104 King St (Ryan Block)

[spiritedenergy]

Originally Posted by drew

And another gem from Brodbeck. Looks like he's trying the fire up the CJOB grumpy old man crowd for a fight!

Put up that parking lot
Like it or not, Winnipeggers will be driving their cars downtown

By TOM BRODBECK

Apparently some people don't like the fact that a multi-storey parkade could replace the crumbling King Building in the Exchange District.

The last thing we need is another parking lot downtown, they say.

But I wonder how those same folks plan to accommodate the 2,000 new Manitoba Hydro workers who will move downtown next year into their new Portage Avenue digs, especially when those staff have been encouraged to drive to work with parking subsidies?

Bedford Investments, which owns the dilapidated King building on the corner of King Street and Bannatyne Avenue, wants to tear it down and build a multi-level parkade with street-level commercial space.

Sounds good to me.

Parking in that area is horrible during business hours and the downtown is facing a parking crunch.

But the anti-developers don't like that idea. Many have contacted me after my Tuesday column about the King Building saying they don't want another stinkin' parking lot. They want to keep old, rotting buildings instead.

They want us all to take the bus and reduce the number of parking lots downtown, not expand them.

That would be great in a perfect world. But it's not going to happen.

Winnipeg is a car city and while we should continue to promote transit as an alternative, the reality is people are going to continue to drive downtown to work.

Manitoba Hydro is even encouraging its 2,000 employees to drive downtown once their new building is in place.

Employees will be given a transportation subsidy of about $53 a month that they can put towards parking costs.They can put it towards a bus pass, too. But let's face it, most people are going to drive.

Which means we need parking. Otherwise it's going to be parking mayhem downtown during working hours.

Part of improving the downtown is getting more people to work and live there. But you can't do that if you can't accommodate parking. That's just reality.

ARCTIC-LIKE WINTERS

You're simply not going to convince hordes of people in Winnipeg to leave their vehicles at home, especially not during our arctic-like winters.

People may think they want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by using their vehicles less.

But stand on Portage Avenue on any given day and watch the thousands of vehicles go by headed downtown with one driver in them. It's at least 70%.

People drive their cars in this city. That's just the way it is. And there isn't a whole lot anyone can do to change that in a significant way.

We don't need to turn every heritage building in the Exchange into a parking lot.

But a rotting, derelict building like the King should be demolished because it's a safety hazard.

And there's no reason in the world why it shouldn't be used to help increase parking capacity in the downtown.

Did anybody object when the Crocus building between Main Street and Old Market Square erected new parking space? No, because we needed the parking.

Let's get on with it.

i can't believe this crap is being written in a newspaper... so sad for Winnipeg to have a newspaper like The Sun, contributing to the disruption of whatever is left of good, with its suburban and parking free for all attitude.

Who was liking this embarrassment that the Sun is, by the way??? (ehm, Newflyer).

[fengshui]

Why isn't Sinclair up in arms? I guess because some high profile Winnipeg business people aren't behind this cause like they are with 100 Main.

[someone123]

How is allowing a building owner to enjoy basic property rights "pandering"?

Heritage preservation is a good thing but doing it through the kind of obstructionism and regulation described here is harmful and unfair. Most of you seem to be asking for the building owner to take a personal economic hit for the greater good of heritage preservation.

The best option would be for the city and heritage groups to come up with some kind of subsidy or offer to purchase the property.

[fengshui]

The owner long ago forfeited his "right" to complain about preservation - he knew way back in 1992 after his first attempt to demolish it for a parking lot failed. A few dollars then would have made all the difference.

He knew that if he waited long enough for the building to become a safety issue, he'd get his way.

[someone123]

The owner long ago forfeited his "right" to complain about preservation - he knew way back in 1992 after his first attempt to demolish it for a parking lot failed.

That's a strange way to forfeit a right, if that's what he did.

I don't know the specific legal situation but my point is a very simple one. Normally in developed nations there is a concept of property rights. When you purchase something there is an understanding as to what you can do with it. If he purchased this building in a time when it was okay to demolish it and then after the fact the city prevented him from doing so without compensating him there is a problem.

He knew that if he waited long enough for the building to become a safety issue, he'd get his way.

