A teardown isn’t the solution

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 08/05/2024 (488 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The 25-unit Centre Village/Balmoral Street residential project has been shuttered after only 12 years of occupancy, as it has been deemed unlivable and is apparently slated for demolition and reconstruction, even though it is in sound condition. The problems that developed with this project were not related to the building design, but rather with the occupants in it and their lifestyle, as well as how this project was managed.

Another major factor was the significant neighbourhood influence, especially the intrusion and influx of criminal elements into the project.

This problem is more of a social issue and is not a building or construction issue. Tearing the building down and rebuilding it will not solve the problem, unless the social issues are resolved.

The recent announcement by the provincial government to turn the project over to the Winnipeg Housing Rehabilitation Corporation and to focus on the social aspect is a step in the right direction. The proposal is to provide economic and social assistance with guidance, health and livability support to families or individuals or children where needed.

This should be able to be done without having to tear the building down and rebuilding another box.

This existing building is a valuable asset and to destroy it and spend money to rebuild another similar — but more expensive — project providing the same amenities is a real waste of time and money which just doesn’t make any sense from a practical and economic point of view.

The apparent issues found by the original tenants at Centre Village that the units are cramped and unsuited for family life can easily be addressed by simple interior alterations to the units at a fraction of the cost of reconstruction. I would recommend that a housing architect (preferably the original architect) be consulted to review and address the complaints with the original unit layouts or other issues.

As a retired structural engineer, I have had experience with hundreds of multifamily housing projects primarily in the upper Midwest U.S.A. ranging from three to 50 stories in my 60-year career. I have yet to see any one of these being torn down and rebuilt, although some of these may have had alterations and upgrades.

Our own office building at 26 Edmonton St. was originally built in 1902 by Winnipeg’s first surveyor J. Harris as a two-and-one-half storey private residence. Some 25 years later, it was converted by a new owner to a rooming house.

The original large rooms were subdivided with new partitions and entrances to provide more units. Later on, after l purchased the building in 1977, all of those partitions were ripped out and the original layout restored for our offices.

Upgrades were carried out such as new thermopane windows, new electrical, plumbing and heating systems, etc. All of these upgrades were done by retaining the original bones of the building, which is now called the historic Harris House. These upgrades and alterations were done without having to tear the building apart and rebuild, as the original main construction remained in sound condition over all these years. This example of adaptive reuse resulted in significant savings with a much lower carbon footprint.

I have also worked with the Westminster Housing Society run by the former Hon. Charles Huband QC, who purchased various older unoccupied larger homes in the West End and converted these into several units along with upgrades. This provided low-cost housing by repurposing and reusing existing buildings without total reconstruction.

A similar approach could certainly be done with Central Village. This would not require significant reworking as the building is only 14 years old with a sound structure, sound foundation and sound mechanical and electrical systems.

Some cosmetic work to the exterior finishes could be carried out to provide a more traditional residential appearance, with variations in finishes to identify individual units along with some fencing patios, balconies, etc., added. Interior modifications or combining units could be carried out if larger units are required. The safety aspects could be improved by providing units with security systems and camera monitoring on the exteriors and entrances along with providing a residential manager for the complex.

All of this could be accomplished at a small fraction of the cost of demolition and reconstruction, along with significant environmental benefits.

William Hanuschak writes from Sunnyside, Man.