Office Market Discussion - Page 6

Metro-One · #**101** Posted **Nov 20, 2012, 11:27 PM**

Actually in the mining industry most of our offices are head offices, but they are not largely populated for the reasons I gave prior.

Jebby · #**102** Posted **Nov 20, 2012, 11:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Actually in the mining industry most of our offices are head offices, but they are not largely populated for the reasons I gave prior.

You're in mining as well?

Metro-One · #**103** Posted **Nov 21, 2012, 12:04 AM**

Kind of, I create promotional videos, so i have done many site / company videos for mining companies and a while ago (2004 - 2007) I use to do summer geological assistant work for a firm downtown. I worked in house for another last year (videos) until they were dissolved. Hence I use to work at the old Stock Exchange.

EastVanMark · #**104** Posted **Nov 21, 2012, 9:22 AM**

The square footage has nothing to do with types of companies. Its silly Vancouver zoning laws and nothing else. Over the years plenty of companies have tried to build larger buildings in the downtown core with no success. For example; for years the BC Tel building in Burnaby held the title of largest office building in the province. That building was supposed to be built in Vancouver, but ran into stifling city laws. So it went to Burnaby instead and got constructed in the middle of a residential area where it was pretty much obsolete from day one. We have companies like HSBC that could cover a whole building but don't because of lack of space. BC Hydro is spread over multiple office towers (3 that I know of) instead of being in one despite the fact that they built 2 office buildings themselves!

Remember, keep in mind this is a city where they proudly (at least it seemed to me) stated when the Telus Garden was being constructed that a building as large as the Scotia Tower would never be allowed in that location under current zoning.

Smaller floor plates work well for developers because they are easier to fill up than larger ones. And since the city has no policy to encourage anyone from taking any risks (as is done in other cities), developers take the safe route but when it comes to large scale companies, small scale buildings are yet another reason Vancouver is unattractive.

trofirhen · #**105** Posted **Nov 21, 2012, 1:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by s211

It's pretty straightforward actually. Vancouver is largely a branch office location, not a large head office location.

It will probably stay a branch-plant town, too, unless we start to develop an economy here. This has been mentioned before, but pharmeceuticals would be an ideal place to start, with all the medical research that goes on here.

A little, off topic, I know. pls excuse me.

LeftCoaster · #**106** Posted **Nov 21, 2012, 3:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by queetz@home

So what you're saying it is a category issue.

So Vancouver attracts only a certain type of business category, in this case small mining firms that deal with rocks and such, while Calgary attracts a certain catergory of mining firms, such as those that mine fossil fuels.

So now the question is this....why can't Vancouver attract a more diverse group of companies that happen to be large as well?

Energy companies ≠ mining companies.

For a similar sized company energy companies like the ones seen in Calgary require far more space. Compare Teck to Cenovus, very similar sized companies, but Cenovus will take up several hundred thousand square feet while Teck has maybe 100k. It's simply a different business model that brings in similar revenue but requires less office space.

WarrenC12 · #**107** Posted **Nov 21, 2012, 4:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nname

Another issue is that.. does a company actually need a location in or close to downtown? For the company I work for (software/tech), we recently moved out of an office tower in the core area to a business park due to larger space, cheaper rent, and much easier for expansion. The move also due to the fact that the office tower doesn't really want companies like us, who takes up 6-7 floors of a building and constantly ask for more. For a software company point of view, there's no benefit of being located near the core unless there's little of other choices available.

Similar story for us. I work for a company spread around the world, HQ'd in "Vancouver" (Richmond). I'd say half of our ~1100 employees work here. I'd love for us to move downtown, or even to a new business park like near Renfrew Skytrain, but it ain't gonna happen.

The only people I know who work downtown have offices under 50 people. I worked downtown in a similar sized office years ago. And also one with under 10 people.

s211 · #**108** Posted **Nov 21, 2012, 4:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

It will probably stay a branch-plant town, too, unless we start to develop an economy here. This has been mentioned before, but pharmeceuticals would be an ideal place to start, with all the medical research that goes on here.

A little, off topic, I know. pls excuse me.

Pharm is pretty well locked up by Montreal.

red-paladin · #**109** Posted **Nov 21, 2012, 5:32 PM**

Hopefully Metrotower III and the other new office space being built in Burnaby will help Metrotown achieve the level of critical mass it needs for companies to want to locate there. The south west corner of Kingsway and Willingdon where the gas station is could be quite a nice location for a large office or mixed use building. The 'pure' office towers already nearby and the mixed use Crystal Mall and Sovereign are preparing for that possibility nicely.

EastVanMark · #**110** Posted **Nov 22, 2012, 4:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

It will probably stay a branch-plant town, too, unless we start to develop an economy here. This has been mentioned before, but pharmeceuticals would be an ideal place to start, with all the medical research that goes on here.

A little, off topic, I know. pls excuse me.

How about Asian companies? US companies on the west coast? High-tech? Heck, even some Seattle companies have bypassed us for a city like Calgary!!! (I used Calgary cause people usually only focus on Toronto so providing a smaller market gives us context).

The latest in the long line of disappointments has to be Nordstrom. The company is literally located just a short drive from here but will locate its Canadian headquarters in Toronto or Calgary. That should not happen! But you can hardly blame them. Why would you ever choose Manhattan rental rates in a city with a weaker corporate climate (which makes absolutely no sense!!) when you decide to where to locate your head office? If Nordstrom was located here and needed to design an add campaign for the Canadian market they must go to Toronto or Calgary, yet they'd be paying more to be located here.

officedweller · #**111** Posted **Jun 11, 2013, 8:05 PM**

Postmedia (Sun & Province) is downsizing at Granville Square (200 Granville) and subleasing 2 floors (6th and 7th)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle12474921/

Vin · #**112** Posted **Nov 20, 2013, 8:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

How about Asian companies? US companies on the west coast? High-tech? Heck, even some Seattle companies have bypassed us for a city like Calgary!!! (I used Calgary cause people usually only focus on Toronto so providing a smaller market gives us context).

