HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3381  
Old Posted Feb 6, 2018, 11:50 PM
buzzg buzzg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 3,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
I think Ben was joking..

I thought the Pint was owned by people involved with Fortress? Not sure where I got that idea.
Absolutely no relation. It's owned by a company called Urban Sparq which is based in Edmonton and has several restaurant/bar concepts and the new Crash Hotel. The company is owned by oil industry people so they have a ton of money.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3382  
Old Posted Feb 7, 2018, 5:14 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,970
Thanks for the info.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3383  
Old Posted Feb 7, 2018, 8:16 PM
Bluenote's Avatar
Bluenote Bluenote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Winnipeg / St Vital
Posts: 932
TBH. The city should just take a hit and buy that lot. Least then it has a chance of being sold to a company that isn’t a bunch of BS.
I’d rather have $9 million of my tax dollars spent on this then some of the other pipe dreams Bowman spends our money on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3384  
Old Posted Feb 7, 2018, 8:41 PM
cheswick's Avatar
cheswick cheswick is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: South Kildonan
Posts: 1,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote View Post
TBH. The city should just take a hit and buy that lot. Least then it has a chance of being sold to a company that isn’t a bunch of BS.
I’d rather have $9 million of my tax dollars spent on this then some of the other pipe dreams Bowman spends our money on.
Really not following your logic. Why should the city go out of its way to buy this lot away from fortress? Its not like there's a huge demand for this property where someone else is just hampering to build something on it. What makes it anymore special than the dozens of other surface lots downtown with nothing getting built on them? Besides the fact that this one actually has a proposal to build on it (regardless of how unlikely it is to come to fruition).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3385  
Old Posted Feb 7, 2018, 8:43 PM
drew's Avatar
drew drew is offline
the first stamp is free
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hippyville, Winnipeg
Posts: 5,680
If anything, wouldn't the large purchase price of the lot keep Fortress' feet to the fire to get something developed, versus just sitting on it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3386  
Old Posted Feb 7, 2018, 8:50 PM
HomeInMyShoes's Avatar
HomeInMyShoes HomeInMyShoes is offline
arf
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Pile 'O Bones
Posts: 11,228
^It depends on what they can spin as development in motion to generate 'sucker' interest in other potential devleopments. It's more than likely why there is a hole here. Looks like they are doing stuff to potential investors.
__________________

-- “We heal each other with kindness, gentleness and respect.” -- Richard Wagamese
-- “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, Nothing is going to get better. It's not.” -- Dr. Seuss
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3387  
Old Posted Feb 7, 2018, 9:29 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,352
The funny thing is if Fortress had pitched a 25 storey condo building at the outset, there's a decent chance that they could have built it and cashed out by now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3388  
Old Posted Feb 7, 2018, 11:31 PM
Urban recluse Urban recluse is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,351
That’s what I thought, but they had to go bigger based on the revenue they need after paying so much for the land???
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3389  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2018, 6:04 PM
Wolf13 Wolf13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 1,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
The funny thing is if Fortress had pitched a 25 storey condo building at the outset, there's a decent chance that they could have built it and cashed out by now.
They wouldn't have made enough money with those high land costs. Unit costs would have to jump.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban recluse View Post
That’s what I thought, but they had to go bigger based on the revenue they need after paying so much for the land???
Yep.

SkyCity would have gone taller if they were convinced they could sell the units.

If 300 Main wasn't limited by existing foundations, they'd still cap it at 42 stories... because you can't be sure of just selling or leasing space in downtown Wpg... yet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3390  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2018, 7:13 PM
buzzg buzzg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 3,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote View Post
TBH. The city should just take a hit and buy that lot. Least then it has a chance of being sold to a company that isn’t a bunch of BS.
I’d rather have $9 million of my tax dollars spent on this then some of the other pipe dreams Bowman spends our money on.
This is about the worst idea I've heard this year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
The funny thing is if Fortress had pitched a 25 storey condo building at the outset, there's a decent chance that they could have built it and cashed out by now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban recluse View Post
That’s what I thought, but they had to go bigger based on the revenue they need after paying so much for the land???
What's funny/weird is that the land was assessed around $3m in market value I believe... So they probably could have paid $5-6m for it. Seems like they almost paid extra to inflate the value of the project as a whole.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3391  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2018, 7:34 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzg View Post
What's funny/weird is that the land was assessed around $3m in market value I believe... So they probably could have paid $5-6m for it. Seems like they almost paid extra to inflate the value of the project as a whole.
I can't say I understand the reasoning why, but it did strike me that the price of the land was artificially inflated for some reason. Had the project been conceived of as a 25-storey tower, they could have adjusted their offer accordingly (or found another lot nearby, it's not like there's a huge shortage of them) and gotten it done.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3392  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2018, 8:03 PM
Roger Strong's Avatar
Roger Strong Roger Strong is offline
Speak the truth, then run
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 896
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
I can't say I understand the reasoning why, but it did strike me that the price of the land was artificially inflated for some reason.
CBC, Oct 14, 2016: Lawsuits against SkyCity tower developer allege land overvaluation

Quote:
Those lawsuits allege investors in Fortress were led to believe condo projects in Toronto, Barrie, Ont., and Burlington, Ont., were secure investments backed by the value of the land where they going to be built. The lawsuits allege the land in question was overvalued and the plaintiffs were misled in a variety of ways.

In the Toronto project, plaintiffs allege syndicated mortgages were marketed "as safe and secure investments when they knew or ought to have known they were risky investments unsuitable for investors with a lower to moderate risk profile."

[...]

In Winnipeg, Fortress paid $9.5 million in 2013 for the 1.1-acre parcel of land where SkyCity Centre is slated to rise. Fortress bought the land from Oggi Investments, owned by entrepreneurs Sabino Tummillo and John Garcea, which paid $5 million to acquire the land in 2012 from Huntingdon Capital Corporation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3393  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2018, 8:18 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,352
^ And there's our reason. Thanks, Roger.

Like I said, had it been approached properly there's no reason to believe that a more modest condo project couldn't have succeeded. Oh well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3394  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2018, 9:30 PM
robertocarlos robertocarlos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 497
Parking rates have doubled in 6 years so why not agree that land values have also doubled in that time. It certainly isn't wages that have doubled.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3395  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2018, 9:56 PM
buzzg buzzg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 3,611
Land value and parking value are not related. There's more workers downtown, thus more demand and lower supply for parking – that doesn't have any related effect on land value.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3396  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2018, 10:03 PM
dmacc dmacc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzg View Post
Land value and parking value are not related. There's more workers downtown, thus more demand and lower supply for parking – that doesn't have any related effect on land value.
Sure it does, if a property can generate more income then the land becomes more valuable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3397  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2018, 10:27 PM
Roger Strong's Avatar
Roger Strong Roger Strong is offline
Speak the truth, then run
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 896
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertocarlos View Post
Parking rates have doubled in 6 years so why not agree that land values have also doubled in that time. It certainly isn't wages that have doubled.
The land value nearly doubled from 2012 to 2013.

By Fortress reckoning.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3398  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2018, 12:08 AM
robertocarlos robertocarlos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Strong View Post
The land value nearly doubled from 2012 to 2013.

By Fortress reckoning.
They are visionaries.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3399  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2018, 3:50 AM
buzzg buzzg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 3,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmacc View Post
Sure it does, if a property can generate more income then the land becomes more valuable.
"Becoming more valuable" does not mean "double."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3400  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2018, 1:52 PM
dmacc dmacc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzg View Post
"Becoming more valuable" does not mean "double."
That's true, Sabino and his partner sure did well on that deal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:34 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.