SkyCity Centre Winnipeg | 45F | 575 Ft | 175.26 M | Cancelled

[Labroco]

If anyone can confirm the lot size that would be interesting.

The horse's mouth told me 1.1 acres but it was late and he was a little tipsy at the time!

Thx

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by Biff

SkyCity model. Doesn't quite look like the rendering. I counted 43 floors plus the white rooftop detail.



from SkyCityCentre WPG ‏@SkyCityWinnipeg Twitter

Ahh, nice to see something tangible at last. Thanks for the add.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by Labroco

If anyone can confirm the lot size that would be interesting.

The horse's mouth told me 1.1 acres but it was late and he was a little tipsy at the time!

Thx

Yeah, 1.1 acres - just double checked. I can't remember why I thought it was 1.5. Insane...

[Cyro]

@bmyers

Thanks for the input Ben.

[Winnipeg Architect]

Originally Posted by Bluenote

Chipmans blah blah blah
True north blah blah blah

Yet you and Simplicity. The negative Nancy's on any project where all for the Alt. And now you are against it.

Really. Are you ever happy? Seriously question. As I can go into any thread and see you two bashing everything. Heck I even find Simplicity in the general Canada forum bashing.

You all need to get outside and away from your keyboards as it is obvious you spend way way to much time here searching for everything you can find to fill some void in your lives to run down anything that has a positive spin on this city.

Btw. The east exchange was a joke to start. Who builds and doesn't build parking? Especially In the hopes the city will welfare them a parkade?

What is Alt?

Developers without on-site parking are not that intelligent.

Winnipeg is a car city.

FYI: I have built over 100 condos and apartments the past 5 years in Winnipeg with a value of $25M. All infill and I have torn down dumps in some cases.

I have forgotten more than you will ever know.

Simplicity has forgotten more than you will ever know as well.

[hexrae]

Originally Posted by Winnipeg Architect

What is Alt?

Developers without on-site parking are not that intelligent.

Winnipeg is a car city.

FYI: I have built over 100 condos and apartments the past 5 years in Winnipeg with a value of $25M. All infill and I have torn down dumps in some cases.

I have forgotten more than you will ever know.

Simplicity has forgotten more than you will ever know as well.

Cute, but juvenile. A PSA to everyone posting/reading, if you want to be taken seriously, then treat people with respect. Otherwise, your whole argument/point, even with merit, is lost on me. I have zero time for you and scroll right past your post, no matter on articulate it is.

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but there's been a real drop off in the discourse on these boards.

[Labroco]

Does anyone know the purchase price of the St Regis and if it came with the adjacent parking lots? If so which one? Has there been any mention or discussion of plans there or is C V invoking a dome of silence ? Any discussion on this site with and hope of freeing up their capital?

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by Labroco

Does anyone know the purchase price of the St Regis and if it came with the adjacent parking lots? If so which one? Has there been any mention or discussion of plans there or is C V invoking a dome of silence ? Any discussion on this site with and hope of freeing up their capital?

The property was put to an RFP with Fortress having won. I couldn't tell you where that stands at the moment.

This is damn complicated purchase though because CentreVenture only owns 89% of the corporation that bought the company. On February 1st, 2013 a corporation called StR. Properties closed on a share sale between two numbered Manitoba companies, each of whom owned 50% of all the land, building, and chattels of 285 Smith St. which includes the small surface lot directly to the South of the hotel (maybe 20 spots). CentreVenture's share of that purchase stood at $6,007,500 for 89% of the corporation. They also picked up over $500K in legal and accounting bills to put the deal together, so put their stake at over $6.5MM. The other shareholder of StR. Properties now appears to be Canad Inns who received an interest-free loan of $1.4MM to involve themselves on both this and the Carlton Inn site. And that would make sense because they have the same 11% ownership to CV's 89% in CCC Inc. that owns the Carlton Inn and the numbers would jive if $1.4MM was used to acquire 11% of each. In the case of the St. Regis, whether that loan was immediately turned over to the owners of the aforementioned numbered companies with a small amount going to Canad Inns for their troubles is not known.

In any case, it's apparent that over $7MM has gone into ensuring the St. Regis doesn't have a liquor license. We can also somewhat verify that number because the City is carrying the asset at a book value of $6,958,933 for 2013 which probably includes a year's worth of accumulated depreciation, but we can't know for sure given we don't have access to CV's financials.

It's also strange that we've been told in the past that the St. Regis collects rent from the hotel operators because I can't see any evidence of that. In fact, StR. Properties showed a loss of $576 last year on zero revenue and we know the corporation holds the building.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by hexrae

Cute, but juvenile. A PSA to everyone posting/reading, if you want to be taken seriously, then treat people with respect. Otherwise, your whole argument/point, even with merit, is lost on me. I have zero time for you and scroll right past your post, no matter on articulate it is.

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but there's been a real drop off in the discourse on these boards.

