Winnipeg Deconstruction

[Greco Roman]

I wish I could jump into that picture and tours the neighbourhoods that are considered ghettos in today's time. Then I would make a big hollabalu to anyone who would hear me about what the city will become if it doesnt get its shit together. If I could, I would.............

Anyone got a time machine?

[flatlander]

Originally Posted by drew

What are all those industrial type buildings along Assiniboine Ave at Main Street? There's nothing there today...

The old Winnipeg Transit terminal was at Main/Assiniboine, non? Or was it behind the hotel fort garry where Fort Garry Place is now?

Not to beat a dead horse, but no city has ever revitalized its downtown through encouraging parking.

And the reason why North Portage makes so much money on parking is because there were huge public subsidies for the construction of it in the first place. If they were still paying it off things would be much different.

[rgalston]

Those were the transit garages at Main and Assiniboine.

And I don't know when that picture was taken, but I'd agree with Andy that it was the late '50s, or maybe early '60s. You can see that everything west of Smith, and south of Graham--even Broadway--was still residential. And also that the demolition crews had yet to start gobbling up the edges of the then-expansive warehouse district.

[rgalston]

Originally Posted by flatlander

Not to beat a dead horse, but no city has ever revitalized its downtown through encouraging parking.

*huff puff* What are you talking about?!? *mouth-breathing* You've obviously never 'bin to Galveston Texas...

[1ajs]

bus depo and old street car repair shop posibly...

i think that photo is either 1954 or 1957

[biguc]

Originally Posted by newflyer

I dislike the amount of surface lots in the downtown as much as anyone here, but that building is an eyesore. It needs to be torn down, as some buildings will need to be in order to improve the overall presence of the whole area. You can't keep the dives standing in the name of conservation and still say you care about downtown. The focus must be instead on finding developers to build on these lots.

As within the laws of economics; supply will follow demand. Lets create the conditions which will draw more interest in living and locating businesses (both retail and commercial) downtown. As more demand is created there will be more interest in building on these lots.

But what about when demand follows supply?


Say's law is given less credit than it deserves these days. While clearly not a law, there is something to it. It's pretty obvious that increasing the supply of parking has only ever lead to increased demand for parking. It's a vicious cycle of suck.

And that building isn't too bad, that picture is of the ass end of the building. I guess it's no Vida Guerra, but I'm not offended by its appearance.

Also, parking lots are hard to get rid of, thanks to their extreme profitability.

This picture of j.online's is exactly what I was talking about before.
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/4741/parkingis8.jpg

You can't tell me the developer actually sees that much value in making this lot. I'm pretty sure if we were to work some kind of Coasian negotiation, the developer would fold and develop the property without the extra parking. The developer wants to tear the building down in order to make x amount of money, the city wants to stop the buildings from being torn down because that would suck. If the amount the developer stands to lose from not tearing down the buildings is less than it's worth to the city to keep them, the city can pay him off. If it's actually worth more to him than the city, he can tear his building down if he pays the city. The thing is, it's probably worth all of five bucks to the developer to lose these buildings, so he can fuck off.



rgalston's last post really illustrates Diner's fallacy. Maybe if Winnipeg were on the beach on the edge of a metropolis of millions of car driving Texans, like Galveston is, his idea would work. Joe Diner is stupid.

[Only The Lonely..]

Originally Posted by Albertaboy

I wish I could jump into that picture and tours the neighbourhoods that are considered ghettos in today's time. Then I would make a big hollabalu to anyone who would hear me about what the city will become if it doesnt get its shit together. If I could, I would.............

Anyone got a time machine?

You can't just mess around with the temporal space time continuum like that.

Didn't you see any of the Back to the Futures or at least the two Star Trek films on the subject?

[rgalston]

Originally Posted by newflyer

It needs to be torn down, as some buildings will need to be in order to improve the overall presence of the whole area. You can't keep the dives standing in the name of conservation and still say you care about downtown.

And the St. Charles was not a dive?

If the clear-away-the-eyesores mentality was allowed to freely persist throughout the recent decades, there would be nothing left of the Exchange District but the Bank of Commerce and the Electric Railway Chambers

Lets create the conditions which will draw more interest in living and locating businesses (both retail and commercial) downtown. As more demand is created there will be more interest in building on these lots.

Or, opening up shop in existing commercial buildings. Or replacing old commercial buildings with new ones, rather than parking lots.

