Winnipeg | Forks Redevelopment | Parcel 4 - Rail Side Initiative | Proposals

[Wolf13]

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!

Originally Posted by Spocket

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

Saying Skip is a food delivery system is like saying Microsoft is a company that lets you email and write documents on the computer.

It's a tech company. Food delivery is what some of their tech does.

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.

Exactly. It's quite clear. The only opposition here is that many of us here have some grand ideas (ideals?) reserved for this site.

Originally Posted by esquire

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.

Fair questions:

1. Sure there are other options, but why wouldn't they love this one? Lots going for it. It is not a civic or social concession for Winnipeg to take a loss and let Skip operate near the forks.
2. They've tried fitting into existing towers and nearby space. Every major landlord has probably been chasing them. Yet this is what they prefer, and they probably have many reasons. There's nothing cohesive either about spreading your forces across several buildings or floors. Why inherit a disjointed environment with drawbacks when you can create your own?
3. Interesting possible addresses, and sure they're available... but why would they go there over the forks? All worse locations.


While your questions are totally fair, this topic reads like SSP is a high end restaurant, and a young couple comes in and wants a totally vacant table. SSP restaurant is trying in vain to put them at a lesser table just in case a slightly more fitting patron comes in requesting the same table.

If I worked for Skip, and I don't, reading this thread would be kinda infuriating.

Originally Posted by Bdog

My goodness, this mentality is just depressing. A homegrown, tech company is looking to invest tens of millions in new office space downtown on the edges of the exchange. This company would keep and bring over 2000 well-paying jobs downtown, most of those jobs held by a young demographic with disposable income. Demand for restaurants, housing and services in the area would continue to increase. Amazingly, this is proposed on a vacant lot that's been used for decades as PARKING, and not a single building would be demolished.

What's our response?

Not tall enough.
Logo won't look good from CMHR.
They might go bankrupt.
Hope we don't give them a cent.
Tech companies aren't profitable.
Some random parking lot I know of downtown is better for this.
201 Portage lost a few tenants, put them there.
Are they even really a tech company?
Very bad look when families take a CMHR selfie.
Skip is for lazy suburbanites anyways.

Originally Posted by buzzg

How are you not seeing that this "campus" thing you describe is already exactly what Skip has in the Exchange?

They have employees located in several buildings all within a 2 minute walk, tons of restaurants around, lots of employees live in the Exchange (Boyce Lofts and Porter House are almost ALL Skip people), and for those people moving to Winnipeg – anything they could "desire" is right around them. Hell, almost all the other big tech companies here are already in The Exchange.

If they move to The Forks, they won't be able to consolidate operations because The Forks won't let them building a single building that's large enough for 2,500+ employees – and they shouldn't. The Forks is trying to build an active neighbourhood, as just about any CBD (especially here) in any city will show you – offices don't do much for an area after 6pm.

If Skip were to go to Main Street, they get the best of all worlds – still close to The Exchange (where many employees already live), right by The Forks, prominent frontage, and they help with "giving back" to the city, which they've said is a desire of theirs. Or, again, buy the lot next to their existing building and make the hub there.

The Forks has seemingly already had lots of interest, it doesn't need Skip on site by any stretch.

1. Clearly they want to leave. Could be any number of reasons. I wouldn't mind if they continued expanding in the exchange but my will is not theirs, nor should I try to make it so. I'd imagine dealing with old buildings has something to do with it.

2. Offices do plenty for an area if there are apartments immediately nearby, as would be the case here. Furthermore tech companies operating across a myriad of time zones will also have sliding hour scales, and people working later. Furthermore, there's plenty to do immediately near these offices. Any CBD will show you, professionals love an after work beer or activity.

3. As for their exact needs and how to make it work, let's see what they can come up with. I'm not saying they won't screw this up... there's a chance for sure... but I definitely think this is an avenue they should pursue.

