General Business Updates and News

[tomh009]

Just two small notes to you well thought-out response. First, Duke St isn't going to be activated, as you say, so my hope would be just to make it less unpleasant. Even the King St side of Market Square is better than the Duke St side!

As for the parking garage, it's EuroPro so we wouldn't be on the hook for building a new one. Assuming that someone could get EuroPro excited about this kind of project, I would expect them to build some kind of combination of underground and podium parking to replace at least some of the lost capacity (I don't think it's being highly utilized at the moment).

[danbrotherston]

Just two small notes to you well thought-out response. First, Duke St isn't going to be activated, as you say, so my hope would be just to make it less unpleasant. Even the King St side of Market Square is better than the Duke St side!

As for the parking garage, it's EuroPro so we wouldn't be on the hook for building a new one. Assuming that someone could get EuroPro excited about this kind of project, I would expect them to build some kind of combination of underground and podium parking to replace at least some of the lost capacity (I don't think it's being highly utilized at the moment).

Fair enough, Duke St. certainly could be less unpleasant.

Even though its owned by EuroPro, I believe it is open to the public, the preception would still be of the loss of a parking garage, it is quite large, replacing it entirely with underground parking would be extremely expensive or even impossible. I'm not sure that it matters that a developer may cover some or all of the cost.

[ac3r]

Major blow to market square. 

Someone suggested a phased redevelopment.  Does anyone now if something like that would even be possible given the structure of the building?

I expect you could tear down the parking garage without impacting the structural integrity of the rest, and build a tower that would work (architecturally) with the remaining building. Maybe even some part along Scott St, to use maybe 40% of the existing footprint for a new building. No, it will never be a viable shopping mall again, but it could certainly be a viable mixed-use space with much higher density.

However, the property owner, EuroPro, is an office space management/rental company, not a developer, and so far they have not done any major development projects, as far as I am aware. Would they want to tackle something this big?

It's definitely possible. The parking garage is structurally quite separate from the rest of the building. There has not been any need for that much parking ever since the mall and market ceased operating, so they could certainly tear it down and redevelop that at some point if there was a wish to do so. But as you mention, EuroPro is not a developer.

I'd support demolishing the parking garage and rebuilding something there. But to get rid of the entire thing makes no sense and it would never happen anyway - at least for a long, long time. EuroPro just dumped a ton of money into redeveloping the interior of the complex as well as the office tower across the street. A college campus just opened up and there is a lot of perfectly good office space to lease. Financially, it just wouldn't make any sense. There is also the environmental cost involved in demolishing and rebuilding something so immense. The argument made in this thread just seems to be that it's subjectively ugly and so some glass towers would be preferable.

[westwardloo]

I expect you could tear down the parking garage without impacting the structural integrity of the rest, and build a tower that would work (architecturally) with the remaining building. Maybe even some part along Scott St, to use maybe 40% of the existing footprint for a new building. No, it will never be a viable shopping mall again, but it could certainly be a viable mixed-use space with much higher density.

However, the property owner, EuroPro, is an office space management/rental company, not a developer, and so far they have not done any major development projects, as far as I am aware. Would they want to tackle something this big?

It's definitely possible. The parking garage is structurally quite separate from the rest of the building. There has not been any need for that much parking ever since the mall and market ceased operating, so they could certainly tear it down and redevelop that at some point if there was a wish to do so. But as you mention, EuroPro is not a developer.

I'd support demolishing the parking garage and rebuilding something there. But to get rid of the entire thing makes no sense and it would never happen anyway - at least for a long, long time. EuroPro just dumped a ton of money into redeveloping the interior of the complex as well as the office tower across the street. A college campus just opened up and there is a lot of perfectly good office space to lease. Financially, it just wouldn't make any sense. There is also the environmental cost involved in demolishing and rebuilding something so immense. The argument made in this thread just seems to be that it's subjectively ugly and so some glass towers would be preferable.

I think it is impossible to say it will never happen. IN8 is literally doing just that to the Hamilton City Centre, which is a structurally larger failed urban mall. I am not saying I am a fan of the SRM towers planned for that redevelopment. The possibilities for this site are endless. It could end up mundane glass towers, or it could be a couple signatures developments for DTK who knows. Either way the building as it stands does not appear to be working. Stantec left for a more modern office, The Record is leaving to reduce cost, I can't see a major company taking over this Class C office space in this market.  Europro may end up spending big money to retrofit the building to entice a long term tenant. I am sure they are already talking to Conestoga College to begging them to fill the void. Personally I hope this doesn't happen and the site ends up selling to a developer. It is subjectively ugly, but it also interacts horrible with the urban environment. It would cost a ton of money for them retrofit the building to fix this, if it is even possible, there are loading bays of king st.

