[rgalston]

Who says the 60s are over?

From: "Gerbasi, Jenny" <JGerbasi@winnipeg.ca>
Subject: Heritage Building Alert!!!!
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 11:51:31 -0600

Dear Friends,

I wanted to advise you there is a very serious concern for the integrity of our major National Historic Site: the Exchange District.

There has been a request from a developer to demolish 38-44 ½ Albert Street with the plan of a surface parking lot and restaurant patio and a curb cut right out onto Albert St.

I am deeply troubled that anyone would consider putting in a surface parking lot and removing heritage buildings in the heart of one of the most important Heritage areas in Canada and certainly in Winnipeg. This would have a very negative impact on the integrity of the streetscape and the heritage character of the area. This could also be the thin edge of the wedge if the decision goes in favour of the developer. It opens the door to many more such requests which could have a devastating impact. The potential fallout is not only a heartbreaking loss of our heritage and character as a city but also would have a negative economic impact as it would affect the film industry and diminish the investment into the area from the city and surrounding businesses .


The Historic Buildings Committee (HBC) has recommended that the buildings be Designated as Grade III Historical Buildings. The follwing link (cut and paste): http://citynet/clerksdmis/documents/lwc/2006/a6664/11.%20ppd%20-%20historical%20buildings%20bl%20-%2038%20-%2044%20albert%20lo%20frm%20july%2025.pdf

will lead you to the Heritage Planners Report and a letter from myself as the Chair of Historic Buildings Committee explaining the history of the buildings and the reasons for the recommendations to designate them.


CURRENT STATUS OF DECISION:

The Lord-Selkirk-West Kildonan Community Committee voted AGAINST the historic designation. Councillor Mike O’Shaughnessy supported the historic designation but Councillors Pagtakhan and Lazarenko voted against it.


The Property and Development Committee will consider the issue at it’s meeting and make a recommendation for City Council. The meeting is expected to be on January 9th at 9:00 AM at City Hall. If you are interested in registering to speak to the matter, please contact Carol Freeman at 986 3157 or cfreeman@winnipeg.ca

If a recommendation goes forward from there it would be at Council on January 24 at 9:30 AM.

I urge you to contact your Councillor and Councillors on the Property Committee which are: Justin Swandel, Russ Wyatt, Dan Vandal and Scott Fielding to let them know your concerns. There is still hope that Councillors will reconsider the decision of Community Committee so any actions from the public could be very helpful.

Thank you for your interest!

Cheers!

Jenny

p.s.
Here is an excerpt from the report with the reasons why the HBC thinks it should be designated:
The Historical Buildings Committee recommends that that this property is significant and should
not be demolished for the following reasons:

1. This complex includes portions of a residential building that dates back to 1878. This is
the second oldest building in downtown Winnipeg after Upper Fort Garry Gate. The
brick dwelling was built for John Le Cappellain, owner of a hardware business and
former City alderman.

2. This portion of Albert Street was an early residential district in the 1870s and this house
is the sole surviving example of this use.

3. The designation of the Exchange District by the Government of Canada as a National
Historic Site in 1996 places a responsibility on the City to try to keep all significant and
contributing structures protected and intact for all Canadians.

4. This complex is part of a significant streetscape that provides continuity and character to
the Exchange District. The demolition of this property for a parking lot would detract
from the City’s investments in the surrounding properties. The City’s aim is to maintain
a delightful visual expanse that has been recognized by the international film industry.

[harls]

What the hell... I thought the whole district was protected from this kind of crap..

What does the block look like presently?

[drew]

^ yes - let's see some pics... 1ajs?

[bc2mb]

isn't this the building housing Kenny Hong's etc.?

such bullshit.

[circle33]

Don't let 'em do it.

[Only The Lonely..]

Yaa it's Ken Hongs, and the old Tatoo Exchange.

The buildings sit between the St.Charles and the Royal Albert.

[rgalston]

Here is the old house from the vast expanse of surfacing parking directly beind it. Really, there nothing special about it, other than that it is a final vestige of Winnipeg's early history: before the real estate boom of 1881-2, before the Canadian Pacific, before electric streetcars (or horsecars, for that matter), before "Chicago of the North", before terra cotta, etc. When Winnipeg was a muddy village that hugged Main from about Notre Dame East, up to Brown's Creek.

Aside from the house, the properties in question are just a single-storey row of tiny shopfronts between the Royal Albert and the St. Charles. If Winnipeg's boom lasted another year longer than it did, these buildings would certainly have been gone; replaced by something more tall and grand. Today, if a developer wanted to replace it with something taller and grander, that would be fine, but it's instead threatened by plans for more parking and--to add salt to the wound--a curb cut.

So while these buildings add very little to the architectural grandiosity of the Exchange District, it adds something just as important: places to house commercial enterprises for cheap prices. Two of the three storefronts have been consistantly occupied (since I started coming around almost ten years ago anyway) by two enterprises--a renowned Chinese restaurant, and a tailor--who would most likely not operate in the Exchange District were it not for small, affordable premises like this. When the Exchange becomes a true neighborhood, as it is slowly beginning to, it will need little storefronts like these, not for their form, but for their fuction.

http://static.flickr.com/89/205274715_9ff4c6ab00.jpg

Looking south on Main from William Ave, 1877
http://static.flickr.com/67/199973771_033369b60b_o.jpg

[Only The Lonely..]

I wrote the mayor and my city councilor Jeff Browaty.

I also wrote Justin Swandel, Russ Wyatt, Dan Vandal and Scott Fielding.

[Only The Lonely..]

It's times like these that I think there is real merit in formally organizing an SSP Winnipeg party to actively advocate and inform Winnipeggers on the issues that effect urban Winnipeg.

[harls]

at least meet for beers or something..

hell, I'd come.

Today, if a developer wanted to replace it with something taller and grander, that would be fine

Agreed, but alas..

[Only The Lonely..]

I receieved an acknowledgement from Justin Swandel.



Subject Re: Comment
Thanks for the input Chris. This will probably come to committee in January and I have added your comments to my file for perusal again at that time. Js

. . .

[Greco Roman]

I receieved an acknowledgement from Justin Swandel.


Holy crap (falling out of my chair as I read this)

You acutally recieved a reply from you councillor? How in the hell did you manage that?

[Only The Lonely..]

Holy crap (falling out of my chair as I read this)

You acutally recieved a reply from you councillor? How in the hell did you manage that?


It must be my rugged good looks.

[trueviking]

i think i am going to register to speak...i hate public speaking, but this is pretty important.

[Only The Lonely..]

I'm going to show up on Jan. 9th.

It'd be great if someone had some of those old aerial picts of how pockmarked our downtown is because of surface parking.

I saw a proposal about 7 months ago to redevelop the St.Charles into an Inn at the Forks style hotel. I'm sure this has something to do with it, especially the latter part about a patio addition.

The renderings looked really good. Basically they were going to do to the Charles what they did with the downtown RRC campus; keep the facade and completely overhaul the existing building.

It's too bad they are hell-bent on destroying the neighbouring buildings too.

[Only The Lonely..]

Is there anyone out there who might be interested in making a more formal / organized appeal on Jan 9th?

