HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Business & the Economy


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 4:10 AM
raggedy13's Avatar
raggedy13 raggedy13 is offline
Dérive-r
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kamloops, BC
Posts: 4,430
Office Market Discussion

Not exactly news, as I recall a similar story was published something like a month ago, but I figured we could use an office-space-specific thread anyways.

The real news is that the CB Richard Ellis' market report for the 3rd quarter 2007 has finally been posted on their site...
http://www.cbre.ca/EN/Our+Offices/Br...et+Reports.htm

Quote:
Office Squeeze

Vancouver Sun
Published: Tuesday, October 23, 2007

The downtown Vancouver office market now has a three-per- cent vacancy rate, which is both a record low for this market and is the lowest vacancy rate nationwide (surpassing downtown Calgary), according to CB Richard Ellis' Greater Vancouver office report for the third quarter. The Broadway Corridor market is even tighter.

Q3 vacancy rates:

Downtown 3%

Broadway Corridor 2.6%

Burnaby 8.1%

Richmond 13.7%

North Shore 5.0%

Surrey 22.4%

New Westminster 20.0%

© The Vancouver Sun 2007
--------------------------------------------

Highlights from CB Richard Ellis...











___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________
__________________
Terminal City

Last edited by mr.x; Oct 24, 2007 at 7:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 7:44 AM
excel excel is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,477
Very interesting graphs and charts, thanks a lot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 8:12 PM
Canadian Mind's Avatar
Canadian Mind Canadian Mind is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,922
why do I get the feeling this 660 000 extra square feet of office space that is in the works wont even make a dent in the vacancy rates?
__________________
"you're eating chicken periods" - Vid
"I love eggs, especially the ones with runny yolks" - Me
"EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, you're disgusting!" - Vid
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 9:49 PM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,819
^It will make a big dent as it is a 4% increase to overall office space, add to that all the other smaller office developments that are part of mixed use projects or in the works and downtown Vancouver is probably set till 2015 or so, imo.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2007, 10:21 PM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,228
I agree, office space goes in cycles, we are due for an increase in vacancy rates even w/o any new construction, look how long this boom has been going and not that much of a real change has occured in the vacancy rates. There has been and is still alot of office space in the pipeline. I reckon the above is correct, with what is currently onstream we could be set for 10 more years, 15 might be pushing it though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2007, 5:13 AM
raggedy13's Avatar
raggedy13 raggedy13 is offline
Dérive-r
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kamloops, BC
Posts: 4,430
With only those two upcoming projects, assuming the current vacancy rate remains steady (i.e. they were completed today) and that the new 660,000s.f. is empty upon completion, the downtown vacancy rate would be at 5.88% which is still a healthy rate and capable of absorbing more, especially if current trends continue over the next couple years. If we added another 1,000,000s.f. on top of the 660,000s.f. and it were built right now and it were all empty, we'd be at 9.94% vacancy.
__________________
Terminal City
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2007, 5:50 AM
Canadian Mind's Avatar
Canadian Mind Canadian Mind is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,922
so the city could easily absorb this amount and then some within the next 2-3 years then?
__________________
"you're eating chicken periods" - Vid
"I love eggs, especially the ones with runny yolks" - Me
"EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, you're disgusting!" - Vid
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2007, 6:00 AM
raggedy13's Avatar
raggedy13 raggedy13 is offline
Dérive-r
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kamloops, BC
Posts: 4,430
^Assuming current trends continue for a few years I don't see why not, but I'm no expert.
__________________
Terminal City
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2007, 4:01 PM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,859
OFFICE VACANCY RATE DROPPING IN DOWNTOWN VANCOUVER

Quote:
Downtown office vacancy expected to shrink

Commercial realtor forecasts further drop to 2.1 per cent in 2008

Derrick Penner, Vancouver Sun
Published: Thursday, December 06, 2007

Already at historic lows, Vancouver's downtown office vacancy should shrink further to 2.1 per cent in 2008, the lowest central-core vacancy rate in the country, according to commercial realtor Cushman Cushman & Wakefield LePage's 2008 forecast.

