Regina Construction III

[Festivus]

Originally Posted by thefourthtower

Hint / I blocked you and please don't respond to my posts

Wait you blocked me? I wasn't aware I was a problem poster, haha.

[thefourthtower]

Now that Capital Pointe is under way could 1855 Rose street be next

[thefourthtower]

http://globalnews.ca/news/2274165/record-enrolment-at-the-university-of-regina/

Record enrolment at the University of Regina

Shawn1 By Shawn Knox
Web Producer Global News

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by thefourthtower

Now that Capital Pointe is under way could 1855 Rose street be next

2 completely different markets.

One is hotel/residential, the other business. I really don't see any businesses opening locations in Regina in the next couple years that would require that much space (unless SGI resuscitates its bid for new office space, and they would only need a portion of a tower that size at that).

And I still think we shouldn't count our chickens with Capital Pointe... it's encouraging, but I'm still at the "catiously optimistic" stage of things.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by Nathan

2 completely different markets.

One is hotel/residential, the other business. I really don't see any businesses opening locations in Regina in the next couple years that would require that much space (unless SGI resuscitates its bid for new office space, and they would only need a portion of a tower that size at that).

And I still think we shouldn't count our chickens with Capital Pointe... it's encouraging, but I'm still at the "catiously optimistic" stage of things.

There is literally zero chance of 1855 Rose St without SGI relocating. And the only possibility of SGI relocating is zero until after the provincial election. And even then it will be a hard sell with the economy going the wrong direction.

[jigglysquishy]

Brandt did take a serious look at it, but they're also not moving in.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

Brandt did take a serious look at it, but they're also not moving in.

Brandt also can't fill 400,000 square feet. Not even close. Brandt was simply a second, much, much smaller tenant completely unable to support the whole building.

If Brandt really wanted a downtown office space there is hundreds of thousands of square feet for them to have.

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

There is literally zero chance of 1855 Rose St without SGI relocating. And the only possibility of SGI relocating is zero until after the provincial election. And even then it will be a hard sell with the economy going the wrong direction.

Yeah, I can see that... but basically as long as the population grows, SGI by default also grows regardless of the direction of the economy, though that would still impact the bottom line as tough economic times tend to have an impact on how claims proceed from the perspective of the claimant.

Also, SGI would go from being an owner-occupied situation to a rental, so they would have the bump on the sale of the asset, and then go to paying rent instead of upkeep on the building (which has been expensive the last number of years). I could see it being spun in a way that wouldn't be terribly negative, though with the Sask Party, you never know where there motivation would be as to how they'd try to steer the conversation. A tricky game, of course.

The building is coming up to a point where it will need extensive updating though, which will be much more difficult if SGI is occupying the building while it's being done. Possible of course, but tricky nonetheless.

I think the Co-operators have also mused a move, but it's also been a less than likely scenario the last few years.


Those are the only 2 I can think of that would make the Rose proposal a possibility though. No other company would be able to pull a lead anchor role, barring a large relocation of operations to Regina.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by Nathan

Yeah, I can see that... but basically as long as the population grows, SGI by default also grows regardless of the direction of the economy, though that would still impact the bottom line as tough economic times tend to have an impact on how claims proceed from the perspective of the claimant.

Also, SGI would go from being an owner-occupied situation to a rental, so they would have the bump on the sale of the asset, and then go to paying rent instead of upkeep on the building (which has been expensive the last number of years). I could see it being spun in a way that wouldn't be terribly negative, though with the Sask Party, you never know where there motivation would be as to how they'd try to steer the conversation. A tricky game, of course.

The building is coming up to a point where it will need extensive updating though, which will be much more difficult if SGI is occupying the building while it's being done. Possible of course, but tricky nonetheless.

I think the Co-operators have also mused a move, but it's also been a less than likely scenario the last few years.


Those are the only 2 I can think of that would make the Rose proposal a possibility though. No other company would be able to pull a lead anchor role, barring a large relocation of operations to Regina.

The thing to remember is that with the last tender, it required the winner not only to lease space but to take possession of SGI's existing office tower.

What developer in this market wants to build a tower and another empty one?

The cooperators have already downsized and moved workers to Ontario. Plus they own their building.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

The thing to remember is that with the last tender, it required the winner not only to lease space but to take possession of SGI's existing office tower.

What developer in this market wants to build a tower and another empty one?

The cooperators have already downsized and moved workers to Ontario. Plus they own their building.

Cooperators sold their building to REIT several years ago.

[SkydivePilot]

During the winter of '06-07, the SGI building required approximately $75 million in structural rehabilitation. Eventually, SGI will eventually need to relocate somehow.

[wacko]

SGI and Brandt as the major tenants of 1855 Rose? I'm sure someone could maybe sell them on the idea a couple of years down the road. Sure, there'd still be some space left over for rent, but isn't Class A space at a relative premium in Regina anyway?

I wonder if demolition would be an option for the current SGI building, if it proves too expensive to be rehabilitated by anyone?

[SkydivePilot]

Originally Posted by wacko

SGI and Brandt as the major tenants of 1855 Rose? I'm sure someone could maybe sell them on the idea a couple of years down the road. Sure, there'd still be some space left over for rent, but isn't Class A space at a relative premium in Regina anyway?

