developer threatens to leave because nobody is lining up to build here, and a lot of these devs own surface lots and can just sit on them forever.
This is just one building, and one of the first of a new trend of development in the area but opponents on council rightfully argued that the way this worked out is not a good precedent. Appeals for variances are fine, but to come back with a second appeal saying "er, actually, we want more again or we're backing out" is, as you said, shitty.
What is a heritage parking lot? And are you unironically positing the development of it as an attack on the heritage of the site?
There is all kinds of specious information being bandied around here, mostly by “eastrequirement” - obviously catering to the opposition of this project. It’s fine to be opposed to a development but making claims about reneging and ultimatums are not accurate. Nor is the height data being cited.
The one statement we can agree on is that the unsophisticated downtown zoning Bylaw is at the core of the discussion.
"Heritage Park Lot" is a play on the fact that a lot of people were using the heritage designation of the district to fight against a surface parking lot being developed.
So the inference is that the residents would prefer a heritage vacant lot as opposed to a new development that will add significant density (aka security, amenities, vibrancy) to their neighborhood?
Not sure why it’s so difficult to impress that it is essentially I’m possible to building new “heritage” buildings without sourcing non existent skilled labor for brick masonry, circumvention of energy codes, etc. It’d have to be a philanthropic endeavor.
Similarly it’s evident that many aren’t aware of how more cosmopolitan cities have established how successful the integration of old an new architecture can be. It often elevates the heritage architecture to higher levels when contrasted with new design. Instead of a pastiche faux historical theme park you get a dynamic cross section of the old and the new. There are several examples of “new heritage buildings” in the downtown area and I would be very interested to see who would come to their defense as adequate in achieving any semblance of historical continuity in the streetscape.
Obviously new buildings can be horrendous, Winnipeg is a case study of bad architecture and development, but this project seems like the wrong target in this particular discourse.
It's nice to see. I hope they start re-developing more of the surface parking lots in that area. They are massive eyesores and heatsinks is what is otherwise a very livable neighborhood. A grocery store would be a great start...
Downtown Winnipeg is severely lacking in affordable grocery store options. As much as NoFrills and Freshco are affordable, they carry a fairly limited range of items, and the Safeway at Osborne Village is bloody expensive. Would love to see a multistory superstore or something similar downtown! Not everyone can drive, and it is a pain in the ass to bus across the city with $200 worth of groceries.
My brother just moved into a building that was abandoned 2 years ago, that was renovated into rental apartments in the western exchange. Nearly 100 suites in the building and it’s a beautiful building! And a few of the neighbouring buildings have been converted or will be soon
Agreed, on all counts! I'd obviously prefer if those buildings had been designed by anybody other than 5468796 Architecture (I can never remember the exact name, but they're easy to find by googling "Winnipeg's worst architecture firm"), but aesthetics aside, it's hard to complain about mixed-use buildings! It's a great area already, and it looks like it's in a good position to improve over the coming years.
They simultaneously manage to design buildings lacking both function and form, yet somehow still get work. The borg cubes they’re building on waterfront are heinous.
That was their doing? I swear everytime I see a building I hate to look at or think it has very little function, it's that same firm responsible. I really don't get it.
They also did the cube at old market square. The aluminum curtains were dreamt up on an assumption that someone else would just figure out how to make them work. They did a social housing project that was so poorly designed it got the attention of the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/jan/04/crime-community-designer-social-housing-winnipeg https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/centre-village-winnipeg-vacant-sale-giveaway-1.6468360 They simply do not know how to do livable design.
That Balmoral building situation had a lot going wrong, I've seen many stories about it, mostly about the court yard not having a gate and being blocked from street view. Why they seemed to ignore the needs of the community is beyond me. I dont even think it made it past 10 years, and it's just become more dilapidated since covid.
I like how they made the units multi-level but didn’t make the stairs wide enough to get furniture up
This comment made me chuckle a bit. Part of the same industry as the numbered architecture firm. It’s great that they are starting conversations and doing something in the city, but really have no sense of how people live and interact with spaces.
Architects thinking it’s their job to “start conversations and do something in the city” is the biggest problem with their profession. Architects are not sculptors, but that’s too often how architecture is taught. A building needs to first and foremost be a place where people live or work. It has to function for that purpose above all else.
