Winnipeg | Pump House | 24 Floors | Cancelled - Page 5

Cyro · #81 Posted **May 9, 2014, 7:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by yellowghost

If its the machinery inside the structure itself that also needs protection, why did the developers even bother to make proposals in the first place. They just went ahead and make sketches and plans and then told by the city after the fact that the machines cannot be disturbed? .

The developers of this proposal where quite aware of the Heritage Status of this structure and the machinery contained within before they approached CC for the height variance change and the proposal in general. The requirements and restrictions set forth by CC can be found in the OP of this thread.

Cyro · #82 Posted **May 20, 2014, 4:22 PM**

Pump House Tower
Fri May 16, 2014.
City Council approvals for site plan and rezoning are secured. The scope of work has been finalized. An architect has been secured to complete detailed design and working drawings.
-JOC

Nothing really new. Proposal hasn't been shelved yet. Any other other information on the staus of this proposal would be greatly appreciated.

esquire · #83 Posted **Jun 18, 2014, 6:33 PM**

Any movement on this thing? I walked by phase II of Sky Condos and I don't think those ground floor CRUs have a hope of being filled anytime soon unless this project materializes...

Kris22 · #84 Posted **Jun 19, 2014, 4:58 AM**

I hope something happens soon. I walked by tonite and that corner really stands out now as a dead spot with Mere across the street and its restaurant Cibo bringing life to the area.

Cyro · #85 Posted **Jun 19, 2014, 7:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

Any movement on this thing?

I've been trying to get any info I could on this one since I posted last about it. It's starting to feel like someone threw a blanket over this proposal since CC approved the variances and the architect issues. Someone will have something soon, It's hard to keep a lid on it, someone will know either way in short order.

oftheMoon · #86 Posted **Jun 19, 2014, 11:04 PM**

^^^^ For what's it's worth, last night at the North East Exchange open house, I overheard a rep from the MMM Group say this project is still being worked on but to a lesser scale than the initial proposal.

He also indicated we may here something about a James Ave. parcade within "2 or 3 months".

1ajs · #87 Posted **Jun 20, 2014, 1:02 AM**

its 8 stories last i saw

Cyro · #88 Posted **Jun 20, 2014, 6:52 PM**

Hmm, 2 different sources are pretty much saying it's been scaled down. 16F is quite the jump, ending up at 8?

The parkade is obviously still an important piece of this development and the East Exchange in general, hoping that announcement comes within the several months you mentioned oftheMoon.

You've seen new renders of the development 1ajs? Is the design the same or is it now just a box at 8 F ?

I'm not really surprised at the info posters provided, but I have to admit I am dissapointed to hear it, but happy it hasn't been shelved as of yet. Have to wait for an official announcement.

Monumental · #89 Posted **Jul 13, 2014, 4:52 PM**

I saw Sotirios present 4 different schemes at the U of M about a year ago. He has been working on these contingency plans in the background over the past year. Most are lower and longer with a variety of densities. As I understand it all schemes require parking so without firm parking commitments nothing will proceed. I saw some of Sotirios' models at a recent Storefront/RAIC exhibition too, the schemes are interesting. I know one of the MAA architects on the design team and he said the project never had architect issues since the team always had at least 1 MAA architect working on contract. It seems the controversy was invented by the goofy WFP writer a sour grape architect and his entourage of angry Nimby's.

Cyro · #90 Posted **Jul 13, 2014, 8:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monumental

I saw Sotirios present 4 different schemes at the U of M about a year ago. He has been working on these contingency plans in the background over the past year. Most are lower and longer with a variety of densities. As I understand it all schemes require parking so without firm parking commitments nothing will proceed. I saw some of Sotirios' models at a recent Storefront/RAIC exhibition too, the schemes are interesting. I know one of the MAA architects on the design team and he said the project never had architect issues since the team always had at least 1 MAA architect working on contract. It seems the controversy was invented by the goofy WFP writer a sour grape architect and his entourage of angry Nimby's.

Good post. Nothing will happen without the Parkade construction. Let's hope it proceeds in a timely manner in the very near future.