Simplicity drew me out of my long hiatus from this board. While I've often found his pessimistic and dismissive attitude frustrating and off-putting, there's no denying he's brought a lot of expertise and quality discussion to the board. To say that he's lowered the quality of discourse on the board is flatly wrong. To scroll past his posts does yourself--and this board--a disservice.

However unpleasant you find his posts, Simplicity is a clear asset to this board. I hope you let his posts challenge your thoughts, and I'd love to see you bring some thoughtful counterpoints to what he has to say.

Put simply, Simplicity is an asset to this board. I've been visiting here since 2002 or so, and this board has seen its share of pessimists. None have been as thoughtful and well informed as Simplicity. I'll freely admit I find his posts frustrating sometimes, but I'll also say that I respect the shit out of him and the challenges his posts have presented have lead me to think harder and better about everything. And, after all, isn't that why we talk?

[esquire]

^ I couldn't agree more. I've learned an awful lot from Simplicity's posts here. If all I wanted was rah-rah booster cheerleading, I'd hang out in the Edmonton subforum.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by biguc

Simplicity drew me out of my long hiatus from this board. While I've often found his pessimistic and dismissive attitude frustrating and off-putting, there's no denying he's brought a lot of expertise and quality discussion to the board. To say that he's lowered the quality of discourse on the board is flatly wrong. To scroll past his posts does yourself--and this board--a disservice.

However unpleasant you find his posts, Simplicity is a clear asset to this board. I hope you let his posts challenge your thoughts, and I'd love to see you bring some thoughtful counterpoints to what he has to say.

Put simply, Simplicity is an asset to this board. I've been visiting here since 2002 or so, and this board has seen its share of pessimists. None have been as thoughtful and well informed as Simplicity. I'll freely admit I find his posts frustrating sometimes, but I'll also say that I respect the shit out of him and the challenges his posts have presented have lead me to think harder and better about everything. And, after all, isn't that why we talk?

Thanks for the +1

I will say, though, perhaps the irony of the people who post once a year and only chime in to comment on how the discourse of the board has declined is lost on them, but it isn't me.

Let me personally say that I couldn't care less about the opinion of some guy who's obviously lurking with regularity and contributing nothing. If the discourse is so low, then go elsewhere - nobody cares about your opinion. You don't contribute anything and your loss won't be felt.

I hope I've been clear about that.

To those who contribute on a regular basis with something worthwhile and thoughtful, I sincerely appreciate the discussions around here regardless of how I may view your opinion.

To Hexrae who thinks his willingness to pay for season tickets is a defining enough characteristic to leave it in his signature, block my posts. I can assure you, nobody stopped at your haughty little post and reassessed their approach.

[Winnipeg Architect]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

The property was put to an RFP with Fortress having won. I couldn't tell you where that stands at the moment.

This is damn complicated purchase though because CentreVenture only owns 89% of the corporation that bought the company. On February 1st, 2013 a corporation called StR. Properties closed on a share sale between two numbered Manitoba companies, each of whom owned 50% of all the land, building, and chattels of 285 Smith St. which includes the small surface lot directly to the South of the hotel (maybe 20 spots). CentreVenture's share of that purchase stood at $6,007,500 for 89% of the corporation. They also picked up over $500K in legal and accounting bills to put the deal together, so put their stake at over $6.5MM. The other shareholder of StR. Properties now appears to be Canad Inns who received an interest-free loan of $1.4MM to involve themselves on both this and the Carlton Inn site. And that would make sense because they have the same 11% ownership to CV's 89% in CCC Inc. that owns the Carlton Inn and the numbers would jive if $1.4MM was used to acquire 11% of each. In the case of the St. Regis, whether that loan was immediately turned over to the owners of the aforementioned numbered companies with a small amount going to Canad Inns for their troubles is not known.

In any case, it's apparent that over $7MM has gone into ensuring the St. Regis doesn't have a liquor license. We can also somewhat verify that number because the City is carrying the asset at a book value of $6,958,933 for 2013 which probably includes a year's worth of accumulated depreciation, but we can't know for sure given we don't have access to CV's financials.

It's also strange that we've been told in the past that the St. Regis collects rent from the hotel operators because I can't see any evidence of that. In fact, StR. Properties showed a loss of $576 last year on zero revenue and we know the corporation holds the building.

What was the real reason they purchased the hotel?

Too many drunks around while the Jets are playing?

Anyone know?

Loretta kept telling me that CV was waiting for me to buy the place and redevelop it into condos. I told her she was out of her mind.

[1ajs]

wa

the str has been a real pain in the ass for downtown for a long time.

ive seen allot i want to un see that has piled outa that place over the years shudders....

on another note we cant just shut these places down we need to look at whats in our society over the last 400 yrs has caused the damage and what we can do as a collective to repair damage and help future genirations to thrive not dive.....

[1ajs]

ENOUGH!!! grow up you guys

this is a skyscraper enthusist website stop trolling this thread with broken records and dead horses

and simplicity time for a timeout... seariusly

[cabello]

I am not in real estate or construction business or condo investor.

