Edmonton Construction 12 (December 2013) - Page 448

s13 · #**8941** Posted **Aug 6, 2015, 12:12 AM**

^ KCantor, does Epcor tower have enough space available for you guys to possibly submit a bid? Or would it be one of your other 'proposed' towers on the station lands site? (Sorry in advance if this is something you can't even comment on)

christopherj · #**8942** Posted **Aug 6, 2015, 2:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcantor

well you should care because they're not the same thing.

a tenant upgrading and leaving "b" space for "a" space leaves "b" space for backfilling at rents that may be more attractive for suburban tenants that may not be able to justify "a" rents downtown but might still find downtown attractive.

Agreed. And on a long term scale even better if those tenants taking "b" space downtown grow and eventually need "a" space - maybe the next Stantec? Afterall they had 4,000 employees in 2004... 10 years later and they employ 15,000 worldwide.

Hallsy's Toupee · #**8943** Posted **Aug 6, 2015, 3:24 AM**

Well then, I look forward to this mass exodus of offices from the suburbs you all speak of. Please let me know when that happens, thanks.

christopherj · #**8944** Posted **Aug 6, 2015, 3:44 AM**

I don't think anyone said it would happen in mass - just that it is equally important.

And yes, it has happened to a small degree.

MNP is currently consolidating its office downtown - moving 20,000 sq feet of space downtown (and expanding its currently downtown location as well).

Yardstick recently Tweeted that its moving its offices near the arena district (currently split between the south side and an office on the edge of downtown).

Back in 2013 (I think) Intuit moved its 200 employees downtown.

And those are the more public ones. I know of a couple small companies (under 50 employees) that have moved downtown in recent years as well from the suburbs.

No, it's not a mass amount of moving - but it is happening slowly. And as more mid-tier space opens up it gives companies more options.

s211 · #**8945** Posted **Aug 6, 2015, 3:50 AM**

Then you might want to tell all the local developers slapping up those spec office buildings in Sherwood Park to slow down a mite. What the appeal for those is entirely escapes me.

Coldrsx · #**8946** Posted **Aug 6, 2015, 2:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt

One of the buildings that could potentially be vacated really is well past its prime as a commercial office property. I could see that building being re-purposed for another use.

And bear in mind the RFP is for 50-500k so there are a number of ways things could go

Milner.

Would make a neat apartment.

big W · #**8947** Posted **Aug 6, 2015, 2:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by s211

Then you might want to tell all the local developers slapping up those spec office buildings in Sherwood Park to slow down a mite. What the appeal for those is entirely escapes me.

Well lets just cut this out, did you actually think that maybe some tenants prefer being in a suburban location to being downtown. Developers of commercial office space in Edmonton do not typically build on spec. In some cases those that would like to go downtown but can't in the past will make the move when it fits their needs and makes sense for them on a business perspective. Other companies who have a large presence in the burbs such as Worley Parsons, Servus, PCL, Fountain Tire etc may actually prefer a suburban location and therefore go to a suburban location. Their thinking may change or it may not. However if it does change and space is available for them to go downtown they will at that time.

Another thing with suburban office space, take a look at most of the tenants on those buildings and you will see a significant amount of doctors, dentists, insurance offices etc. These people will never locate downtown as their local clients are located in the area. If you live in Summerside for example you will go to a doctor near you and not drive downtown to do to a doctor. Therefore that doctor has to be located in the area. Thus a need for some surburban office.

big W · #**8948** Posted **Aug 6, 2015, 2:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by christopherj

I don't think anyone said it would happen in mass - just that it is equally important.

And yes, it has happened to a small degree.

MNP is currently consolidating its office downtown - moving 20,000 sq feet of space downtown (and expanding its currently downtown location as well).

Yardstick recently Tweeted that its moving its offices near the arena district (currently split between the south side and an office on the edge of downtown).

Back in 2013 (I think) Intuit moved its 200 employees downtown.

And those are the more public ones. I know of a couple small companies (under 50 employees) that have moved downtown in recent years as well from the suburbs.

No, it's not a mass amount of moving - but it is happening slowly. And as more mid-tier space opens up it gives companies more options.

Yes these things are all done when it makes business sense to do so. I know oif several companies that considered locating downtown or the burbs if they are consolidating or moving etc and they will pick what makes sense for them from a business perspective (locating near clients, staff retention, proper space for their current and future needs, rent rates, etc). These needs and requirements change over time and in some cases, what would make sense being downtown 5 years ago may not now or vice versa. At the end of the day we just hope that the market remains healthy and the downtown continues to grow.

kcantor · #**8949** Posted **Aug 6, 2015, 3:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by s13

^ KCantor, does Epcor tower have enough space available for you guys to possibly submit a bid? Or would it be one of your other 'proposed' towers on the station lands site? (Sorry in advance if this is something you can't even comment on)

epcor tower couldn't provide enough space to meet 1/5 of atco's rumoured requirements.

one of the other towers on the station lands site could easily meet requirements for space up to 1 1/2 times - or more - of atco's rumoured requirements.

kcantor · #**8950** Posted **Aug 6, 2015, 3:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallsy's Toupee

Well then, I look forward to this mass exodus of offices from the suburbs you all speak of. Please let me know when that happens, thanks.

where do you think stantec started from?

and did you not notice jacobs engineering?

or intuit?

or aren't they big enough for you?

