Winnipeg | The Forks Market | Railside at The Forks

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by DowntownBooster

Do we take that risk though? Having those 2,300 jobs in downtown is nothing to sneeze at. Is it right to be telling Skip that they can't move here or there and try to restrict them to certain spots only? Look at what happened to 100 Main. There was opposition to a 30 storey apartment tower and we ended up with a park that no one uses anyway. Is it the Winnipeg way to discourage certain developments so that the opportunity is lost altogether? We know there is a certain commercial real estate firm in town that always tries to draw business from downtown to the suburbs or to the Polo Park area. I wouldn't want to see that happen again with Skip. Who knows, there could also be truth to the rumours that they could be considering locations outside of Winnipeg like Calgary or Toronto. While it's not a good idea to throw caution to the wind when giving consideration to proposed sites for development, it's also not always right to reject them outright either.

As much as I think UFG is dumb, that project for 100 Main just moved to 300 Assiniboine.

And yeah, it's not like you're explicitly saying "sorry, no Skip here" – they don't own the property, and the property already has a development plan and buyer. It's no different than any other organization looking for land to develop, sometimes the one they want won't be available, so you look at others. If I'm Skip, and in a rush, the huge headache that would be developing Parcel 4 makes no sense to me when there are huge swaths of empty lots on the other side of the tracks, and even better, beside their current HQ in the Exchange. From a business and employee perspective, The Forks doesn't even make sense – they're trying to consolidate down from 5 buildings, there's no way they'll be allowed to make a single one big enough at The Forks.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Ya not a surprise. I personally don't think it's a good idea. They should develop the Earls lots – close proximity, but can build a more appropriate tower instead of swallowing up a ton of real estate in The Forks (as its height is max 6 stories IIRC).

Really? Completely disagree. Large tech companies also want large floor plates... not as possible at the earl's site.

Originally Posted by esquire

Yes, while I wouldn't say I oppose this, I'm not crazy about this idea either. There is so much room in the actual CBD part of the downtown, why go with a large scale commercial development at The Forks? They could build in the vacant lots to the west/north of the CN high line (near Shaw Park) and it would pretty well give them all the benefits of being at The Forks as well as being tied closely into Portage & Main and the Exchange. If not there then somewhere else downtown.

Also think I'd feel better about this if it were some other type of company... a fast growth outfit based on a food delivery app seems like the definition of a flash in the pan tech company. Are we going to end up with some big flashy tech company campus only to have the company go under in 5 years? I hope I'm wrong about that, but we'll see.

Sorry, but how is nobody seeing this?

Tech companies thrive on campuses, and at the forks you have one. Earl's? Not unless you're doing it yourself. Tons of apartment options IMMEDIATELY around once developed, attractions at the forks, and a very easy sense of community. Considering also that Skip obviously attracts tech people and outside labour, you want the new or like-minded to be in a thriving comfortable area. Comparatively, Earl's is isolated.

The Earl's site is a great apartment site but Skip basically get a built-in campus at the Forks. Absolute no-brainer that also helps the Forks and the governmenst trumpet this project.

Originally Posted by DowntownBooster

Do we take that risk though? Having those 2,300 jobs in downtown is nothing to sneeze at. Is it right to be telling Skip that they can't move here or there and try to restrict them to certain spots only? Look at what happened to 100 Main. There was opposition to a 30 storey apartment tower and we ended up with a park that no one uses anyway. Is it the Winnipeg way to discourage certain developments so that the opportunity is lost altogether? We know there is a certain commercial real estate firm in town that always tries to draw business from downtown to the suburbs or to the Polo Park area. I wouldn't want to see that happen again with Skip. Who knows, there could also be truth to the rumours that they could be considering locations outside of Winnipeg like Calgary or Toronto. While it's not a good idea to throw caution to the wind when giving consideration to proposed sites for development, it's also not always right to reject them outright either.

We should absolutely never make that risk. We have no clue what kind of implications we put on organizations when whimsically humming and ha-ing over about these existential nuances. We pretend that it should just "be this way" but have no clue how much cost or complication we suddenly imposed on a private endeavor for no reason.

Tons of talent has left Winnipeg, and they will tell you the following reasons:

1) Government meddling and complications. Constantly getting in the way. Development restrictions. Overzealous regulation
2) Better opportunities elsewhere
3) This city, its government and people alike, don't like it when you make money, and like to tell you how you should make money
4) Taxes

Sounds cynical, because it comes from the mouths of cynical, successful people who left.

We should be asking Skip what they want and how we can help. Obviously within reason. Thankfully, I think that's what's currently happening.


Here's another thing to consider. The city isn't always right, and their plans aren't always best. I currently like the ideas going on at the Forks, but sometimes we on this site don't question the city's planning demands or criteria well enough. I'm not saying that applies here, but it's not uncommon for Winnipeg citizens and government to want something done a different way but often contrary to the desires of the one group doing things, developers. There's a reason development here doesn't occur at the same pace as most major cities.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

Really? Completely disagree. Large tech companies also want large floor plates... not as possible at the earl's site.

