Winnipeg | Restaurants

[esquire]

Ciao Winnipeg is a decent source too, although there may be foodie blogs that track this sort of thing more diligently.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by esquire

Is Miss Brown's in the old Subway space?

http://steve-tyrrell-on4v.squarespace.com/

Looks reasonably interesting to me... I could see it doing fairly well, although that's now two hipster artisanal sandwich shops a block apart. I don't think the Exchange can sustain many more than that!

It's bizarre that my food was served nothing like how it looked in the pics, and that the picture of the family eating is definitely not the location of the shop. That view would be crumbling PSB.

Also what on earth is that domain name?

[tedtim]

Originally Posted by cutchemist42

True.

Personal aside but I just cant get behind the guys at King/Bannatyne. I know not every restaurant is truly original, but these guys were lazy and ripped the concept totally.

I thought the same thing when then opened. Sure, the meatball sandwich was good, but it was also good the first time I had it at Meat & Bread in Vancouver.

[esquire]

^ True originality is tough to pull off in the food biz... there's a good chance the Vancouver restaurant ripped it from somewhere too.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by cllew

For what it's worth City Place lost another unit in the food court. Mrs. Vanelli's pizza is gone and I wonder how long its going to take to replace that unit.

Calling what they served "pizza" is being extremely charitable. Having a vacancy there is actually a significant improvement. That said the parent corporation runs about half of the banners you see in food courts and could occupy a full food court in any mall with just their own brands. It seems odd that they could not find a new operator to take over that space with the Vanelli's banner or any of their other banners.

Originally Posted by Intrepid-Poster

I see activity in the empty space in the strip mall between Burrito Splendido and Popeye's supplements at 3380 Portage Avenue. Anyone know what is going in there?

I have no direct information but it looks like they are building medical style offices inside. Construction is well underway regardless of what it is.

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by tedtim

I thought the same thing when then opened. Sure, the meatball sandwich was good, but it was also good the first time I had it at Meat & Bread in Vancouver.

Who cares if they ripped off a concept from a restaurant 2000 miles away? Seems like a stupid and petty reason not to support them.

I am always glad to see new food trends coming to Winnipeg even if the same thing exists somewhere else.

[tedtim]

Originally Posted by h0twired

Who cares if they ripped off a concept from a restaurant 2000 miles away? Seems like a stupid and petty reason not to support them.

I am always glad to see new food trends coming to Winnipeg even if the same thing exists somewhere else.

Who said I didn't support them? I've been there about a dozen times. The sandwiches are good. Same reason why I go to Meat & Bread every time I'm in Vancouver.

If someone wanted to ripoff In & Out and open a place called Out & About with the exact same food, I'd go there too.

[horrorbro123]

Which Food Vendors is Coming to The Forks Market'

[CoryB]

Nothing has been announced yet for The Forks. Hopefully they set it up as a one year renewable (with mutual agreement) term with a start date in May or June. This would give people a chance to try new concepts which might move to a food truck operation in year two. Also having renewable terms that both sides need to agree to allows for some churn by design. It seems the concept is to basically be a food services incubator. If the first wave of places become entrenched for five years it is sort of missing that goal.

[snowmobile]

Earl's Main street expansion has been turned down.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by snowmobile

Earl's Main street expansion has been turned down.

Good. If the city could get an extra floor out of Shopper's cruddy expansion on Osborne, they can do they same for Earl's busiest location in town.

[horrorbro123]

Tutti Frutti Frozen Yogurt Is Will Open Transcona Location In June and Bridgewater Town Centre Will Open Next Year

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by biguc

Good. If the city could get an extra floor out of Shopper's cruddy expansion on Osborne, they can do they same for Earl's busiest location in town.

But it's completely ridiculous in this case. You're not even achieving an actual urban development here - you're just demanding people increase ceiling height by 9 feet to conform. You aren't even guaranteed any sort of useable space - it just needs to be 35' high.

This is just typical politics. Jenny Gerbasi wants to call this 'city planning' because that triggers salivation in her constituents and it isn't even close. And John Orlikow is on record as saying that he'd prefer to have surface parking than the new restaurant which is funny given that absolutely everything in either direction is exactly that and completely hopeless.

Well played, Winnipeg. This is the definition of biting off your nose to spite your face because they have achieved absolutely nothing with this. The only thing they've done is make an enemy of a long term stakeholder in an area that has more gravel than Garven road.

[CoryB]

Not that it will happen but if Earls changed their proposal so it was the exact same but included an additional ground level floor that was mostly covered parking would that meet the height guidelines, assuming the parking made of the difference in height from the current proposal?

[Riverman]

^ Pretty sure that would not be affordable.

[Riverman]

I hope Earls tears down the existing building and rents out the existing lots to Impark.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Not that it will happen but if Earls changed their proposal so it was the exact same but included an additional ground level floor that was mostly covered parking would that meet the height guidelines, assuming the parking made of the difference in height from the current proposal?

I wouldn't be able to contain myself if Earl's put the building on stilts in effect creating more surface parking than was otherwise there, leaving the impression that the city has somehow won the battle because it's now 35'.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by Riverman

I hope Earls tears down the existing building and rents out the existing lots to Impark.

I would do the city one better and leave it vacant with a massive 'for lease' sign on it. Then I'd just stop maintaining it completely. You want density? Here's some more market vacancy.

