04-10-2024, 05:47 PM
(04-10-2024, 02:40 PM)the_conestoga_guy Wrote: I don't think we should read too much into council poking their noses into lease contracts. I'm sure they were flooded with emails asking them to save the climbing gym, and now they're just paying lip service to appear sympathetic.
One detail I did find interesting was that the gym is on a 5 year lease. I'm not incredibly familiar with how these sorts of real estate deals are handled, but 5 years seems super short. The gym would have projected their income against the up front costs of setting up the new space and would have realized that the payback period was fairly long (I'm assuming years). I wouldn't be surprised if they're only breaking even after this 5 year lease ends. And if they were only offered a 5 year lease option, wouldn't that have been a red flag? Especially considering they're being forced out of their existing space for the exact same reason? I know I'm rambling here, but it certainly appears that the gym weren't totally diligent when signing to take over this space.
This is why I find it so strange. They lost their original location for the exact same reason - a pair of skyscrapers being proposed - so then they go do the exact same thing by moving into a property that was obviously inevitably going to be redeveloped. Did they not consider finding out what the state of and plans for the property on Victoria were? Not to mention, as you say, they don't seem to have the best financials. It just seems like the people running GRR have no idea what they're doing.
I suppose, as ZEBuilder states, that the property is unlikely to get redeveloped for a long time. There's a good chance it's a zone and flip, so that will add even more time to utilize the location they're in. But jeez...next time, GRR ought to do their homework. Why they would choose to move into a new location that is obviously going to get redeveloped and spend a ton of money on new climbing walls on top of that only to have to leave in a few years time is stupidity.
I guess the question is: when they have to leave this place, are they going to seek out the cheapest, run down old building they can find just because it's available and doesn't cost a lot? Because it'd be pretty funny if in 15-20 years time they find themselves in the exact same position. Though, maybe by then, someone with better business sense will open a new climbing gym. The success of a business should not be down to social media campaigns waged by business owners, climbing gym NIMBYs and pressuring (and wasting the time of) the city council in hopes they block this proposal.