Winnipeg | Exchange District | Developments & Discussions

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by pegcityfan

Phat Daddy's...

Hey, what do you know, not one person who has a clue about the financial difficulties and requirements of redeveloping heritage buildings.

I have no idea why anybody would waste their time listening to a panel of people who don't actually know anything.

[Labroco]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Hey, what do you know, not one person who has a clue about the financial difficulties and requirements of redeveloping heritage buildings.

I have no idea why anybody would waste their time listening to a panel of people who don't actually know anything.

Would of been nice if someone would of given people a little notice...

What do I know about any of this anyway...

And who would listen to me...

Probably too crusty to actually be a moderator or sit on a panel...

LOL

[Biff]

They are working hard at punching out all of the windows on the east side of that building and I have to say it is looking great. I'm not sure if the 2 storey addition is still happening though.

[Simplicity]

^^ I think we should have a pool where we bet on the deviation from their stated rents at the beginning of the project and the ones they actually come to market with. I'm highly doubtful those two extra storeys are going on unless they're in the mood to burn as much capital as they can.

I would listen to Labroco speak about heritage restoration, but please, somebody enlighten me as to what Cindy Tugwell, Christian Cassidy, and John Orlikow can tell me about heritage restoration that I care about as a developer. And the rest of the panel are people who I would avoid like the plague if I were going anywhere near a heritage project. A more appropriate panel that would accomplish the actual dissemination of substantial information instead of just mindless downtown boosterism and a collective pat on the back would be John Wells from Crosier, a guy like Labroco, and a commercial banker who has financed these projects. That's a panel that would divulge worthwhile information. This projected panel is a just an ego-driven history lesson better suited to those who aren't actually interested in heritage redevelopment in any sort of concrete, meaningful capacity except to say they are.

[Simplicity]

Going back over a week now to the discussion about parking and the Exchange district. I was reading a blog post by a large property manager in Toronto who manages a significant number of downtown condos which make up the majority of the rental market. The advice to anybody trying to buy a condo unit with with an aim towards renting it - which is a staggering amount of the downtown Toronto Condo Market - was to buy the parking stall. Why? Because they have incredible difficulty marketing units for rent without.

This is downtown Toronto we're talking about - a place with a fairly evolved transit system and all the suburban amenities within walking distance. And even in these places does parking matter.

I think it's unlikely we'll ever see a development in downtown Winnipeg that doesn't have nearly 1:1 parking.

[CoryB]

^^ MTS Centre, Hydro Place and the proposed One Portage and Main all have effectively zero parking. It is also well documented that the WCC expansion reduced parking from the surface lot it is being built on even though that lot was fairly full on most weekdays and on event weekends when demand in that area is at its peak. Those would all be considered as under 1:1 in terms of parking, no?

CentrePoint I have a gut feel will also clock in under the 1:1 ratio if you look at stalls lost due to construction plus the number of condos and hotel rooms.

Keep in mind though the 1:1 ratio doesn't always make sense, ie a downtown hotel, but having zero parking equally does not make sense.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by CoryB

^^ MTS Centre, Hydro Place and the proposed One Portage and Main all have effectively zero parking. It is also well documented that the WCC expansion reduced parking from the surface lot it is being built on even though that lot was fairly full on most weekdays and on event weekends when demand in that area is at its peak. Those would all be considered as under 1:1 in terms of parking, no?

CentrePoint I have a gut feel will also clock in under the 1:1 ratio if you look at stalls lost due to construction plus the number of condos and hotel rooms.

Keep in mind though the 1:1 ratio doesn't always make sense, ie a downtown hotel, but having zero parking equally does not make sense.

I meant as residences one is going to sell. Anybody buying in Glasshouse without purchasing a parking stall is going to face the same issue. If anybody believes the majority of those units are being purchased by end users, they're kidding themselves. And when 150 units hit the rental market at the same time, the ones without parking are going to sit longer and rent for less than the ones with. That's the effect.

