HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #7741  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2017, 1:03 AM
skphc08's Avatar
skphc08 skphc08 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Central
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2 View Post
The vacancy rate doesn't count owner-occupied buildings.
Incorrect. An owner may lease their building or a part of their building to an entity in the general market if they elect to do so. It would be incorrect to exclude this from the vacancy rate calculation on the basis of ownership alone.
__________________
Everything is real on this concrete and steel.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7742  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2017, 1:53 AM
BrutallyDishonest2 BrutallyDishonest2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by skphc08 View Post
Incorrect. An owner may lease their building or a part of their building to an entity in the general market if they elect to do so. It would be incorrect to exclude this from the vacancy rate calculation on the basis of ownership alone.
If an owner is leasing their building... then it's not owner occupied.

And I can assure you that nobody calculates the office market they way you are claiming. Office statistics are competitive buildings only.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7743  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2017, 2:54 AM
Drofmab's Avatar
Drofmab Drofmab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Regina
Posts: 1,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2 View Post
2045 Broad is nearly 50% federal (63k sq ft. out of 133k sq. ft), so if they leave the building will be hurting.
Do you know which federal entities are occupying 63k sqft? Other than Health Canada & Environment Canada - which I wouldn't think needs 63k sqft (that's more space than the entire Tax Building) - I can't think of a significant federal dept or agency that requires that kind of space (for which I can't think of their current office location). Maybe I'm just off-base on what Health & Environment requires.
__________________
@drofmab
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7744  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2017, 3:32 AM
BrutallyDishonest2 BrutallyDishonest2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drofmab View Post
Do you know which federal entities are occupying 63k sqft? Other than Health Canada & Environment Canada - which I wouldn't think needs 63k sqft (that's more space than the entire Tax Building) - I can't think of a significant federal dept or agency that requires that kind of space (for which I can't think of their current office location). Maybe I'm just off-base on what Health & Environment requires.
I don't know specifically, but I think Health probably has way more space than you'd think.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7745  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2017, 6:06 AM
skphc08's Avatar
skphc08 skphc08 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Central
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2 View Post
If an owner is leasing their building... then it's not owner occupied.
My point exactly. The building becomes leased rather than owner occupied. Those square feet don't appear out of no where. Its already built and was always potentially available to the market.

I don't need your assurance. Just a reference to back up what you are saying.
__________________
Everything is real on this concrete and steel.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7746  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2017, 1:43 PM
J-Walker J-Walker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by skphc08 View Post
My point exactly. The building becomes leased rather than owner occupied. Those square feet don't appear out of no where. Its already built and was always potentially available to the market.

I don't need your assurance. Just a reference to back up what you are saying.
Total office inventory is tracked by two categories: competitive and non-competitive. If a government department which occupied 100% of a 50,000 sqft. government building were to downsize and reduce its space requirements to say 30,000 sqft. and decide to lease the now unused 20,000 sqft., this 20,000 sqft. would then be newly added to the total competitive market inventory, increasing the vacancy rate in the competitive market calculation. Its not that the inventory appeared out of no where, it is existing inventory, it is just being tracked in a new category.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7747  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2017, 3:36 PM
BrutallyDishonest2 BrutallyDishonest2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by skphc08 View Post
My point exactly. The building becomes leased rather than owner occupied. Those square feet don't appear out of no where. Its already built and was always potentially available to the market.

I don't need your assurance. Just a reference to back up what you are saying.
Just admit you don't know then. Go read any of the reports.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7748  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2017, 5:35 PM
Drofmab's Avatar
Drofmab Drofmab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Regina
Posts: 1,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2 View Post
Rumour is they're fully vacating this property.

So the office market will be getting worse.
To this point, Alvin Hamilton is moving to new fit-up standards (most offices will be 3'x3', from the current 6'x6' to 8'x8'). Should be able to fit 50-100% more employees in most areas of the building (in theory, there should be more common spaces & small meeting rooms to partially offset the space gained through smaller offices, but I understand this rarely happens in practice... preference is given to cubicles - they have a clear, tangible purpose). This is part of the reason I assume that Public Works will consolidate a lot of smaller leased spaces around downtown in the AH building... will have a lot more cubicles available in it than they do right now.

Not to mention some Depts are a lot smaller than they were (due to layoffs & virtual teams) previously, so space requirements have changed. Anyone know if Agriculture still has a couple (essentially) empty floors in Mosaic? They had a series of layoffs right before they left Agriculture Place (FCC's building), so they ended up with significantly more space than they needed in Mosaic. Not sure if Harvard was able to lease it, so Ag could get out of the lease.

On the flip side of this, most of the meeting/conference space that was in the basement of AH - and available free of charge to any federal entity - is being/has been converted to office space... so conference facilities downtown may see a small bump (but not a huge one - in-person meetings are much less frequent).
__________________
@drofmab
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7749  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2017, 5:40 PM
BrutallyDishonest2 BrutallyDishonest2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drofmab View Post
To this point, Alvin Hamilton is moving to new fit-up standards (most offices will be 3'x3', from the current 6'x6' to 8'x8'). Should be able to fit 50-100% more employees in most areas of the building (in theory, there should be more common spaces & small meeting rooms to partially offset the space gained through smaller offices, but I understand this rarely happens in practice... preference is given to cubicles - they have a clear, tangible purpose). This is part of the reason I assume that Public Works will consolidate a lot of smaller leased spaces around downtown in the AH building... will have a lot more cubicles available in it than they do right now.

Not to mention some Depts are a lot smaller than they were (due to layoffs & virtual teams) previously, so space requirements have changed. Anyone know if Agriculture still has a couple (essentially) empty floors in Mosaic? They had a series of layoffs right before they left Agriculture Place (FCC's building), so they ended up with significantly more space than they needed in Mosaic. Not sure if Harvard was able to lease it, so Ag could get out of the lease.

