Appeal the Decision to Ignore Heritage

To those who wish to appeal that the City’s ignored the advice of the Heritage Cttee on the development of 291 Bannatyne, the City is saying that anyone wishing to appeal must pay a fee of $955!  This is a totally undemocratic levy and I have written to the Mayor and our representative at the city, Vivian Santos — without a response. 

Mr. Alan Tate has submitted an appeal and is willing to pay the $995 fee.  You can show your support for this appeal without the requirement to pay the fee.

I ask that you resend an appeal email to clk-appeals@winnipeg.ca with wording similar to the following, today:

I wish to support Mr. Alan Tate in his "APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF DIRECTOR OF PLANNING NOT TO ACCEPT ADVICE OF HBRC” filed on April 25th at 6:36 am.

---

The appeal sent by Mr. Alan Tate

 25 April 2025

Dear Sir / Madam:

APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, PROPERTY AND DEVELOPMENT NOT TO ACCEPT ADVICE OF HISTORICAL BUILDINGS AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE (HBRC)

I write to appeal against this decision in my capacity as a resident at 121 Princess Street since April 2012. I am also president of the board of Winnipeg Condominium Corporation #434, the corporation responsible for 121 (a.k.a. 123) Princess Street.

My objections are based on three principal areas of concern:

1. Impact of proposed development on Exchange District National Historic Site (EDNHS)

2. Physical impact of proposed development on neighbouring heritage structures, particularly 121 Princess Street

3. Responsibility of the developer with respect to neighbouring residents and businesses.

1. Impact of proposed development on Exchange District National Historic Site (EDNHS)

   
   

Although the drawings forwarded by the area planner do not convey the materials on the elevations of the proposed structure, they do clearly demonstrate from their sheer size and fenestration that they are out of scale (i.e far too large) and out of character (i.e. an inappropriate intrusion) in this location.

The adjacent heritage buildings (Kings Head / Travellers Building / 100, 103 + 121 Princess Street / Fairchild Building) are no more than six storeys high and even the 100-foot zoning allowance would create an overpowering building mass in this location. And the Variance to 106.1 feet would make this even worse.  Equally, the facades—apparently two facades on one building—shown in the developer’s drawings fail to reflect or respect the rich, century-old character of the surrounding buildings. And the proposed fenestration does not respond appropriately to the characteristic articulation of the adjacent elevations.

When a development of this nature was mooted in early 2022 board representatives from the Travellers Building and from 121 Princess Street met online with Councillor Santos to express our concerns about its proposed size and character.  Points made at that meeting remain largely the same—that we did not object to development of the site for residential purposes but believe that, to be in scale and in character with the location, new buildings should not rise above the level of surrounding building parapets.  We also referred to our concerns about potential damage to the foundations of adjacent buildings, and to the potential impact of snow loading on them.  And we mentioned that we had not been approached at that time by the developer, Mr Ridge, about his proposals.  Equally, his approach to us this year only came after the City’s notifications had been posted on the buildings.

It is highly regrettable that the Director of Planning, Property and Development has chosen not to accept the recommendation of the City’s own Historic Buildings and Resources Committee (HBRC) with respect to this development. Having been a Manitoba Association of Landscape Architects representative on the City’s Urban Design Advisory Committee (UDAC) from 2020 to 2024 and having attended a number of joint meetings with the HBRC, I have immense respect for the professional expertise, integrity and concern for the city’s built heritage that the members of HBRC freely bring to such matters, and firmly believe that the Director of Planning, Property and Development should respect and adhere to their advice, particularly in this case.

Furthermore, given the significant number of vacant ground-floor commercial units in the neighbourhood, creating more such units would do little for the character and vibrancy of the surrounding streets.  And while I support greater densification of development in Winnipeg generally, I do not support it where it means sacrificing quality for quantity, particularly in what is already the most densely developed and most historically rich part of the city.

Additionally, I am given to understand that the proposed project does not conform with the explicit Intentions and Policy Frameworks provided in:

• The Exchange District National Historic Site of Canada Commemorative Integrity Statement (Parks Canada 2000)

• Heritage and Sustainability Report (EVOQ Strategies, 2021)

• By-law 120/2020. Our Winnipeg 2045 (2022)

• By-law 119/2020. Complete Communities 2.0 (2022)

• Exchange District Plan (2022)

• CentrePlan 2050 (Secondary Plan, 2024)

• Building Downtown / Engage Winnipeg (2024).

2. Physical impact of proposed development on neighbouring heritage structures

   
   

You will also have received my appeal dated 23 April 2025 (copy attached) expressing concerns about potential structural impacts on 121 Princess Street of the proposed development.  These include the impacts from excavation, from piling, and from additional snow-loading on 121 Princess Street as a direct consequence of building to 106.1 feet directly south of this building.  You should be aware in this connection that the foundations of 121 Princess Street (clearly visible on the north side) are largely comprised of rubble stone and therefore prone to instability.

These concerns are attested to by letters (copies attached) from two professional engineers with experience of comparable soil conditions and building foundations in the neighbourhood—Laverne Dreward and Associates, and Wolfrom Engineering.  These draw particular attention to the risks from excavation for car parking to the stability of the facades of Maws Garage and the Sanford Building, and to the Travellers Building and to 121 Princess Street from additional snow loading.

I have already expressed my concerns to the developer, Mr Ryan Ridge, with respect to his liability to protect, monitor and make full compensation for all consequent damage to our building and to the businesses located in it, and he has responded as follows:

As per your concerns regarding the potential disruption to the community during the course of construction and/or any damages during so, please be assured that we will take every measure possible to ensure that will be kept to a near minimum, plus we will be doing a comprehensive log of all the surroundings properties both before and afterwards to ensure all integrities were maintained and undisturbed. Furthermore, we will be doing micro-piles and not driven piles, which Sasa can definitely speak to being the least invasive piling system on the market with next to no vibration, being that they are placed and grouted into the bedrock below the soils approximately 60’ below grade. (2025-04-17)

It is to be hoped that the City, in supporting this development, recognizes its own involvement in the possible damaging effects on the fabric of neighbouring buildings.

Also, the proposals show vehicular egress from Maws Garage directly into the backyard between 121 Princess Street (and its City-required access ramp and garbage / recycling bins) and the King’s Head (and its ramp and garbage skips). This will undoubtedly cause inconvenience and danger to residents and to staff of the Kings Head, Subway and Clementine.

3. Impact of Proposed Development on Neighbouring Residents

   
   

In closing, I wish to make it clear that I am not against development above Maws Garage or the Sanford Building if it does not threaten the physical integrity of adjacent buildings and if it does not diminish the character of the National Historic Site.  But I am firmly against bit-by-bit variances and other decisions that do not respect historic resources, the distinctive character of the neighbourhood and the interests of long-standing residents and businesses.

I trust that you will give all due consideration to my concerns and to the concerns of our neighbours.

Yours faithfully,

Alan Tate PhD PPLI FCSLA

Professor of Landscape Architecture, University of Manitoba

President of WCC #434 and Owner / Resident, Penthouse, 121 Princess Street, R3B 1K8