Future Winnipeg High-Rise Projects

[Ando]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

That common sense is all lost on a bunch of the quasi urbanist crowd in here, now with bike lanes hacked in all over the Exchange which makes the parking situation even worse let’s see how long before retail in the Exchange lasts!

Thanks, Grandpa Troll.

[roccerfeller]

Originally Posted by EspionNoir

Why aren't there new projects and opportunities?

Winnipeg, the city itself, is only around 780k (not CMA but the CoW tax paying population), and it's important to keep things in perspective. I think because Winnipeggers see cities that were once similar sizes (and still are, macroscopically speaking similar sizes) push forward with these big projects, there is a sense of "why isn't anything happening here"


Edmonton wasn't getting any condo towers when it's urban population was around this size 11-12 years ago (and that was in a booming oil market growing at a pace Winnipeg won't see), but neither was say Ottawa which is more linear in growth like Winnipeg and also a similar urban population.

All things considered where Winnipeg is at right now, things are moving forward at a steady rate and there's a constant stream of projects. We'll see more residential towers once it comfortably breaks that 850k mark, as that seems to be an artificial number for a critical mass where condo projects become more feasible by sheer nature of growth %'s playing to your favour

by then, 300 main will be up and so will TNS towers 1-4, and who knows what else in the pipeline U/C or proposed.

[optimusREIM]

I think that those projects will also help establish a critical mass of population downtown which should make the area more desirable to live in. Higher demand will eventually push further development. It would be really amazing though if some big company were to decide to locate a hq here.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM;8508190[B

]I think that those projects will also help establish a critical mass of population [/B]downtown which should make the area more desirable to live in. Higher demand will eventually push further development. It would be really amazing though if some big company were to decide to locate a hq here.

Totally the key, once critical mass is achieved then talk about opening P & M to ped. traffic and more dedicated bike lanes!

Gramps Skylar

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Seems like Harvard came into Winnipeg with little experience of the local market. They want to demo the heritage building that is the Palimino. Want more surface parking downtown. I wonder what else they are thinking.

They don't want more surface parking, they want to develop the Pal site.

They somehow thought they could just "aw c'mon you guyyys" the city into letting them demo a significant heritage building.

Originally Posted by Andy6

The office market has experienced structural changes, though. There is a lot of outsourcing of functions and in it is common for tenants to be reducing their Class A space needs as a result, even though the businesses are doing well and growing as far as their core functions are concerned. There is also a certain inelasticity in the market to consider - just because the population of Winnipeg grows by 50%, it doesn't mean that there are suddenly 50% more banks, national accounting firms and law firms that drive big office projects. The relationship between population and office tower demand is probably pretty weak - e.g. compare the office space in Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa - three cities that are roughly the same size.

Despite the modern efficiencies of business, winnipeg's central location and decent talent pool makes it a great location in theory. If we had 100k more people, obviously with some degree of focus on downtown, corporations would perhaps seek more affordable opportunities here.

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I think that those projects will also help establish a critical mass of population downtown which should make the area more desirable to live in. Higher demand will eventually push further development. It would be really amazing though if some big company were to decide to locate a hq here.

This is basically it... we don't need to overthink it.

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Totally the key, once critical mass is achieved then talk about opening P & M to ped. traffic and more dedicated bike lanes!

Gramps Skylar

This is completely backwards. You make it desirable for them to come there, not promise to do it after they get there.

You don't go to the pond and tell the ducks "I swear, my mom is bringing some bread".

You bring the ducks some bread.

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by Ando

Thanks, Grandpa Troll.

Hee hee. Good one. If I ever accidentally glance at one of his insipid rants again i'll think of this.

[Biff]

Just a hypothetical question here....

Would you approve the demolition of the Palamino Building to accommodate and 3 to 4 storey and podium and tower complex from 201 Portage north to the corner of Main and McDermot?

In this scenario, the plans are submitted and funding is secured based on the demolition of this one historic building.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Biff

Just a hypothetical question here....

Would you approve the demolition of the Palamino Building to accommodate and 3 to 4 storey and podium and tower complex from 201 Portage north to the corner of Main and McDermot?

