WINNIPEG | Portage Place Redevelopment

[esquire]

^ I take your point. But what's in it for them by spending money to carve up the mall and re-open the streets? Frankly I think that would be great for downtown, but I just wonder what would motivate them to do that.

[drew]

They won't be streets again, but from the outside it will resemble three distinct buildings.

Again, educated guess. Who knows how it will end up.

[robertocarlos]

They could rebuild it like the RBC Convention Centre and have the streets run through the building.

[Wpg_Guy]

It will probably resemble more of a couple pedestrian arcades connecting the south end of the property to the north.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by wardlow

It's so frustrating that there doesn't seem to be any room in the greater public dialogue for this kind of nuanced, reasonable perspective on downtown safety. It's almost always a binary choice between 'Downtown is a dangerous cesspoool and its a wonder we're not all murdered' and 'Downtown safety issues are just, like, your perception, man'.

Definitely. On this forum anyway, people seem to use one extreme or the other to make their argument. It reminds me of last fall, during the Open P&M debate.

Urbanist in March of last year: "I've never had a single issue downtown. I work downtown and walk around in the evening. None of my friends or I have ever felt unsafe. Only suburban folk perceive downtown as unsafe, due to classism."

Same Urbanist in September last year: "The Portage and Main underground is SO dangerous. I know 4 people who were yelled at and assaulted down there in the last month alone. It's only a matter of time before someone faces serious violence in that scary concourse!"

[davequanbury]

Sure, it would be optimal if Starlite improved the mal, built the towers, opened the stores to the sidewalk, but what if they just grab the profits from the parking and let the property coast/decay further?

Parking is going to remain a commodity downtown (as are sketchy-looking people, panhandlers, suburbanites, urbanites, lefties and conservatives).

If the profit comes from the parking portion of the property without capital investment, there’s a solid chance they don’t do anything.

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by davequanbury

Sure, it would be optimal if Starlite improved the mal, built the towers, opened the stores to the sidewalk, but what if they just grab the profits from the parking and let the property coast/decay further?

Parking is going to remain a commodity downtown (as are sketchy-looking people, panhandlers, suburbanites, urbanites, lefties and conservatives).

If the profit comes from the parking portion of the property without capital investment, there’s a solid chance they don’t do anything.

That seems unlikely as their business model has been to purchase under performing properties and reinvest in them. But anything is possible only time will tell.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Bdog

Definitely. On this forum anyway, people seem to use one extreme or the other to make their argument. It reminds me of last fall, during the Open P&M debate.

Urbanist in March of last year: "I've never had a single issue downtown. I work downtown and walk around in the evening. None of my friends or I have ever felt unsafe. Only suburban folk perceive downtown as unsafe, due to classism."

Same Urbanist in September last year: "The Portage and Main underground is SO dangerous. I know 4 people who were yelled at and assaulted down there in the last month alone. It's only a matter of time before someone faces serious violence in that scary concourse!"

Ok but just because a very small portion of downtown is unsafe (the concourse) does not mean the downtown as a whole is unsafe.

Your two premises here don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

It will probably resemble more of a couple pedestrian arcades connecting the south end of the property to the north.

That would be a pretty good move IMO. Maintain at least some public space even if they move in the direction of sealing off most of the complex. That would probably effectively 'right size' the mall as the handful of thriving businesses could cluster around those arcade areas with the rest of the space turned into something else.

Originally Posted by davequanbury

Sure, it would be optimal if Starlite improved the mal, built the towers, opened the stores to the sidewalk, but what if they just grab the profits from the parking and let the property coast/decay further?

Parking is going to remain a commodity downtown (as are sketchy-looking people, panhandlers, suburbanites, urbanites, lefties and conservatives).

If the profit comes from the parking portion of the property without capital investment, there’s a solid chance they don’t do anything.

Sounds like a possibility. And that isn't to say that Starlight isn't entering into this with the best of intentions. It's just that if the ambitious redevelopment plans don't add up, well, you can still keep raking it in from the parkade until a real redevelopment play materializes, while effectively doing nothing with the above-ground part of the place. Basically a repeat of the Winnipeg Square scenario.

That would be dreadful if it happened, though... I hope FNP and the levels of government have done their homework to prevent that type of scenario from playing out.

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by esquire

I hope FNP and the levels of government have done their homework to prevent that type of scenario from playing out.

While some of the potential negative outcomes discussed here are possible, I believe the stakeholders involved here have a great deal more information about the buyers and their plans than many, if not all, of us do (with the exception of Biff, who seems to know everything!). It's difficult to predict success or failure of the project from the sidelines.

With that in mind, I think the development agencies involved have learned a great deal about what works and what doesn't since PP was first built. Having such a huge interest in seeing the Portage Place "misjudgement" corrected, I doubt they would settle for vague promises from any potential developer of PP. My (uneducated) guess is that the stakeholders have seen a pretty sting commitment from the developers in what they, at least minimally, plan to do, and that it's an improvement over the status quo.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by pspeid

While some of the potential negative outcomes discussed here are possible, I believe the stakeholders involved here have a great deal more information about the buyers and their plans than many, if not all, of us do (with the exception of Biff, who seems to know everything!). It's difficult to predict success or failure of the project from the sidelines.