Biff · #91 Posted **Jul 14, 2014, 2:41 PM**

Although I am obviously a skyscraper fan boy, recognized by my membership to this site, I am OK with a reduction of height on this project. This piece of property is integral to the continuation of Waterfront Drive (which I love so far) as well as the possibility of the Pumphouse getting a second life. I really liked the look and height of the original proposal at 16 storeys but always kind of felt that it truly was to tall for the area. An 8 storey building with an accompanying parkade would be a perfect fit and hopefully spur on the half dozen or so projects currently waiting for the parking situation in the area to be rectified.

esquire · #92 Posted **Jul 14, 2014, 2:49 PM**

^ I was OK with the initial 24 storey plan but I could also live with something of reduced height. Unlike with the taller design, no one can really say that 8 storeys is out of scale with the surrounding neighbourhood, and it would still bring in a decent influx of new residents to the block. It would also have the effect of revitalizing pretty much the only abandoned building left along Waterfront Drive.

That said, there is such a thing as too small - I think Centreventure really dropped the ball when they gave the green light to Ship Street Village a couple of blocks south. The density of that project is way too low, but hopefully that mistake will not be repeated.

Cyro · #93 Posted **Jul 14, 2014, 3:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff

Although I am obviously a skyscraper fan boy, recognized by my membership to this site, I am OK with a reduction of height on this project. This piece of property is integral to the continuation of Waterfront Drive (which I love so far) as well as the possibility of the Pumphouse getting a second life. I really liked the look and height of the original proposal at 16 storeys but always kind of felt that it truly was to tall for the area. An 8 storey building with an accompanying parkade would be a perfect fit and hopefully spur on the half dozen or so projects currently waiting for the parking situation in the area to be rectified.

Quite true, my opinion is is beginning to lean this way as well.

yellowghost · #94 Posted **Jul 16, 2014, 12:02 AM**

If the plans are indeed scaled down, I have lost all interest and hope decides to change location and let the building rot. I have a hunch the reason for scaling down is somehow a result of community opposition.

Winnipeg Architect · #95 Posted **Jul 16, 2014, 1:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by yellowghost

If the plans are indeed scaled down, I have lost all interest and hope decides to change location and let the building rot. I have a hunch the reason for scaling down is somehow a result of community opposition.

You are probably 100% correct about the rot.

To build on that site with the existing building will be very costly.

Condo sales are very sluggish on Waterfront Drive and they will be a hard sell.

Rental returns are so minimal that they would lose money if that was an apartment. (The new rental grant is so bad that it really adds nothing to help out a developer and the NDP 8% PST rebate grant is even worse)

Centre Venture failed numerous times to build a Parkade on James Avenue and that will not change. (That is just more corporate welfare)

The only way to have an economical development on that site would be to level the Pumphouse.

Re-construct the facade facing Waterfront and build new towards the West.

I has been approximately 20 years now, and nothing has changed.

Cyro · #96 Posted **Jul 16, 2014, 9:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winnipeg Architect

I has been approximately 20 years now, and nothing has changed.

I agree with this factual point.

Labroco · #97 Posted **Jul 24, 2014, 12:26 PM**

The Pump House is DEAD. No extension granted. Farmers Market planned around the structure.

Now let's all move on...

esquire · #98 Posted **Jul 24, 2014, 1:07 PM**

So another one bites the dust. The pumphouse is quite a stubborn obstacle to the redevelopment of that site. I like it and I like the idea of preserving it, but if that's not possible, well...

wags_in_the_peg · #99 Posted **Jul 24, 2014, 1:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Labroco

The Pump House is DEAD. No extension granted. Farmers Market planned around the structure.

Now let's all move on...

Farmers Market at Hydro, Farmers Market at Neeci Commons, Farmers Market (sort of) at the Forks and of course the biggest and most popular St.Norbert. I love 'em but the term Farmers Market is quickly not so "niche"

Simplicity · #**100** Posted **Jul 24, 2014, 2:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Labroco

The Pump House is DEAD. No extension granted. Farmers Market planned around the structure.

Now let's all move on...

Can you share a source on this?