Hudsons Bay Building (Winnipeg) Redevelopment

[Labroco]

[QUOTE=buzzg;9143310]Red River didn't want that portion with the caveat. The northern 75% of the land is being split and sold to private developers, with CV overseeing to make sure the whole block works well together (a good thing). Also, CV already has the funding in place for the market portion, they're just finalizing the details and who will be operating it – the RFP closed Dec 11, we should hear early in 2021 how it rolls out.

Let’s see what happens...

[Tfc99]

How about bring it down and repurpose the stone like mts centre

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by trueviking

A museum could be a nice part of the plan. Definitely a small part in the context of 650,000 square foot building. Like half of one floor. This was part of the U of W's scheme.

Metis on one end of the street and Indigenous people on the other side.

I think a true national centre of Indigenous History, Culture and Language would be significantly larger than "half of one floor". As a point of reference, the CMHR is 260,000 sq ft, just under half the size of the Bay building. Also keep in mind the national centre as I describe it has larger teaching and research roles than CMHR as it would in part be an academic centre of excellence. Further still, the vision includes a library for materials in traditional Indigenous languages.

Yes, it might still be short of the full 650,000 sq ft but there could be other complimentary uses, such as reopening the Paddlewheel as a restaurant featuring Indigenous foods. Some of the unused space could be held in reserve for a future expansion of the centre, sort of similar to how Hotel Fort Garry didn't reopen the building all at once but worked on getting more limited areas open first and them expanding as they went.

Above all else the top challenge is to find someone as quickly as possible that makes sense for a project in the building and get them to take ownership of it, at least in concept, as soon as possible. If someone as a vested interesting in keeping the building secure it will actively work to keep out unauthorized people which could permanently damage or destroy the building.

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by Tfc99

How about bring it down and repurpose the stone like mts centre

There was no repurposed stone used for the MTS Centre.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by Tfc99

How about bring it down and repurpose the stone like mts centre

I actually don't mind that option.

But again what will the cost be to demo that building vs. providing a reasonable subsidy to a developer to do something with the building.

I think that at some point the building will be purchased, handed over, whatever to a government/agency and that's where it'll end up.

Didn't HBC value the building at $0? So on that basis they should just give it up right? Ya right haha

[drew]

Originally Posted by Tfc99

How about bring it down and repurpose the stone like mts centre

That would be even less economical than trying to save the building.

It costs mucho $$$ to dismantle a mortised stone facade with the hopes of re-purposing said stones in the future.

[cllew]

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

There was no repurposed stone used for the MTS Centre.

The closest to repurposed stone in there would be the original Eaton's window and Tyndall Stone surround on the 2nd floor by the Somerset Building skywalk.

[bomberjet]

So the red brick is not re-purposed but brought in new? I had thought it was from the old building. Just an homage I guess?

[1ajs]

the bay is a solid building e should fine multiple uses for it

[esquire]

Hard to imagine using 100+ year old brick in a new arena... can that even be done?

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by esquire

Hard to imagine using 100+ year old brick in a new arena... can that even be done?

yes its recyled all the time by the truck load

[esquire]

In the case of MTS Centre the bricks definitely looked new.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Labroco

Yes!

But that portion could have been recreation for Red River College or community green space and be done with it. The balance of the site to be sold without all the preconditions of CV development agreements. Realty taxes would be flowing by spring time.

Let the planning department determine appropriate use not CV. It’s not their mandate to do so! Millions have been spent so far on consultants and “community consultation” and they have no funding yet to build anything that I’m aware of or has been announced.

Stop competing with building owners in the area by providing brand new government subsidized commercial and retail space. You will never fill these beautiful historic buildings when government subsidized space floods the area.

Provide $20,000,000 for masonry repairs, windows, roofs, electrical, elevators and plumbing...

Best wishes over the holidays ...

green space for red river college students to frolic around in? That's the vision for the exchange district?

So the planning department says it should be multi family residential and commercial...then what? The planning department tries to develop the public caveat site? The planning department runs an RFP and sells the land to the highest bidder? I don't think you know what a planning department does. It is precisely CV's mandate to work with developers to do what is best for downtown. Creating a landmark public node won't be done by a developer or the planning department.

I welcome government intervention to do create a project for the public good. Yeah it may put a few low rent tenant spaces back on the market, but to make an impact on the city, i'm all for it. Hopefully it inspires some property owners in the area to develop the underused land they own. The goal is to leverage the property to make the exchange district a more desirable place to live and work so adjacent property owners are better able to fill their spaces. It is not competition. Its helping current land owners by creating a catalyst and a destination. We cant be held back from greater aspirations because a few low rent tenant spaces might go back on the market. They are developing the public site with affordable housing and a public market. What developer would do that? Developers don't build big vision, public good projects. They build to their pro-forma. We need both to be successful as a city. Its what government should do.