[tomh009]

Either way the building as it stands does not appear to be working. Stantec left for a more modern office, The Record is leaving to reduce cost, I can't see a major company taking over this Class C office space in this market.  Europro may end up spending big money to retrofit the building to entice a long term tenant. I am sure they are already talking to Conestoga College to begging them to fill the void. Personally I hope this doesn't happen and the site ends up selling to a developer. It is subjectively ugly, but it also interacts horrible with the urban environment. It would cost a ton of money for them retrofit the building to fix this, if it is even possible, there are loading bays of king st.

I expect that EuroPro has a pretty good idea of the demand and trends for office space in DTK, given that they own most of the office buildings downtown, and this is their core business. At the moment the office vacancy rates in DTK are still pretty low, and there is new space being built. That may change, but it's certainly not a ghost town as far as office space goes.

As discussed above, there are things that can be done to improve King St interaction, and it's possible to redevelop a portion of the property, so options do exist. (There are no loading bays on King St, those are on Scott St, but there is a garage entrance on King St.)

[nms]

Looping back to the comments about the Record (and I don't know if this merits a full topic elsewhere), it has been shrinking its labour pool for a long time.  If you count the number of unique names for reporters in the daily paper, you would likely be hard pressed to fill a minibus. Local journalism relies on "boots on the ground" to tell our stories. Good journalism is expensive to maintain but important to the functioning of our society. Without it, we risk living blind in our own community.

Social Media platforms are not good at presenting heterogenous community narratives.  Nor are they interested in your local stories. They are also prone to printing non-fact checked stories that destabilize communities.

Refusing to pay for local news is not good community stewardship. Holding out for a local version of the New York Times, the Washington Post etc is just not going to work.  You can subscribe to the Record for $60/year and demonstrate that local news is important to you. (that's only $10 less and than an Elite WRConnected membership)

Things that we'll lose when we lose local journalism:
- a local "paper of record" that provides the first draft of history in this area
- local human interest stories about who lives here
- local amateur sports (either leagues or school competitions)
- local politics (not everyone reads WRConnected like we do)
- local arts (either visiting artists or up and coming local artists in any medium visual, singing etc)
- local community support (The Record supports the Kids to Camp Fund, and two literacy funds as well as raising the profile of other worthy causes in the Region)
- local obituaries (relying on social networks to spread this news misses large portion of the connections that may have faded over time but that are none-the-less important for creating community)

[plam]

Looping back to the comments about the Record (and I don't know if this merits a full topic elsewhere), it has been shrinking its labour pool for a long time.  If you count the number of unique names for reporters in the daily paper, you would likely be hard pressed to fill a minibus. Local journalism relies on "boots on the ground" to tell our stories. Good journalism is expensive to maintain but important to the functioning of our society. Without it, we risk living blind in our own community.

Yeah, I agree. Local journalism is important, also for keeping our politicians to account. I'm disappointed that they won't have a newsroom anymore. There are a lot of jobs that don't require a common office, but I don't think this is one of them.

[dtkvictim]

Looping back to the comments about the Record (and I don't know if this merits a full topic elsewhere), it has been shrinking its labour pool for a long time.  If you count the number of unique names for reporters in the daily paper, you would likely be hard pressed to fill a minibus. Local journalism relies on "boots on the ground" to tell our stories. Good journalism is expensive to maintain but important to the functioning of our society. Without it, we risk living blind in our own community.

Social Media platforms are not good at presenting heterogenous community narratives.  Nor are they interested in your local stories. They are also prone to printing non-fact checked stories that destabilize communities.

Refusing to pay for local news is not good community stewardship. Holding out for a local version of the New York Times, the Washington Post etc is just not going to work.  You can subscribe to the Record for $60/year and demonstrate that local news is important to you. (that's only $10 less and than an Elite WRConnected membership)

Things that we'll lose when we lose local journalism:
- a local "paper of record" that provides the first draft of history in this area
- local human interest stories about who lives here
- local amateur sports (either leagues or school competitions)
- local politics (not everyone reads WRConnected like we do)
- local arts (either visiting artists or up and coming local artists in any medium visual, singing etc)
- local community support (The Record supports the Kids to Camp Fund, and two literacy funds as well as raising the profile of other worthy causes in the Region)
- local obituaries (relying on social networks to spread this news misses large portion of the connections that may have faded over time but that are none-the-less important for creating community)

It's a tough situation, and refusing to pay for The Record doesn't demonstrate that I think local new is unimportant. All it means is that I don't think what The Record provides today is worth paying for, nor do I think that a better financial situation would improve their quality to the point of being worth paying for tomorrow. I do agree that high quality journalism is fundamental to our society, I just don't think The Record is that path forward.