(I.E a letter writting campaign from SSP Winnipeg members to the Sun / Free Press. )

I still very much like the idea of organizing a grassroots , web savy urbanist league. We could reach out to other groups who have similiar interests like newwinnipeg and the transit riders union, etc.

[1ajs]

rather interesting... i should one of these days get around to checking out that chinies restraunt i keep forgetting its there.

[1ajs]

Is there anyone out there who might be interested in making a more formal / organized appeal on Jan 9th?

(I.E a letter writting campaign from SSP Winnipeg members to the Sun / Free Press. )

I still very much like the idea of organizing a grassroots , web savy urbanist league. We could reach out to other groups who have similiar interests like newwinnipeg and the transit riders union, etc.

i though we had all agreed to one why does nothing ever happen?

[Boreal]

I'd be interested, but as it appears, and not that I'm one to stand back, but it seems as though others actively have the leadership role well in hand. On this front, I'm more than happy to follow. :notacrook:

[rgalston]

i think i am going to register to speak...i hate public speaking, but this is pretty important.

I will if you do.

Also, I sent this letter to Cindy Tugwell, executive director of Heritage Winnipeg:

From: rgalston@mts.net
Subject: Chipping away at the Exchange District
Date: November 24, 2006 8:59:55 AM GMT-06:00
To: info@heritagewinnipeg.com

Dear Mrs. Tugwell,

In the November 23, 2006 edition of the Winnipeg Free Press, you were quoted as saying, in regards to the small buildings next to the St. Charles Hotel "there is an obligation to look at the long-term viability of properties, not just saving them." Would you kindly explain what you mean by that in relation to the St. Charles hotel, since I don't see how the St. Charles hotel could not be retrofitted and reused (and offer adjacent parking at its rear) as an urban boutique hotel (that's the problem with developing in downtowns, isn't it: all the other buildings get in the way). Perhaps you know something of the developers' plans that myself and many other citizens of this city do not.

Also, there is an obligation you have to, as you said, look at the long-term viability of the Exchange District as a whole: Turning it into the suburbs (curb cuts and an overabundance of surface parking) or bartering with developers for the fates of buildings ("I'll redo the Stobart buildingif I can wreck the Ryan block", "I'll turn the St. Charles into a boutique hotel if I can raze three shopfronts and a house from 1877", etc.), will do nothing to add to the desirability and uniqueness of the District.

[Canadian Mind]

forgive me for my ignorance, but can somebody explain in two sentances or less the importance of that little shack and what is to be replacing it? Must be pretty important to you folks, but I fail to see the value in it right now.

[rgalston]

forgive me for my ignorance, but can somebody explain in two sentances or less the importance of that little shack and what is to be replacing it? Must be pretty important to you folks, but I fail to see the value in it right now.

It will be replaced by a curb cut and a surface parking lot.

[Archiseek]

when we're on the subject of buildings at risk

one place i would be worried about in the longterm is the telegram building

it lost most of its tenants this year and is starting to look neglected

pictures i took of it on wednesday
http://canada.archiseek.com/manitoba/winnipeg/downtown/albert_street/telegram_building.html

[rgalston]

when we're on the subject of buildings at risk

one place i would be worried about in the longterm is the telegram building

it lost most of its tenants this year and is starting to look neglected

pictures i took of it on wednesday
http://canada.archiseek.com/manitoba/winnipeg/downtown/albert_street/telegram_building.html

If they demolished of the Dingwall block next door, maybe someone could redevelop it.

[drew]

It'd be great if someone had some of those old aerial picts of how pockmarked our downtown is because of surface parking.


This is a really good idea for a story for the Free Press.

I could easily see them doing a front page story with a large aerial photo highlighting the abundance of surface parking lots around downtown - and close to the St.Charles hotel - with a headline something like "why do we need more parking lots downtown?". It would be really effective.

Anyone know Bartley Kives or any other reporters at the FP well?

[bc2mb]

I will if you do.

Also, I sent this letter to Cindy Tugwell, executive director of Heritage Winnipeg:

excellent letter rob.

[trueviking]

forgive me for my ignorance, but can somebody explain in two sentances or less the importance of that little shack and what is to be replacing it? Must be pretty important to you folks, but I fail to see the value in it right now.

it is a viable storefront in a national historic site...successful cities are a diverse tapestry of building types....these two little buildings contribute very much to the urban fabric...if we want to attract people to live downtown, storefronts that house tailors and little hole in the wall restaurants are precisely the things that attract them...not 10 more parking spots in an already large surface lot.

i am going to go find out how many parking spots the hampton inn on main has....google earth shows about the same amount that the st. charles currently has.....the marriaggi, a block away has been a successful boutique hotel for 104 years!! with no parking at all....its booked solid, a year in advance.

i dont understand how they can claim to have a viable business plan for a project with 50 parking spots, but they will walk away completely if they only have 40.....and who the hell puts an outdoor patio on the north side of a 3 storey building?

is somebody paying off heritage winnipeg?.....what an absolute embarasment....

i just e-mailed to request that i be registered to speak.

[rgalston]

i dont understand how they can claim to have a viable business plan for a project with 50 parking spots, but they will walk away completely if they only have 40.....and who the hell puts an outdoor patio on the north side of a 3 storey building?


People who throw the patio in their plans simply to placate critics, I guess.

This is the new way to wreck buildings and put up parking lots: be the owner of a building nearby, and come up with a nice little plan for the site, which happens to include a parking lot. Don't start doing anything until you get your parking lot (and after that, who knows)... that way, you can hold buildings as ransom, and bargain with Heritage Winnipeg.

This kind of scheme has recently threatened the Ryan Block, the Bell Hotel, and the Grain Exchange annex.

[esquire]

I've been checking in from time to time to see what's going on, and I was lucky enough to do so in time to catch wind of this particular issue. Let me just say this: getting rid of buildings that fit into their surroundings as well as these ones do is one thing. Replacing it with a parking lot is quite another.

The more that our downtown gets sacrificed to the great god parking, the more unwelcoming and unpleasant a place to be it becomes. If the City simply said yes to every half-baked demolition proposal that came its way over the past few years, we'd now have parking lots in the place of several buildings including the Cadomin Building, the Crocus Building on Main, and several others as rgalston pointed out.

If the proponents of this development wanted to actually improve the neighbourhood by putting up a building on Albert to replace the ones in question, I could support it. However, punching a hole in the streetscape by replacing buildings with a parking lot is totally inappropriate and ridiculously short-sighted.

[rgalston]

Any building is better than a parking lot

Sat Nov 25 2006

DALLAS HANSEN

ONCE again, the Exchange District is facing the usual threat -- a developer who wants to flatten buildings into a surface parking lot.
An e-mail, originating from city councillor Jenny Gerbasi (and forwarded to me by several people) tells a new variation on a familiar tale: A businessman wants to demolish a set of storefronts from 38 to 44 Albert St. Wait, isn't this a National Historic District? Shouldn't a set of 1920s storefronts built around a house put up in 1877 (the second-oldest structure downtown, the oldest being the Fort Garry Gate) fall under some sort of protection from arbitrary destruction?