And this is why, moral arguments aside, it is a bad idea for the city and for heritage preservationists to be engaging in this sort of thing. They cannot win with this strategy in a city like Winnipeg because they will simply chase away investment. If heritage buildings and downtown lots are nothing but a liability then investors won't want to touch them with a ten foot pole, particularly when they can just buy some strip mall out in the suburbs that will make them plenty of money without any legal hassles.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by someone123

And this is why, moral arguments aside, it is a bad idea for the city and for heritage preservationists to be engaging in this sort of thing. They cannot win with this strategy in a city like Winnipeg because they will simply chase away investment. If heritage buildings and downtown lots are nothing but a liability then investors won't want to touch them with a ten foot pole, particularly when they can just buy some strip mall out in the suburbs that will make them plenty of money without any legal hassles.

In theory you're right (and possibly morally too), but the fact remains that we would have a lot fewer nice heritage buildings today if this sort of pressure hadn't been applied in the past with respect to innumerable other buildings that were allegedly falling down or obsolete or whatever. And it isn't just a random building but a building in a prominent spot in a district that is supposed to be the city's pride and joy because of the fact that there are a lot of old buildings around.

I would rather watch downtown Winnipeg crumble than see what it turns out to be like after developers touch it with their ten foot poles and turn it into acres of parking lots and suburban-like modern structures.

[trueviking]

if chasing away development means flattening buildings to build parking lots, then i say chase away as much as possible....if you dont want to develop a listed historic building in a national historic site, then dont buy the building.

i would be happy to move reiss out to the suburbs...winnipeg doesnt need investment at all cost...and this is not investment...it is the opposite...if he were planning a building to replace the king building, then it would be investment that we should consider....removing a building so you dont have to pay taxes is not investment.

if you are tired of cutting your toenails every couple of weeks, is the solution to cut off your toes?....it would certainly end the toenail problem, but in the long run it might not be the best idea.

[newflyer]

Didn't the plan call for a parkade with retail on the main level?

I am all for retaining the quality heritage buildings, but there are some buildings which may be beyond viability in the Winnipeg real estate market. The city needs a mechanism for those exceptions.

I do think there should be a form of a written agreement before a Exchange District property can change hands, which says that building must be maintained to a minimal standard... even if its not in use... with a extensive tax insentive to encourage revitalization.

[newflyer]

Originally Posted by spiritedenergy

i can't believe this crap is being written in a newspaper... so sad for Winnipeg to have a newspaper like The Sun, contributing to the disruption of whatever is left of good, with its suburban and parking free for all attitude.

Who was liking this embarrassment that the Sun is, by the way??? (ehm, Newflyer).

Yet its seems that the Sun is the only paper which forces people to talk and think about serious issues. The whole purpose of an editorial is to project a point a view which spons thought. I don't think the Free Press could say that.

How often is the Sun credited to bringing issues to the forefront.. instead of the never-never land of the waterdowned content of that other paper.

[RUEHLE-DESIGN]

This shouldn't be a problem! Investing in this area especially should be SIMPLE, and STRAIGHT FORWARD. I mean put in strict, simple, and well understood guidelines. Promote developments, do example advertising for sample projects, and make a plan. I mean slate ideal areas for parkades, and push for certain key buildings to develope first, push for certain zones, and get a move on. If you buy it, then develope it, but do it right, if its residential then keep it that, no parking where it should not be, keep with the look of the area for brand new space fillers, and have a time frame. Don't let developers become lazy, push them to do something, and if they can't handle the property take it away and give it to someone else. Giving the public a plan as well as developers can provide a vision, and idea of what things can be like, and promote more growth at a faster rate. The point is be simple & straight forward!

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by newflyer

Didn't the plan call for a parkade with retail on the main level?

I am all for retaining the quality heritage buildings, but there are some buildings which may be beyond viability in the Winnipeg real estate market. The city needs a mechanism for those exceptions.

