Business in Winnipeg

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by Ando

If you don't think good streetscapes have anything to do with wealth and economic activity generated by wealth, then you're in the wrong business bro.

Originally Posted by trueviking

Absolutely wrong. Winnipeg has way more wealth than Saskatoon. Way more economic activity. Way more retail. We just put ours in outlet malls. Good urbanism is not about money in any way.

In fact, the most cohesive streetscapes in Winnipeg are in its poorest neighbourhoods.

Hard agree. Wealth is not a necessary condition for having a functional, walkable high street. Out east lots of small towns still have functional main streets that are pretty successful and vibrant despite being modest.

And just because you have wealth doesn't automatically mean you have walkable streets with cute storefronts. You can have plenty of wealth but it takes the form of people living in big stucco mcmansions outside of town, driving fully-loaded trucks and doing all their shopping at Cabela's.

[Ando]

Originally Posted by trueviking

Absolutely wrong. Winnipeg has way more wealth than Saskatoon. Way more economic activity. Way more retail. We just put ours in outlet malls. Good urbanism is not about money in any way.

In fact, the most cohesive streetscapes in Winnipeg are in its poorest neighbourhoods.

You know, one of your problems is you are way too categorical - that means you see things as either black or white. Wealth has nothing to do with healthy streetscape, I am absolutely wrong, the Time magazine piece on Winnipeg is “embarrassing” and so on. The context we have been talking about is the health of the downtown. Healthy streetscapes include the buildings along the street, and what’s in those buildings, having attractive useful things in those buildings that attract people to want to visit and walk on that street. People with disposable income are part of the equation because they play a role in supporting these vibrant streets. I’m not being categorical because I’m saying wealth is one part of the equation, to say otherwise is disingenuous.
BTW, average incomes are way higher in Regina and Saskatoon over Winnipeg. Perhaps you are still dwelling in the early part of the 20th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...usehold_income

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by Ando

You know, one of your problems is you are way too categorical - that means you see things as either black or white. Wealth has nothing to do with healthy streetscape, I am absolutely wrong, the Time magazine piece on Winnipeg is “embarrassing” and so on. The context we have been talking about is the health of the downtown. Healthy streetscapes include the buildings along the street, and what’s in those buildings, having attractive useful things in those buildings that attract people to want to visit and walk on that street. People with disposable income are part of the equation because they play a role in supporting these vibrant streets. I’m not being categorical because I’m saying wealth is one part of the equation, to say otherwise is disingenuous.
BTW, average incomes are way higher in Regina and Saskatoon over Winnipeg. Perhaps you are still dwelling in the early part of the 20th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...usehold_income

I think Vike's point was that wealth is actually a pretty insignificant factor in building healthy streetscapes compared to urban planning and design. If you provide the zoning, infrastructure and financial incentives for big sprawling subdivisions and box-store malls, that's what you'll get. Even if there's a lot of money there. You won't have cute walkable streetscapes you'll have box stores and parking lots and a sea of ugly mcmansions. And likewise you can have good walkable areas with streetfront businesses even in lower-income places, if you plan right and incentivize right.

Your list kinda confirms that. Places like Regina, Sudbury, Edmonton and Thunder Bay near the top of the list. Not exactly known for their vibrant urbanism. And near the bottom of the list you have some places like Peterborough that have vibrant and active downtown streetscapes with lots of businesses. They're modest, there's no Louis Vuitton there, but it's a solid streetscape nonetheless.
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.3065...7i16384!8i8192

[esquire]

100 laid off at Tangent Animation in Winnipeg, quite a kick to the local economy and in particular to the West Exchange, where their studios were located.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by Ando

You know, one of your problems is you are way too categorical - that means you see things as either black or white. Wealth has nothing to do with healthy streetscape, I am absolutely wrong, the Time magazine piece on Winnipeg is “embarrassing” and so on. The context we have been talking about is the health of the downtown. Healthy streetscapes include the buildings along the street, and what’s in those buildings, having attractive useful things in those buildings that attract people to want to visit and walk on that street. People with disposable income are part of the equation because they play a role in supporting these vibrant streets. I’m not being categorical because I’m saying wealth is one part of the equation, to say otherwise is disingenuous.
BTW, average incomes are way higher in Regina and Saskatoon over Winnipeg. Perhaps you are still dwelling in the early part of the 20th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...usehold_income

Median isn't average. Your source doesn't support your argument.

