Misc.
What does the City give to the property owners who do things with their Exchange District properties--even things as simple as keeping water and pigeons out, or spending fire insurance money on repairs? It sends them a tax bill.
Fair enough, but what does the City give for more than 15 years of blatant negligence? It gives them $2.8-million, of course (then wonders why so little developers even bother with the area).
***
The St. John's High School's sports field is 80m x 110m. Here is 80m x 110m imposed on the former Midway Chrysler lot. Clearly, even if Gordon Bell High School secured Borrowman Pl. from the City, or oriented a field north-south, it would be impossible for a Gordon Bell player to corner kick without standing in the middle of either Broadway or Portage Avenue.
But maybe the students of Gordon Bell H.S. having a field large enough for regulation soccer and football is not as much the point as it is giving local activists ostensible "green space," however useless it may be.
***
The funding may not yet be there, but that is not stopping Sport Manitoba from carrying on with plans for Pacific Avenue East, which still very much do not include keeping the Smart Bag building standing.
Fair enough, but what does the City give for more than 15 years of blatant negligence? It gives them $2.8-million, of course (then wonders why so little developers even bother with the area).
***
The St. John's High School's sports field is 80m x 110m. Here is 80m x 110m imposed on the former Midway Chrysler lot. Clearly, even if Gordon Bell High School secured Borrowman Pl. from the City, or oriented a field north-south, it would be impossible for a Gordon Bell player to corner kick without standing in the middle of either Broadway or Portage Avenue.
But maybe the students of Gordon Bell H.S. having a field large enough for regulation soccer and football is not as much the point as it is giving local activists ostensible "green space," however useless it may be.
***
The funding may not yet be there, but that is not stopping Sport Manitoba from carrying on with plans for Pacific Avenue East, which still very much do not include keeping the Smart Bag building standing.
posted by The Rise and Sprawl at
1:36 PM
34 Comments:
Once the Ryan Bldg. goes down, the façade won't be back. You'll see.
About the Midway Chrystler lot....
I've thought about it, and I really don't know what would be worse: A dead green field with a chain link fence around it (if Gordon Bell gets its field), or a big, ugly, cheap building with a sea of surface parking (which will most certainly arise if Canada Post builds).
Both prospective projects symbolize the further erosion of Portage Avenue, and the general lack of urban vision in this city.
City should have expropriated the building and torn it down.
If the building is unstable, document it, save everything you can and inventory the site till a suitable proposal is offered.
It's easy to see why you're a nobody, Mr. Nobody.
2:45 is bang on. There is no chance that the facade is going back up once the building comes down. Mark my words.
We're all nobody's anon, just some of us know it.
Bryan, what would you like the Canada Post building to resemble then? Do you want mixed use apartments atop?
I don't know if CP would allow that, possibly for mail security reasons.
I would think (hope?) that the city has learned from past mistakes and has structured the deal to guarantee that the facades are rebuilt. I imagine that the nature of the heritage grant would insist that all additional funding would be based on the preservation of some heritage.
As for the heritage grants, I would think that it's cheaper to make a deal with the "neglectful" owners than to expropriate and have to look for another developer who would want their own incentives.
You have MUCH too much faith on gov't Mr. Wolfrom.
Regarding the Bedford property:
Architecture is not only skin deep. I am always somewhat mystified people don't understand this. Though it can’t be truly encompassed here, I offer the following: Architecture is not simply outward appearance – buildings are experienced by navigating through them with all your senses - the perception of the body in space as it relates to dimension, scale and light – even olfactory sense. Architecture is not a form of 'vinaigrette' - a dressing for building elevations merely emphasizing proportion, detail or ornament – Vitruvian delight. The 112-year-old King Building does have value – be it historic or otherwise – and these spaces which contribute to places are not limited to the merit of carefully cataloging only their facades.
The proposed 'preservation strategy' we read about in the Free Press requires a significant feat of professional skill; the total dismantling, cataloguing and documentation of the historic facades. I fear this is far too intensive, too energy demanding a plan for the local construction industry to be patient enough to complete. Ultimately contracting a charge such as this to the usual moderately considerate trade disciplines who are accustomed to systematized modern construction techniques leaves me with spasms of doubt we will ever see the ‘King Building’ grace that corner again to any true depth. Having witnessed how 'changes' take place during construction, I think that facade will end up as clean fill or crushed base for an asphalt project on an ex-urban strip mall site somewhere off Henderson.