But completely possible at the Hudson’s bay building, or is that too old and not good enough for ‘skip the dishes’. Large floor plates in an historic building at a prominent location. Makes a hell of a lot more sense than across the street from a human rights museum? Imaging seeing a huge ass glowing skip the dishes sign making its way into every picture of the museum or for every family taking their picture in front of the Winnipeg sign. Not necessary. Skip is not my idea of a tech company... it’s a third party fast food delivery system that uses an app for people in the suburbs who are too lazy to go out. McDonald’s has an app... is it a tech company? Anyway, everyone wants more residents downtown... keep parcel four green until something worthy can go there. Skip isn’t it.

[headhorse]

skipthedishes has never made any money and definitely should not be getting assistance or funding from any form of government in it's search for a new HQ.

[Wpg_Guy]

Creating a tech campus is too risky, none of these companies are profitable, Uber still operates at a 3 billion loss, in ten years this tech boom could go the way of the .com boom.

[wardlow]

The "tech campus" concept of several smaller buildings set among a bunch of landscaping and parking (duhh) is lame and doesn't fit the context -- this is downtown Winnipeg, not suburban Palo Alto. This just sounds like another classic megaproject dressed up in contemporary buzzwords.

Plus, a megaproject on a significant piece of downtown real estate centred on... Skip the Dishes? The company's a great success story, but they've got a lot of work to do if they're ever plan on turning a profit. I would imagine they're currently losing a lot of ground to new, better competitors like DoorDash.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by Hecate

But completely possible at the Hudson’s bay building, or is that too old and not good enough for ‘skip the dishes’. Large floor plates in an historic building at a prominent location. Makes a hell of a lot more sense than across the street from a human rights museum? Imaging seeing a huge ass glowing skip the dishes sign making its way into every picture of the museum or for every family taking their picture in front of the Winnipeg sign. Not necessary. Skip is not my idea of a tech company... it’s a third party fast food delivery system that uses an app for people in the suburbs who are too lazy to go out. McDonald’s has an app... is it a tech company? Anyway, everyone wants more residents downtown... keep parcel four green until something worthy can go there. Skip isn’t it.

Why would anyone want to go into HB instead of a new build?

You have a bunch of younger employees, sometimes fished out from other cities/countries, and you don't think they'd prefer being near the forks rather than Portage Place? They'd live next to their work.

And signage is easily controlled, but we don't sacrifice a good idea because of something so small.

And Skip is 100000% a tech company. They're not a food delivery tech company much like uber isn't a cab service. It's their tech side that saw them get bought out for $130M. It's the tech side that has kept uber well ahead of someone like Duffy's Taxi, who also has an app. Tech is their value, tech is their people, tech is what they do.

And who are we holding out for that provides better value? Maybe they'res someone, but why should we play God with the market's interest? Not worth the risk, and certainly not our place. Anyone else interested can talk to the Forks and the City/Province just like Skip has.

We have to remember, we're bystanders hoping for some kind of "greater real estate good", but who with private interest would favour an aging heritage building with a million restriction built in an huge operating costs?

Originally Posted by wardlow

The "tech campus" concept of several smaller buildings set among a bunch of landscaping and parking (duhh) is lame and doesn't fit the context -- this is downtown Winnipeg, not suburban Palo Alto. This just sounds like another classic megaproject dressed up in contemporary buzzwords.

Plus, a megaproject on a significant piece of downtown real estate centred on... Skip the Dishes? The company's a great success story, but they've got a lot of work to do if they're ever plan on turning a profit. I would imagine they're currently losing a lot of ground to new, better competitors like DoorDash.

It's a mini tech campus because skip only needs to build their building... many other parts of the campus are merely coincidentally planned. The living space, shops, and of course existing amenities. I don't know where the feared overload of parking came from... whatever Skip proposes must satisfy the Forks anyway. Nor is it a megaproject.

Nor is Skip Amazon... but they are successful and highly valued in the tech community, and backed by a larger owner. I wouldn't see them as losing ground to new guys, but as leading a field that new guys decided was valuable enough to enter. Their proprietary tech is highly regarded.

Strike while the iron's hot!

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by wardlow

The "tech campus" concept of several smaller buildings set among a bunch of landscaping and parking (duhh) is lame and doesn't fit the context -- this is downtown Winnipeg, not suburban Palo Alto. This just sounds like another classic megaproject dressed up in contemporary buzzwords.

Plus, a megaproject on a significant piece of downtown real estate centred on... Skip the Dishes? The company's a great success story, but they've got a lot of work to do if they're ever plan on turning a profit. I would imagine they're currently losing a lot of ground to new, better competitors like DoorDash.

Representative of social isolation and decline, as well as an economy that is generating largely low wage jobs with no security.

Agree 100%, not a good fit for downtown. The building needs to be hollowed out so the floor plan is amenable to housing, with some retail on the main level and basement. The parkade should be demolished and replaced by similar height and sympathetic development (so as not to obstruct or interfere with the view down Memorial Blvd.) with underground parking.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

Creating a tech campus is too risky, none of these companies are profitable, Uber still operates at a 3 billion loss, in ten years this tech boom could go the way of the .com boom.