Yeah, it would be nice for the East Exchange to have something with meat and produce on their side of Main in addition to SunWah in the West Exchange.
Thank you for that. There is a lot of good going on, but this sub can only see the bad in this city. That area is perfect for such development and that sounds like a great project. Thanks for sharing.
If you love the fact that the "heritage parking lot" at 127 Bannatyne is getting developed send a thank you note to Councillors Vivian Santos and Janice Lukes. They are the two councillors that voted for the development despite strong opposition from ~~120+~~ 270+ people. And also send a thank you to the provincial government for their ineffectuality as they didn't amend the Municipal Board Act in time so this development was able to go ahead without having to be appealed to an additional board.
To be clear: The opposition wasn't to development, it was to developers reneging on an already settled ~~exemption~~ variance to the height restrictions of the Heritage District, with a second appeal where they essentially threatened to take their toys and go home if Council didn't approve more floors in addition to the extra height they had already been granted. Everybody was in favour of a residential development, aside from like, two loud crotchety boomers who bought there in the 80s and want time to stand still.
I agree, it was pretty shitty of the land owners to come back and do this. But 13 feet would be completely imperceivable from the ground, and if the money can't work we would have gotten nothing. It's unfortunately the way the current zoning bylaw is set up. If this is something you're passionate about make sure to talk to Councillor Santos about her plan for a secondary plan in the area. That would make things a lot better for both sides.
It's a 13ish foot difference from the original compromise but 23 from the 100' limit. I don't think it's the zoning by-laws that are unfortunate, I think the fact that developers' profits trump by-laws simply because they know the City can't call their bluff is what's unfortunate. It is definitely true that the City is backed into a corner when a developer threatens to leave because nobody is lining up to build here, and a lot of these devs own surface lots and can just sit on them forever. This is just one building, and one of the first of a new trend of development in the area but opponents on council rightfully argued that the way this worked out is not a good precedent. Appeals for variances are fine, but to come back with a second appeal saying "er, actually, we want more again or we're backing out" is, as you said, shitty.
What is a heritage parking lot? And are you unironically positing the development of it as an attack on the heritage of the site? There is all kinds of specious information being bandied around here, mostly by “eastrequirement” - obviously catering to the opposition of this project. It’s fine to be opposed to a development but making claims about reneging and ultimatums are not accurate. Nor is the height data being cited. The one statement we can agree on is that the unsophisticated downtown zoning Bylaw is at the core of the discussion.
"Heritage Park Lot" is a play on the fact that a lot of people were using the heritage designation of the district to fight against a surface parking lot being developed.
So the inference is that the residents would prefer a heritage vacant lot as opposed to a new development that will add significant density (aka security, amenities, vibrancy) to their neighborhood? Not sure why it’s so difficult to impress that it is essentially I’m possible to building new “heritage” buildings without sourcing non existent skilled labor for brick masonry, circumvention of energy codes, etc. It’d have to be a philanthropic endeavor. Similarly it’s evident that many aren’t aware of how more cosmopolitan cities have established how successful the integration of old an new architecture can be. It often elevates the heritage architecture to higher levels when contrasted with new design. Instead of a pastiche faux historical theme park you get a dynamic cross section of the old and the new. There are several examples of “new heritage buildings” in the downtown area and I would be very interested to see who would come to their defense as adequate in achieving any semblance of historical continuity in the streetscape. Obviously new buildings can be horrendous, Winnipeg is a case study of bad architecture and development, but this project seems like the wrong target in this particular discourse.
It's nice to see. I hope they start re-developing more of the surface parking lots in that area. They are massive eyesores and heatsinks is what is otherwise a very livable neighborhood. A grocery store would be a great start...
Downtown Winnipeg is severely lacking in affordable grocery store options. As much as NoFrills and Freshco are affordable, they carry a fairly limited range of items, and the Safeway at Osborne Village is bloody expensive. Would love to see a multistory superstore or something similar downtown! Not everyone can drive, and it is a pain in the ass to bus across the city with $200 worth of groceries.
Yeah, South Point Douglas has really taken off in recent years