What precedent does this set? Winnipeg's urban agenda seems to always be this parkade parade – like it is the equivalent to substance for our downtown places. It is lipstick on a pig of a parkade proposal (though we’ve all seen how it could be much worse). The proverbial carrot being dangled is that there is street level use proposed in conjunction with a total deconstruction/replacement ‘restoration’ of the facades. I marvel at this undertaking to construct an 85% parking structure. Like a pugilistic agenda of distraction...then -WHAM!- they put up that Pay'n'park sign on the front elevation.
Meh - I'm preaching to the choir here...
Spenny
Regan, "cheaper' isn't the reason we save buildings.
Ask the question during the next election. See if taxpayers want to make an investment in their City.
Phrase the question any way you like but at some point the posturing has to stop and action has to be taken.
Nobody:
We don't need mass amounts of money and private investments to save historic buildings.
It's completely and totally acceptable if not noble, that as a society we deem such things to be important and as such, worth saving. Regardless of how much such things cost, or how much red tape City Hall likes to put in front of it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
uhmmm. thats what I just said in response to the peg mentality of things being "cheaper".
Being noble costs money.Sorry, you can't escape that. You will pay one way or the other.
Question is, how would you like to see your money spent.
I prefer collectively , we secure these buildings if developers can't find a solution that is acceptable.
The King Building is a special case, as the building most likely would have had to be rebuilt completely in order to be saved. I suppose that we also have the option as a city of rebuilding the structure brick by brick then looking for mixed use development within. But there are already many buildings in better shape (such as the block targeted by Manitoba Hydro), so it's hard to ask taxpayers to invest in a project that would take significantly longer than the current proposal for the city to see its grants return through property taxes.
"hard" "ask" " significantly longer "
"better shape"
These terms have nothing to do with preserving history once you make a decision to do so.
The buildings Hydro wanted to gut are long and the interior building ones only have windows at the front.
Who wants a loft condo in the dark?
2 street accesses, 4 condo's per floor. All will have windows.
Center building, 2 condos per floor.
Cost, 300K and up after renovations and code upgrades.
I'm taking downpayments. minimum 35K down.
Prices subject to change upon acquisition of said buildings.
Leaving aside your other comments, on the Gordon Bell issue you are unfortunatly letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
That piece of green space in unquestionably limiting in shape and ability to perform organized sports, however, there are various studies showing that educational outcomes improve when students have access to actual green space and this is a limiting factor to Gordon Bell's ability to do it's job.
There may be better options in the area to address this issue, however, your argument that the space is useless because it can't fit a regulation soccer field is specious at best.
Can anyone explain why Gordon Bell students can't walk 5 minutes down Portage to Vimy Ridge Park to run around?
Colin, correct me if I am mis-informed, but I thought one of the main purposes/angles of this thing was to allow GBHS to play high school football or soccer without using a field elsewhere for practises, home games, et c.
City kids never amount to anything, do they?
If this was about getting kids outdoor air and exercise, why aren't Pat Martin and Co. urging the school faculty to jog kids down to Vimy Ridge Park--a lovely piece of green space only three blocks over.
I am curious where Pat Martin was when the large empty field across from Gordon Bell was available.
After Murray Chev Olds moved to the suburbs the site was perfect for a few football fields.
maybe GB can forge some sort of relationship with UW.
the iceberg idea though... reminds me too much of the soon to be white elephant museum going in at the forks.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/iceberg_touted_for_cooler_campus38441549.html
I do love a good map with colouring, Rob... But, your measurements are based on the assumption that all fields must be of equal size.
The St. John's field is not the only regulation soccer field. If your measurements are correct, then we should be able to fit a regulation size soccer field into the space, according to this website:
"The width shall not be more than 80 yards (73.15M) nor less than 65 yards (59.44m) and the length shall not be more than 120 yards (109.72m) nor less than 110 yards (100.58m); however, fields of less than minimal dimensions may be used by prior written mutual consent of the competing institutions. The optimum size is 75 yards (68.58m) by 120 yards (109.73m)."
So, a 60M X 101M field would do, and may just fit the space. Its not optimal, but it can be done.
(As for football, we will construct a three sided triangular version of the game.)
Anyway, the pedagogical literature goes very far in pointing out the many benefits of situating a field next to a school, even if only for practices and other school activities. I'm for giving the students the space to play instead of a parking lot and truck depot. I've also seen such school fields well integrated into dense, urban environments. If done right, this can be a good addition for the neighborhood.
last I checked GBHS already had a play area.
but it ain't green, unless you're talking about the paint colour they used.
