Winnipeg Construction VIII

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by esquire

Yeah, so convenient that the insurer is going to go to the wall on it. There can't be any easy money coming from this incident.

That's going to be a hell of an investigation given how quickly that building came down.

And who knows what happened. It's just a very beneficial fire for somebody who was being forced to redevelop it as is. Naturally one would've preferred to demolish it.

Anyway, it's not an issue now.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by trueviking

Gem owned that building?

It's likely a numbered company that owns the building

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by esquire

I don't think it's a case of "never". If the parcel 4 development takes shape nicely, then the site in question will become very marketable. It could be ripe for a nice project in a decade from now.

I could handle sitting on the existing arrangement for another 10 years in the hopes of getting something better instead of locking in a single storey suburban-style restaurant for the next half-century.

I'm really not trying to be dire about the situation, but Sabino has no reason to sell that lot. He'd likely prefer not to. The days of somebody stepping in and paying him what he wants are probably never coming and that's just a fact. I'll give you a bit of an example. The lot at the Winter Club is zoned RMU and is very similar in size. It's likely bigger, but we're dealing with similar dimensions in any case. That lot is on the market for $2.3MM because it's got the most generous, lucrative zoning you can possibly have as far s density goes. And it can't generate a serious look because even though you can get well over a 100 units, this is still Winnipeg and high-rise construction is still what it is.

Unless Winnipeg suddenly changes its course to value urban real estate in a way that far exceeds how it has historically, there's almost nothing you can put there that is going to value the land as highly as an Earl's might. They don't need to keep building up to keep the revenue coming and their margins will be significantly higher than a residential build. Because if we were somewhere like downtown Vancouver or Toronto, Earls would be a tenant. And this all takes into account that you can actually create a TIF on that site and put 15 years worth of property tax back in your pocket. You still can't make it work!

At this point I'm for things that create a solid property tax stream to the city in a sustainable way. It's nice to think that one day we'll be a city with a dense urban form, but that's likely never happening here. They've been planning it since the turn of the 20th century. I'll take the sure thing at this point. And Earl's isn't a bad downtown neighbour. It's not my style, but it does a much better job than a lot of things at creating some interest in downtown.

[trueviking]

we all know what is going to happen with earl's. Its not even worth discussing.

if i was king I would tell them to meet the by-law or take a hike. Not only are they building a single storey building on a downtown site, they are locking in a block long parking lot ad infinitum.

Its time we stopped accepting development for the sake of development. Its a restaurant made of styrofoam that belongs in a suburban shopping mall parking lot. Who really cares if it doesn't get built....we are better than that now....or at least we should act like we are.

I get that the owner of the land has no impetus to sell, but I do see that strip of main street as having potential in the future because of the rail-side development at the forks. This is no better than a parking lot that is there now, but when it gets built it will close the potential for a good development.

Its the stupid City's fault for selling that land in the first place. It was being saved for the exit of rapid transit off the rail line. But of course one hand never talks to the other in Winnipeg.

Its all not worth the effort of typing this, but that's what I would do. If the City had balls they would tell them to add a storey or go home. Downtown is loaded with Earl's type restaurants now....who cares if they go.

[esquire]

^ Exactly. The bird in the hand here isn't really all that great.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

That's one of the more beneficial fir time. Marquess must be completely devastated.

Gotta be the happiest man in Winnipeg tonight.

Can't believe it took that long to burn that place down.

I have spent a lot of time on that building. It's just been cluster from day one. However, in the current developers defence, it was questionable work in the past (forty or more years ago) that doomed that building.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by trueviking

we all know what is going to happen with earl's. Its not even worth discussing.

if i was king I would tell them to meet the by-law or take a hike. Not only are they building a single storey building on a downtown site, they are locking in a block long parking lot ad infinitum.

Its time we stopped accepting development for the sake of development. Its a restaurant made of styrofoam that belongs in a suburban shopping mall parking lot. Who really cares if it doesn't get built....we are better than that now....or at least we should act like we are.

I get that the owner of the land has no impetus to sell, but I do see that strip of main street as having potential in the future because of the rail-side development at the forks. This is no better than a parking lot that is there now, but when it gets built it will close the potential for a good development.

Its the stupid City's fault for selling that land in the first place. It was being saved for the exit of rapid transit off the rail line. But of course one hand never talks to the other in Winnipeg.

Its all not worth the effort of typing this, but that's what I would do. If the City had balls they would tell them to add a storey or go home. Downtown is loaded with Earl's type restaurants now....who cares if they go.

This is the same crowd that wears their Jets jersey over their collared shirt, their distressed boot cut jeans over their dress shoes, puts glossy gel in their little remaining hair, and always smells like aftershave. And there are lots of these people in the city on their second wives looking to have a good time before they drive home over the limit. This is what drives our city and our downtown. The idea that anything else is behind it is kind of misplaced. And so while we think that it's bad, it's what we get.

We have to be careful what we wish for. I couldn't care less about these people because I'm not much of a downtown person myself, but for those who think the resurgence is happening all around us, this is who is largely driving it, unfortunately. We kick out Earl's and Rudy's and the other suburban attractions, there's no much left of downtown.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by drew

Gotta be the happiest man in Winnipeg tonight.