Self-driving cabs are the way of the future. Canada will lag behind as always, but by 2030 certainly.

[Spocket]

Okay, not gonna lie, I have no clue what Skip The Dishes is or what they do. However, how the hell are they still in business if they're operating at a loss? I mean, if a business loses money year after year, how can that be considered anybody's idea of a success story? That's the epitome of failure right there.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Spocket

Okay, not gonna lie, I have no clue what Skip The Dishes is or what they do. However, how the hell are they still in business if they're operating at a loss? I mean, if a business loses money year after year, how can that be considered anybody's idea of a success story? That's the epitome of failure right there.

Essentially a food delivery service for restaurants who previously had no delivery, which is most of them. Speaking to a Skip driver a few weeks ago while picking up my own order, he said the majority of his deliveries are fast food, for which including the delivery fee, people are paying $17 or $18 for a combo!

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Essentially a food delivery service for restaurants who previously had no delivery, which is most of them. Speaking to a Skip driver a few weeks ago while picking up my own order, he said the majority of his deliveries are fast food, for which including the delivery fee, people are paying $17 or $18 for a combo!

Thanks for the info. I still have to wonder how they're still in business, however.

[esquire]

I think I'm getting over my hangups and can say I'm behind this. The area where they'd build this thing is basically a transitional site anyway, so what's the big deal if they design buildings a few storeys taller than there would otherwise be.

This way even if Skip goes belly up there would be a tangible legacy that others could benefit from in the future. And if they don't, we end up with this so-called tech company headquarters downtown.

[hello]

As long as this development fits into the Forks overall vision then this City should support this project and its largest tech company. I doubt Skip would fully move their whole operation out of the City but hundreds of jobs could be relocated. Calgary has a 100 million dollar innovation fund and is giving away million dollar cheques to help grow the tech sector and support businesses who expand operations in the City. Calgary also has way more A class office space then Winnipeg for a very reasonable price and is a better City to attract talent too. I think that threat is very real. I surely hope we support Skip and fight to keep good jobs in Winnipeg. Skip employs a ton of young people who live downtown with a good amount of discretionary income that help support local business. The trickle down effect of having Skip in the City is huge.

[Biff]

The reason it is proposed for Parcel 4 at the Forks is that it is a City owned lot. The Forks do not own it. The City has apparently been negotiating with Skip for some time. This is likely why there is no real push to have it located elsewhere downtown. The City has a lot to offer (figuratively and literally) with Parcel 4 that couldn't be offered elsewhere.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Biff

The reason it is proposed for Parcel 4 at the Forks is that it is a City owned lot. The Forks do not own it. The City has apparently been negotiating with Skip for some time. This is likely why there is no real push to have it located elsewhere downtown. The City has a lot to offer (figuratively and literally) with Parcel 4 that couldn't be offered elsewhere.

I get that land assembly will never be easier than with The Forks site and the City's lot, but surely there are other viable options downtown?

Just spitballing here, but what about fitting into existing office towers? We keep hearing about the high office vacancy rate, but what about taking up half or more of the Portage and Main buildings as leases expire?

Or what about building on a big lot like one of the Cityplace parking lots and using one of the existing buildings around there like 330 St. Mary or 175 Hargrave? Or WCB? The WCB's parking lot alone could probably accommodate a few big buildings. What about replacing Portage Place?

I think I would be OK with saying yes to The Forks for fear of having Skip go to the suburbs or another city altogether, but I would be curious to know how many other downtown options have been considered.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by esquire

Just spitballing here, but what about fitting into existing office towers? We keep hearing about the high office vacancy rate, but what about taking up half or more of the Portage and Main buildings as leases expire?

Or what about building on a big lot like one of the Cityplace parking lots and using one of the existing buildings around there like 330 St. Mary or 175 Hargrave? Or WCB? The WCB's parking lot alone could probably accommodate a few big buildings. What about replacing Portage Place?

What is the price to aquire these empty lots for construction or picking up leases in various buildings (which is why I think they want to build their own).

My belief is the City will give them Parcel 4 for $1 and other incentives. How does looking at a private lot (like SkyCity for $7 million) compete?

[esquire]

Fair enough. I guess the City (and EDW too, who has been reportedly exerting pressure in this) would love to have a shiny trophy consisting of a flashy new tech building filled with knowledge workers standing prominently on the city skyline at The Forks.

Location issues aside, do you know what we're looking at in terms of size and massing? 2,400 workers is a lot... just spitballing, but I would imagine that could easily fill a traditional 35+ storey office tower. A tech campus would be lower-slung, but even still I would think you'd need 10+ storey buildings covering much of the site to house that many workers? It would probably be approaching GWL's campus in size...

[Biff]

Originally Posted by esquire

Location issues aside, do you know what we're looking at in terms of size and massing?

I was told, 3 or 4 - 6 to 10 storey buildings.

[wardlow]

Originally Posted by Biff

I was told, 3 or 4 - 6 to 10 storey buildings.

Yes, I've heard similar numbers as well.