"The Lord-Selkirk-West Kildonan Community Committee voted AGAINST the historic designation," necessary for the buildings' legal protection, writes Gerbasi (emphasis in original).

If it's rational for a developer to ditch buildings and make more money letting out a few parking spaces instead, then the end result is irrational. The greatest menace to our way of life in Winnipeg is not youth crime, potholes, or even malathion. It's discontinuity -- the lack of continuously built-up streets. You may eschew the walking and simply use Google Earth's satellite bird's-eye view to see that in most sections of downtown land area devoted to parking exceeds that claimed by buildings. When there are that many buildings missing, it creates an overall vacuum that can only suck.

Indeed, the situation downtown is so severe it would be sensible to recognize that no other buildings -- no matter how "insignificant" -- should be felled for parking. Behind 38-44 Albert there is already surface parking, which leads across the alley into a giant 30m x 50m surface lot facing Arthur Street. Across Albert is a multi-storey parking garage, and in adjacent blocks can be found a glut of surface parking. Rare in fact are the blocks within downtown Winnipeg that remain completely built-up.

For decades, however, almost every block in downtown Winnipeg was built-up completely. Angle parking on Portage, Main and other streets maximized on-street parking, and a streetcar right-of-way down the centre of our main streets kept (privately-held) public transportation popular. Strangely enough, downtown business did much better before the commercial parking lot.

History shows that Winnipeg's downtown can be bustling and prosperous. The experience of other cities shows downtown bustle and prosperity is impossible when so much land is given to surface parking.

If five-to-10-storey buildings makes for a nice average height downtown, every surface lot is a five-to-10-storey-deep hole. We have enough holes. It's time to fill. The Exchange District would be much more effective as a tourist and film industry destination were it to be completely continuous throughout and reconnected to the surrounding neighbouhoods. This would require that surface parking lots be built upon -- to a scale and an architectural style consistent with the original Exchange buildings. The end result would be a downtown that is immeasurably safer, better populated, and much more attractive -- a situation whose economic benefits would spill throughout our poverty-plagued inner city.

Such a vision is possible, with the right policies and a political will. Rather than look toward the long term, too many in this city's business community look to the quick-and-easy buck that comes with owning a parking lot. A land tax, based on the size of the property's land footprint rather than its sale value, might be the only way to make building up surface lots economically attractive.

Even a vacant building -- such as the crumbling Ryan Block at King Street and Bannatyne Avenue -- is preferable to a parking lot. An architectural classic such as the Ryan Block has potential to be developed into a residential, commercial, industrial, or mixed use, and even empty it anchors the intersection with its attractive facade. Flattened, or replaced by a parkade, it can only store yet more cars.

dallashansen.com

[rgalston]

I've been checking in from time to time to see what's going on, and I was lucky enough to do so in time to catch wind of this particular issue. Let me just say this: getting rid of buildings that fit into their surroundings as well as these ones do is one thing. Replacing it with a parking lot is quite another.

The more that our downtown gets sacrificed to the great god parking, the more unwelcoming and unpleasant a place to be it becomes. If the City simply said yes to every half-baked demolition proposal that came its way over the past few years, we'd now have parking lots in the place of several buildings including the Cadomin Building, the Crocus Building on Main, and several others as rgalston pointed out.

If the proponents of this development wanted to actually improve the neighbourhood by putting up a building on Albert to replace the ones in question, I could support it. However, punching a hole in the streetscape by replacing buildings with a parking lot is totally inappropriate and ridiculously short-sighted.

Well said!

Your keen observations are sorrily missed on these forums.

[rgalston]

By the way, here is an article on the subject from July 21, 2006:

Heritage or Parking Lot?

Downtown Winnipeg's oldest building will be torn down to pave the way for a parking lot if a property firm gets its way.

Globe General Agencies and Imperial Parking Ltd. are behind a proposal to take a wrecking ball to two adjoining structures that include storefronts at 38, 42 and 44 Albert St. -- a building holding Ken Hong Restaurant and Garnet Tailoring, in addition to a vacant unit which was once home to a Hells Angels-run clothing and souvenir shop.

In their path are heritage advocates seeking a municipal historic designation for the property to keep it standing.

"It's never a good idea to replace a building with a parking lot. It leaves a gap in the streetscape," Lisa Holowchuk, executive director of the Exchange District Business Improvement Zone, told the Sun yesterday.

"We desire an environment in our downtown, particularly in the Exchange District which is pedestrian-friendly. We're much better off with contiguous storefronts if we want lively streets."

The BIZ hasn't yet taken an official stand on the subject. However, city hall's historical buildings committee is trying to shoot down the proposal, which would see the owners of the complex's three addresses -- Globe Enterprises Ltd., 388 Donald St. Ltd. and Klapman Meyer -- lease newly created ground-level parking space to the nearby St. Charles Hotel as the inn plans a redevelopment.

A report written by Coun. Jenny Gerbasi (Fort Rouge-East Fort Garry), head of the historic committee, states the complex includes sections of a residential building dating to 1878. And only the Fort Garry Gate is older than the edifice among downtown properties.

"This complex is part of a significant streetscape that provides continuity and character to the Exchange District," Gerbasi writes in the report.

Gerbasi did not return repeated calls for comment, nor did vice-president Ron Penner at Globe -- one of Winnipeg's prominent housing rental firms.

St. Charles Hotel's management could not be reached.

The proposed demolition is bad news to Garnet Tailoring, which has done business in one of the complex's units since the early 1990s.

'NOT A GOOD IDEA'

"This is not a good idea," said owner Garnet Francois. "I've been here about 13 years. I'd hate to think about what would happen."

The Hong Chinese eatery has leased its space for more than 20 years, Francois said.

"It has the best wonton soup in the Exchange," Holowchuk said. "It's a great little spot."

[Pootkao]

Here's a copy of the letter I've been sending out.

==================================

Good day xxxx
I will keep this brief, as I'm sure you are a busy person.

No matter the current state of the buildings proposed to be torn down beside the St. Charles Hotel, the city takes a very large step backwards if it allows this to happen.

The re-development of the St. Charles is highly desirable and a commendable project, but we mustn't continue to take one step forward and two steps back. Urban streetscapes are already in short supply in this city, and the Exchange is the one neighbourhood where they are starting to thrive. In fact, they are the key to our city becoming vibrant again and the key to Winnipeg being able to attract tourists from beyond our borders.

To remove an important chunk of Albert Street in order to park cars is incredibly counter-productive. The hotel will be much better served by IMPROVING the buildings and encouraging more "high end" tenants so that its customers can better enjoy the area.

The solution?
There is already plenty of parking behind the St. Charles, and if they don't want to use the other lots on Arthur, have the hotel build a 2 storey parkade on the Notre Dame lot. The cost of the parkade will not be much more than the cost of tearing down and paving the Albert St. lot.

I urge you, please take the necessary steps to keep Winnipeg's downtown from becoming more suburbanized.

Thank you,
Mike Petkau

[Lee_Haber8]

Keep up the good work you guys! I wish I could help out, but I can't really since I'm still in Montreal. I'm letting my family know how important this is. No more goddamn parking lots - the buck stops here!