As a developer, 1:1 makes no sense to me because I don't want to have to purchase the land required to make it happen while providing a bunch of free visitor parking. As a unit owner, I want to ensure there are enough stalls that if I'm a two car family I can find a stall to rent and my visitors don't stay away because they're not interested in circling the block fifteen times.

It's different incentives. I would encourage somebody to try and live without a vehicle downtown. The car share thing works a bit, but if I'm paying $375/ft and I have to micro-lease a car, planning every menial activity hours in advance, that's going to be a headache most aren't willing to deal with. Hell, you can barely rent an apartment to somebody without a parking stall.

[rypinion]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

I would encourage somebody to try and live without a vehicle downtown. The car share thing works a bit, but if I'm paying $375/ft and I have to micro-lease a car, planning every menial activity hours in advance, that's going to be a headache most aren't willing to deal with. Hell, you can barely rent an apartment to somebody without a parking stall.

That's me right here - I got rid of my car in January. In the winter I have bowling twice a week (take a 47 to/from Lagimodiere) and indoor ultimate two or three times a week (11 to U of W, or book a car to go to Golf Dome or U of M). I survived.

My girlfriend's parents live in St. Claude - when she wants to visit them she hops on an 11 to enterprise on Henderson and rents a car for the weekend ($10/day).

So far it hasn't been a big deal. Definitely worth the $250 per month in car payment savings and $150 per month in parking spot rental income I now make. Plus gas, maintenance, insurance, etc. Bus tickets (or pass) plus car share plus car rentals for an entire month (and two people) has yet to exceed a single biweekly car payment.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by rypinion

That's me right here - I got rid of my car in January. In the winter I have bowling twice a week (take a 47 to/from Lagimodiere) and indoor ultimate two or three times a week (11 to U of W, or book a car to go to Golf Dome or U of M). I survived.

My girlfriend's parents live in St. Claude - when she wants to visit them she hops on an 11 to enterprise on Henderson and rents a car for the weekend ($10/day).

So far it hasn't been a big deal. Definitely worth the $250 per month in car payment savings and $150 per month in parking spot rental income I now make. Plus gas, maintenance, insurance, etc. Bus tickets (or pass) plus car share plus car rentals for an entire month (and two people) has yet to exceed a single biweekly car payment.

Your true net is somewhere on the order of $150 - 200/mth. What you described to me is the sort of inconvenience most people are actively working their way up in the world to avoid, not take on, and those are the sorts of dollar figures that dramatically alter behaviours.

I made the point earlier in this thread about somebody who has the ability to be in activities 5 days a week as an adult and the reasonable takeaway is that it's not a very adult life. In other words, most adults can't and don't live this way so it's not representative of those who have the money to spend. Which is why most adults end up in the suburbs even if they might be those on the inner ring.

You might be considered more '🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵' and there's really nothing wrong with that. Fact is, the city could well benefit from more people like you. But when developments are planned, the market downtown is largely made up those who think it's a kitschy experience, wouldn't mind living it for a couple years, but they're not planning long-term. I won't deny most of these people are better off renting, but the one thing they aren't prepared to do is dramatically shift their lifestyle away from their car completely because they know that it's only a matter of time before they're looking for a house.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

You might be considered more '🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵' and there's really nothing wrong with that. Fact is, the city could well benefit from more people like you. But when developments are planned, the market downtown is largely made up those who think it's a kitschy experience, wouldn't mind living it for a couple years, but they're not planning long-term. I won't deny most of these people are better off renting, but the one thing they aren't prepared to do is dramatically shift their lifestyle away from their car completely because they know that it's only a matter of time before they're looking for a house.

Urban neighbourhoods across North America are filled with people at that transitional phase of life between 18-30ish... what is stopping the Exchange from becoming the same kind of destination for people at that point in life? With a critical mass of people and amenities, it's not hard to see the Exchange/Waterfront Drive area becoming a popular alternative to Winnipeg's classic transitional neighbourhood, Osborne Village.