I've gone years reading The Record every day, then a decade without reading it once, and now I read online articles from time to time. I don't feel that amount I was informed about local issues really changed during any of those periods. But I also don't care about anything that papers publish unless they are the primary source.

I've also seen writers from The Record outright lie (borderline slander) about topics I had "insider information" on, and that I cared about personally. It's hard to convince me to pay for that.

[tomh009]

It's a tough situation, and refusing to pay for The Record doesn't demonstrate that I think local new is unimportant. All it means is that I don't think what The Record provides today is worth paying for, nor do I think that a better financial situation would improve their quality to the point of being worth paying for tomorrow. I do agree that high quality journalism is fundamental to our society, I just don't think The Record is that path forward.

What do you see as the path forward, then? Why will it be better, and why will it be financially viable?

[ac3r]

That's the issue for me as well. I'd happily support local journalism with my own money, but The Record is no longer worth me paying for and hasn't been in many years. I'm not going to just start throwing my money at them because they are going under. Metroland/Torstar turned it into shit like they have done to everything they bought up.

[dtkvictim]

It's a tough situation, and refusing to pay for The Record doesn't demonstrate that I think local new is unimportant. All it means is that I don't think what The Record provides today is worth paying for, nor do I think that a better financial situation would improve their quality to the point of being worth paying for tomorrow. I do agree that high quality journalism is fundamental to our society, I just don't think The Record is that path forward.

What do you see as the path forward, then? Why will it be better, and why will it be financially viable?

Questions I wish I had an answer to, but won't pretend to. My only point was that I don't see a way that The Record, even in a positive financial situation, will fill the journalistic requirements of our city (and I don't think they presently do, so it's not a loss to me). It's current ownership makes it more detached from and uninterested in our community than ever before, and I don't see a way back from that.

[tomh009]

What do you see as the path forward, then? Why will it be better, and why will it be financially viable?

Questions I wish I had an answer to, but won't pretend to. My only point was that I don't see a way that The Record, even in a positive financial situation, will fill the journalistic requirements of our city (and I don't think they presently do, so it's not a loss to me). It's current ownership makes it more detached from and uninterested in our community than ever before, and I don't see a way back from that.

Today, I read stories on the Record about ...

• Ophthalmologists oppose the proposed UW Eye Institute (Catherine Thompson, local reporter)
  
• Tiny homes in Waterloo Region (Robert Williams, local reporter)
  
• Heritage protection request in Forest Heights (Liz Monteiro, local reporter
  
• Hospice of Waterloo Region opening (Liz Monteiro)
  

Considering I pay only $6/month ($0.20/day), I think those four articles alone are good value for me. You, of course, may not be interested in any of these topics, or you may be seeing these covered elsewhere.

[plam]

James Fallows on why private equity ownership of newspapers is terrible and a couple of small-town US counterexamples:

https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2019/0...sm/598225/

The conventional view of the local-journalism crisis is that running a small-town newspaper just isn’t a viable business anymore—now that internet advertising has drained off revenue, and now that virtual communities and social media have displaced real-world connections and communities.

...

In short: Increasing evidence suggests that the local newspaper business may still be viable, simply as a business. What it can no longer do is provide the super-profit levels that private equity groups expect from their holdings, and that they demand as a condition of even letting the papers exist. But the same papers that are doomed under private-equity ownership might have a chance in some different economic structure.

[danbrotherston]

James Fallows on why private equity ownership of newspapers is terrible and a couple of small-town US counterexamples:

https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2019/0...sm/598225/

The conventional view of the local-journalism crisis is that running a small-town newspaper just isn’t a viable business anymore—now that internet advertising has drained off revenue, and now that virtual communities and social media have displaced real-world connections and communities.

...

In short: Increasing evidence suggests that the local newspaper business may still be viable, simply as a business. What it can no longer do is provide the super-profit levels that private equity groups expect from their holdings, and that they demand as a condition of even letting the papers exist. But the same papers that are doomed under private-equity ownership might have a chance in some different economic structure.

This is actually a really interesting distinction, that I hadn't explicitly seen in words before. And it's an important one. It's much broader than just newspapers.

[ijmorlan]

James Fallows on why private equity ownership of newspapers is terrible and a couple of small-town US counterexamples:

https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2019/0...sm/598225/

This is actually a really interesting distinction, that I hadn't explicitly seen in words before. And it's an important one. It's much broader than just newspapers.

So my question is, why are these super profit seekers still in the newspaper business if it isn’t profitable enough for them? Find some other business to manage to death.