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

[BAKGUY]

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

https://globalnews.ca/news/6082915/s...0-year-tenure/

What a disgusting way to treat a long term tenant.Many I know miss Beachcomber, not so much for the food but all the lovely patios down to the river...
Unless u are serving plant based food, quite often grown in laboratories,
Kale concoctions & quinoa, sushi, seem your business might be doomed. The food options here and @ TNS want to be considered upscale..It is another reason for me not to go eat there much anymore plus I have to pay for parking.

[EspionNoir]

It's sad for both Skinner's and everyone who likes them for a long time. I don't necessarily dislike the decision of the Forks. Forks has the power to choose their tenants I believe, and this step is probably motivated by the long term growth of the Forks. It's not easy, but I'd say without some competition in the market things are unlikely to reach next level, whether successful or not.

TNS and the Forks' potential high-end future direction might be alienating to some(?), but in my opinion it's a good thing for Winnipeg. The city core should provide unique things and be a place where new things appear at a healthy rate. Still, that doesn't mean that "less high-end" things should disappear.

[Hecate]

Word on the street is skinners was taking most of the business being the most reasonably priced option for most people. The other restaurants didn’t like this. If that’s true, maybe there should be some type of inquiry into how things are being run at the forks and for who’s benefit.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by Hecate

Word on the street is skinners was taking most of the business being the most reasonably priced option for most people. The other restaurants didn’t like this. If that’s true, maybe there should be some type of inquiry into how things are being run at the forks and for who’s benefit.

I don't buy that at all. Every time I'm at The Forks, Skinner's is always the quietest of all the kiosks in the food hall. Rent in The Forks Market is tied to sales, and when your average guest check is probably half of the other kiosks, it means your rent is going to be lower too.

Plus, it's no secret that for years the leasing manager of The Forks made extremely tenant-friendly deals that hampered the market for a long time. They've amended or let most of those lapse now. Add in the fact that with the sale of Portage Place and its parkade going through that's well over $5 million a year in revenue that needs to be made up for.

The Forks is a landlord and a business and needs to make money to continue to do the things it does for the community like maintenance of their amazing grounds, and programming. Sometimes you have to make tough decisions, but you have to do what makes sense.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by Hecate

Word on the street is skinners was taking most of the business being the most reasonably priced option for most people. The other restaurants didn’t like this. If that’s true, maybe there should be some type of inquiry into how things are being run at the forks and for who’s benefit.

I’m not at the forks often but the times I have been recently, skinners certainly wasn’t the busiest.

[esquire]

I'm kind of meh on Skinners... its main benefit is to provide a relatively inexpensive place to feed picky kids... while that has some value, I don't think it's essential.

[optimusREIM]

I think the main bugaboo people have here isn't that they've been pushed out necessarily but the manner in which that's occurred. The way they did it speaks volumes about their business practice and their attitude towards their tenants. Showing that kind of callous disregard for a loyal longtime tenant rubs people the wrong way and I totally agree.

The decision to replace them is totally ok as long as you do things the right way.

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I think the main bugaboo people have here isn't that they've been pushed out necessarily but the manner in which that's occurred. The way they did it speaks volumes about their business practice and their attitude towards their tenants. Showing that kind of callous disregard for a loyal longtime tenant rubs people the wrong way and I totally agree.

The decision to replace them is totally ok as long as you do things the right way.

With all due respect, do we really know how The Forks handled this? Don't the articles focus mainly on the perspective of Skinners and their customers? From their viewpoint I can see how they would be miffed, but there are two sides to every story, and sometimes an "injustice" is in the eyes of the beholder.

[tree]

I think the Skinners thing went down one of three ways

1) The Forks has some new paperwork required as per them growing - normal, but new bookkeeping stuff they have to be a bit more strict on - and they presented it to the owner. The rep at the Forks explained that while it may seem like they are having to argue for their existence, thats not the case - and Skinners will definitely going to be able to keep their location and it will be business as usual - but as part of new funding / business / finance / accounting etc stuff for the Forks, they need to have every tenant fill this out so keep the records consistent. It's annoying but don't worry - we know ya'll are legit. The owners got offended and upset at this and chose not to renew or delayed so long out of spite that the Forks had to move on. In this case its a bit childish and the owner essentially is taking their ball and going home.

2) The Forks has some new paperwork required as per them growing - normal, but new bookkeeping stuff they have to be a bit more strict on - and they presented it to the owner. The owner looked it over and got upset that it felt like he was basically being kicked out and treated as if the last 30 years hadn't happened. In this case the Forks should have had a rep explain the situation and that let them know that this isn't the Forks saying "explain why we should keep you" but more formality and normal boring paperwork that happens as businesses grow/change. In this case would say the owner of Skinners is a bit more justifiably upset - though it may have been a bit of a blind spot by the Forks or the rep in charge of such things for not conveying it better.

3) The Forks just didn't really care and as they have changed and seen the incredible popularity of The Common and other businesses they felt that Skinners is no different than a brand new tenant. In this case its pretty low on the Forks side.

I liked Skinners as the quickest and cheapest 'normal' food option (outside of Danny's glorious early breakfast special) at the Forks. I'm a really boring eater so I found that after a beer or two a quick Skinners dog or burger was relatively affordable and I could get it without an incredibly long line or having to add a list of "without X" to my orders at a lot of the more specialty places at the Forks. I'll miss them a bit but less so if what replaces them is another simple kind local burger/hot dog place.