Coldrsx · #**8951** Posted **Aug 6, 2015, 4:28 PM**

Jacobs on cities and how she was wrong?

Food for thought.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...out-cities.html?via=desktop&source=email

s211 · #**8952** Posted **Aug 6, 2015, 5:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Jacobs on cities and how she was wrong?

Food for thought.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...out-cities.html?via=desktop&source=email

Much food to digest.

I guess what this could confirm is that every attempt at urban planning, since that became a vocation, has, to varying degrees, failed. Even the hallowed Jacobs.

The current crop of planners always tell us that the previous generation failed, and the new generation has all the answers. That must be why I don't give the current generation of zealot-level urbanists much rope: eventually they will fail also.

Sorry. Getting way off topic. Back to deep construction pits and pending towers!

kcantor · #**8953** Posted **Aug 6, 2015, 5:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Jacobs on cities and how she was wrong?

Food for thought.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...out-cities.html?via=desktop&source=email

she wasn't "wrong" in her conclusions but she may well have been wrong in her assumptions.

and she assumed some things as constant that were/are/won't be and that's where things usually fall apart. at a macro scale, this is for canada but it is typical for much of the world:

it's been said by some that zoning can be a redundant function in that it can at best reflect what is already there and that at best it can "prohibit" some things from happening but it cannot "make" anything happen. if you plan - and zone - on the assumption that 1956 was the norm, it's just not going to work very well in satisfying the needs of 2056.

HomeInMyShoes · #**8954** Posted **Aug 6, 2015, 6:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Jacobs on cities and how she was wrong?

Food for thought.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...out-cities.html?via=desktop&source=email

Much thanks for the link.

My impression: planning is difficult. Humans again and again prove that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and that the only constant is that the more we know the more we should realize we don't know.

I don't question much of what Jacobs wrote as wrong, but a little short-sighted. We don't know what we don't know. She always spoke of vitality as having connections, having varied uses both type and time. What is missing from that equation for a healthy middle class and healthier overall cities might be the varied classes within these vital neighborhoods. Jacobs did talk about that, but we haven't figured out how to implement this effectively. A healthy city and street needs that variance. It needs the mom & pop store with the crappy apartments up top because it's an incubator from lower to middle class stature. Helping people get ahead. Our planning and development plans don't keep that lower rent stuff available nor make it available to the right kinds of people to build that, what I'll call social health. Instead we raise the old stores for a new office tower and we put CRUs in, but they are higher rent and entire classes of businesses fall by the wayside to be replaced by retail chains that generate less social health. We have increased the rent structure of entire neighborhoods without helping the lower class mingle with the middle. Despite changes to zoning from single use to multi-use, we haven't figured out the next part of that puzzle which is multi-class multi-use.

Long-winded and off-topic and probably mostly ill-thought out on the spur of the moment.

Mikemike · #**8955** Posted **Aug 6, 2015, 7:00 PM**

^None of that is any indication of something wrong with what Jane Jacobs said.

The article itself spends a lot of time on how gentrification and development of the wealthy as the dominant demographic in the protected neighbourhoods that she fought for, but it isn't an indicator of how she was wrong, but how she was right.

Maintained, small-scale, walkable neighbourhoods and districts are good things. The places she fought to preserve are undoubtedly better than the highways and superblock districts she fought against.

In fact, they're so much better that the wealthy are now falling over themselves trying to but into them. That may be a problem, but mostly it's a symptom of success.

I believe that if the new and greenfield developments had more closely followed the pattern of those walkable old places then those few old places would be somewhat of a less-premium commodity than they are now. As it is, they are a limited piece of an ever-growing market.

In smaller cities and towns, especially those that haven't grown much in the past 50 years the old neighbourhoods and main streets are still affordable and eclectic.

EdmTrekker · #**8956** Posted **Aug 6, 2015, 7:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcantor

epcor tower couldn't provide enough space to meet 1/5 of atco's rumoured requirements.

one of the other towers on the station lands site could easily meet requirements for space up to 1 1/2 times - or more - of atco's rumoured requirements.

I hope they are part of the Galleria project - it would be great to see an Alberta help kickstart the project.

240glt · #**8957** Posted **Aug 7, 2015, 12:37 AM**

Sad that our neighbourhood keeps having to go through this.

Shame on the city, especially sustainable development for their handling of problem properties

The manager in SD interviewed in the piece outright lies to the media about their powers in a discretionary variance.

http://glbn.ca/QB4v3

CMD UW · #**8958** Posted **Aug 7, 2015, 3:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt

Sad that our neighbourhood keeps having to go through this.

Shame on the city, especially sustainable development for their handling of problem properties

The manager in SD interviewed in the piece outright lies to the media about their powers in a discretionary variance.

http://glbn.ca/QB4v3

I think you are making a very strong accusation with this statement.

240glt · #**8959** Posted **Aug 7, 2015, 4:59 AM**

^ you're damn right I am. We have the proof to back it up and we will be following up accordingly

Jasper and one o nin · #**8960** Posted **Aug 7, 2015, 5:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt

Sad that our neighbourhood keeps having to go through this.

Shame on the city, especially sustainable development for their handling of problem properties

The manager in SD interviewed in the piece outright lies to the media about their powers in a discretionary variance.

http://glbn.ca/QB4v3

The two sentences she said were completely correct.