I wonder if demolition would be an option for the current SGI building, if it proves too expensive to be rehabilitated by anyone?

If they sell it, then the buyer will pick it up for a song. Plus, the windows are made with real gold!

Go NDP!!! LOL!

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by SkydivePilot

During the winter of '06-07, the SGI building required approximately $75 million in structural rehabilitation. Eventually, SGI will eventually need to relocate somehow.

SGI has already announced they are staying and will likely rehab the building floor by floor, probably leasing temporary offsite space.

Also any rehab will likely include recladding and hopefully more windows.

"About 60 per cent of the building is gold glass," he noted, "and then it has a dark bronze panel."
Youck recalled the original design included lots of storage space because SGI was a paper-intensive business.
"So if you were to renovate the building into a new office building, windows are a premium," he said. "You would be looking at replacing, most likely, the [solid] panels with new glass or new windows."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchew...hard-to-recover-architect-says-1.1169979

The original architect also said all the sold panels on the north side were for energy efficiency. Window technology is much better now and this would not be necessary.

[SkydivePilot]

Originally Posted by Stormer

SGI has already announced they are staying and will likely rehab the building floor by floor, probably leasing temporary offsite space.

Also any rehab will likely include recladding and hopefully more windows.




http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchew...hard-to-recover-architect-says-1.1169979

The original architect also said all the sold panels on the north side were for energy efficiency. Window technology is much better now and this would not be necessary.

If they put in new windows, then I would bet that the new windows would have to be a different colour. The old girl still has potential though.

[thefourthtower]

http://www.leaderpost.com/business/regin...+slowing+report+says/11435407/story.html

Economic growth positive, but slowing, report says

The Conference Board of Canada forecasts the Regina economy to grow by 2.9 per cent in 2015. Although the pace of growth is slowing from 2014, it remains the third-highest in Canada, behind only Kitchener-Waterloo and Halifax





By Leader-Post, The Leader-Post

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by Stormer

Cooperators sold their building to REIT several years ago.

Whoops I knew that. Though it's a REIT from just down the street in Ontario. Additionally, they're probably just into a 10 year lease or so.

But it is also true that they downsized in Regina a couple years back by around 30,000 square feet.

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

The bypass is currently working on land the government does not yet have title to. So I'm not sure how that's working.

Haven't seen anyone complaining about trespass yet (affected landowners haven't exactly been shy when they feel they're not being treated fairly).

Is this work on easements, perhaps? Or maybe properties that have been expropriated, but land title not yet transferred?

Can you provide specific examples/news stories?

[sask1982]

Originally Posted by Drofmab

Haven't seen anyone complaining about trespass yet (affected landowners haven't exactly been shy when they feel they're not being treated fairly).

Can you provide specific examples/news stories?

Amen, yes please!

ALSO: Shouldn't this be in the bypass thread?

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by Stormer

We have seen the typical poor, superficial reporting by local media on the Eastgate Drive fiasco. They are saying the cost to fix the issue will be $1.5 million, but the media is not reporting that this money may be entirely thrown away, unless another use is found for the temporary bridge. From the City Administration report:



It does not appear that anyone considered the alternative of compensating the affected businesses for 100% of their lost profits (which would likely only be a few $100 thousand). Also there is no information about estimates for the cost of a permanent solution to be looked at next year. Presumably that will cost even more than temporary bridge cost.

Finally, how much less would this have cost if it was done right from the outset. No one asks these questions.

I agree with all of your points, except one: I bet it would cost at least a million, if not a couple million to compensate affected businesses.

The City's lawyers must have told them that there was a high probability of business owners demanding/suing for compensation as a result of the closure. Even with out-of-court settlements, this wouldn't have been cheap.


In the Empringham's case, the City was ordered to compensate Empringham's $200,000 in 2002 for removing access to Lewvan.

I'd say Empringham's argument was more shaky than the affected Eastgate businesses. Empringham's existed with Pasqua St. access only prior to Lewvan being constructed (granted, Pasqua would've been a much busier road before Lewvan).

When Lewvan was constructed, the City initially had no plans for Lewvan access to Empringham's... but they finally agreed to construct an access road.

As part of the access construction, the City & Empringham's actually signed an Agreement (in 1986) stating that the City has no obligation to grant Empringham's access to the Lewvan and that the City could withdraw the access unilaterally.

Despite this agreement, Empringham's successfully sued the City for removing the access & was compensated $200,000 (reflecting diminished land value).

Eastgate is obviously different than the Lewvan/Empringham's scenario:
- access to Eastgate isn't really being removed (but its closure at the creek could be argued to have a similarly detrimental effect on land value); and
- access to Hwy 1 westbound remains (business owners certainly argued at the City Council meeting (yes, I watched it all live! I'm a winner!) that even improved WB access doesn't offset diminished land value resulting from the loss of direct eastbound Hwy 1 access)

The lawyer representing Eastgate businesses also noted during the Council meeting that the City had violated the Cities Act provisions requiring sufficient road closure notice. Not sure how much formal weigh that would carry, but it might leave a bad taste in the judge's mouth.