The latest in the long line of disappointments has to be Nordstrom. The company is literally located just a short drive from here but will locate its Canadian headquarters in Toronto or Calgary. That should not happen! But you can hardly blame them. Why would you ever choose Manhattan rental rates in a city with a weaker corporate climate (which makes absolutely no sense!!) when you decide to where to locate your head office? If Nordstrom was located here and needed to design an add campaign for the Canadian market they must go to Toronto or Calgary, yet they'd be paying more to be located here.

You have to remember that it is the market that determines the property price. By that, it totally makes sense. However, the types of economy and industries are often first promoted by the government and then taken over by entrepreneurs. Does Vancouver want to think big like New York, Chicago or Toronto? Somehow, I doubt it. We can't even handle having a really tall skyscraper.

s211 · #**113** Posted **Nov 20, 2013, 5:27 PM**

We should seriously change the name of this thread. We're quickly moving from tight squeeze to disappearing demand and new supply. Landlord concerns are rising.

Klazu · #**114** Posted **Nov 28, 2013, 3:57 AM**

Might be a bit offtopic, but our office building (Pricewaterhousecoopers Place) had a new high-tech elevator guidance system installed last week. The building has only 20 floors and 6 elevators, but it used to be awfully slow to get to the upper floors because of people stopping at each floor. The property owner Cadillac Fairview decided to solve the problem by installing a brand new elevator guidance system that requires you to select a floor on a console in the lobby and the system assigning you with an elevator best suited to reach your floor.

I haven't seen these systems in Vancouver earlier and was wondering if they are how common in here? I know skyscrapers have such systems, but not sure how common they are in here. Based on the experience from first week post-installation, the system does indeed make elevator rides much faster with minimal amount of stops.

phesto · #**115** Posted **Nov 28, 2013, 4:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klazu

Might be a bit offtopic, but our office building (Pricewaterhousecoopers Place) had a new high-tech elevator guidance system installed last week. The building has only 20 floors and 6 elevators, but it used to be awfully slow to get to the upper floors because of people stopping at each floor. The property owner Cadillac Fairview decided to solve the problem by installing a brand new elevator guidance system that requires you to select a floor on a console in the lobby and the system assigning you with an elevator best suited to reach your floor.

I haven't seen these systems in Vancouver earlier and was wondering if they are how common in here? I know skyscrapers have such systems, but not sure how common they are in here. Based on the experience from first week post-installation, the system does indeed make elevator rides much faster with minimal amount of stops.

They're not that common. They're usually installed in retrofit situations such as your building when wait times are an issue. The only other building I know of in Vancouver with that system is the Hyatt.

officedweller · #**116** Posted **Nov 28, 2013, 4:52 AM**

Royal Bank Tower has had that system installed as well (same complex as Hyatt).

The fact that there are no instructions for visitors completely messes you up.

quobobo · #**117** Posted **Nov 28, 2013, 5:29 AM**

Metrotower 1 (at Metrotown) was retrofitted with a similar system about 3 years ago.

red-paladin · #**118** Posted **Nov 28, 2013, 5:36 AM**

Thread title updated. Any objections?

jlousa · #**119** Posted **Nov 28, 2013, 6:22 AM**

We are in the process of retrofitting an office building that's less then a decade old, at a cost of half a million, with no promise it'll reduce wait times.

I'm convinced the elevator companies are in on this. The elevators were sold with high performance controllers able to learn the building routines and park elevators accordingly. Reality seems to be once the elevators were installed and signed off on they flip the programming from high performance to economical in order to cut down on maintenance costs as they'd all be covered under the service agreement.
I've spoken with others in property management and many feel the same way that no matter what we're told the programming should be doing the elevators are doing the least amount of work possible. While there might be some buildings that would opt to save some energy at the expense of additional wait time, most would opt to consume a little more to reduce wait times.

jlousa · #**120** Posted **Dec 29, 2013, 11:14 PM**

Not really an ideal thread to post this, but didn't think it was worthy of creating a new one and this one was the best match i could find.

An interesting article in the globe discussing the ratio of hotel rooms/1000sqft of office space. Here are some of the rations they mention in the article.

Quote:

Take Toronto. On average, the city has generated 56 hotel room nights for every 1,000 square feet of occupied office space, Cushman found in a new report. But what’s interesting is how little deviation there is from that average. Between 2001 and 2012 the number never dipped below 50 or above 58.

LA 1092 rooms per 1000sqft of office space
Vancouver 144 rooms per 1000sqft of office space
Montreal 84 rooms per 1000sqft of office space
Boston 77 rooms per 1000sqft of office space.
Ottawa 77 rooms per 1000sqft of office space
Calgary 60 rooms per 1000sqft of office space
Toronto 56 rooms per 1000sqft of office space

Quote:

Interestingly, Vancouver, with many of the same characteristics as Los Angeles, but much smaller in size, received only 144 occupied hotel rooms per 1,000 square foot of occupied office space compared with Los Angeles at over seven times the volume,” the report notes.

Doesn't really touch on occupancy rates which are a huge factor in if we are under or over served so it's hard to tell if there will be demand for additional hotel rooms once all the current wave of office space is completed. Mind you we also have a bit of hotel rooms proposed/opening soon. Would be nice to see where out ratio is in 5yrs compared to today.