4. I'm sure the forks has interest, but none this concrete... otherwise we would have heard about it. You don't turn away any credible option, certainly not one with positive visibility for the City and the Forks like Skip, in the hopes that something more boring but more perfectly Winnipeggly ideal comes around

5. It's amazing exposure... companies like that. It's at the forks, a top Winnipeg attraction. No tourist will ever peruse trip advisor and see an article praising the neighbourhood around 423 Main where Skip can get a few cheap looks.

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

The Forks is a national historic site, and the parcel 4 land should be developed as mixed residential/commercial, not developed as office towers. Put that somewhere in the myriad sea of parking lots south of Portage. It's all about them wanting exposure. Too bad, this city has some standards, and hopefully at least a little bit of pride.

Can you imagine Vancouver considering a Skip the Dishes campus with tower blocks on Granville Island?

Everybody wants exposure, it's not a dirty word.

And what "standards?" the misguided "standards" that have helped stagnate our economic development for decades because we get hung up on dumb idealistic bullshit, chasing people away?

While you think it's a better fit for south of portage, THEY don't think so, and it's THEIR money. Huge factor.

As for Granville island, depends... are a series of 3-10 storey buildings being planned there? If so, then it's not so out of place.

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

^ mixed residential/commercial, in a style sympathetic to the adjoining east Exchange and Union Station and complimentary to the CMHR. Oriented towards and the two roadways would intersect at a leafy central public square with a fountain, which would be flanked by commercial development, perhaps including a boutique hotel and/or a youth hostel. Narrow streets oriented entirely towards pedestrians and no surface parking. There's plenty of parking within walking distance, parking will be permitted on street and residents will utilize underground parkades.

Something like the top image in this article, but better and with public square more treed and with better gardens, perhaps using only foliage native to the Red River Valley. Image can be enlarged.

https://intercongreen.com/2014/05/27...just-location/

I was beginning to think you were becoming too idealistic, but perhaps using only foliage native to the Red River Valley propelled you way beyond that.

I agree with some of what you want for sure, but the desire for enforcement at the expense of a clear benefit to the area is strange.

[Curmudgeon]

^ How is using local foliage way beyond idealistic? Is buying local produce way beyond idealistic?

It's not misguided standards that resulted in stagnant growth in Winnipeg from the 70s until after 2000. It was de-industrialization and the re-oreintation of the Canadian economy from an east-west to a north-south basis. In fact, the lack of standards is what has resulted in a rather unattractive and correspondingly unhealthy urban core and the result has been a very negative image that Winnipeggers have of their own city.

Not the right fit for parcel 4 or for the Forks. The west Exchange or south Portage are suitable. No development is preferable to bad development. Something better will come along. I get the impression that you would like Winnipeg to look and feel like Houston.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

^ How is using local foliage way beyond idealistic? Is buying local produce way beyond idealistic?

It's not misguided standards that resulted in stagnant growth in Winnipeg from the 70s until after 2000. It was de-industrialization and the re-oreintation of the Canadian economy from an east-west to a north-south basis. In fact, the lack of standards is what has resulted in a rather unattractive and correspondingly unhealthy urban core and the result has been a very negative image that Winnipeggers have of their own city.

Not the right fit for parcel 4 or for the Forks. The west Exchange or south Portage are suitable. No development is preferable to bad development. Something better will come along. I get the impression that you would like Winnipeg to look and feel like Houston.

It's not a bad thing to have, but the extremity of your focus on the foliage rather than the economic benefit paints an idealogical picture. I'm straw-manning a little, i agree.

That's a broader discussion, and I wouldn't say it was a lack of standards, but simply completely incorrect standards. As far as I remember, Winnipeg tried, but tried the wrong way. You're right about the North-South-East-West thing, but I was referring to an earlier post of mine. Winnipeg has a history, on a microeconomic level, of making it harder for people to prosper here than elsewhere. Yes, the stronger western economy is a huge effect, yet we still sweat the small stuff that puts the talent over the edge before they say "screw it, I'm going to Alberta". if we're suddenly making someone's house or development at 584 Gertrude cost 50-100k more to produce, we're running them out of town. Winnipeg isn't making enough money to be that strict yet.