In my experience, it seems that just about anywhere in North America within walking distance of an American Apparel store is an area built to varying degrees on the backs of post-secondary students and recent graduates, even if they don't necessarily stay in the area for very long relative to their total lifespan.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by esquire

Urban neighbourhoods across North America are filled with people at that transitional phase of life between 18-30ish... what is stopping the Exchange from becoming the same kind of destination for people at that point in life? With a critical mass of people and amenities, it's not hard to see the Exchange/Waterfront Drive area becoming a popular neighbourhood to Winnipeg's classic transitional neighbourhood, Osborne Village.

In my experience, it seems that just about anywhere in North America within walking distance of an American Apparel store is an area built to varying degrees on the backs of post-secondary students and recent graduates, even if they don't necessarily stay in the area for very long relative to their total lifespan.

Sorry, I thought that was the point I was trying to make if that was unclear. We're essentially saying the same thing. The downtown market is one that people live in for a few years but don't really put down significant roots. They're largely in it for the short term and thus don't make the sorts of wholesale changes that are reflective of a truly 'urban' lifestyle - i.e. ridding themselves of vehicles. You only need to make one trip to the U of M during a weekday in session to see how many students drive. And that goes back to my original point about parking. Both renters and purchasers of downtown units are still by and large looking for accompanying parking because that transitional phase is just that. I remember when I lived in the Village and parked my car underground, I used relatively infrequently, but I still needed it. Moving it around the street trying to avoid parking tickets and the anxiety of trying to find a spot were not worth the hassle. And not because it's mine, but this is largely the thinking of most people which is why all of these buildings have wait lists to pay $100 to park.

It's actually kind of interesting because, while the Village is a vibrant centre, it's a terrible market for selling condos to the stable and reasonably well-healed which is why that market has more or less ground to a halt. It wasn't unusual for units to sit 450 days on the market and developers were taking big hits discounting units to move them and they all had parking. At the moment - and likely the foreseeable future - people see these neighbourhoods as what you've remarked; transitional. Until they're seen as long term lifestyle choices, they won't guide long-term transportation decisions. And I don't think the amenities will make a difference because prairie people still demand space and yards and those things can't be substituted for. Eventually and almost inevitably people lead the lifestyles they were raised in.

[TimeFadesAway]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

I meant as residences one is going to sell. Anybody buying in Glasshouse without purchasing a parking stall is going to face the same issue. If anybody believes the majority of those units are being purchased by end users, they're kidding themselves. And when 150 units hit the rental market at the same time, the ones without parking are going to sit longer and rent for less than the ones with. That's the effect.

As an investor, the only way I'd consider buying a unit to lease out without a parking stall was if I was intentionally intending to lose money, like in some money laundering scheme.

[TimeFadesAway]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

I made the point earlier in this thread about somebody who has the ability to be in activities 5 days a week as an adult and the reasonable takeaway is that it's not a very adult life. In other words, most adults can't and don't live this way so it's not representative of those who have the money to spend. Which is why most adults end up in the suburbs even if they might be those on the inner ring.

^^^^^^
This is pretty much the life my wife and I lead...early 40's, no kids, few responsibilities. We live in Sky and still have a car even though I walk to work and my wife takes the bus. If there was no parking at Sky, we wouldn't have bought there, full stop. So even though we live the type of life that brings us close to the 'downtown living without a car' target market, we don't fit.

I truly admire ryopinion in giving up his vehicle, but it would be irresponsible/insane for any developer, at this point in time, to base a large development around marketing to people like him, because it is too small a market and the potential for failure is high.

I'd be willing to bet that Streetside would never have embarked on their reno of the Market/James buildings had they known a parkade across the street was NOT happening. They are indicating as much by mothballing their remaining 2 undeveloped places on Market.