People are pretending like St. Mary's and Main are the gates to Neverland.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

But it's completely ridiculous in this case. You're not even achieving an actual urban development here - you're just demanding people increase ceiling height by 9 feet to conform. You aren't even guaranteed any sort of useable space - it just needs to be 35' high.

This is just typical politics. Jenny Gerbasi wants to call this 'city planning' because that triggers salivation in her constituents and it isn't even close. And John Orlikow is on record as saying that he'd prefer to have surface parking than the new restaurant which is funny given that absolutely everything in either direction is exactly that and completely hopeless.

Well played, Winnipeg. This is the definition of biting off your nose to spite your face because they have achieved absolutely nothing with this. The only thing they've done is make an enemy of a long term stakeholder in an area that has more gravel than Garven road.

It's their busiest location and they're not going to walk away from it. Nobody's made an enemy. You've said it yourself: this is a negotiation. While I agree with you that blowhards like Gerbasi (who proved how little of a fuck she really gives with the Shoppers debacle) and Orlikow are playing typical politics. The thing is, I don't think they matter. Every good city has a stake in what it wants developed, and they bring what they want to the table when a someone intends to develop something.

I didn't bother arguing this point in the construction thread, but this city learned its lesson in the '90s when it bent over for anyone who wanted to build anything. That got the city the dumpy Pizza Heaven strip mall on Osborne, the Earls on Main, and--worst of all--the Best Western on the alley between Hargraves and Donald. And not a lot else.

Of the three, I actually think the Earls is the lest offensive. It's on marginal rail-side land that historically hasn't had much draw. That may have changed. I suppose we'll see. But the thing is, if Earls builds another suburban location on that site, we won't see. That land will sit underused for decades. Maybe it will anyway, but if parcel 4 is a hit, or the CMHR makes the area more desirable, we'd look like assholes for having a suburban chain restaurant front and centre in our downtown.

I want to stress that I don't think this is that big a deal. Earls will come back with some cheap-ass workaround that will actually be better for them--a tiny second floor landing to access a rooftop patio, or something--and the city will clap them on the back and they'll get back to making piles of money. Or maybe they just will build some extraneous extra floor, like Shoppers did, that'll sit vacant. Who cares. The city has lost nothing by making this demand.

The reason I want to stress that point is because I could come with some worst-case scenario, slippery-slope argument that if the city doesn't stick to its guns, the parking lot next to Union Station will turn into a McDick's drive through. Now, I don't think that would ever happen. We all have that much sense. But if the city fails to ask for better, it definitely won't get anything better.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by biguc

It's their busiest location and they're not going to walk away from it. Nobody's made an enemy. You've said it yourself: this is a negotiation. While I agree with you that blowhards like Gerbasi (who proved how little of a fuck she really gives with the Shoppers debacle) and Orlikow are playing typical politics. The thing is, I don't think they matter. Every good city has a stake in what it wants developed, and they bring what they want to the table when a someone intends to develop something.

I didn't bother arguing this point in the construction thread, but this city learned its lesson in the '90s when it bent over for anyone who wanted to build anything. That got the city the dumpy Pizza Heaven strip mall on Osborne, the Earls on Main, and--worst of all--the Best Western on the alley between Hargraves and Donald. And not a lot else.

Of the three, I actually think the Earls is the lest offensive. It's on marginal rail-side land that historically hasn't had much draw. That may have changed. I suppose we'll see. But the thing is, if Earls builds another suburban location on that site, we won't see. That land will sit underused for decades. Maybe it will anyway, but if parcel 4 is a hit, or the CMHR makes the area more desirable, we'd look like assholes for having a suburban chain restaurant front and centre in our downtown.

I want to stress that I don't think this is that big a deal. Earls will come back with some cheap-ass workaround that will actually be better for them--a tiny second floor landing to access a rooftop patio, or something--and the city will clap them on the back and they'll get back to making piles of money. Or maybe they just will build some extraneous extra floor, like Shoppers did, that'll sit vacant. Who cares. The city has lost nothing by making this demand.

The reason I want to stress that point is because I could come with some worst-case scenario, slippery-slope argument that if the city doesn't stick to its guns, the parking lot next to Union Station will turn into a McDick's drive through. Now, I don't think that would ever happen. We all have that much sense. But if the city fails to ask for better, it definitely won't get anything better.

It's really not that I don't see the points you're making because I do. But, given my experience working on developments in this city, my comments are directed towards this future we keep planning for when there isn't one. We aren't going to see higher sales or rental rates than we are right now because they're almost literally impossible. Interest rates are essentially zero given inflation. There's nothing happening in this city or in this province that is going to affect property values more than straight up interest rates because they've moved in direct inverse correlation. So we're planning for nothing. If Parcel 4 ever moves forward in any sort of meaningful capacity it will be many, many years from now and look exceptionally different than the master plans that have been conducted because development of that sort of density requires a contained boom cycle that we'll never have. That's not our economy. We're trying to plan this city as if it isn't just a sprawling suburb but it is and it always will be.

So instead of getting a successful, tax-paying restaurant that the taxpayer isn't underwriting, we're pretending like it doesn't fit into the context of some fantasy that's never going to manifest anyway and we condemn it.