I do think there should be a form of a written agreement before a Exchange District property can change hands, which says that building must be maintained to a minimal standard... even if its not in use... with a extensive tax insentive to encourage revitalization.

behind the king building would be all parkade...that plan was just to placate the city....he doesnt mean it.

reiss is not interested in putting a cent into this building...it is not beyond saving...it is just beyond saving for free....there are lots of tax incentives, but you still need to put some of your own money in to get them...he is not interested in that...he wouldnt even pay his engineers and architects who did the study for him unless the city gave him a grant to do it. (which they did).

i guarantee that he will try to get the city to pay for its demolition too if it comes to that, claiming that it is a public safety concern.

i agree with you.,..there are exchange district guidelines, but they need teeth so that anyone buying a property there knows what is expected of them.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by trueviking

i agree with you.,..there are exchange district guidelines, but they need teeth so that anyone buying a property there knows what is expected of them.

Presumably he bought the property before there were any such guidelines, so this really amounts to a form of expropriation. That can't really be denied. I think there's a limit to how far this can be pushed -- it is his building -- but I don't think we're quite there yet. Even the facade would be fine as far as I'm concerned -- if they want to put a parking garage (not a lot) behind it then I'm pretty much fine with that. Parking is key to reviving downtown and garages can make it possible to replace weedy parking lots.

[trueviking]

parking is the key to reviving downtown?...how much more parking can we have?....its a 50/50 split as it is.

he doesnt even want to save the facades....he wants it gone...and he wants a surface lot....the parkade was just to try to get money out of the city.

when he bought it has no bearing...the building was listed before he bought it....i wish the city would expropriate it.

i know everyone thinks commerce trumps all and that if someone owns something they should be able to do whatever they want with it, but no city operates that way....the city should either take away the property, jack up the taxes or give him a timeline for development.....most cities have planning committees that do such things...we run and hide under the fear that we will 'drive away business' instead of doing what is right for the city in the long term.

[Pootkao]

POOT'S EMAIL TO TOM BRODBECK ON THE MATTER:

Hi Tom

I just wanted to take a moment to write you in regards to your
editorial on the Ryan Block building in The Exchange.

As a pre-amble, I read your editorials farely regularly. Sometimes I
find myself agreeing with you -- mostly on business development
matters. And sometimes I feel that you tend to oversimplify complex
social issues and contribute to the 'fearmongering' approach that your
paper's headlines perpetuate. Ultimately though, I do appreciate a
writer who is willing to speak their mind boldly, whether or not I
agree with them, and so I must give you kudos for that.

Now on to the matter at hand -- historical preservation, specifically
in regards to the Ryan Block.

I will agree completely that the city has a long history of impeding
growth and development for what has often been some very fickle
reasons. That said, both Murray and Katz' regimes at city hall have
been quite pro-development, and both mayors have worked to remove many
beaurocratic policy, and to some extent taxation, roadblocks to
development in this town.

The preservation of our historic buildings, though, has become a bit
of a no-brainer. They are one of the few natural resources left in
this city, and offer us the opportunity (if we are wise and
forward-thinking enough to carry it out) to build a visually
interesting, sidewalk-traffic improving, tourist-friendly and
neighbourhood-growing downtown. Parking lots do not a vibrant urban
neighbourhood make (the St.Mary/York strip of downtown being a prime
example), which is why the city was correct to impose demolition
restrictions on the 1 step forward/2 steps back plan for the St.
Charles Hotel last year.

The Ryan Block is a similar case-study. The Reiss family owners have
held that building for 20 years. They very consciously let the
building fall into complete disrepair, an act of demolition by
neglect, and have made several attempts do demolish in the past,
specifically for the development of a parkade. They have also spurned
purchase offers for the Ryan Block as there has been plenty of
interest in the building. To be blunt, they are commercial slum
landlords.

As the Exchange has taken off, the Ryan Block and the parking lot
between it and the Reiss building have become increasingly valuable.
They are indeed prime property for a forward-thinking, creative
addition to the urban fabric of the Exchange -- whether it be housing,
retail, office or otherwise. But the Reiss businessmen have no
interests in doing anything that will actually benefit or better the
Exchange District.

What the Exchange DOES NOT NEED in such a prominent location is a
parkade. And that is what the Reiss family via Bedford Investments
has had in mind for that location for years. I fully support new
developments, but I do not support developments that further hinder
the urban experience of this already fractured city. We are at a
turning point in our city's history where we must decide exactly what
kind of city we want to live in. Yes, parkade's have their place --
but that place is removed from the foot traffic and retail experience
that the Exchange is developing. Perhaps on the vacant lots along
Hargrave.