[oftheMoon]

^^^^^ I wondering if there is a slight shift in trends in some areas. Using Streetside's 132 James as an example. Occupancy in that building began this time last year and 46 of 49 units sold - all without out owned parking. Sure, there’s leased parking available, but nobody in there owns a spot. This isn’t going to happen everywhere, but seems like a good sign, albeit maybe an isolated occurance.

Also, while Streetside isn’t going to market with their other 2 buildings on Market Ave right now, they’re spending money on it getting it ready so not really moth-balling per say. New windows are going in right now and some inside work also planned to happen next spring. These buildings will be a great addtion to the area when they're available.

[drew]

Originally Posted by oftheMoon

Using Streetside's 132 James as an example. Occupancy in that building began this time last year and 46 of 49 units sold - all without out owned parking. Sure, there’s leased parking available, but nobody in there owns a spot. This isn’t going to happen everywhere, but seems like a good sign, albeit maybe an isolated occurance.

That building is unique in the sense of price point. Most of the units in there were much cheaper than any of the other recent conversions in the area. I think they started around the $150k mark which would be around half that of any other developments near by.

[oftheMoon]

Originally Posted by drew

That building is unique in the sense of price point. Most of the units in there were much cheaper than any of the other recent conversions in the area. I think they started around the $150k mark which would be around half that of any other developments near by.

Cheaper to some extent. While there are several units in the building priced between $150 - $200k, 40% of the units ranged from $200 - $300k.

[TimeFadesAway]

Originally Posted by drew

That building is unique in the sense of price point. Most of the units in there were much cheaper than any of the other recent conversions in the area. I think they started around the $150k mark which would be around half that of any other developments near by.

My understanding of this move is that they finished and priced these units cheaper specifically because of the lack of parking and as a result their margins were pretty low. Clearly the margins were low enough that they feel that they are better off sitting and waiting on the remaining Market buildings than they would be if they finished them in a similar fashion to 132 James.

[TimeFadesAway]

Originally Posted by oftheMoon

Also, while Streetside isn’t going to market with their other 2 buildings on Market Ave right now, they’re spending money on it getting it ready so not really moth-balling per say. New windows are going in right now and some inside work also planned to happen next spring.

That's actually the definition of mothballing.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by oftheMoon

^^^^^ I wondering if there is a slight shift in trends in some areas. Using Streetside's 132 James as an example. Occupancy in that building began this time last year and 46 of 49 units sold - all without out owned parking. Sure, there’s leased parking available, but nobody in there owns a spot. This isn’t going to happen everywhere, but seems like a good sign, albeit maybe an isolated occurance.

Also, while Streetside isn’t going to market with their other 2 buildings on Market Ave right now, they’re spending money on it getting it ready so not really moth-balling per say. New windows are going in right now and some inside work also planned to happen next spring. These buildings will be a great addtion to the area when they're available.

Most of that work is more likely than not just work that's necessary to comply with the vacant building by-law. And if you're as wealthy as Qualico and you're holding an asset, you still don't want it becoming a quasi-homeless shelter waiting for arson like many others that have met that fate. You'd at least protect it at minimal cost. It's not indicative of much. There is nothing planned in the Exchange at the moment and that isn't likely to change at the moment. Qualico bought those buildings 15 years ago for pennies on the dollar. They have the luxury of sitting on a project forever waiting for it to move. Also don't forget that the profit in a project generally comes out of the last 1-4 units depending on the size of the project. Rest assured Qualico doesn't look at this project like one they're interested in replicating.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by drew

That building is unique in the sense of price point. Most of the units in there were much cheaper than any of the other recent conversions in the area. I think they started around the $150k mark which would be around half that of any other developments near by.

This puts the building squarely in investor territory and those purchasing single units are not what one might consider savvy. As you've noted, I wouldn't consider this building indicative of the market. I don't doubt Kijiji will have units for rent in this building with fair regularity.