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

[OakbluffMB]

Originally Posted by Biff

Man shut up already, you go on and on.....

Welcome to the forum π (I will call you Pie). I only know the 3.14 part.

This forum is amazing.

If anything, I'd surprised the investors didn't get more return, condo prices have gone up 50% over the past 5 years in Toronto.


Anyway, just because they have the sales, doesn't mean they can convince a bank to give them over $100 million for a construction loan.

The St. Regis is a less ambitious project, let's see if they can get it started or not. CentreVenture is ensuring that project must have financing in place before demo, so demolition will be a positive sign for the overall project.

When SkyCity gets above grade, I may still consider buying one, I doubt I'll see a project this ambitious downtown before I die!

[bomberjet]

The St Regis thing is supposed to be 'integrated' with SkyCity from what I remember. I would not let them touch the St. Regis.

[DirtWednesday]

Speculating they'll use the revenue generated from the less ambitious St Regis site to continue the charade at Sky City for years, maybe even get a hole dug...

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by DirtWednesday

Speculating they'll use the revenue generated from the less ambitious St Regis site to continue the charade at Sky City for years, maybe even get a hole dug...

More than likely that's what pans out. Wish you would change your name to JoeDirt!

[DirtWednesday]

Dirt Wednesday has a special place in my heart

[bomberjet]

There was an article recently the City will not allow anything to happen on site, including demo, before Fortress proves themselves. If Fortress goes ahead without a permit, well we know how that'll go.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by Biff

Man shut up already, you go on and on.....

Welcome to the forum π (I will call you Pie). I only know the 3.14 part.

Man, I was just joking. You go on and on - as in Pi....you know? Are my jokes not as funny as I think they are?

[lilwayne]

they reminded everyone that st regis will be demollished on twitter today..

if anything a project like this proves that theres enough demand for residential towers downtown maybe not to the same scale as skycity but building 5 20 story apartment condo towers in the core is not out of reach..

i think the city should set strict deadlines for these guys and threaten severe fines and penalties if they delay or development takes to long to be completed.. and i think investors must be really pulling thier hair and nails at this point.. you put 40 gs in to an investment and have to wait 5 years to occupy if ever

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by Biff

You would have to think that any good development company out there is watching this situation unfold. What I mean is they have likely sold close to 200 units at this location. Albeit I am sure a lot of those units were sold on the premise that this will be the tallest building in the city at almost 600 ft, but if that many units can be sold on a project that folds there is likely opportunity to swoop in and claim a large bunch with a well run, more moderately sized project.

I would still love to see a 150 unit project at this site almost as much.....although I really want to see 575 ft in this city.

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Even a more modest Heritage Landing-scale building would still a) eliminate one of the most unsightly swaths of surface parking downtown, and b) help establish a critical mass of residents on and around Graham Avenue. If SkyCity can't get built as promised, then a 20-25 storey condo building would be a great consolation prize.

Cost of land... which can't be undone.

construction cost is variable and theoretically linear based on size

Your percentage (theoretically) goes unchanges as you increase/decrease the size of your building. If you can build at $200/sf and rent is out at $2/sf your return goes unchanged no matter the size.

But the land is a fixed cost and a very high one. $9M.

The total value added by any project would have to be high enough to offset the overpaid $6M dollars (roughly assuming the land should have been worth 3M). Since high construction costs yield low percentage returns, the only way to make the development profit (dollar amount, not percentage amount) high enough is to build high enough.

The next problem is that they're not going to sell this land willy-nilly to any other developer below 7-8M or so, meaning this problem will remain. Even then, the tax grants and TIFF have expired, meaning the next guy has even lower projected returns.

Originally Posted by Biff

Man, I was just joking. You go on and on - as in Pi....you know? Are my jokes not as funny as I think they are?

A real zinger, pops!

[esquire]

^ What if no one wants to buy it for what the developer paid? At what point does it make more sense to sell the property at a loss than to hold on to it for the next 30 years until the market catches up with the amount they paid for their lot?

[bomberjet]

We're hooped.

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by esquire

Oh man, Blackthorne... that brings back some memories. Wasn't he the one who wanted the Moose to die because he saw them as an obstacle to the return of the NHL? Which was ridiculous because without TNSE and the Moose, there never would have been the return of the Jets.

Yes, that would be him. Blackthorne was so over-the-top that I actually was amused by him. He would actually go on to other hockey teams forums, and posts about the Jets return, and if anyone had a difference of opinion, a flame war would ensue. I think he trolled the old "moosehockey.com' forum under several different accounts, and was banned repeatedly for his efforts.

Last I saw him in fall of 2012, he had registered for Jets Hockey Forum, but when several of the regular figured out who he was, he promptly left, and has not really been seen since.

[buzzg]

Yeah the problem with overpaying (drastically) for this lot is then you're forced to under-sell, which is unlikely to happen.

That is, of course, unless you make so many millions from syndicated mortgages that you can afford to write off the $3 million overpayment.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

A real zinger, pops!

I feel the need to PG13 my material on a public forum. My stuff at work is much more R rated....almost exclusively in fact.


I do agree with you regarding the potential sale price of the site being a sticking point.

[esquire]

^ But to reiterate my previous point, the price paid for the Graham Ave parking lot is a sunk cost. The developer has, for whatever reason, overpaid for the site and I don't see how holding the asset makes that problem go away.

[buzzg]

^The problem though is they'll likely want to recoup all that cost in a sale, but it's highly unlikely there'd be many (or any) developers interested in that lot for $9m when there are plenty other prominent lots nearby for much less.

[esquire]

It would also be nice if I could sell my house for a million dollars but if no one offers me that price, I have to reduce it. What is the benefit to the developer to hold on to the property indefinitely vs. just cutting losses and moving on?

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ What if no one wants to buy it for what the developer paid? At what point does it make more sense to sell the property at a loss than to hold on to it for the next 30 years until the market catches up with the amount they paid for their lot?

Of course, there could be a point where they'll take any reasonable number.

But...

Originally Posted by esquire

^ But to reiterate my previous point, the price paid for the Graham Ave parking lot is a sunk cost. The developer has, for whatever reason, overpaid for the site and I don't see how holding the asset makes that problem go away.

... they may just hold onto it like an Exchange District property owner...

Originally Posted by buzzg

^The problem though is they'll likely want to recoup all that cost in a sale, but it's highly unlikely there'd be many (or any) developers interested in that lot for $9m when there are plenty other prominent lots nearby for much less.

and those lots may rise in value if SkyCity sticks to a high price.

Originally Posted by esquire

It would also be nice if I could sell my house for a million dollars but if no one offers me that price, I have to reduce it. What is the benefit to the developer to hold on to the property indefinitely vs. just cutting losses and moving on?

I'd agree with you, but I'd say "crazier things have happened", and this entire thread is evidence of that.

[Flatland Metropolis]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

I'd agree with you, but I'd say "crazier things have happened", and this entire thread is evidence of that.

136 pages of it

[biguc]

I thought we paid for that lot. Didn't Centre Venture actually buy it?