On the flip side of this, most of the meeting/conference space that was in the basement of AH - and available free of charge to any federal entity - is being/has been converted to office space... so conference facilities downtown may see a small bump (but not a huge one - in-person meetings are much less frequent).
Modern office policy is cruel. 3x3 is basically nothing. I'm sure it's ok because they'll call it "collaborative".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7750  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2017, 8:51 PM
skphc08's Avatar
skphc08 skphc08 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Central
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2 View Post
Just admit you don't know then. Go read any of the reports.
You're right. Your definition is the correct one because you say so. As with everything else. Or, more likely in this case, there is nothing to support your definition.

You could simply reference any of the reports yourself. The fact that you didn't is telling.
__________________
Everything is real on this concrete and steel.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7751  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2017, 8:57 PM
skphc08's Avatar
skphc08 skphc08 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Central
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Walker View Post
Total office inventory is tracked by two categories: competitive and non-competitive. If a government department which occupied 100% of a 50,000 sqft. government building were to downsize and reduce its space requirements to say 30,000 sqft. and decide to lease the now unused 20,000 sqft., this 20,000 sqft. would then be newly added to the total competitive market inventory, increasing the vacancy rate in the competitive market calculation. Its not that the inventory appeared out of no where, it is existing inventory, it is just being tracked in a new category.
That's fair enough. It makes sense. However, does the federal government never lease their space no to non-federal entities?
__________________
Everything is real on this concrete and steel.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7752  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2017, 11:19 PM
BrutallyDishonest2 BrutallyDishonest2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by skphc08 View Post
You're right. Your definition is the correct one because you say so. As with everything else. Or, more likely in this case, there is nothing to support your definition.

You could simply reference any of the reports yourself. The fact that you didn't is telling.
You're upset because someone knows more than you?

Google is your friend.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7753  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2017, 4:08 AM
skphc08's Avatar
skphc08 skphc08 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Central
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2 View Post
You're upset because someone knows more than you?

Google is your friend.
Google is apparently not your friend. Otherwise, you wouldn't have failed to provide a reference for your calculation. You always spout dismissive nonsense when you're challenged.

In any case, I disagree that this makes the market "worse." As far as I know, we have not lost any business or tenants in Regina to other cities. We have a federal entity moving into a federal building. The vacancy rate as its being calculated will increase ever so slightly. But really its just one entity moving around the city with no net loss attributable to the move itself. Its a minor blip.
__________________
Everything is real on this concrete and steel.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7754  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2017, 1:10 PM
thefourthtower thefourthtower is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Rueannatta
Posts: 2,597
http://leaderpost.com/news/local-new...mosaic-stadium The Eagles expected to be announced as next headliner at Mosaic Stadium

It would appear The Eagles are set to soar into Regina and play a concert at Mosaic Stadium on May 17 as part of Memorial Cup celebrations.

REGINA LEADER-POST 
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7755  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2017, 1:12 PM
thefourthtower thefourthtower is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Rueannatta
Posts: 2,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by skphc08 View Post
Google is apparently not your friend. Otherwise, you wouldn't have failed to provide a reference for your calculation. You always spout dismissive nonsense when you're challenged.

In any case, I disagree that this makes the market "worse." As far as I know, we have not lost any business or tenants in Regina to other cities. We have a federal entity moving into a federal building. The vacancy rate as its being calculated will increase ever so slightly. But really its just one entity moving around the city with no net loss attributable to the move itself. Its a minor blip.
All the hill towers have less than twenty thousand feet available , the one likes to over cry
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7756  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2017, 1:14 PM
thefourthtower thefourthtower is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Rueannatta
Posts: 2,597
http://www.cjme.com/2017/12/04/capit...ed-councillor/ Capital Pointe an ‘eyesore’, bylaw update needed: Councillor

Regina / 980 CJME

Kevin Martel

December 04, 2017 06:22 am
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7757  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2017, 1:18 PM
thefourthtower thefourthtower is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Rueannatta
Posts: 2,597
http:/^/regina.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1276577 good idea
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7758  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2017, 1:32 PM
BrutallyDishonest2 BrutallyDishonest2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by skphc08 View Post
Google is apparently not your friend. Otherwise, you wouldn't have failed to provide a reference for your calculation. You always spout dismissive nonsense when you're challenged.

In any case, I disagree that this makes the market "worse." As far as I know, we have not lost any business or tenants in Regina to other cities. We have a federal entity moving into a federal building. The vacancy rate as its being calculated will increase ever so slightly. But really its just one entity moving around the city with no net loss attributable to the move itself. Its a minor blip.
Your laziness is astounding.

It straight up makes it worse. 63k of new office vacancy makes a difference. If you think that landlord vacancy has no impact on anything you're living in a bubble.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7759  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2017, 2:22 PM
mitchellk12's Avatar
mitchellk12 mitchellk12 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefourthtower View Post
http://www.cjme.com/2017/12/04/capit...ed-councillor/ Capital Pointe an ‘eyesore’, bylaw update needed: Councillor

Regina / 980 CJME

Kevin Martel

December 04, 2017 06:22 am
if only the whole city knew about the actual reasons as to why this project is still dead underground...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7760  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2017, 3:10 PM
Stormer's Avatar
Stormer Stormer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,582
I just can't believe the Feds are going 3x3 foot cubicles. That is like an airline seat space. You would not have room for a tiny desk and chair. I know many workplaces are going to shared space. No cubicles just shared work tables and meeting rooms. No personal spaces.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:33 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.