[3de14eec6a]

Originally Posted by cheswick

Median isn't average. Your source doesn't support your argument.

Median, Mean, and Mode are all average types. If you're going to be pedantic, please be correct.

When a dataset is skewed (such as with salairies) then median is preferred.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by 3de14eec6a

Median, Mean, and Mode are all average types. If you're going to be pedantic, please be correct.

When a dataset is skewed (such as with salairies) then median is preferred.

Mean (avg) figures are skewed by the presence of outliers, which is when the median (middle value of the whole dataset) is preferred. Mind you, all of these are still only a heuristic device which doesn't in and of itself tell the whole picture.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by 3de14eec6a

Median, Mean, and Mode are all average types. If you're going to be pedantic, please be correct.

When a dataset is skewed (such as with salairies) then median is preferred.

No, mode and median are not the average. Mean is the arithmetic average. All 3 say something different about the population. Calling the median the average is incorrect.

I made no inference about what was the most appropriate statistic to use, just pointed out his source didn’t back up his statement. And no, when a population is skewed the median isn’t preferred. It’s completely dependent on what you’re looking for. Median is better when you’re concerned with central tendencies of a skewed populations.

As to what would be an appropriate statistic in this case. This was all in reply to relative wealth of cities. IMO his response didn’t even make sense. TV was saying Winnipeg has more wealth overall as a city. The response was a per capita argument. Winnipeg is several times the size of Saskatoon. Of course it has more wealth and economic activity.

[Winnipegger]

There are so many different measurements of "income" in Canada, so anyone can go around and pull out a number that proves their point or disproves someone elses'. Just off the top of my head, for income statistics you can get: individual income, income by census family type, and household income. Then on the metric, you can get average, median, and percentiles. Then for the data source, you can look at labour force survey, census, or tax filer income.

So basically there are a million ways you could compare income across Canada, but general trends should hold across most data.

People aren't wrong when they say Regina and Saskatoon have higher incomes than Winnipeg. Here is a comparison for tax filer income for 2019: Link.

But at the end of the day, Winnipeg has roughly 2.5 times more tax filers than Saskatoon, and 3.3 times more tax filers than Regina, so we have a much larger and more diverse population and labour force to draw upon.

Winnipeg does struggle with keeping up with it's Canadian peers in terms of income as many of the high paying jobs exist in larger cities, or cities in energy-centric economies. But that's not to say high income jobs don't exist here, they certainly do. We just have a lot of jobs on the lower-end of the pay scale, along with a lot of vulnerable and poorly-treated individuals in our inner city who haven't had the same advantages of the average person historically that tend to drag down our average incomes.

[Ando]

Originally Posted by cheswick

No, mode and median are not the average. Mean is the arithmetic average. All 3 say something different about the population. Calling the median the average is incorrect.

I made no inference about what was the most appropriate statistic to use, just pointed out his source didn’t back up his statement. And no, when a population is skewed the median isn’t preferred. It’s completely dependent on what you’re looking for. Median is better when you’re concerned with central tendencies of a skewed populations.

As to what would be an appropriate statistic in this case. This was all in reply to relative wealth of cities. IMO his response didn’t even make sense. TV was saying Winnipeg has more wealth overall as a city. The response was a per capita argument. Winnipeg is several times the size of Saskatoon. Of course it has more wealth and economic activity.

Yes, you have a solid history of struggling to understand simple concepts. My point stands. Saskatchewan incomes are higher than those in Manitoba. This isn’t brain surgery. The oil boom helped push Saskatchewan ahead of Manitoba economically and that effect is still in place.

[Ando]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Mean (avg) figures are skewed by the presence of outliers, which is when the median (middle value of the whole dataset) is preferred. Mind you, all of these are still only a heuristic device which doesn't in and of itself tell the whole picture.

Exactly. Buddy has a history with with me because I have disagreed with him on occasion.