[esquire]

I just wish City Hall took a broader view of what constitutes "heritage" and is worth protecting. In this case, I'm unaware of any historic moments that occurred at 38/44 Albert St., but surely the "heritage" of urbanity that is the Exchange District is worth protecting in and of itself. Preventing buildings like these from being levelled and turned into still more parking lots that only repel people from the area is consistent with that.

And thanks for the bons mots, rgalston.

[1ajs]

this was posted on newwinnipeg

* Mr. Z
* CommentTime5 hours ago edited

delete quote
This issue is close to my heart so please let me vent.

If the city were serious about developing the Exchange District they would first realize that developers can’t make a buck in converting empty warehouse space or developing parking lots due to market failure.

To attract development and create a demand leading to a strong Historical District matched by none other three things need to occur.

1. Properties need to be assembled by the City. Just buy up everything available and then enter into development agreements with existing owners who are basically paralyzed from exercising their own development ideas because of failing economics. “The Financial Incentives”.
2. A series of small plans creating active areas of activity in the Exchange are needed. “The Vision”.
3. City then needs to then create partnerships with developers. In exchange for mixed-use projects, storefronts at street level, integrated parking, housing that is affordable and office spaces, the city should freeze property taxes for 25 years or more. Developers then need to bring in the residents, the office workers, the restaurants and the shop owners. “Implementation”.

The combination of land assembly and tax forgiveness should be enough to cover the gap and get property owners off their duffs.

A City that understands this distinguishes itself in turn creating economic spin-off from increased assessments surrounding the area to. This would give a jolt to the public who would then believe a bit more in our city and Downtown.

This would persuade the private sector to come back to the downtown as opposed to the suburbs where it is simpler and profitable to develop.

No public funding required for the widening of roads or construction of new bridges needed to deal with the ensuing congestion. No additional transit buses and drivers nor new routes either. The city would not have to buy additional snow removal equipment nor hire any new operators to run or maintain the roads and sidewalks! By the time 25-year tax incentive comes to an end the City will be ahead of the game.

Penalizing parking lot owners by having them pay more taxes is not an approach that will really lead to anywhere. The failing economics is the reason why they are not excited about redevelopment. Increase their taxes and they will just increase the daily parking rate by 50 cents or a dollar, that’s it.

This is not rocket science. In doing this we would not even be able to call ourselves pioneers or innovators. Its been done before!

How bad does the public want a world class Exchange District that is unsurpassed?
How bad do our youth want this?
How smart are our city leaders?
How much balls do our planners have to push our leaders? (they may get fired)

It is this lack of drive and creativity and financial smarts among our so-called leaders that keeps us poor and ugly.

[rgalston]

Small storefronts serve big purpose in Exchange District
By Robert W. Galston


The problem with being a developer in Winnipeg’s Exchange District is that so many buildings get in your way.

This is the dilemma facing the new owners of the now vacant St. Charles Hotel at the corner of Notre Dame and Albert Street, who want to convert it to a boutique hotel. In spite of a large parking lot already adjacent to the St. Charles, the owners say they will need even more parking facing Albert Street, and the old house and storefronts next door, along with their tenants, would have to go. With so much parking, perhaps it would be more appropriately called a boutique motel...


That's all for now.

[drew]

^ excellent article rgalston... has this been published?

[Andy6]

^ excellent article rgalston... has this been published?

Keep writing stuff as good as that and you'll end up on city council.

[rgalston]

Thanks, guys.

[Archiseek]

Thanks, guys.

I sent it in to the Free Press on Sunday evening, and it was not published today (Tuesday), so I'm thinking they won't run it. Perhaps because my writing style lacks the clarity of such brilliant prose stylists as, say, Colleen Simard, or because publishing it would be tougher (and more expensive) than cut-and-pasting articles from The Economist. Alas.


maybe if you told them you were a native winnipegger, they'd take it the wrong way and publish it

[Only The Lonely..]

Thanks, guys.

I sent it in to the Free Press on Sunday evening, and it was not published today (Tuesday), so I'm thinking they won't run it. Perhaps because my writing style lacks the clarity of such brilliant prose stylists as, say, Colleen Simard, or because publishing it would be tougher (and more expensive) than cut-and-pasting articles from The Economist. Alas.

Don't be put off Galston. I have submitted letters to the editor and sometimes they run them much later in the week. Especially if lots of other letters on the same topic come in or a guest columnist decides to write an editorial on the subject.

Maybe Steve Cohlmeyer is coming to your rescue.

[1ajs]

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/4293/kenwc8.jpg
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/1615/ken2me9.jpg

from today..

anyhow was up on the 7th floor of the erc today and looked down at the house thats slated for demo its a brick house not timber.....
see if i can grab a shot of it from the 7th floor tomarow.

[1ajs]

http://img490.imageshack.us/img490/8535/stcharlesov7.jpg
http://img490.imageshack.us/img490/8962/housecw2.jpg

[Archiseek]

St. Charles hotel plans renovations
Critics say historic hotel shouldn’t destroy an exchange building for parking lot

By Elisha Cumbers
Nov. 30, 2006

Critics say the planned renovation of a historic downtown hotel isn’t in the core area’s best interest.
Ken Zaifman, lawyer and part owner of the St. Charles Hotel on Notre Dame Avenue, says he wants the vacant building on Albert Street adjacent to him demolished to make way for hotel expansions and a parking lot.
However, Councillor Jenny Gerbasi, chair of the city’s historical buildings committee, wants to see the building, the second-oldest in Winnipeg, designated a heritage building.
Gerbasi said that the house has significant residential and commercial history and that she couldn’t believe anyone would want to dismantle a building with this much history in the Exchange District.
At the Nov. 21 meeting of the Lord-Selkirk West Kildonan Community Committee meeting, Zaifman said he and his two business partners want to tear down the unused building to make way for additional parking, a restaurant patio and a new entrance on Albert Street as part of extensive renovation plans for the St. Charles Hotel.
“There’s currently no access to the hotel off Albert,” said Zaifman.
Zaifman said he and his partners plan to turn the St. Charles into a boutique hotel that will cater to the kind of cutting-edge, hipper crowd usually found in the city’s Exchange District.
A representative of Globe Agency Ltd., who owns the historic property beside the St. Charles hotel on Albert Street, said at the meeting they currently have no plans to renovate the building and will let it sit indefinitely if the building is designated historic. Zaifman and his partners currently have a long-term lease agreement with Globe Agency Ltd.
Councillors Harry Lazarenko (Mynarski) and Mike Pagtakhan (Point Douglas) voted against the historical designation, while Mike O’Shaughnessy (Old Kildonan) voted for it.
Pagtakhan said the decision made at the meeting was not to demolish the building, but to not give it historical status.
“A demolition order will come down in time but right now, this is what was decided.
“Perhaps it is the oldest rented residence in Winnipeg...but I’ve been all around this building, it’s in extreme need of a lot of repair.”
Lazarenko said he usually votes to keep historic buildings, however this one he feels is beyond saving.
“It comes to a point where you have to say, ‘Where is the funding going to come from?’ There aren’t going to be any renovations to the building, it’s just going to sit there, and eventually someone, some firebug, will torch it, people will break in. It becomes a danger.”
Lazarenko said he would rather see the land bring new life to the St. Charles Hotel if the only other option is to let the building sit empty.
Zaifman says if a heritage group wants to save the building, they’re welcome to it.
However, Cindy Tugwell of Heritage Winnipeg says her group has no plans to do so, telling media that it’s more important to see the St. Charles re-developed rather than saving two buildings in need of extensive repairs.
Normally Heritage Winnipeg would be in favour of the historical designation, but Tugwell said in this case the pros outweighed the cons.
According to a civic historical report, the building began as a house on Albert Street in 1877 and commercial additions were built on in the 1920s.
Since then it has been home to several businesses until recent years, when the businesses moved out.