Speaking to sports facilities of diverse kinds....
Although the positioned decision makers are always found patting themselves on the back for their 'great' ideas for renewal and development, Manitoba ultimately ursurps very little in the way of visionary buildings that truly support community to the extent we see in other provinces. Well designed sporting facilities have the greatest potential to benefit our neighbourhoods and families. Sadly, most of the sport buildings in our neighbourhoods are uninspiring and only sustain this sense of community to a meager level. They do not meet an achievable potential. This is a disservice to our youth and families. The spaces we live in contribute to our well-being as a society and there is value in doing the best we can with what is available. If 'enough' is not available (ie. funds), there is value in setting goals and delaying a project in order to satisfy engaging in all the energies of design and construction (usually a long-term proposition we live with for decades). I am talking about doing things in a well considered manner for long term success. There are too many examples of drastic compromises made to the ideals that preface a project. Often, we must also realize this takes work. The BEST projects take work, commitment and multiple points of involvement.
If the UofM had any long term vision they would have provided a facility that inspired this sense of community. I point to this example: the Brampton Soccer Complex completed only in 2007 is a paradigm of good design meeting community needs under a number of constraints. Ultimately, this led to not compromising on the broad stroke agenda which answers the question 'why build' in the first place. I feel the public does not want to play soccer in a pre-engineered Behlen farm quansit. Sure, you can kick the ball around just fine, but this is a place people endure. This is not the kind of place one intentionally makes time to meet friends and socialize at. It is also not unlike the myriad of hockey rinks dotting the city built in the last two decades which serve the foundational purpose of getting you out to play hockey, but don't answer to the real evidence of improvement. Something, I guess, is better than nothing. Unfortunately you have to go back to the 60s to see any sports facilities that had any consideration (even if they were still pragmatic structures nontheless).
www.cdnarchitect.com/issues/ISarticle.asp?id=192989&story_id=59438143806&issue=11012007&PC=
Moving on....this 'iceberg' concept at the UofW is grandiose and unrealistic (and conceptually bereft). It is visionary, but only in the sense of sensational propaganda. More design 'meat' is needed, even in concept form.
Spenny
"patting themselves on the back for their 'great' ideas for renewal and development"
I can't take anyone too seriously when on one hand they scream sprawl or infrastructure costs and on the other hand, continue to promote a suburban environment like a Stadium to the U of M, a Soccer Pitch at the U of M, residences at the Uof M and a BRT to the Uof M.
Something is not right with the picture and its not a "great" idea.
Perhaps if some thought went into these decisions, we would be able to afford interesting developments.
But thats my opinion.
I agree. And of course by 'great' I implied deep sarcasm.
Sorry, been to a few building openings where the politicians show up to give each other hi-fives.
Spenny
Of course, when things are so entrenched (ie. UofM), one must deal with the existing context and be quick to learn from the mistakes of decentralized sprawl developments in general. Something most cities still haven't come to terms with (aside from occasional lip service and small planning initiatives).
How's Waverley West trudging on these days?
Spenny
Spenn, in my mind , I don't see the U of M see as entrenched. But I have no illusion, once the stadium gets poured it will be.
The move should have happened 15 years ago to have maximized the rebuild that was undertaken since the first announcement of Smart park
Sometimes , in the lifespan of a City it makes no sense throwing good money after a bad plan.
It will be an opportunity lost.
Mr.N, you don't see the UofM as entrenched? it's been there since 1877 what exactly do you mean by that? ... Of course, the fact that the university has done little to discourage taking a car to the place is shameful. You were thinking they would do what with smart park?
I think you'll see more residences pop up there over the next while especially with their goal to target more international students. Many of the close apartments on Pembina are just awful places.
Oh and of course there's the need for more six lane highways to get the students and other busy, busy people to where they need to go! :P ... :(
the university as it stands is in need of renovations to meet the next 50 years. unfortunately, that process has begun and it detracts from the benefit that rebuild could have provided the center of the the City.
In my opinion, the UofM is a perfect example of a car centric environment which requires hundreds of million in tax dollars to maintain itself. Throw in residences and a new Stadium and you've just compounded the problem.
There is not one faculty that couldn't be moved. I just see this shifting focus from the Core to a suburb as being diametrically opposed to everything we should be doing for a strong and healthy City.
I just don't see it as a smart solution.
the wsd1 is scewed in the head they could buld a new school at one and and build the feild on the site of the curent school...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home