Regina Construction III

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by Drofmab

Yes, that’s included in the contract for Alvin Hamilton restock.Though, 2045 Broad is largely provincial. Health Canada is the main federal tenant in there. StatsCan is also moving from College/Albert to Alvin Hamilton as part of the project. Passport Canada isn’t in the project scope, but I’d be surprised if they don’t move over (since they operate under Service Canada).

I suspect the feds will look to consolidate (non-Crown) staff in a couple buildings downtown as leases expire - Alvin Hamilton,Tax Building, Scarth/Vic, and Mosaic Tower. There’s a lot of square footage available in these 4 buildings, and all but one are Crown-owned.

2045 Broad is nearly 50% federal (63k sq ft. out of 133k sq. ft), so if they leave the building will be hurting.

[TechnicalRecession]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

2045 Broad is nearly 50% federal (63k sq ft. out of 133k sq. ft), so if they leave the building will be hurting.

But if people are moving from one downtown building to another how will that make the overall office market worse? One building gains while another loses, but the overall impact is a push the way I see it.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by TechnicalRecession

But if people are moving from one downtown building to another how will that make the overall office market worse? One building gains while another loses, but the overall impact is a push the way I see it.

Because they're leaving a rented space to go to a federally owned building. The vacancy rate doesn't count owner-occupied buildings.

[skphc08]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

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.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by skphc08

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.

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

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.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by Drofmab

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.

[skphc08]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

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.

[J-Walker]

Originally Posted by skphc08

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.

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by skphc08

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.

[Drofmab]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

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).

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by Drofmab

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".

[skphc08]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

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.

[skphc08]

Originally Posted by J-Walker

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?

[BrutallyDishonest2]

Originally Posted by skphc08

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.

[skphc08]

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

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.

[thefourthtower]

http://leaderpost.com/news/local-news/th...nced-as-next-headliner-at-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 

[thefourthtower]

Originally Posted by skphc08

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

[thefourthtower]

http://www.cjme.com/2017/12/04/capital-pointe-an-eyesore-bylaw-update-needed-councillor/ Capital Pointe an ‘eyesore’, bylaw update needed: Councillor

Regina / 980 CJME

Kevin Martel

December 04, 2017 06:22 am

[thefourthtower]

http:/^/regina.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1276577 good idea