But again, where you and I disagree is the strength of your resolve on your ideals... no development is better than bad development. This is NOT bad development by any means. It's just not your top choice. Much like the exchange is still good for Skip, but not their top choice.

I don't want Winnipeg to look like Houston, and that's a straw man in and of itself. I want Winnipeg to MOVE, to be ALIVE. Economic prosperity/mobility are the biggest drivers of successful medium/long term development, especially in a downtown, and we've been sitting on our thumbs for 30-50 years. Winnipeg finally is gaining momentum, and we're already arrogant enough to say Skip isn't good enough for Parcel 4. That attitude is another 10-20 years away from being passable, and it makes my "red river foliage" quip seem spot on.

[bomberjet]

So what if the Skip campus was in fact all the utopian glory as described with 3-4 mid rises towers on top of said ground level glory? We have no details and once again are losing it. All based on hearsay, although from a reliable source.

[esquire]

^ I don't think it's a question so much of "is Skip the Dishes good enough for parcel 4" so much as it is a question of "is a large corporate office complex appropriate for parcel 4". There is a difference.

But come on, we know that if push comes to shove, there is no way that the City won't green light that idea.

[dmacc]

If Skip is telling the City they are willing to spend $200+ million, which 3-4 mid rises would easily cost to build, while building out Parcel 4 and creating more employment downtown then the City would be stupid not to seriously consider their proposal.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by dmacc

If Skip is telling the City they are willing to spend $200+ million, which 3-4 mid rises would easily cost to build, while building out Parcel 4 and creating more employment downtown then the City would be stupid not to seriously consider their proposal.

BINGO.

We're so quick to tell people how to make their money but help heaven and hell if we don't love to see the city piss away an economic opportunity.


__________________________


Surely everyone else's banner ads are all ALL Skip the dishes advertising Free Bird Fried Chicken, right?

[Curmudgeon]

Just put a Super Wal-Mart there with a huge parking lot. Boom, you've got economic opportunities including hundreds of employees and and the long desired grocery store in the downtown area. The parcel of land is probably large enough for an entire retail power centre, even including a Comfort Suites or Quality Inn with a waterslide.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Just put a Super Wal-Mart there with a huge parking lot. Boom, you've got economic opportunities including hundreds of employees and and the long desired grocery store in the downtown area. The parcel of land is probably large enough for an entire retail power centre, even including a Comfort Suites or Quality Inn with a waterslide.

If Walmart is offering to spend $200+ million doing so and paying their thousands of employee's an average of $80,000 a year I would definitely consider it.

[buzzg]

Skip doesn't have a problem with heritage buildings, they have a problem with being in 5 buildings that aren't attached or controlled by them (ie: G3). Skip is also not the developer here and doesn't want to be a developer – that's a big piece of this puzzle. The city (not necessarily govs, but market too) isn't making it easy.

[wags_in_the_peg]

off topic but the Commons outdoor and indoor was just packed last night (Thursday +25). felt so great to be there, drinking a beer with my dog lying at my side.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Skip doesn't have a problem with heritage buildings, they have a problem with being in 5 buildings that aren't attached or controlled by them (ie: G3). Skip is also not the developer here and doesn't want to be a developer – that's a big piece of this puzzle. The city (not necessarily govs, but market too) isn't making it easy.

When I first joined SSP I remember being interested in the construction of this corporate headquarters in Omaha... it houses about 4,000 Union Pacific Railroad employees that were formerly spread out over 7 sites.

I wonder if a single large footprint building like this could do the job for Skip the Dishes? Plop it on the SkyCity site or the WCB parking lot and away ya go.

[Bluenote]

Originally Posted by esquire

When I first joined SSP I remember being interested in the construction of this corporate headquarters in Omaha... it houses about 4,000 Union Pacific Railroad employees that were formerly spread out over 7 sites.

I wonder if a single large footprint building like this could do the job for Skip the Dishes? Plop it on the SkyCity site or the WCB parking lot and away ya go.