[Hecate]

Apparently when they were told they were being ousted, the skinners owners asked if they could move into an existing vacancy, they were denied. There’s always two sides but this is starting to sound greasy.

[Pinus]

Originally Posted by Hecate

Apparently when they were told they were being ousted, the skinners owners asked if they could move into an existing vacancy, they were denied. There’s always two sides but this is starting to sound greasy.

Maybe Skinners isn't the kind of branding they want within their eatery system any longer. It is their right to chosse who can and who can't be a part of The Forks, commercially speaking. People can bellyache all they like, but it doesn't change that fact. If you crave Skinners that much, go to Lockport.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by Pinus

Maybe Skinners isn't the kind of branding they want within their eatery system any longer. It is their right to chosse who can and who can't be a part of The Forks, commercially speaking. People can bellyache all they like, but it doesn't change that fact. If you crave Skinners that much, go to Lockport.

Ohh I’d agree if it were a private business but it’s a quasi government agency. The lack of transparency and reasoning around the decision is what concerns me. I think the forks could have approached skinners to do something more substantial with their hotdogs and offer people a more upscale menu. Personally, I think asking them to submit a new application and then refusing it outright, is unethical and unprofessional. I think somebody with the right friends is gaining from this and I think it needs to be looked into.

[Wpg_Guy]

Work is taking place at The Forks Market - Fire Side Lounge. Trench demolition to allow for gas line hook ups to the new fire pits.



https://www.instagram.com/p/B3uOij1gErV/

[pspeid]

IMO this Skinners thing is blown way out of proportion. The Forks has a responsibility to be financially self-sufficient. They don't just have the right, but the responsibility, to change their offerings at times or cease to be a relevant destination. I'm sorry Skinner's was miffed, but I imagine disappointments happen in business all the time. Personally I'm looking forward to see what the new vendor will be.

[wags_in_the_peg]

Public fire pits (very very cool) or is that for a new restaurant/lounge?

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by pspeid

IMO this Skinners thing is blown way out of proportion. The Forks has a responsibility to be financially self-sufficient. They don't just have the right, but the responsibility, to change their offerings at times or cease to be a relevant destination. I'm sorry Skinner's was miffed, but I imagine disappointments happen in business all the time. Personally I'm looking forward to see what the new vendor will be.

No one disagrees with that. The situation just looks very much like the forks couldn't muster the backbone to tell skinners ahead of time that they were planning on moving on. Instead it seems like they tried to make it look like there was a chance they could renew their lease. It looks disingenuous and dishonest. People care about optics and good business practices, that's literally the point we're all making.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by pspeid

IMO this Skinners thing is blown way out of proportion. The Forks has a responsibility to be financially self-sufficient. They don't just have the right, but the responsibility, to change their offerings at times or cease to be a relevant destination. I'm sorry Skinner's was miffed, but I imagine disappointments happen in business all the time. Personally I'm looking forward to see what the new vendor will be.

Exactly. They run a commercial real estate business in the Market, and the lease expired. If the tenant is no longer working out, generating enough rent (as it's tied to sales), or not in the vision, it's your right not to renew.

And sorry, but I just can't fathom why people are upset about losing this:

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

No one disagrees with that. The situation just looks very much like the forks couldn't muster the backbone to tell skinners ahead of time that they were planning on moving on. Instead it seems like they tried to make it look like there was a chance they could renew their lease. It looks disingenuous and dishonest. People care about optics and good business practices, that's literally the point we're all making.

What are you talking about? The Forks let them know well in advance, let them go through the application/pitch process, and they didn't get chosen. They were clearly aware through the whole process. "Good business practices" also include doing what's best for your business.

[GreyGarden]

I'm having the hardest time understanding how people are seriously upset about this. The CBC story had like 500 angry comments on it on Facebook, I couldn't believe it (a lot of them took it as an opportunity to complain about having to pay for parking LOL). I think the Forks handled this normally, in fact they gave them a chance to update their business model to make it more appropriate with the context of the Common area. I assume they didn't do that and the Forks decided to go with something more appropriate for that space. How is that a bad thing.

I'm personally looking forward to having another good choice at the Forks. It doesn't have to be "fancy" but the quality has to be high. As the picture Buzzg posted shows, the quality of Skinner's was completely wrong for the context.

[ywgwalk]

I agree with the most recent comments, and Skinners was usually my go to for almost weekly Forks visits this year.

It was by far the least busy place during busy times at The Common, and while accessible for picky eaters like I it really doesn't fit in there anymore. All indications are that they were given ample opportunity to make changes.

I've for a while thought that it (and even Pancake House's) days are numbered there. Perhaps once railside gets going there will be some opportunities for the more basic options that don't quite fit in the market anymore.

[SKYSTHELIMIT]

[QUOTE=optimusREIM;8730720]No one disagrees with that. The situation just looks very much like the forks couldn't muster the backbone to tell skinners ahead of time that they were planning on moving on. Instead it seems like they tried to make it look like there was a chance they could renew their lease. It looks disingenuous and dishonest. People care about optics and good business practices, that's literally the point we're all making.

To quote Lloyd Christmas “So you’re telling me there’s a chance?”