I am not trying to defend anyone who have provided more insights (those information is very difficult to find on the internet and to analyze.) Every comment is valuable.

The following is just my 2 cents.

I am retiree.. and have to be very careful about financial decision.

Due to getting close to RSP season, my advisor recommends several mortgage funds. Before I make any decision, I did searches from the internet related to the recommended funds or bonds and came across several real estate and mortgage forums, such as skyscraper page , consumer group FSCO and others investment reports, which have threads about the related bond / mortgage issuers and associated developers.


I am glad that with the help of this forum which points to additional resources;

According to the internet search results (bits and pieces), I am shocked that one of the recommended funds (Ottawa) has not provided interest payment since last October, one (Alberta) has no development / building permit (has not yet issued or released), and the one in barrie, according to the news, that the condo buyers who have not signed any amendments, is/are getting their purchase deposit back.

I am surprised that my advisor has tried to sell such funds for my retirement (the investment valuation is so high and is based on future value if the development occurs) and told that my portfolio will be more diversified and safe. I also took both advertising material and signing document to a third party for review.

Let make the story short. I have fired my financial planner.
How can he keep telling that "you will get 8% return and there is no risk"?

Thanks very much for those who put out thoughts and analysis.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by cabello

I am not in real estate or construction business or condo investor.

I am not trying to defend anyone who have provided more insights (those information is very difficult to find on the internet and to analyze.) Every comment is valuable.

The following is just my 2 cents.

I am retiree.. and have to be very careful about financial decision.

Due to getting close to RSP season, my advisor recommends several mortgage funds. Before I make any decision, I did searches from the internet related to the recommended funds or bonds and came across several real estate and mortgage forums, such as skyscraper page , consumer group FSCO and others investment reports, which have threads about the related bond / mortgage issuers and associated developers.


I am glad that with the help of this forum which points to additional resources;

According to the internet search results (bits and pieces), I am shocked that one of the recommended funds (Ottawa) has not provided interest payment since last October, one (Alberta) has no development / building permit (has not yet issued or released), and the one in barrie, according to the news, that the condo buyers who have not signed any amendments, is/are getting their purchase deposit back.

I am surprised that my advisor has tried to sell such funds for my retirement (the investment valuation is so high and is based on future value if the development occurs) and told that my portfolio will be more diversified and safe. I also took both advertising material and signing document to a third party for review.

Let make the story short. I have fired my financial planner.
How can he keep telling that "you will get 8% return and there is no risk"?

Thanks very much for those who put out thoughts and analysis.

I agree, the info is informative, but this comment thread is 14 pages long, the last one was around 20 or 25 before a mod deleted it, and 90% of it was "this will never get built".

And while I agree with the vast majority of what Simplicity says, it is really just beating a dead horse.

I won't be returning to this particular thread, I know all I need to about SkyCity.

[Jasonhouse]

A general heads up to folks... please read.




Perhaps some folks don't realize that a part of this forum's existence is to provide a platform for urban enthusiasts to both praise and criticize urban projects and urban spaces.

One of the best ways to ensure that future projects are better than current ones, is by criticizing what's wrong with the current ones.

Of course, this needs to be done where the relevant people will see it in the real world. Droning on about it on a forum where such an audience generally does not exist isn't exactly productive. Hopefully anyone taking the time to develop strong critiques in favor of or against an urban project here, are also making those critiques where they can have a real world impact.

Also, repeatedly making the same remark (praise or criticism) in a thread, basically each time someone else comes into the thread and makes an opposing remark, degrades the discussion and wears thin with the group real quick. (think of how annoying that has to be for lurkers, who comprise most of our audience)... Make repetitive commentary to the point of annoyance, and you're basically turning into a troll, which is not a place a member wants to be. That's when a member starts getting moderated.

Please keep your comments on topic and productive.

[bomberjet]

Thanks for that Jason!

[DearSummer]

Originally Posted by Jasonhouse

Of course, this needs to be done where the relevant people will see it in the real world. Droning on about it on a forum where such an audience generally does not exist isn't exactly productive. Hopefully anyone taking the time to develop strong critiques in favor of or against an urban project here, are also making those critiques where they can have a real world impact.

You could not be more wrong here. There ABSOLUTELY is a real world impact of people sharing their views on the Fortress Real / Fortress Capital scam. A few posts above this is a testimonial from somebody who said that their research on the internet lead them to question their financial advisor's advice! What more could you ask for?

To state that it serves no "real world value" to expose an egregious scam like Fortress is absolutely false. The very fact that a simple Google search of Fortress brings up many red flags proves that this type of discussion is not only important, but required in a free market economy.

Heck, we had a senior member of Fortress on here trying to defend his company. How more "real world" can you get?

It's sad that a forum like this that could serve as an important place to exchange ideas and information is being hobbled by moderators' inability to distinguish between productive dialogue and trolling. If people aren't interested in what a certain poster is saying or a certain thread, they have the tools to block or avoid that person.

[bomberjet]

It's the constant repetition. Just like I find myself constantly repeating this line.