[rgalston]

Cindy Tugwell should be fired.

[jimj_wpg]

This is a really good idea for a story for the Free Press.

I could easily see them doing a front page story with a large aerial photo highlighting the abundance of surface parking lots around downtown - and close to the St.Charles hotel - with a headline something like "why do we need more parking lots downtown?". It would be really effective.

Anyone know Bartley Kives or any other reporters at the FP well?

Dig back to May 1999 Free Press and sure enough there is a large cover aerial (colour) photo of downtown Winnipeg, surface parking and all.

I know because I used that photo in my presentation to Council when CentreVenture was first created.

[flatlander]

Sometimes, when i'm feeling really bent out of shape, i think about taking a suitcase full of diesel fuel and fertilizer, and leaving it in the glass addition built on to the front of the Royal Albert.

[1ajs]

Sometimes, when i'm feeling really bent out of shape, i think about taking a suitcase full of diesel fuel and fertilizer, and leaving it in the glass addition built on to the front of the Royal Albert.

it adds to the character of alexander... should be left alone...

but we don't need 2 of them along that street...

[1ajs]

o on a side note i had lunch today at the chinies rest raunt there.. had the boul of wonton soup :) that place is like steping back in time lol the old woden fridge the 60's decor lol and then cbc fm playing in the background :) thats a restruant with character how long has it been there anyhow?

[rgalston]

Sometimes, when i'm feeling really bent out of shape, i think about taking a suitcase full of diesel fuel and fertilizer, and leaving it in the glass addition built on to the front of the Royal Albert.


You and me both, pal. The original ground-level facade is more charming than the bulky "heritage" patio.

http://static.flickr.com/114/315679187_67e9cf24fb.jpg

[Archiseek]

o on a side note i had lunch today at the chinies rest raunt there.. had the boul of wonton soup :) that place is like steping back in time lol the old woden fridge the 60's decor lol and then cbc fm playing in the background :) thats a restruant with character how long has it been there anyhow?

the wonton soup there is fabulous and shit cheap....

[1ajs]

ya it is
but my dad got a head ache from it, but then hes got an alergy to canola... and msg dose not agree to with him either

[biguc]

I'm not quite sure how they're going to make a case for this parking being necessary when there's a GIANT FUCKING PARKING LOT RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.

Remember when Joe Diner first made his idiocy known? His big idea for downtown was to level buildings on the periphery of downtown, leaving an intact, Disney land core of historical buildings that suburbanites could treat like an outdoor mall by parking around it and such. It's a stupid idea, but Joe Diner is such a retard he can't even stick to it.

If these buildings are destroyed for a parking lot, I will regularly vandalize cars that parks there. See how successful your parking lot is when your customers are scared to use it.

[1ajs]

I'm not quite sure how they're going to make a case for this parking being necessary when there's a GIANT FUCKING PARKING LOT RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.

Remember when Joe Diner first made his idiocy known? His big idea for downtown was to level buildings on the periphery of downtown, leaving an intact, Disney land core of historical buildings that suburbanites could treat like an outdoor mall by parking around it and such. It's a stupid idea, but Joe Diner is such a retard he can't even stick to it.

If these buildings are destroyed for a parking lot, I will regularly vandalize cars that parks there. See how successful your parking lot is when your customers are scared to use it.

then your adding to the problem agian.....

[h0twired]

What I find interesting is that most of the parking lots around the site are full during the day on weekdays. So saying "park somewhere else" probably wont work.

[flatlander]

If these buildings are destroyed for a parking lot, I will regularly vandalize cars that parks there. See how successful your parking lot is when your customers are scared to use it.

I'm just gonna get drunk, pee and pass out in the lot. I'm always looking for a location anyway, so why not this one?

The Albert St parkade is rarely full, and empty on weekends ...

[biguc]

Good call, flatlander. Drinking, peeing, and passing out are all a great time. Less risk of jail than vandalism too.


What I find interesting is that most of the parking lots around the site are full during the day on weekdays. So saying "park somewhere else" probably wont work.


So five extra stalls make a difference, how? Keep in mind, these parking lots are full because there are already thousands of people downtown using them, thus defeating the rational for building more--that we need parking lots to attract more people downtown. The customers for these businesses are already there, as evidenced by the full parking lots.

You inadvertently point out the real problem in your post: on evenings and weekends these lots are empty. And that's because parking lots make downtown suck ass.

[1ajs]

their soup ... took it today sorry for the crapy shot... i was freezing and hungry and my lens was foging up lol
http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/1163/soupln1.jpg

[Only The Lonely..]

Good call, flatlander. Drinking, peeing, and passing out are all a great time. Less risk of jail than vandalism too.



Drinking, pissing and passing out...sounds like you guys have quite the evening planned for yourselves.

[jimj_wpg]

their soup ... took it today sorry for the crapy shot... i was freezing and hungry and my lens was foging up lol
http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/1163/soupln1.jpg

I like how the owner misspells "sause". :haha:

[ReginaGuy]

http://static.flickr.com/89/205274715_9ff4c6ab00.jpg

Looking south on Main from William Ave, 1877
http://static.flickr.com/67/199973771_033369b60b_o.jpg

I don't get it. Whats the importance of saving this boarded up crack house?

I thought I'd never say it, but that lot would look better as a parking lot. At least people don't look at parking lots and immediately lock the doors in their car

or are you guys talking about a different building?

[freeweed]

I don't get it. Whats the importance of saving this boarded up crack house?

I thought I'd never say it, but that lot would look better as a parking lot. At least people don't look at parking lots and immediately lock the doors in their car

or are you guys talking about a different building?

No, that's the one.

Part of it, to be fair, is that this is a very old building, even for Winnipeg which is old for the west. So it does have some historic value. I think it's one of the older extant buildings in the city.

Part of it, is that in general, folks on these boards hate the concept of anyone driving a car into downtown for work (or seemingly any other use). I've never seen such raw hatred towards parking as I have here - and it's not just surface lots. Parkades get the same eggs thrown at them. It's simply a pure, unadulterated hate on cars.

And of course, part of it is the mentality that has resulted in a boarded up Portage Avenue in many places, and the continued decay of Main Street - you cannot tear anything down in Winnipeg, ever. There's a protectionist, anti-progress streak running through some people that's positively frightening. This is changing, but there are still some hangers-on to the philosphy of "EVERYTHING is a heritage building and I'll chain myself around it to save it, by god!".