With that in mind, I think the development agencies involved have learned a great deal about what works and what doesn't since PP was first built. Having such a huge interest in seeing the Portage Place "misjudgement" corrected, I doubt they would settle for vague promises from any potential developer of PP. My (uneducated) guess is that the stakeholders have seen a pretty sting commitment from the developers in what they, at least minimally, plan to do, and that it's an improvement over the status quo.

In all fairness, is it possible to do anything that isn't an improvement over the status quo? That mall hasn't been updated since it was opened 30 years ago. They replace floor tiles with mismatched ones. They run the escalators backwards to every other place on the continent. I get that it was a failure of a mall from day one, but I honestly think poor management has brought it down to the level it is today. Even ten or 15 years ago it was a better mall and I'd say downtown was less vibrant then.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by cheswick

In all fairness, is it possible to do anything that isn't an improvement over the status quo? That mall hasn't been updated since it was opened 30 years ago. They replace floor tiles with mismatched ones. They run the escalators backwards to every other place on the continent. I get that it was a failure of a mall from day one, but I honestly think poor management has brought it down to the level it is today. Even ten or 15 years ago it was a better mall and I'd say downtown was less vibrant then.

I have been going to Portage Place pretty regularly since it opened in 1987. Admittedly I was pretty young for the first few years so I don't remember many details from the first few years, but it seems to break down into three phases.

1987-1998 - PP as normal regional mall with The Bay and Eaton's as de facto anchors

(Eaton's closes)

1999-2009 - PP as neighbourhood shopping centre with The Bay as de facto anchor

(Several major stores close including Holt Renfrew, McNally Robinson, Club Monaco, Marks & Spencer, Sports Experts, the cinemas close)

2010 - present - PP as distressed asset where you go to buy cheap cell phone cases and deep discount clothing in the few remaining stores that haven't become office space


Bottom line, it feels like the landlord pretty well gave up on the place about 10 years ago.

[GarryEllice]

Originally Posted by cheswick

They run the escalators backwards to every other place on the continent.

Oh gee, better tear the place down then!
(Seriously though, I don't see how this is an issue at all. Presumably they have some motivation for running them in that way.)

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by esquire

I have been going to Portage Place pretty regularly since it opened in 1987. Admittedly I was pretty young for the first few years so I don't remember many details from the first few years, but it seems to break down into three phases.

1987-1998 - PP as normal regional mall with The Bay and Eaton's as de facto anchors

(Eaton's closes)

1999-2009 - PP as neighbourhood shopping centre with The Bay as de facto anchor

(Several major stores close including Holt Renfrew, McNally Robinson, Club Monaco, Marks & Spencer, Sports Experts, the cinemas close)

2010 - present - PP as distressed asset where you go to buy cheap cell phone cases and deep discount clothing in the few remaining stores that haven't become office space


Bottom line, it feels like the landlord pretty well gave up on the place about 10 years ago.

Yes, it's basically a mall with no anchor stores to speak of (the mostly-empty Bay store can't, IMO, be considered much of an "anchor" any more). Without the through-traffic of Eaton's and The Bay, I don't think any revitalization of PP strictly as a "mall" will be much of a success. Like most folks, I expect to see some retail preserved (Staples, Shoppers) some services (restaurants, dental offices, etc.) then a mix of office and residential.

Now for the conjecture! I could see the Edmonton Kennedy courts demolished at ground level, with ground-level pedestrian access and sight-lines to The Promenade and sky-walks on the second level. Portage Ave access to remaining ground-level retail, with individual stores facades. office/residential towers on the pads at either end. Oh, and a bookstore....please!!

[bomberjet]

Crikey, that was interesting.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

Oh gee, better tear the place down then!
(Seriously though, I don't see how this is an issue at all. Presumably they have some motivation for running them in that way.)

Someone once posted on here that the owners were into Feng Shui. I don't know how many countless times I've seen people about to go down the escalators towards Staples and enter on the right side and are greeted by an up escalator. Same thing with the ones going from the main floor to the second floor to the rhird floor. You go up to get to the second floor. Then instead of the escalator that's right there taking you up further, you have to walk across the floor to get to the other one. It's nonsensical.

It's not a big deal, but it's weird.

[optimusREIM]

There's an article about the sale being officially approved on CBC https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...sold-1.5265514 but it doesn't really give any specifics. Aren't we still waiting for Feds' approval?

[GarryEllice]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

There's an article about the sale being officially approved on CBC https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...sold-1.5265514 but it doesn't really give any specifics. Aren't we still waiting for Feds' approval?

No, the feds have approved it now.
https://winnipegsun.com/news/news-ne...al-of-approval

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

No, the feds have approved it now.
https://winnipegsun.com/news/news-ne...al-of-approval

Thanks for confirming. Maybe I missed it because I'm just not keeping on top of things as well as I ought to.

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

There's an article about the sale being officially approved on CBC https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...sold-1.5265514 but it doesn't really give any specifics. Aren't we still waiting for Feds' approval?

It says right in the CBC article you posted “All three levels of government have signed off on the sale to Toronto-based Starlight Investments“.

starlight is now in a 60 day due diligence phase, we’ll hear more after that. The only reason this sale has gone public was due to the public assets involved. Normally a sale and development of this magnitude would not be publicly released until’s virtually shovel ready. Plans are still being developed behind the scenes, these things take time to materialize.