[Archiseek]

Century-old Exchange building facade may be saved
Last Updated: Thursday, December 21, 2006 | 12:25 PM CT
CBC News
The oldest building in Winnipeg's Exchange District may be salvaged after all — the face of it, anyway.

After touring the property at 44 Albert St. on Wednesday, owner Ken Zaifman said he didn't find anything of historic value inside the house, built in 1878, but would be willing to consider saving the facade.

Part of the building at 44 Albert St. was built in 1878. A storefront was added in the mid-1920s.
(CBC) "I'm certainly prepared to allow whatever organization, if they want, to take the exterior brickwork because they think there's some historical aspect to that," said Zaifman, who wants to tear down the building to make way for an outdoor patio and parking lot for his nearby St. Charles Hotel.

"Re-create it, put it someplace. Even if we can save the facade in our redevelopment plan, the facade of the building, I'm even prepared to look at that if it's practical."

Heritage Winnipeg executive director Cindy Tugwell, who toured the house with Zaifman said she was disappointed that much of the interior had been remodelled over the years, decreasing its historical value. But, she added, she believes the outside is still significant.

Business owner Ken Zaifman and Cindy Tugwell of Heritage Winnipeg toured 44 Albert St. on Wednesday.
(CBC) "This is the oldest residential building in the downtown," she said.

Continue Article

"It dates back to around the time that the city was incorporated, and what that signifies to our history as Winnipeggers is also equally as important, although that's intangible."

Tugwell said she plans to meet with other heritage groups to develop a proposal to help Zaifman save the building's historical elements.

The request to destroy the house and adjoining storefront sparked a debate at city hall, with councillors sparring over whether to designate them as historical.

A community committee voted 2-1 on Nov. 21 to deny the building historical status, but the vote has to be ratified by the city's property, planning and development committee on Jan. 9.

The idea of retaining the exterior facade of a historical building was used when Red River College built its downtown campus on Princess Street.

Chris Petty, an architecture instructor at Red River College, said Wednesday that the city has done a lot to preserve its historical buildings, but it cannot keep every building simply because it's old.

"In Winnipeg, we've done a pretty good job of preserving a big chunk of that downtown core. Certainly the Exchange District is a pretty impressive achievement for any city," he said.

[flatlander]

Barf. Facadism is such a cop out.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Archiseek

"Re-create it, put it someplace. Even if we can save the facade in our redevelopment plan, the facade of the building, I'm even prepared to look at that if it's practical."

Somehow I doubt the "practicality" of saving a building facade does not compute with a guy who simply wants to knock down the place for parking.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by drew

Somehow I doubt the "practicality" of saving a building facade does not compute with a guy who simply wants to knock down the place for parking.

Realistically this is a pretty crappy building which may well have virtually no original elements left. I think you have to be reasonable or you'll scare away potential owners, many of whom are taking a risk in the core area when they could easily be investing in power centres in the suburbs instead. Now they're all going to think that they're going to be set up on by extremist preservationists if they propose any changes at all to make their properties viable. Sounds like something could potentially be worked out here -- why don't you guys get to work and suggest something to Mr. Zaifman that would accomplish everyone's goals to the greatest degree possible? Surely the most important goal in this would be to make the St. Charles viable again. If you lose that, then saving the old house isn't much of a victory.

[trueviking]

is he proposing keeping the facade and having it front a surface lot behind?....it isnt about the facade...its about a useful building contributing the street....i really dont care about it's historic value so much...i simply oppose tearing down buildings in the exchange to make way for parking lots...if it was replaced by a new building, i might support its demolition...i certainly dont support propping up a facade to front a parking lot.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Surely the most important goal in this would be to make the St. Charles viable again. If you lose that, then saving the old house isn't much of a victory.

i dont really see how one is linked to the other.....how can the business plan hinge on those 10 parking stalls?...the viability of the st. charles and maintaining the adjacent storefronts seem to be mutually exclusive to me.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Realistically this is a pretty crappy building which may well have virtually no original elements left. I think you have to be reasonable or you'll scare away potential owners, many of whom are taking a risk in the core area when they could easily be investing in power centres in the suburbs instead. .

Read the article below and remind me again who exactly is scaring away potential owners? I think its the current owners of buildings who are sitting on vacant or underused properties to maximise their bucks, and when that isn't an option, they tend not to be the best stewards of building restoration.