[Ando]

Originally Posted by EdwardTH

I think Vike's point was that wealth is actually a pretty insignificant factor in building healthy streetscapes compared to urban planning and design. If you provide the zoning, infrastructure and financial incentives for big sprawling subdivisions and box-store malls, that's what you'll get. Even if there's a lot of money there. You won't have cute walkable streetscapes you'll have box stores and parking lots and a sea of ugly mcmansions. And likewise you can have good walkable areas with streetfront businesses even in lower-income places, if you plan right and incentivize right.

Your list kinda confirms that. Places like Regina, Sudbury, Edmonton and Thunder Bay near the top of the list. Not exactly known for their vibrant urbanism. And near the bottom of the list you have some places like Peterborough that have vibrant and active downtown streetscapes with lots of businesses. They're modest, there's no Louis Vuitton there, but it's a solid streetscape nonetheless.
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.3065...7i16384!8i8192

I didn’t really need an explanation of his point. I think you will find Peterborough is a pretty solid city economically. I was merely pointing out that there are multiple factors that go into healthy streetscapes. You can’t ignore economic factors. You can put in wider sidewalks and bike lanes and nice planters but if there isn’t a population of people who want to visit that streetscape and help it thrive, then it is going to go into decline. The original discussion was about downtown Winnipeg and it’s challenges.

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by Ando

I didn’t really need an explanation of his point. I think you will find Peterborough is a pretty solid city economically. I was merely pointing out that there are multiple factors that go into healthy streetscapes. You can’t ignore economic factors. You can put in wider sidewalks and bike lanes and nice planters but if there isn’t a population of people who want to visit that streetscape and help it thrive, then it is going to go into decline. The original discussion was about downtown Winnipeg and it’s challenges.

So you need a population. Not necessarily a wealthy one. As we've covered already you can have busy, vibrant areas with interesting streetscapes, without having "fancy" businesses frequented by higher-income people. TV mentioned some of Winnipeg's most interesting streetscapes are in some of the lower-income areas. Look at Osborne village - I don't fully agree with this assessment, but the consensus here seems to be that the village was busier and more interesting when it was more affordable. Young people and students go out more and are more likely to walk or bus. Then rents go up and they are replaced by young professionals who drive to work, go to the gym, come home, repeat. You're implying there's a clear positive correlation between higher incomes and more vibrant urban streetscapes and it's just not really true - there is a good case that cheaper areas actually have more vibrant streets. Income levels just aren't that significant compared to planning, density, transit, etc. Unless your idea of a "vibrant" streetscape is limited to high-end shopping districts.

[EndoftheBeginning]

Heard a snippet on the radio this morning with the Skip the Dishes co-founder announcing their financial company (Neo Financial) is setting up their HQ in Winnipeg and moving into the old Skip HQ in the Exchange. About 300 or so tech jobs will need to be filled.

[rivercity]

^ heres an article from the Freep this morning
https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/bu...575111722.html

Sounds like an HQ will remain in Calgary with this being a secondary HQ.

[EndoftheBeginning]

Ah, OK, thanks for correction. Didn't catch the whole interview.

[Biff]

"So far, Neo has been based in Calgary. Now, the company is creating a second headquarters in Winnipeg right within the former offices for SkipTheDishes, after seeing a consolidated revenue of more than $135 million by the end of the second quarter in 2021."

[Wpgstvsouth94]

Wouldn’t it be nice to see skip the dishes build a mixed use skyscraper in the city here?! That would be a game changer for downtown.

[wags_in_the_peg]

Hope they have luck finding people. We are trying to hire IT, Finance, HR, stock room and not getting great applicants. Every restaurant I’ve been to recently has a “now hiring” sign. Buddy in the hotel industry can’t find people. I’m not sure if some people are still enjoying the government programs or what but this is really getting frustrated. Those programs need to stop for some people, not all just some

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by wags_in_the_peg

Hope they have luck finding people. We are trying to hire IT, Finance, HR, stock room and not getting great applicants. Every restaurant I’ve been to recently has a “now hiring” sign. Buddy in the hotel industry can’t find people. I’m not sure if some people are still enjoying the government programs or what but this is really getting frustrated. Those programs need to stop for some people, not all just some

wages will need to go up to get aplicants i would imagin