You're seeing the results here - full acknowledgement of the use of parking in the area, and yet the demand for more parking is just inconceivable to some people. It's a very strange sort of doublethink.

Personally, I think it's too bad that this house wasn't saved decades ago, before it turned into the piece of crap that it seems to be today. Perhaps the interior is nicer, and a good restoration would help, but yeah - I don't see what there is to "protect" here anymore. This is a bit of hyperbole, because I don't really think this building is THAT bad (it's just an eyesore), but there are many occasions where parking lots are better than the alternative. Calgary had a pretty good ghetto area that's now been razed and is temporarily gravel parking lots, and I'll tell ya - it's 2000x better that it was before. Even with some old shitty early 20th century squatter houses (some claimed they were "heritage" buildings) gone.

[Lee_Haber8]

No, that's the one.

Part of it, to be fair, is that this is a very old building, even for Winnipeg which is old for the west. So it does have some historic value. I think it's one of the older extant buildings in the city.

Part of it, is that in general, folks on these boards hate the concept of anyone driving a car into downtown for work (or seemingly any other use). I've never seen such raw hatred towards parking as I have here - and it's not just surface lots. Parkades get the same eggs thrown at them. It's simply a pure, unadulterated hate on cars.

And of course, part of it is the mentality that has resulted in a boarded up Portage Avenue in many places, and the continued decay of Main Street - you cannot tear anything down in Winnipeg, ever. There's a protectionist, anti-progress streak running through some people that's positively frightening. This is changing, but there are still some hangers-on to the philosphy of "EVERYTHING is a heritage building and I'll chain myself around it to save it, by god!".

You're seeing the results here - full acknowledgement of the use of parking in the area, and yet the demand for more parking is just inconceivable to some people. It's a very strange sort of doublethink.

Personally, I think it's too bad that this house wasn't saved decades ago, before it turned into the piece of crap that it seems to be today. Perhaps the interior is nicer, and a good restoration would help, but yeah - I don't see what there is to "protect" here anymore. This is a bit of hyperbole, because I don't really think this building is THAT bad (it's just an eyesore), but there are many occasions where parking lots are better than the alternative. Calgary had a pretty good ghetto area that's now been razed and is temporarily gravel parking lots, and I'll tell ya - it's 2000x better that it was before. Even with some old shitty early 20th century squatter houses (some claimed they were "heritage" buildings) gone.

That's how an area becomes completely gutted. "Oh it's not so bad, it's just one parking lot, the building was beyond repair." You lose a little piece and the area feels more empty. The appeal of the area decreases and developers lose interest in building and redeveloping the area. It decays even more and suddenly you have more proposals to turn buildings into parking lots. If you knew what Downtown looked like south of portage you would know that planning for the automobile has done no good to downtown Winnipeg. If you knew what that area looked like before the 1950s you would understand even more. The main reason why I am against this as well as many others is that it has to stop here. We can't keep letting our downtown being nickel and dimed into a bombed out mess of concrete parking lots, parkades and ugly buildings. The Exchange district is the only part left that seems somewhat intact still - if we lose that we have nothing

[1ajs]

unfornatly inorder to bring life back to downtown we need parking :( or no one will come.... we need parking for the plp that live downtown cause they want there car....

the old grays auction building :S we minus well let the fucker build his parkade :( with the facawed its prity much fucked that building any one noticed the big ass crack in the side wall? :( but we need to make some laws to stop this sorta shit from being alowed period...

[newflyer]

I dislike the amount of surface lots in the downtown as much as anyone here, but that building is an eyesore. It needs to be torn down, as some buildings will need to be in order to improve the overall presence of the whole area. You can't keep the dives standing in the name of conservation and still say you care about downtown. The focus must be instead on finding developers to build on these lots.

As within the laws of economics; supply will follow demand. Lets create the conditions which will draw more interest in living and locating businesses (both retail and commercial) downtown. As more demand is created there will be more interest in building on these lots.

[newflyer]

If and when more parking lots are filled, there will be developers who will mainatin the parking levels by building a few more parkades, while downtown becomes the dense centre of the city we want it to be. It would sure beat the sea of lots we have now.

[flatlander]

Drinking, pissing and passing out...sounds like you guys have quite the evening planned for yourselves.

Yup. Maybe after you take Browaty to the Gentlemen' Club you should stop by for a visit!!

[rgalston]

Got to love the enlightening nuggets of wisdom from the philistine rube set.

The level of disdain for cities--on a forum devoted to urban development--is staggaring. "Sidewalk commerce? Ugh! What's that good for?"

[1ajs]

ty rgalston... this is the reson why were fighting over this one is its got 2 viable busnes's in the building a tayler and a restraunt witch both look like they do prity good buisnes.

its sacrolidge to force these two buisness to move for a parking lot... the only empty space is were the hell angles had there bike parts store....

[Only The Lonely..]

Yup. Maybe after you take Browaty to the Gentlemen' Club you should stop by for a visit!!

Sounds like a date...

Speaking of which, where is that randy alderman of mine? I'm supposed to see him this weekend.

[Only The Lonely..]

I don't get it. Whats the importance of saving this boarded up crack house?

I thought I'd never say it, but that lot would look better as a parking lot. At least people don't look at parking lots and immediately lock the doors in their car

or are you guys talking about a different building?


I don't think anybody would miss the building per se if it were replaced by another new building, but that isn't what we're talking about. The issue at hand is that Winnipeg doesn't need another surface parking lot. The exchange district is all we have left!

Our downtown already looks like it was the victim of a bombing raid. I've never seen a city with as much downtown surface parking as we have here in Winnipeg.

In theory, if surface parking lead to more people coming in from the burbs to shop and play we would have one of the most vibrant downtowns in the whole of North America.

http://www.globalairphotos.com/images/mb/winnipeg/2005/wgs2005_079.jpg

[Only The Lonely..]

Damn! It seems that there's just nowhere to park your car...

http://www.globalairphotos.com/images/mb/winnipeg/2005/wgh2005_086.jpg

[Only The Lonely..]

It's hard to imagine that there was once a city covering all these open spaces.

http://www.globalairphotos.com/images/mb/winnipeg/2005/wgh2005_092.jpg

[j.online]

And of course, part of it is the mentality that has resulted in a boarded up Portage Avenue in many places, and the continued decay of Main Street - you cannot tear anything down in Winnipeg, ever. There's a protectionist, anti-progress streak running through some people that's positively frightening. This is changing, but there are still some hangers-on to the philosphy of "EVERYTHING is a heritage building and I'll chain myself around it to save it, by god!".

I completely agree with ya freeweed that there's an anti-development mentality here that holds much of the developments from seeing daylight. I'm just surprised that there seems to be little discussion about finding a compromise that pleases both camps somewhere in the middle.

The developer wants his 10 more stalls, the people want their house/streetscape. The city is in every position to mediate this one for the benefit of both (ie: developer, go ahead and knock the house & adjoining storefronts down, but also knock down your new building from 6 to 4 floors and build a parkade with your restaurant at ground level). Too often city council acts like a cheap hookers accepting any crap (good or bad) that developers throw at us, which leaves the citizens with the responsibility to question if the development is even good or not. And we all know that story usually ends with either an unbuilt development or months/years or whining community groups (and then an unbuilt dev.)