Why would you not want development agreements to ensure developers build what they say they will. They protect the public interest and put pressure on developers so they don't just take a property and sit on it forever. This isn't about taxes flowing as fast as possible, its about creating the best thing for downtown and the city.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Labroco

1) If office relocation came from the suburbs and not core area buildings then that would be great.

2) U of M programming being relocated downtown would also be helpful.

That would be awesome. Tell the Premier.

3) CV was responsible for stick handling Waterfront Drive and overseeing improvements in the East Exchange and on Lily Avenue. They also payed The Docks to be the lead sponsor and in fact judged the submissions so I would say they do have exposure in that regard.

I think CV gave $500 to the 'on the docks competition' which was done by two students working at an architecture firm. It is true that CV had some involvement with coordinating the public art street improvements in the east exchange, but this was spearheaded by Public Works because the City departments have little ability to do these things on their own. CV does not have a budget or mandate to do infrastructure.

The development parcels of Waterfront drive were coordinated by CV, the infrastructure was done by Public Works as it must.

4) Buying the St Regis for $8,000,000 many would say does not fit in the mandate as you describe nor does all the effort put into Market Lands. Both sites if carved up without the CV development agreements would have had the parcels quickly sold and ultimately developed without any government involvement. Most City surplus lands are disposed of that way.

The city forced CV to buy the St. Regis because it is the only civic entity available to do it. We can debate the logic of this, but it was not CV's doing. It was also long before the current City and CV administration.

Market Lands has complex caveats to deal with. The development is exactly their mandate. In fact, the City should not be selling surplus downtown land without going through them. On the land that can be sold at Marketlands, an RFP was issued to find developers. Its no different than what you are saying, except CV will work to ensure the best project for the city is chosen, not simply the highest bidder, and they will create development agreements to ensure purchasers intend to develop quickly so the properties don't sit empty for years. A typical RFP from the City has no such guarantee.

5) While the amalgamation of Waterfront /Duncan I am hopeful will result in a good development, both sites were actively and aggressively being pursued by private interests prior to CV stepping in, over paying and poaching them as you know.

They were being quietly marketed individually. CV brought them together and marketed them as a larger property which resulted in a far better outcome for downtown. Very proud of this work.

6) The same situation is occurring today on Henry Avenue with private stakeholders being shut out of adjacent City controlled lands required to enhance their holdings and business. So much for working with area stakeholders when sites become available. Why shouldn’t Lawson or Koop have access to their adjacent lands in the area? Why should City owned slivers of land be held as bargaining chips by CV?

If property owners want to develop or enhance their properties, I'm sure the CV land would be available. You only see one side of the story. They don't deserve land just to sit on forever because they happen to own the site next door.

Many feel they are competing with CV for lands and do not see the added value of their participation.

What properties have CV purchased in competition with a private developer?

If you want an example of how good governance is practiced, The Forks North Portage is exemplary

The Forks has a free parkade given to them by the government paying for their good governance. They have also been sitting for years on two massive parking lots after completing an RFP process and awarding it to developers. Some of whom took their projects all the way to tender drawings. I love the forks but I wouldn't hold them up as the model for speedy development..

see above

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by CoryB

I think a true national centre of Indigenous History, Culture and Language would be significantly larger than "half of one floor". As a point of reference, the CMHR is 260,000 sq ft, just under half the size of the Bay building. Also keep in mind the national centre as I describe it has larger teaching and research roles than CMHR as it would in part be an academic centre of excellence. Further still, the vision includes a library for materials in traditional Indigenous languages.

Yes, it might still be short of the full 650,000 sq ft but there could be other complimentary uses, such as reopening the Paddlewheel as a restaurant featuring Indigenous foods. Some of the unused space could be held in reserve for a future expansion of the centre, sort of similar to how Hotel Fort Garry didn't reopen the building all at once but worked on getting more limited areas open first and them expanding as they went.

Above all else the top challenge is to find someone as quickly as possible that makes sense for a project in the building and get them to take ownership of it, at least in concept, as soon as possible. If someone as a vested interesting in keeping the building secure it will actively work to keep out unauthorized people which could permanently damage or destroy the building.

Ah. I see. I didn't think you meant a full new national museum. That would be great.

[blueandgoldguy]

The National Museum of the American Indian in Washington is 250,000 square feet. I'm sure a national museum approx. half that size would be viable in Canada, preferably here in Winnipeg.

The addition of university classroom space for aboriginal-related courses (and partnership with U of W), aboriginal-themed restaurant(s), and a centre for aboriginal-based business start-ups could utilize at least 2 floors at the Bay.

[1ajs]

bay building is pushing 500,000 sqft is it not?

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

bay building is pushing 500,000 sqft is it not?

One of the posters above said 650,000 SQFT I think.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by esquire

In the case of MTS Centre the bricks definitely looked new.

MTS Centre bricks are not reclaimed.

[BAKGUY]

1 - The Former Bay Building 450 Portage Ave = 651,000 ft 2...Yes, Eatons was more.

2 - MTS Place..not any reclaimed brick used whatsoever! The Eatons bricks were mostly sold individually as a souvenir of sorts.