In this scenario, the plans are submitted and funding is secured based on the demolition of this one historic building.

Yes, but provided that the development is significant enough to justify demolition (i.e., has to be more than just a 3 or 4 storey building), and more importantly, that a substantial amount is placed in escrow. No construction substantially completed in three years = you lose your $10 million or however much.

I do like that building, but in many respects the damage was done decades ago when the City let the McIntyre Building and the bank at McDermot and Main come down. It seems silly to hold up development of such a prominent and important block over the one lonely heritage building remaining. The fact that it has been a weekends-only nightclub for the last 20 years tells you that there isn't exactly overwhelming demand for a building of that type.

[Winnipegger]

Originally Posted by Biff

Just a hypothetical question here....

Would you approve the demolition of the Palamino Building to accommodate and 3 to 4 storey and podium and tower complex from 201 Portage north to the corner of Main and McDermot?

In this scenario, the plans are submitted and funding is secured based on the demolition of this one historic building.

Overwhelmingly yes. And not just because "shiny new towers" are cool, but because from the city's perspective, the towers at portage and main are among the most efficient uses of land from a property tax perspective, and adding to that cluster is one of the most sustainable and efficient ways to marginally increase tax revenue to the City.

For example, currently the surface parking lot at 416 main pays around $16,000 per year in property tax and the Palomino club pays $7,300 in property tax. Conversely, the nearby 201 Portage pays $932,000 in property tax per year. To put it in perspective, 201 Portage pays 40 times more property tax annually than the neighboring surface parking lot and the Palaomino building. Even replacing those two lots with something half as efficient as 201 Portage would not only be an improvement from an urban fabric perspective, but also from a tax-payer perspective.

The city should be doing anything it can (short of excessive subsidies) to encourage the redevelopment of inefficient properties downtown. Heritage buildings are great, but they don't generate a lot of revenue and we have an excess of them already. And assuming that the demand for heritage buildings remains unchanged, removing some of them will encourage existing owners of heritage buildings to develop them, take better care of them, and make them more attractive as the stock of them decreases. It would be a win-win-win, honestly.

[wardlow]

Originally Posted by Biff

Just a hypothetical question here....

Would you approve the demolition of the Palamino Building to accommodate and 3 to 4 storey and podium and tower complex from 201 Portage north to the corner of Main and McDermot?

In this scenario, the plans are submitted and funding is secured based on the demolition of this one historic building.

Yes, with no front approaches/driveways off of Main, and really good sidewalk-oriented design.

[Tacheguy]

I wouldn’t. I think the building helps announce the presence of the exchange district, enticing people to explore beyond.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by Biff

Just a hypothetical question here....

Would you approve the demolition of the Palamino Building to accommodate and 3 to 4 storey and podium and tower complex from 201 Portage north to the corner of Main and McDermot?

In this scenario, the plans are submitted and funding is secured based on the demolition of this one historic building.

Hypothetical like a fox.



Hypothetically if part of it is a guarantee to open Main & Portage I'm down.

[esquire]

I'm somewhat pragmatic when it comes to heritage buildings. Personally for me the questions to be asked when considering their fate is:

a) is the building historically important either on its own (historically/architecturally) or as part of a larger group (Exchange District, Old St. Boniface)?
b) is there demand for that type of building? can the building be repurposed in a way that is economically viable?
c) is it certain that the site can be redeveloped with a new building that improves on the existing one, mainly in terms of size but also quality of design, street interaction, etc.

For something like the Legislature, it is impossible to imagine a scenario where all three of those factors would point to anything other than preservation. There is practically speaking no provincial government building, corporate office tower, hotel, condo, casino, arena, library, art gallery, etc. that could justify demolition of the legislature.

However, for the NewMac/Bank of British North America Building, it's less of a slam dunk.

It's possible for buildings to move from one end of the spectrum to another as well. 15 years ago I would have said that The Bay was basically a sacred cow that can't be touched. But as numerous attempts at revitalizing the building have all failed, I'm starting to think that there might not be an economically viable plan for redevelopment... in that case, maybe a redevelopment proposal would be worth considering.