My point being, that the city does a piss poor job of community consultation which does nothing but piss off both developer and the public.

Personally, I think this developer is whack if he can't put together a strong business plan that both get him all the parking he needs and incorporates the house into the plan. In fact, he'd probably have himself a smarter plan with a parkade on the now empty north-west side of his lot. Parkades are a complete cash cow (case in point: the Portage Place parkade funds a huge majority of the entire forks operating budget)

He wants a character boutique hotel? How much more character do you want if you can boast having a 1900-era house as your high-end restaurant/lounge with a front garden patio. While, I'd love to see the house incorporated into the design, if it must go, tear that sucker down. Just don't leave me with a gaping hole that'll let me see over the sea of cars all the way to King street.

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/4741/parkingis8.jpg

[rgalston]

http://static.flickr.com/89/258098579_24d2fd3699_o.jpg

[Only The Lonely..]

How old is that pict, 1940's or 50's?

[freeweed]

How old is that pict, 1940's or 50's?

Old enough that hardly anyone had a car, for one thing :)

Man, the Forks was sure an eyesore for a long time.

[Andy6]

You can see postwar buildings like 100 Main Street and the Bank of Toronto at Portage and Notre Dame, and it's in colour, and it looks probably post-streetcar, so I'd guess around 1959.

[drew]

What are all those industrial type buildings along Assiniboine Ave at Main Street? There's nothing there today...

[Greco Roman]

I wish I could jump into that picture and tours the neighbourhoods that are considered ghettos in today's time. Then I would make a big hollabalu to anyone who would hear me about what the city will become if it doesnt get its shit together. If I could, I would.............

Anyone got a time machine? :D

[flatlander]

What are all those industrial type buildings along Assiniboine Ave at Main Street? There's nothing there today...

The old Winnipeg Transit terminal was at Main/Assiniboine, non? Or was it behind the hotel fort garry where Fort Garry Place is now?

Not to beat a dead horse, but no city has ever revitalized its downtown through encouraging parking.

And the reason why North Portage makes so much money on parking is because there were huge public subsidies for the construction of it in the first place. If they were still paying it off things would be much different.

[rgalston]

Those were the transit garages at Main and Assiniboine.

And I don't know when that picture was taken, but I'd agree with Andy that it was the late '50s, or maybe early '60s. You can see that everything west of Smith, and south of Graham--even Broadway--was still residential. And also that the demolition crews had yet to start gobbling up the edges of the then-expansive warehouse district.

[rgalston]

Not to beat a dead horse, but no city has ever revitalized its downtown through encouraging parking.


*huff puff* What are you talking about?!? *mouth-breathing* You've obviously never 'bin to Galveston Texas...

[1ajs]

bus depo and old street car repair shop posibly...

i think that photo is either 1954 or 1957

[biguc]

I dislike the amount of surface lots in the downtown as much as anyone here, but that building is an eyesore. It needs to be torn down, as some buildings will need to be in order to improve the overall presence of the whole area. You can't keep the dives standing in the name of conservation and still say you care about downtown. The focus must be instead on finding developers to build on these lots.

As within the laws of economics; supply will follow demand. Lets create the conditions which will draw more interest in living and locating businesses (both retail and commercial) downtown. As more demand is created there will be more interest in building on these lots.


But what about when demand follows supply?


Say's law is given less credit than it deserves these days. While clearly not a law, there is something to it. It's pretty obvious that increasing the supply of parking has only ever lead to increased demand for parking. It's a vicious cycle of suck.

And that building isn't too bad, that picture is of the ass end of the building. I guess it's no Vida Guerra, but I'm not offended by its appearance.

Also, parking lots are hard to get rid of, thanks to their extreme profitability.

This picture of j.online's is exactly what I was talking about before.
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/4741/parkingis8.jpg

You can't tell me the developer actually sees that much value in making this lot. I'm pretty sure if we were to work some kind of Coasian negotiation, the developer would fold and develop the property without the extra parking. The developer wants to tear the building down in order to make x amount of money, the city wants to stop the buildings from being torn down because that would suck. If the amount the developer stands to lose from not tearing down the buildings is less than it's worth to the city to keep them, the city can pay him off. If it's actually worth more to him than the city, he can tear his building down if he pays the city. The thing is, it's probably worth all of five bucks to the developer to lose these buildings, so he can fuck off.



rgalston's last post really illustrates Diner's fallacy. Maybe if Winnipeg were on the beach on the edge of a metropolis of millions of car driving Texans, like Galveston is, his idea would work. Joe Diner is stupid.

[Only The Lonely..]

I wish I could jump into that picture and tours the neighbourhoods that are considered ghettos in today's time. Then I would make a big hollabalu to anyone who would hear me about what the city will become if it doesnt get its shit together. If I could, I would.............

Anyone got a time machine? :D

You can't just mess around with the temporal space time continuum like that.

Didn't you see any of the Back to the Futures or at least the two Star Trek films on the subject?

[rgalston]

It needs to be torn down, as some buildings will need to be in order to improve the overall presence of the whole area. You can't keep the dives standing in the name of conservation and still say you care about downtown.


And the St. Charles was not a dive?

If the clear-away-the-eyesores mentality was allowed to freely persist throughout the recent decades, there would be nothing left of the Exchange District but the Bank of Commerce and the Electric Railway Chambers

Lets create the conditions which will draw more interest in living and locating businesses (both retail and commercial) downtown. As more demand is created there will be more interest in building on these lots.

Or, opening up shop in existing commercial buildings. Or replacing old commercial buildings with new ones, rather than parking lots.

[Archiseek]

Century-old Exchange building facade may be saved
Last Updated: Thursday, December 21, 2006 | 12:25 PM CT
CBC News
The oldest building in Winnipeg's Exchange District may be salvaged after all — the face of it, anyway.

After touring the property at 44 Albert St. on Wednesday, owner Ken Zaifman said he didn't find anything of historic value inside the house, built in 1878, but would be willing to consider saving the facade.

Part of the building at 44 Albert St. was built in 1878. A storefront was added in the mid-1920s.
(CBC) "I'm certainly prepared to allow whatever organization, if they want, to take the exterior brickwork because they think there's some historical aspect to that," said Zaifman, who wants to tear down the building to make way for an outdoor patio and parking lot for his nearby St. Charles Hotel.

"Re-create it, put it someplace. Even if we can save the facade in our redevelopment plan, the facade of the building, I'm even prepared to look at that if it's practical."

Heritage Winnipeg executive director Cindy Tugwell, who toured the house with Zaifman said she was disappointed that much of the interior had been remodelled over the years, decreasing its historical value. But, she added, she believes the outside is still significant.

Business owner Ken Zaifman and Cindy Tugwell of Heritage Winnipeg toured 44 Albert St. on Wednesday.
(CBC) "This is the oldest residential building in the downtown," she said.

Continue Article

"It dates back to around the time that the city was incorporated, and what that signifies to our history as Winnipeggers is also equally as important, although that's intangible."

Tugwell said she plans to meet with other heritage groups to develop a proposal to help Zaifman save the building's historical elements.