Can't believe it took that long to burn that place down.

I have spent a lot of time on that building. It's just been cluster from day one. However, in the current developers defence, it was questionable work in the past (forty or more years ago) that doomed that building.

Was it still Marquess working on it after the city refused the demo permit?

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by esquire

I don't think it's a case of "never". If the parcel 4 development takes shape nicely, then the site in question will become very marketable. It could be ripe for a nice project in a decade from now.

I could handle sitting on the existing arrangement for another 10 years in the hopes of getting something better instead of locking in a single storey suburban-style restaurant for the next half-century.

"If" the parcel 4 development comes into play, and "if" that parcel 4 development is so successful that it spurs unprecedented demand for the Earls site across the tracks, and "if" that demand is for a higher and better use, then it should be no problem that the Phase-2 Earls is on the north of that site. Like in other cities, the "lower" use will get bull-dozed and the towers can rise.

Locked in for 50 years? Hardly. I mean, the existing Earls, which was going to be torn down in the original application, hadn't even been around 20 years at the time they applied...

I mean, I get that some on here would love to see mid-rise development on every downtown block, with a nice commercial main floor and offices and condos above that. But, if the market isn't there, and won't be any time soon, is it better to pick our battles (e.g. Exchange, or, dare-I-say SHED) and welcome a lively patio that fronts the street and takes out a derelict, vacant lot?

[trueviking]

The building that went up in flames was just about to be redeveloped. The plan was just submitted to UDAC last week.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by trueviking

if i was king I would tell them to meet the by-law or take a hike. Not only are they building a single storey building on a downtown site, they are locking in a block long parking lot ad infinitum.

You're right. No use getting more successful land use out of that location. Lets wait until the perfect development comes along...and wait...and wait...and wait. We're not better than things that actually bring people and money to downtown. Earls does. That's a reality.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by trueviking

The building that went up in flames was just about to be redeveloped. The plan was just submitted to UDAC.

Yeah, that's what I had understood. I was just checking to see if Drew knew something about an ownership change or something that had quietly happened in the process. Either way, pretty fortuitous bounce given the total impossibility of ever redeveloping that building in a profitable way.

[trueviking]

How hard is it for earls to add a storey. That's the rule, play by it. I'm not saying earls shouldn't build, but we should force them to abide by the bylaw that was implemented for a reason. That is the highest grossing restaurant in winnipeg. They need to be there more than we need them there. Use your leverage to at least get a better project out of them, if they are going to give us a massive parking lot to live with.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by trueviking

How hard is it for earls to add a storey.

How will that actually improve the development? Further, maybe that makes the development completely non viable. I'm sorry, but Winnipeg, no matter how far its come, just isn't at the point where it can turn down unquestionably successful developments because there's a story missing.

[trueviking]

I'm not sure the owners will be too happy. It's a difficult site to build new. They've invested a lot into it and I think the redevelopment relied on the old building to make the numbers work.

We'll see. Hopefully something happens with the site.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

How will that actually improve the development? Further, maybe that makes the development completely non viable. I'm sorry, but Winnipeg, no matter how far its come, just isn't at the point where it can turn down unquestionably successful developments because there's a story missing.

Rumours Earls Take Over 6000 Square Feet Second Floor In Shoppers Drugs Mart Osborne Village

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

How will that actually improve the development? Further, maybe that makes the development completely non viable. I'm sorry, but Winnipeg, no matter how far its come, just isn't at the point where it can turn down unquestionably successful developments because there's a story missing.

I don't consider that a successful development. I would rather not have earls there than have a styrofoam one storey box and a block of surface parking. We are at a point where we can demand better. They need that site. If they take their ball and go home, who cares. It does little for downtown overall. This is hardly a project the City needs to bend over. They hold all the cards. Earls has a greater negative impact on downtown now than it does positive because it kills an entire city block.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by trueviking

I don't consider that a successful development. I would rather not have earls there than have a styrofoam one storey box and a block of surface parking. We are at a point where we can demand better. They need that site. If they take their ball and go home, who cares. It does little for downtown overall. This is hardly a project the City needs to bend over. They hold all the cards. Earls has a greater negative impact on downtown now than it does positive because it kills an entire city block.

The one thing I can agree with is the fewer Earl's patrons anywhere the better. What an awful place - top to bottom. That goes doubly for the status-seeking wannabe trash that frequents the Main Street location.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by trueviking

I'm not sure GEM will be too happy. It's a difficult site to build new. They've invested a lot into it and I think the redevelopment relied on the old building to make the numbers work.

We'll see. Hopefully something happens with the site.

That would be kind of odd given they tried to tear the building down originally, but I guess anything is possible. It seemed the envelope of that building was compromised - not just the interior structure. I don't see how anything makes that building work to be honest.

[buzzg]

Remember when the city blocked someone from building a tower off Main Street, and tear down another building, to build a "park" that's years behind schedule. I have a hard time believing many people are going to frequent that place — sure, it looks nice, but it's essentially on a highway. It's gonna be windy and dusty, and has no 'play' areas... it's just a really big butt-parking lot.

Oh but wait! There's gonna be an "interpretive centre" .... eventually.... maybe.