Now, if Bedford/Reiss propose a well-designed, urban-sensitive project
incorporating uses that IMPROVE the Exchange, then I will gladly give
them my full support. But they've had 20 years to do so, and instead
chosen neglect instead of investment. That does not move our city
forward and does not foster a relationship of respect with the
community, nor my trust.

The city's decision to require that the two street-facing facades be
preserved, at minimum, is both an unrequired olive branch and a sound
urban-planning decision while acknowledging that the complete rehab
costs for the building make it very difficult to redevelop. Facades
of similar buildings get preserved all the time in much more
forward-thinking and urban-sensitive cities such as San Francisco,
Boston, New York, Montreal and well, any European city. And the
Exchange is our ticket to be able to eventually build a neighbourhood
that can offer a similar vibe, therefore due diligence and every
effort must be made to ensure that the neighbourhood grows not just
for growth's sake alone -- but in a manner that capitalizes on and
enhances this city's ticket out of disrepair.

Thanks for taking the time to read this.
Keep well.

Michael D. Petkau

[Pootkao]

TOM'S RESPONSE:

The owners bought the building before it was designated a heritage
building.

Is it fair, after they made a business decision to purchase the
asset, to impose that designation on their private property with no
regard to the financial responsibilities that comes with that
designation?

And then to demand that the owners maintain the building as a
heritage site and pay to keep its facade, without any financial
support from the public purse?

The owners have twice tried to delist the property from heritage
designation to develop the site, and the city has always refused,
never once offering ideas, support or financial assistance to
maintain the building as a heritage site.

And then the owner is painted as the villain - which is typical of
Winnipeg's anti-business culture.

Tom

[Pootkao]

POOT'S RESPONSE TO HIS RESPONSE:

Every building owner in the Exchange and various other places throughout the city had a heritage designation imposed upon them at one point. Why should they be excluded or treated differently?

Obviously, as a pure real estate business decision, it doesn't make one's life any easier. But how many buildings would we have lost, and would we continue to lose, if those restrictions WEREN'T imposed?

If heritage designations didn't exist, people could tear down whatever they wanted whenever they wanted. And that would have left us with much less of an urban resource from which to build.

There are, and have been, numerous city tax grants encouraging maintenance and redevelopment of buildings throughout the Exchange, often through CentreVenture. It has been their choice not to take the city up on those offers.

If their proposal was for something that benefitted the city, they would hardly be painted at villains -- instead they would be hailed as contributors to downtown revitalization. Redevelopment itself isn't my issue, its the TYPE of development.

Thanks for your response!
Michael

[1ajs]

o god this tom guy is clueless

[flatlander]

the public purse offered reiss $750k about ten years ago and he turned it down. that was quite generous i would say.

btw the parkade is the better option - his preferred option is a surface lot.

[m0nkyman]

It's heritage. Any city in Canada would tell the developer to take a flying fuck at a chainsaw. Even Edmonton. Expropriate, and send a message to your developers, Winnipeg is open for business, not blackmail. I guaran-fucking-tee that if that property is put on the market for a reasonable amount, some developer will find a way of saving it, and making money doing it. Especially if the city gives some form of tax holiday to help fix it up.

Either that or jack up the tax rate on parking lots to make tearing it down for a parking lot a really bad idea. Either way....

[trueviking]

good to hear from you poot....

the ryan block was listed in 1991....i thought that was the year reiss bought it, but ed bonehead claims it was the late '80s...either way he has had 26 years to do something with the building after it was listed....to say that it was imposed on him is ridiculous...exchange district buildings were being listed in 1977....i am sure it wasnt a surprise as the building was almost 100 years old when he bought it....if it was that unjust why didnt he get rid of it 20 years ago?

http://www.winnipeg.ca/ppd/historic/...onservlist.stm

this was from the free press:

Government agencies have offered Bedford Investments money before. In 1990, the Winnipeg Core Area Initiative offered the property owner a $750,000 grant to redevelop the building and an adjacent lot. But no proposal was ever made and the cash was transferred to other programs, according to city documents. A fire in 1991 ravaged the building's third and fourth floors, but the structure was still considered sound by engineers in 2002


the building has an interesting history:

http://www.winnipeg.ca/ppd/historic/...20104-long.pdf