Exactly, but why couldnt they build a tower on main where Earls and the old service station lots are now parking lots. Use that entire stretch, build high, with a $200 million budget thats a nice tower. Put parking underground and maybe the first few floors but have full retail on the front. No on would know there was parking there then. Would probably spur development in that area of main and its closer for workers to transit and the core.
Leave Parcel 4 alone for now. Thats my take.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Bluenote

Exactly, but why couldnt they build a tower on main where Earls and the old service station lots are now parking lots. Use that entire stretch, build high, with a $200 million budget thats a nice tower. Put parking underground and maybe the first few floors but have full retail on the front. No on would know there was parking there then. Would probably spur development in that area of main and its closer for workers to transit and the core.
Leave Parcel 4 alone for now. Thats my take.

I like the idea, but it's kind of a narrow lot... perfect for hotel or residential or a multi-tenant office building, but maybe not wide enough for what Skip the Dishes is after. But if it could actually fit there (maybe someone here knows), that would in some ways be a perfect site for them

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by wags_in_the_peg

off topic but the Commons outdoor and indoor was just packed last night (Thursday +25). felt so great to be there, drinking a beer with my dog lying at my side.

I went last week and I found it was pretty great. Good weather days will be busy there!

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by esquire

When I first joined SSP I remember being interested in the construction of this corporate headquarters in Omaha... it houses about 4,000 Union Pacific Railroad employees that were formerly spread out over 7 sites.

I wonder if a single large footprint building like this could do the job for Skip the Dishes? Plop it on the SkyCity site or the WCB parking lot and away ya go.

I've wondered that myself. It would seem to be ideal from the city's (and our) standpoint, but companies often like to choose a location that is attractive to their employees. I think there was an insurance company a few years ago that the downtown was trying to convince to build on one of the Portage Place pads, but they built at Polo Park instead because their employees were afraid of the downtown area?? This is a tough thing to overcome.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by Bluenote

Exactly, but why couldnt they build a tower on main where Earls and the old service station lots are now parking lots. Use that entire stretch, build high, with a $200 million budget thats a nice tower. Put parking underground and maybe the first few floors but have full retail on the front. No on would know there was parking there then. Would probably spur development in that area of main and its closer for workers to transit and the core.
Leave Parcel 4 alone for now. Thats my take.

As I said earlier...put your self in an owner position. The City will likely give you one of the most visible pieces of property in the city for $1 plus likely some juicy tax incentives or....you search around downtown to buy a existing lot somewhere for millions, off a private owner.

I have a free filet and lobster dinner for you, or you can pay $25 for a grilled cheese and some bag salad.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Biff

As I said earlier...put your self in an owner position. The City will likely give you one of the most visible pieces of property in the city for $1 plus likely some juicy tax incentives or....you search around downtown to buy a existing lot somewhere for millions, off a private owner.

I have a free filet and lobster dinner for you, or you can pay $25 for a grilled cheese and some bag salad.

Yeah, good point. I guess Skip the Dishes has a bit of leverage in this scenario. But it's funny that no other company including longstanding corporate heavyweights has managed to pull something like this off, but then this band of johnny come latelies comes by and asks for a big chunk of prime land for nothing?

Can companies in other cities expect that kind of treatment? The City of Calgary would have run out land long ago if it gave a chunk away to everyone who wanted to build an office.

[optimusREIM]

ON Skip, I think it would be cool if there were some buildings a little taller than 10 floors on parcel 4. They could easily put a few buildings between 12-25 floors there. Make a couple of them mixed use, line a hotelier up etc etc. The part closest to P&M could house the tallest and then the lowest building could go nearest the CMHR/forks side. Parcel 4 would make a great transitionary site. Railside should be kept shorter as it would appear is planned anyways.

[esquire]

^ Good idea. How about some combo live-work buildings like at the Ice District in Edmonton? You would think a few floors of condos/apartments with postcard views would be hot sellers. Same with a hotel.