SkyCity Centre Winnipeg | 45F | 575 Ft | 175.26 M | Cancelled - Page 147

1ajs · #1 Posted **Feb 3, 2018, 10:38 PM**

abusing mods behind the seans is not good either ive put up with allot from certain people around here oever the yrs but in name of keeping a voice around here i put up with it.. but at some point i have to put my foot down

esquire · #2 Posted **Feb 5, 2018, 2:47 PM**

^ Given that the Skycity mirage is evaporating fast, wouldn't it be time to put the brakes on any schemes that involve demolishing the St. Regis?

robertocarlos · #3 Posted **Feb 5, 2018, 4:34 PM**

Maybe the St. Regis will be profitable even as a surface parking lot.

Roger Strong · #4 Posted **Feb 5, 2018, 4:41 PM**

I still say that we should be calling it AtGradeCity.

As opposed to Regina's Capital Pit.

mitchellk12 · #5 Posted **Feb 5, 2018, 5:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Strong

I still say that we should be calling it AtGradeCity.

As opposed to Regina's Capital Pit.

Labroco · #6 Posted **Feb 6, 2018, 6:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by robertocarlos

Maybe the St. Regis will be profitable even as a surface parking lot.

The LAST thing Centre Venture as holder of the mortgage needs to do now is demolish the historic St Regis and apply for a "temporary gravel parking lot" on the site. I think the Bell Hotel Model would work very well with the building.
Everyone is jumping up and down to save the derelict St Charles that is privately owned yet Centre Venture owned St Regis is fair game? I don't get it...

Why doesn't the city historically list it the same way as a multitude of similar structures in the area are?

Close down the beverage room? Yes! Tear down another heritage building for a parkade? No..

Why not hold another vinnette the way they did for Market Lands or Graham Avenue Mall. And please don't use the excuse the building is too far gone. its in the SHED and should be entitled to the same grants and benifits as the other recipients.

There is an opportunity here and an urban 2018 solution is possible...

It's not long ago the Royal Bank Building was in a similar dire spot and look at it now!

rrskylar · #7 Posted **Feb 6, 2018, 7:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Labroco

The LAST thing Centre Venture as holder of the mortgage needs to do now is demolish the historic St Regis and apply for a "temporary gravel parking lot" on the site. I think the Bell Hotel Model would work very well with the building.
Everyone is jumping up and down to save the derelict St Charles that is privately owned yet Centre Venture owned St Regis is fair game? I don't get it...

Why doesn't the city historically list it the same way as a multitude of similar structures in the area are?

Close down the beverage room? Yes! Tear down another heritage building for a parkade? No..

Why not hold another vinnette the way they did for Market Lands or Graham Avenue Mall. And please don't use the excuse the building is too far gone. its in the SHED and should be entitled to the same grants and benifits as the other recipients.

There is an opportunity here and an urban 2018 solution is possible...

It's not long ago the Royal Bank Building was in a similar dire spot and look at it now!

Does anyone think King at Alexander looks better with a crappy vacant grass and garbage strewn lot or with the old Shanghai Restaurant that was a fixture on the corner.

bomberjet · #8 Posted **Feb 6, 2018, 6:47 PM**

I think Ben was joking..

I thought the Pint was owned by people involved with Fortress? Not sure where I got that idea.

buzzg · #9 Posted **Feb 6, 2018, 11:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I think Ben was joking..

I thought the Pint was owned by people involved with Fortress? Not sure where I got that idea.

Absolutely no relation. It's owned by a company called Urban Sparq which is based in Edmonton and has several restaurant/bar concepts and the new Crash Hotel. The company is owned by oil industry people so they have a ton of money.

bomberjet · #10 Posted **Feb 7, 2018, 5:14 PM**

Thanks for the info.

Bluenote · #11 Posted **Feb 7, 2018, 8:16 PM**

TBH. The city should just take a hit and buy that lot. Least then it has a chance of being sold to a company that isn’t a bunch of BS.
I’d rather have $9 million of my tax dollars spent on this then some of the other pipe dreams Bowman spends our money on.

cheswick · #12 Posted **Feb 7, 2018, 8:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluenote

TBH. The city should just take a hit and buy that lot. Least then it has a chance of being sold to a company that isn’t a bunch of BS.
I’d rather have $9 million of my tax dollars spent on this then some of the other pipe dreams Bowman spends our money on.