Businessman decries loss of aged block
Oldest downtown building doomed?

Mon Dec 18 2006

By Aldo Santin

Developer wants to rip down this building to put in a parking lot.

INTERNET pharmacy pioneer Daren Jorgenson says a developer should not be allowed to demolish the downtown's oldest building for a parking lot for a revamped St. Charles Hotel.
Jorgenson said the city has a responsibility to protect the integrity of the historic Exchange District, adding that knocking down buildings undermines the area.

"You shouldn't rip down a structure in the Exchange District for 10 parking spots," Jorgenson said.

"If the owner doesn't want to maintain it or develop it, then the owner should have the responsibility to sell it to someone who does."

Lawyer Ken Zaifman and his partners want to convert the St. Charles Hotel into a boutique hotel.

Zaifman said his redevelopment proposals call for reorienting the front of the St. Charles from Notre Dame Avenue to Albert Street. He insists he needs to clear the property at 38-44 1/2 Albert Street to accommodate the reorientation, which would include a new entrance, outdoor patio and some additional parking spaces.
But Jorgenson said Zaifman shouldn't be allowed to demolish the Albert Street property.

A civic committee last month turned down a proposal from the historical buildings committee to give the Albert Street property an historic designation, which would have prevented it from being demolished.

Jorgenson made his fortune as one of the country's first Internet pharmacists, with the firm Canadameds.com. The success of that company allowed him to expand his Internet pharmacy business into Alberta.

Expanded

Then he expanded into other fields: He bought several north Main Street properties and opened a series of walk-in clinics.

He bought the Vault Hair Salon, located on Albert Street, three years ago, then bought the building where the salon is located last year.

Jorgenson said he's tried for three years to buy the Albert Street property Zaifman wants to demolish but that the owners, a group of partners headed up by Globe Agencies president Richard Morantz, has refused to discuss it.
"Building owners in the Exchange District have a responsibility to maintain the integrity of the area's heritage designation," Jorgenson said. "They (Morantz and his partners) don't want to develop the building or maintain it."

Morantz said the ownership group believes that its best interests are advanced by holding onto the property.

Morantz wouldn't comment on Jorgenson's suggestion that he and his partners have a responsibility to either develop the Albert Street property or sell it to someone who will.

The Albert Street property, known as the Building Block, is in desperate need of repair. It consists of three buildings: a two-storey brick house that was built in 1877 and two one-storey additions in 1924 that surround the original house. The block is home to a Chinese restaurant and a tailor shop.

Jorgenson said he'd preserve and restore the portion of the block that contains the Chinese restaurant and strip away the other one-storey addition to reveal the original 1877 brick house, which he would convert into a tourist information office.

Zaifman said he doesn't believe it's possible to restore the 1877 house, adding it's been incorporated into the later additions. Zaifman said he thinks the only remaining portion of the house is the roof and peak of the structure.

Lisa Holowchuk, executive director of the Exchange District Business Improvement Zone (BIZ) said her agency doesn't want to see the Albert Street property demolished for a surface parking lot. She said she hopes Zaifman pursues the St. Charles renovation without needing to demolish the Albert Street property.

[Biff]

I'd like to see some actual facts here on what is exactly left of this building. My impression from what i have heard is that there is not much left of any historical significance other than its location and maybe the roofline. I believe most of the walls except for possibly the rear have been removed to incorporate the additions over the years. I don't have any proof to this, just what i have heard. If this is the case, what exactly are we saving. If you peel away the additions and there is nothing there what do you do with it?

I do agree that i am against demolishing it for a parking lot but that is it. If something takes it's place then so be it. I would love to see his plans. Apparently Smith Carter did some concepts for him.

I guess we will see what happens.

[Andy6]

I was just saying that maybe there's a compromise somewhere in which some of the building is saved and a few more parking spots can be squeezed out as well.

[1ajs]

ya we discused that last night at the first meeting

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by rgalston

*huff puff* What are you talking about?!? *mouth-breathing* You've obviously never 'bin to Galveston Texas...

A better way to revitalize a city would be to build residential in place of some of those parking lots, rather than encourage people to drive and park there during the day and abandon it by 6pm.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

A better way to revitalize a city would be to build residential in place of some of those parking lots, rather than encourage people to drive and park there during the day and abandon it by 6pm.

you still need a car even if you live downtown... in order to go shopping....