Historical Winnipeg discussion - Page 107

BigG · #**2121** Posted **May 12, 2017, 7:30 PM**

It's amazing what treasures can be found underneath ugly stucco.

Authentic_City · #**2122** Posted **May 19, 2017, 5:43 PM**

I was doing some unrelated research and came across this ad in the Winnipeg Free Press, Oct. 20, 1973. "Have you heard about condominiums?" Neat.

Urban recluse · #**2123** Posted **May 30, 2017, 2:18 AM**

I wish these buildings were still standing, redeveloped of course...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/951304...-U2qd4c-U2qcuX

Andy6 · #**2124** Posted **May 30, 2017, 2:25 AM**

I bought a typewriter in that pawnshop once.

Urban recluse · #**2125** Posted **May 30, 2017, 2:27 AM**

Cool. I love all the signage too.

bryanscott · #**2126** Posted **May 30, 2017, 7:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

Cool. I love all the signage too.

The signage is incredible. All of it.

Are there any historians out there that can tell me why and when businesses stopped investing in their signage?

I have a few theories swirling around in my head, some of which I might have read along the way, others which I might have completely made up.

1. Modern city planning (1960s) frowned upon this kind of signage, which was seen as unnecessary visual clutter.

2. Home computers and desktop publishing "empowered" business owners to "design" their own signage (or hire their 12-year old nephews). I guess this would have been early- to mid-eighties.

3. The internet redirected where business owners spent their money. Pre-internet promotional dollars were spent on signage, whereas nowadays they're spent on websites.

Does any of this add up? All I know for sure is that modern-day signage pales in comparison to the signage of yesterday. We've lost so much—not just the pure-eye candy, but the way this signage engages pedestrians and enriches the walkability of commercial blocks.

Urban recluse · #**2127** Posted **May 30, 2017, 8:25 PM**

I am guessing it had to do with it becoming out of style, perhaps also as business folded, they vanished.

esquire · #**2128** Posted **May 30, 2017, 8:26 PM**

If I had to guess, I'd say it's 1. The amount and type of signage allowed under zoning laws is strictly controlled.

I think the cost of skilled labour also has something to do with it... neon signs or other such custom signs are expensive compared to just getting your business name screen printed onto the typical backlit fascia sign you often see.

Urban recluse · #**2129** Posted **May 30, 2017, 8:36 PM**

I can appreciate the cost of replacing signage based on tenants, but a resurgence of neon signs with the building name on it would be amazing.

If Cityplace is not going to restore the mezzanine windows, putting store signage on those panels would be cool.

bryanscott · #**2130** Posted **May 30, 2017, 8:41 PM**

I'm of the opinion that things like the below should be illegal.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.89791...!6m1!1e1?hl=en

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.87904...!6m1!1e1?hl=en

Blank walls in heavy foot traffic areas aren't good for anybody.

Urban recluse · #**2131** Posted **May 30, 2017, 8:46 PM**

Totally agree Bryan. 474 Main needs to go, and be replaced.

The back side of the Kensington Building makes me cringe:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.89437...8i6656!6m1!1e1

esquire · #**2132** Posted **May 30, 2017, 8:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

Totally agree Bryan.

The back side of the Kensington Building makes me cringe:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.89437...8i6656!6m1!1e1

No way, that back side was an acknowledgment that a large building would one day be built on the adjacent site. Unfortunately that didn't happen. Totally different scenario from blank walls next to the sidewalk.

Having tall buildings cheek by jowl would be the ideal, not something to be avoided.

Urban recluse · #**2133** Posted **May 30, 2017, 8:51 PM**

Fine, set up a projector on the Avenue Building and fucking show films on that wall LOL.

esquire · #**2134** Posted **May 30, 2017, 8:58 PM**

^ It's not a huge deal, it's not an eyesore that needs to be beautified with a mural or some other godawful thing. No one seems to mind the walls on the Boyd Building, the Sterling, the Confederation, etc.

In my view, buildings like that designed to accommodate substantial neighbours are much more ideal than standalone buildings that cannot have buildings next to them like 330 St. Mary, 444 St. Mary, most of the P&M towers, etc.

Urban recluse · #**2135** Posted **May 30, 2017, 9:09 PM**

They all have windows breaking up the blank walls. The Kensington is awful, a massive wall of cement. Had the Hemple Building been topped with a sleek tower...

esquire · #**2136** Posted **May 30, 2017, 9:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

They all have windows breaking up the blank walls. The Kensington is awful, a massive wall of cement. Had the Hemple Building been topped with a sleek tower...

It's nice that the Avenue and Hample Buildings were saved and renovated, but I think when the Kensington was built in the 70s, it was expected that they'd be demolished with a new building rising between it and the Paris Building. Who knows, it could still happen some day although probably not for at least a few decades.

Anyway, the point is this... for all the crap that the Kensington Building takes it's far from the only building of its kind with a blank wall designed to accommodate neighbours. This is proper urban design IMO. The issue is not the blank wall, it's really a matter of the anticipated adjacent building not having been built yet.

Besides, no one ever seems to mind all the other buildings that are built the same way...

Urban recluse · #**2137** Posted **May 30, 2017, 9:21 PM**

Well, in defence of the Lindsay Building, it did have a fire escape where that nasty stripe in the centre is, as well as painted signage (ghost signs). Perhaps the Curry building's addition would have concealed the Lindsay Building's back side.

bryanscott · #**2138** Posted **May 30, 2017, 9:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

Totally agree Bryan. 474 Main needs to go, and be replaced.

The back side of the Kensington Building makes me cringe:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.89437...8i6656!6m1!1e1

I don't necessarily think 474 Main needs to go (I like vintage stores—especially in the Exchange).

But for the love of god, put up a decent sign. Take one of the signs from the old Main Street photo above, slap in on 474 Main, and all of a sudden it looks pretty good.

Even if they hired a kid from RRC Graphic Design and bought a bucket of paint it could look amazing.

esquire · #**2139** Posted **May 30, 2017, 9:26 PM**

^ Good point... as you note, it would take so little to improve that storefront and make it look less abandoned. I don't get why the owner won't do it... why wouldn't you put your business name on that large beige void over the door? It's puzzling.

Urban recluse · #**2140** Posted **May 30, 2017, 9:34 PM**

It could be charming painted, and awnings added.