The request to destroy the house and adjoining storefront sparked a debate at city hall, with councillors sparring over whether to designate them as historical.

A community committee voted 2-1 on Nov. 21 to deny the building historical status, but the vote has to be ratified by the city's property, planning and development committee on Jan. 9.

The idea of retaining the exterior facade of a historical building was used when Red River College built its downtown campus on Princess Street.

Chris Petty, an architecture instructor at Red River College, said Wednesday that the city has done a lot to preserve its historical buildings, but it cannot keep every building simply because it's old.

"In Winnipeg, we've done a pretty good job of preserving a big chunk of that downtown core. Certainly the Exchange District is a pretty impressive achievement for any city," he said.

[flatlander]

Barf. Facadism is such a cop out.

[drew]

"Re-create it, put it someplace. Even if we can save the facade in our redevelopment plan, the facade of the building, I'm even prepared to look at that if it's practical."


Somehow I doubt the "practicality" of saving a building facade does not compute with a guy who simply wants to knock down the place for parking.

[Andy6]

Somehow I doubt the "practicality" of saving a building facade does not compute with a guy who simply wants to knock down the place for parking.

Realistically this is a pretty crappy building which may well have virtually no original elements left. I think you have to be reasonable or you'll scare away potential owners, many of whom are taking a risk in the core area when they could easily be investing in power centres in the suburbs instead. Now they're all going to think that they're going to be set up on by extremist preservationists if they propose any changes at all to make their properties viable. Sounds like something could potentially be worked out here -- why don't you guys get to work and suggest something to Mr. Zaifman that would accomplish everyone's goals to the greatest degree possible? Surely the most important goal in this would be to make the St. Charles viable again. If you lose that, then saving the old house isn't much of a victory.

[trueviking]

is he proposing keeping the facade and having it front a surface lot behind?....it isnt about the facade...its about a useful building contributing the street....i really dont care about it's historic value so much...i simply oppose tearing down buildings in the exchange to make way for parking lots...if it was replaced by a new building, i might support its demolition...i certainly dont support propping up a facade to front a parking lot.

[trueviking]

Surely the most important goal in this would be to make the St. Charles viable again. If you lose that, then saving the old house isn't much of a victory.

i dont really see how one is linked to the other.....how can the business plan hinge on those 10 parking stalls?...the viability of the st. charles and maintaining the adjacent storefronts seem to be mutually exclusive to me.

[drew]

Realistically this is a pretty crappy building which may well have virtually no original elements left. I think you have to be reasonable or you'll scare away potential owners, many of whom are taking a risk in the core area when they could easily be investing in power centres in the suburbs instead. .

Read the article below and remind me again who exactly is scaring away potential owners? I think its the current owners of buildings who are sitting on vacant or underused properties to maximise their bucks, and when that isn't an option, they tend not to be the best stewards of building restoration.


Businessman decries loss of aged block
Oldest downtown building doomed?

Mon Dec 18 2006

By Aldo Santin

Developer wants to rip down this building to put in a parking lot.

INTERNET pharmacy pioneer Daren Jorgenson says a developer should not be allowed to demolish the downtown's oldest building for a parking lot for a revamped St. Charles Hotel.
Jorgenson said the city has a responsibility to protect the integrity of the historic Exchange District, adding that knocking down buildings undermines the area.

"You shouldn't rip down a structure in the Exchange District for 10 parking spots," Jorgenson said.

"If the owner doesn't want to maintain it or develop it, then the owner should have the responsibility to sell it to someone who does."

Lawyer Ken Zaifman and his partners want to convert the St. Charles Hotel into a boutique hotel.

Zaifman said his redevelopment proposals call for reorienting the front of the St. Charles from Notre Dame Avenue to Albert Street. He insists he needs to clear the property at 38-44 1/2 Albert Street to accommodate the reorientation, which would include a new entrance, outdoor patio and some additional parking spaces.
But Jorgenson said Zaifman shouldn't be allowed to demolish the Albert Street property.

A civic committee last month turned down a proposal from the historical buildings committee to give the Albert Street property an historic designation, which would have prevented it from being demolished.

Jorgenson made his fortune as one of the country's first Internet pharmacists, with the firm Canadameds.com. The success of that company allowed him to expand his Internet pharmacy business into Alberta.

Expanded

Then he expanded into other fields: He bought several north Main Street properties and opened a series of walk-in clinics.

He bought the Vault Hair Salon, located on Albert Street, three years ago, then bought the building where the salon is located last year.

Jorgenson said he's tried for three years to buy the Albert Street property Zaifman wants to demolish but that the owners, a group of partners headed up by Globe Agencies president Richard Morantz, has refused to discuss it.
"Building owners in the Exchange District have a responsibility to maintain the integrity of the area's heritage designation," Jorgenson said. "They (Morantz and his partners) don't want to develop the building or maintain it."

Morantz said the ownership group believes that its best interests are advanced by holding onto the property.

Morantz wouldn't comment on Jorgenson's suggestion that he and his partners have a responsibility to either develop the Albert Street property or sell it to someone who will.

The Albert Street property, known as the Building Block, is in desperate need of repair. It consists of three buildings: a two-storey brick house that was built in 1877 and two one-storey additions in 1924 that surround the original house. The block is home to a Chinese restaurant and a tailor shop.

Jorgenson said he'd preserve and restore the portion of the block that contains the Chinese restaurant and strip away the other one-storey addition to reveal the original 1877 brick house, which he would convert into a tourist information office.

Zaifman said he doesn't believe it's possible to restore the 1877 house, adding it's been incorporated into the later additions. Zaifman said he thinks the only remaining portion of the house is the roof and peak of the structure.

Lisa Holowchuk, executive director of the Exchange District Business Improvement Zone (BIZ) said her agency doesn't want to see the Albert Street property demolished for a surface parking lot. She said she hopes Zaifman pursues the St. Charles renovation without needing to demolish the Albert Street property.

[Biff]

I'd like to see some actual facts here on what is exactly left of this building. My impression from what i have heard is that there is not much left of any historical significance other than its location and maybe the roofline. I believe most of the walls except for possibly the rear have been removed to incorporate the additions over the years. I don't have any proof to this, just what i have heard. If this is the case, what exactly are we saving. If you peel away the additions and there is nothing there what do you do with it?

I do agree that i am against demolishing it for a parking lot but that is it. If something takes it's place then so be it. I would love to see his plans. Apparently Smith Carter did some concepts for him.

I guess we will see what happens.

[Andy6]

I was just saying that maybe there's a compromise somewhere in which some of the building is saved and a few more parking spots can be squeezed out as well.

[1ajs]

ya we discused that last night at the first meeting

[DizzyEdge]

*huff puff* What are you talking about?!? *mouth-breathing* You've obviously never 'bin to Galveston Texas...

A better way to revitalize a city would be to build residential in place of some of those parking lots, rather than encourage people to drive and park there during the day and abandon it by 6pm.

[1ajs]

A better way to revitalize a city would be to build residential in place of some of those parking lots, rather than encourage people to drive and park there during the day and abandon it by 6pm.

you still need a car even if you live downtown... in order to go shopping....