Really not following your logic. Why should the city go out of its way to buy this lot away from fortress? Its not like there's a huge demand for this property where someone else is just hampering to build something on it. What makes it anymore special than the dozens of other surface lots downtown with nothing getting built on them? Besides the fact that this one actually has a proposal to build on it (regardless of how unlikely it is to come to fruition).

drew · #13 Posted **Feb 7, 2018, 8:43 PM**

If anything, wouldn't the large purchase price of the lot keep Fortress' feet to the fire to get something developed, versus just sitting on it?

HomeInMyShoes · #14 Posted **Feb 7, 2018, 8:50 PM**

^It depends on what they can spin as development in motion to generate 'sucker' interest in other potential devleopments. It's more than likely why there is a hole here. Looks like they are doing stuff to potential investors.

esquire · #15 Posted **Feb 7, 2018, 9:29 PM**

The funny thing is if Fortress had pitched a 25 storey condo building at the outset, there's a decent chance that they could have built it and cashed out by now.

Urban recluse · #16 Posted **Feb 7, 2018, 11:31 PM**

That’s what I thought, but they had to go bigger based on the revenue they need after paying so much for the land???

Wolf13 · #17 Posted **Feb 14, 2018, 6:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

The funny thing is if Fortress had pitched a 25 storey condo building at the outset, there's a decent chance that they could have built it and cashed out by now.

They wouldn't have made enough money with those high land costs. Unit costs would have to jump.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

That’s what I thought, but they had to go bigger based on the revenue they need after paying so much for the land???

Yep.

SkyCity would have gone taller if they were convinced they could sell the units.

If 300 Main wasn't limited by existing foundations, they'd still cap it at 42 stories... because you can't be sure of just selling or leasing space in downtown Wpg... yet.

buzzg · #18 Posted **Feb 14, 2018, 7:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluenote

TBH. The city should just take a hit and buy that lot. Least then it has a chance of being sold to a company that isn’t a bunch of BS.
I’d rather have $9 million of my tax dollars spent on this then some of the other pipe dreams Bowman spends our money on.

This is about the worst idea I've heard this year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

The funny thing is if Fortress had pitched a 25 storey condo building at the outset, there's a decent chance that they could have built it and cashed out by now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

That’s what I thought, but they had to go bigger based on the revenue they need after paying so much for the land???

What's funny/weird is that the land was assessed around $3m in market value I believe... So they probably could have paid $5-6m for it. Seems like they almost paid extra to inflate the value of the project as a whole.

esquire · #19 Posted **Feb 14, 2018, 7:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzg

What's funny/weird is that the land was assessed around $3m in market value I believe... So they probably could have paid $5-6m for it. Seems like they almost paid extra to inflate the value of the project as a whole.

I can't say I understand the reasoning why, but it did strike me that the price of the land was artificially inflated for some reason. Had the project been conceived of as a 25-storey tower, they could have adjusted their offer accordingly (or found another lot nearby, it's not like there's a huge shortage of them) and gotten it done.

Roger Strong · #20 Posted **Feb 14, 2018, 8:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

I can't say I understand the reasoning why, but it did strike me that the price of the land was artificially inflated for some reason.

CBC, Oct 14, 2016: Lawsuits against SkyCity tower developer allege land overvaluation

Quote:

Those lawsuits allege investors in Fortress were led to believe condo projects in Toronto, Barrie, Ont., and Burlington, Ont., were secure investments backed by the value of the land where they going to be built. The lawsuits allege the land in question was overvalued and the plaintiffs were misled in a variety of ways.

In the Toronto project, plaintiffs allege syndicated mortgages were marketed "as safe and secure investments when they knew or ought to have known they were risky investments unsuitable for investors with a lower to moderate risk profile."

[...]

In Winnipeg, Fortress paid $9.5 million in 2013 for the 1.1-acre parcel of land where SkyCity Centre is slated to rise. Fortress bought the land from Oggi Investments, owned by entrepreneurs Sabino Tummillo and John Garcea, which paid $5 million to acquire the land in 2012 from Huntingdon Capital Corporation.