Freezing fog

Winnipeg, MB

-3°c Freezing fog

Full Forecast

Fog advisory in effect Freezing drizzle advisory ended

Editorials

Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION

Tower shows vision

Posted: 01/7/2014 1:00 AM | Comments: 0

Last Modified: 01/7/2014 7:37 AM | Updates

Advertisement

  • Print
Artist’s rendering of the skyline profile of the James Avenue Pumping Station project.

SUBMITTED ILLUSTRATION Enlarge Image

Artist’s rendering of the skyline profile of the James Avenue Pumping Station project.

It would be wonderful if Winnipeg's downtown was fully developed and occupied, overflowing with activity and high energy, not a centimetre of space available for lease, sale or rent. Unfortunately, that goal is still a distant dream, despite a series of major developments in the last 10 years. And that's why a civic committee made the correct decision Monday in approving a proposed 24-storey mixed-use highrise on Waterfront Drive.

Residents in the area are furious because they believe it will undermine the district's historic charm, disfigure the skyline and open the door to more skyscrapers.

The residents also say a 24-storey building would make a mockery of zoning regulations that were enacted to protect the Exchange District's compact scale, with buildings that are four to eight storeys tall.

Similar zoning bylaws exist in other Canadian cities with historic districts, but the rules can be breached to accommodate special projects. They're known as density-for-benefits schemes that allow the construction of non-conforming buildings in return for some kind of benefit to the affected neighbourhood.

The benefit can take the form of a cash payment to the city based on a percentage of the development's value, or some other arrangement that will help the particular district achieve its broader goals.

In this case, there are several benefits that justify the zoning variance.

First, the developer says he will save the historic James Avenue pumping station, a Grade II heritage building that is famous for its vintage industrial machinery and the role it served in providing fire protection.

Several investors have considered redeveloping the pumphouse since it closed in 1986 -- one firm even bought the building before returning it for a profit to CentreVenture -- but none of them was able to devise a business plan that worked.

Many of those opposed to the highrise, which will include 220 residential rental units, are the same people who would scream bloody murder if the city attempted to demolish the pumphouse to make way for another four- to eight-storey condominium complex.

They want it both ways, which is not realistic.

An eight-storey building would not provide enough market space to justify the cost of incorporating a complex heritage structure into the project. The proponent has not disclosed his business plan, but it's reasonable to assume the size of the proposed building is based on a financially viable model.

Second, downtown Winnipeg is still in need of a lot of help. That includes the Exchange District and Waterfront Drive, which has been struggling to realize its full potential since it was developed about a decade ago.

Some commercial space along the scenic route has been vacant since the day it became available, evidence of a problem that can only be solved with density.

The area needs more full-time residents, more businesses, more services, more of everything.

The tower is not a magical solution, but it's an improvement that would increase activity along the waterfront and in the Exchange District.

Struggling or newer businesses in the area will welcome its arrival.

The development depends on several conditions, including permission to build a parkade on nearby land owned by the province.

A parkade open to the public would be another benefit, since parking can be a rare commodity in the area.

It has sometimes seemed that Winnipeg was more interested in preserving history than actually making it.

This project does both.

It respects the city's past, but it's also a vote of confidence in the city and its future.

Editorials are the consensus view of the Winnipeg Free Press’ editorial board, comprising Catherine Mitchell, David O’Brien, Shannon Sampert, and Paul Samyn.

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition January 7, 2014 A6

History

Updated on Tuesday, January 7, 2014 at 7:37 AM CST: Replaces photo

Fact Check

Fact Check

Have you found an error, or know of something we’ve missed in one of our stories? Please use the form below and let us know.

* Required
  • Please post the headline of the story or the title of the video with the error.

  • Please post exactly what was wrong with the story.

  • Please indicate your source for the correct information.

  • Yes

    No

  • This will only be used to contact you if we have a question about your submission, it will not be used to identify you or be published.

  • Cancel

Having problems with the form?

Contact Us Directly
  • Print

You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.

You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.

Have Your Say

New to commenting? Check out our Frequently Asked Questions.

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscribers only. why?

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press Subscribers only. why?

The Winnipeg Free Press does not necessarily endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comment, you agree to our Terms and Conditions. These terms were revised effective April 16, 2010.