[Tacheguy]

I don’t want Winnipeg to become Calgary’s poor cousin by letting new developments nibble away at the only asset we have making us unique. I would err on the side of preservation. There is lots of land for development.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Tacheguy

I don’t want Winnipeg to become Calgary’s poor cousin by letting new developments nibble away at the only asset we have making us unique. I would err on the side of preservation. There is lots of land for development.

We've arguably done a really good job when it comes to heritage preservation. We didn't have that many towers built through the 00s when other Canadian cities were starting to get busy on that front, but a lot of heritage buildings were redeveloped during that timeframe. Probably a few office towers and apartment towers worth of space, easily.

Now that the low hanging heritage building fruit has been picked, we're at a point where it's mainly the more intractable projects that are left. I'm OK with the idea that not all of them will be feasible redevelopment projects. You take buildings like the Peck Building or Masonic Temple, they are ideal candidates for adaptive reuse owing to their location, size, scale, configuration. Others like the Pantages which has a very specific purpose, or the HBC store which is simply gigantic, are much tougher cases.

[Tacheguy]

Originally Posted by esquire

We've arguably done a really good job when it comes to heritage preservation. We didn't have that many towers built through the 00s when other Canadian cities were starting to get busy on that front, but a lot of heritage buildings were redeveloped during that timeframe. Probably a few office towers and apartment towers worth of space, easily.

Now that the low hanging heritage building fruit has been picked, we're at a point where it's mainly the more intractable projects that are left. I'm OK with the idea that not all of them will be feasible redevelopment projects. You take buildings like the Peck Building or Masonic Temple, they are ideal candidates for adaptive reuse owing to their location, size, scale, configuration. Others like the Pantages which has a very specific purpose, or the HBC store which is simply gigantic, are much tougher cases.

I agree with you that some of these are very tough in terms of developing a business case for renewal. My preference in those cases would be to socialize the asset (at least in the short to medium term) and dedicate it towards some public purpose.

[optimusREIM]

^ speaking of the peck building, I've heard that the scientologists have sent out requests for quotes on repurposing the building. Not sure if that's been talked about here but it looks like that's going forward 10 years later than expected.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Tacheguy

I agree with you that some of these are very tough in terms of developing a business case for renewal. My preference in those cases would be to socialize the asset (at least in the short to medium term) and dedicate it towards some public purpose.

Yes, where it's possible that is certainly a good idea. Certainly a lot of governmental and government-supported functions are located inside heritage buildings.

[Kris22]

Originally Posted by Biff

Just a hypothetical question here....

Would you approve the demolition of the Palamino Building to accommodate and 3 to 4 storey and podium and tower complex from 201 Portage north to the corner of Main and McDermot?

In this scenario, the plans are submitted and funding is secured based on the demolition of this one historic building.

My answer is absolutely not. There are other large empty swaths of land downtown that can be developed with tall towers. Demolishing such a high-profile heritage building would illustrate how weak our principles are as far as preservation goes. Basically big developers with big wallets get what they want, even though they knowingly bought a lot with a famous old bank directly in the middle of it.

Not to mention it is also the ONLY heritage building left standing on that entire block between portage and mc Dermot, which very much serves an an entrance to our historic district when driving north on main.

Even though rejecting this could mean that gravel lot stays there for decades longer, guess what? When our downtown finally starts running out of easier surface lots to develop, someone will be willing to step in and build around this building. Or simply build smaller buildings on either side of it. Let's not get desperate here. I swear some of you are forgetting just how special our exchange district is. Go take a walk around it if you haven't lately! Every building counts.

[DancingDuck]

Originally Posted by Biff

Just a hypothetical question here....

Would you approve the demolition of the Palamino Building to accommodate and 3 to 4 storey and podium and tower complex from 201 Portage north to the corner of Main and McDermot?

In this scenario, the plans are submitted and funding is secured based on the demolition of this one historic building.

Like others said, depending on the scale of development, yes...but very warily.

In a case like this, would it be possible to preserve the facade? Not to incorporate it this hypothetical project but to maybe use some where else? Use it as the facade if a building gets built on an empty lot somewhere else in the exchange. In this was it would preserve part of the old building and add continuity to the street scape.... Would obviously be expensive.