Winnipeg | 300 Main St.- Phase II / 360 Main St. | ~142M | 465 Ft | 42F | U/C

[kalabaw]

i like it. it's dark and different. although i have to agree 215 garry is too dark, it's scary. they should re-clad the small building on the corner (entrance to the underground) so it does not look too out of place.

and while on the subject of recladding, how about richardson having something like this.

[esquire]

I know it's dark, but I like it... and it looks good given that it's all black. As for 360 Main, everyone knows black and blue don't look great together.


Source: amateurmusicians.net

I remember someone once said that the old logo on it (which you can see above) combined with its black, triangular appearance made it look like some kind of evil lair of a movie villain.

[Roger Strong]

Originally Posted by esquire

As for 360 Main, everyone knows black and blue don't look great together.

White and blue on the other hand looks great. Like the bathroom tile cladding at 1790 Portage.

No movie villains will take up residence, and it's really easy to clean!

Originally Posted by kalabaw

and while on the subject of recladding, how about richardson having something like this.

1790 Portage leads the way.

[Wolf13]

ehhh, I like it dark. I'm only arguing a case for apologetics here, but I like that darker look,

[HomeInMyShoes]

I do too. Every city needs a super-villain lair or two.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by esquire

I know it's dark, but I like it... and it looks good given that it's all black. As for 360 Main, everyone knows black and blue don't look great together.


Source: amateurmusicians.net

I remember someone once said that the old logo on it (which you can see above) combined with its black, triangular appearance made it look like some kind of evil lair of a movie villain.

That was me LOL. I loved the Credit Union logo with the black walls and odd shape – thought it'd be a perfect HQ for Dr. Evil.

When Ricoh took over they put their sign at the corner and have not fixed any of the damage/holes left by removing the CU logo, and it looks brutal.

[LilZebra]

Originally Posted by esquire

Source: amateurmusicians.net

I remember someone once said that the old logo on it (which you can see above) combined with its black, triangular appearance made it look like some kind of evil lair of a movie villain.

According to one political party, all banks are EVIL.

[DowntownBooster]

Originally Posted by kalabaw

i like it. it's dark and different. although i have to agree 215 garry is too dark, it's scary. they should re-clad the small building on the corner (entrance to the underground) so it does not look too out of place.

and while on the subject of recladding, how about richardson having something like this.

I wouldn't alter the Richardson Building as it looks rather stately as it is. Some buildings look fine without a glass skin and that's one of them. New York's Empire State Building may be older and not as ritzy looking as many of the new towers there but it wouldn't be right to alter it and neither would it be right to change Winnipeg's Richardson Building.

[Urban recluse]

The Richardson is dingy, I would be happy to see new skin. Image is everything, and in a city with no new skyscrapers adorning the skyline, it’s tallest towers need to shine.

[wags_in_the_peg]

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

The Richardson is dingy, I would be happy to see new skin. Image is everything, and in a city with no new skyscrapers adorning the skyline, it’s tallest towers need to shine.

kudo's to the Richardsons for making their "plaza" area nice with some sculptures & lighting

[Biff]

I wouldn't change the Richardson either. It is our first significant skyscraper (term used loosely for Winnipeg) and has aged rather well in my opinion. The fact that 360 Main has been redone has done a lot for sprucing up the corner.

[esquire]

Richardson is fine. Towers don't have to be new to be good.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

The Richardson is dingy, I would be happy to see new skin.

It doesn't have a skin presently, all of the concrete on the outer surfaces is structural. Skinning it would look cheesy.

[buzzg]

Eventually the Richardson windows and doors will need to be replaced and that's where they can make some changes. The concrete portion doesn't need to be touched.

[LilZebra]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Eventually the Richardson windows and doors will need to be replaced and that's where they can make some changes. The concrete portion doesn't need to be touched.

The problem with the Richardson IS the concrete.

I'd like to see a "reclad" in another, maybe brighter (white / beige) material, kind of like 201 Portage.

And I'm not being negative or sarcastic... Richardson needs to be brighter, especially passing by on those long Winter nights.

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by LilZebra

The problem with the Richardson IS the concrete.

I'd like to see a "reclad" in another, maybe brighter (white / beige) material, kind of like 201 Portage.

That's a hard pass from me

But in all seriousness, the one change I would love with the Richardson Building is to do something about the metal grating on the first few floors where the windows are on higher floors. I presume these are the mechanical floors? Wonder what could be done.

[Hecate]

The Richardson is a classic. It is simplistic, elegant, and stately in its design. To say it is an eyesore is nonsense. To reclad it in something like the above images would be a crime. The only thing this building desperately needs is better lighting, so it is more prominent at night and maybe a good pressure washing.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by LilZebra

The problem with the Richardson IS the concrete.

I'd like to see a "reclad" in another, maybe brighter (white / beige) material, kind of like 201 Portage.

And I'm not being negative or sarcastic... Richardson needs to be brighter, especially passing by on those long Winter nights.

Nah, I think the continual vertical columns are fantastic – it's the dark, dirty, old glass and trim that makes it look bad. Put in new, shiny glass, fix up the main floor and it would look fantastic. And stop being cheap and continue that lighting up the whole way, sans giant sconces.

Originally Posted by Hecate

The Richardson is a classic. It is simplistic, elegant, and stately in its design. To say it is an eyesore is nonsense. To reclad it in something like the above images would be a crime. The only thing this building desperately needs is better lighting, so it is more prominent at night and maybe a good pressure washing.

Yeah, I just noticed last week that the LED lighting is only on 3 sides. If they lit up the whole building (without putting fixtures all the way up), it'd look great. It's not cheap, but possible. Harewood House at River/Wellington recently put up amazing laser-like coloured lighting that highlights the vertical lines of the building from top to bottom, only having fixtures at the top and bottom.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by Biff

I wouldn't change the Richardson either. It is our first significant skyscraper (term used loosely for Winnipeg) and has aged rather well in my opinion. The fact that 360 Main has been redone has done a lot for sprucing up the corner.

It is our first skyscraper, but it isn't exactly heritage worthy, in my opinion.

Nothing against the Richardsons or any wealthy Manitobans, but I don't know why they're worshipped. Can't we just start making fun of them like the Aspers?

Originally Posted by LilZebra

The problem with the Richardson IS the concrete.

And I'm not being negative or sarcastic... Richardson needs to be brighter, especially passing by on those long Winter nights.

Conrete is the problem. 220 Portage had a more elaborate redesign and re-skinning planned, but high costs due to concrete killed that plan.

And I agree on the darkness. I do however find it funny that people call 360 too dark (though I can understand THAT part) but ignore how dark and dreary (due to the matted colour) richardson is.

Originally Posted by Hecate

The Richardson is a classic. It is simplistic, elegant, and stately in its design. To say it is an eyesore is nonsense. To reclad it in something like the above images would be a crime. The only thing this building desperately needs is better lighting, so it is more prominent at night and maybe a good pressure washing.

It's a carbon copy of the CBS building. Not sure if that's super classic.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

It's a carbon copy of the CBS building. Not sure if that's super classic.

Ha. I remember stumbling upon the CBS Building while in NYC (I recall seeing it from MoMA) and being stunned by the resemblance to the Richardson.