Rents are also expected to rise 10 to 15 per cent for so-called commodity space in Class A buildings, which, combined with low vacancy should continue to fuel the trend of businesses relocating outside of downtown.

"The suburbs is really the outlet for a lot of these tenants," Jeffrey Rank, Cushman & Wakefield's managing director in Vancouver said in an interview.

I think with employee bases moving eastward and occupancy costs doing what they're doing downtown, tenants will see it becoming more and more of an option to be considered in '08."

The Cushman & Wakefield forecast calls for vacancy in Vancouver's suburban markets to remain stable at 10.5 per cent over 2008. However, with downtown's vacancy shrinking, the combined Metro Vancouver vacancy is expected to drop to 5.1 per cent by the end of 2008.

Things are already pretty tight as far as office space in Downtown Vancouver goes, with a vacancy rate of 3.2%, but look what's coming next year, according to Cushman & Wakefield LePage.

Downtown office vacancy rates, forecast for Q4 2008

Vancouver: 2.1% (now at 3.2%)

Calgary: 3.6% (now at 1.9%)

Toronto: 3.8% (now at 4.9%)

Ottawa: 3.4% (now at 3.2%)

Montreal: 7.6% (now at 8.0%)

Source: Cushman & Wakefield LePage


Complete Article here:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...b-54ecd11524c7
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Feb 8, 2008, 8:05 AM
raggedy13's Avatar
raggedy13 raggedy13 is offline
Dérive-r
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kamloops, BC
Posts: 4,430
There hasn't been much in the media on this topic as of late but I thought this article posted by officedweller seemed relevant...


Quote:
Taller, denser, more economical

Michael Goldberg, Special to the Sun
Published: Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Anxiety about too many apartments and not enough offices in downtown Vancouver continues to dominate discussions about development here.

It began well before I left for Singapore in the fall of 2004 with attacks on the emerging "resort city," and continue with bans and controls on residential development downtown.

The usually knowledgeable and perceptive Miro Cernetig, urban affairs columnist of The Vancouver Sun, noted in a recent article on property assessments:

"In its rush to create downtown neighbourhoods, the city of Vancouver's planners transformed far too many commercial spaces into residential properties. Businesses looking for affordable and available office space need to go to the suburbs, too."

However, the issue until very recently has been the lack of office demand, not too much housing, as evidenced by the higher value of downtown land in residential use as compared with office use.

Instead of acknowledging this market reality, a surprisingly heterogeneous group of strident voices has called for controls on core residential development, surprising because the group spanned the Vancouver Board of Trade, the planning community and the media.

Shortages of office land are recent, with vacancy rates falling to near record lows only in the past year. "Real shortages" of office land are the result not of residential development but of Vancouver land and development policies.

There is indeed an insufficient supply of downtown land and building capacity for office space. There is also a set of supply-limiting city of Vancouver policies on office development that is creating the shortage, not excessive residential development.

Developers consistently confront an array of policy challenges in office development that have made such development uneconomical until very recently. Even today with record low office vacancies, new office development downtown is barely economical.

The planning process has discouraged office development in diverse ways, including slow and often arduous permit approvals, restrictive and essentially suburban office densities, similarly restrictive suburban building height allowances, view corridor rules that further restrict height and density, and low densities around SkyTrain stations that further limit potential supplies of accessible and valuable office space.

Finally, with relatively few head offices, and with even fewer large head office space users, the Vancouver office market is typified by small floor plates to accommodate the lack of large office users. Thus, developers traditionally have to build speculative office buildings to meet our small-scale and fragmented demand. This makes office development risky and costly.

Developers need to reduce risks to make office development viable. Increasing uncertainty posed by the planning process discourages office development independent of the state of housing construction. A policy, planning and permitting environment that recognizes and softens these market realities would help improve the economics of downtown office development and encourage new construction.

Microsoft needed some 180,000 square feet for its new British Columbia facility, but it needed occupancy in two years. Vancouver could offer a three-year rezoning process and then two additional years for development and other permits. Microsoft chose a Richmond office park, increasing sprawl development, but available in two years.

If Vancouver indeed wants to be a healthy headquarter locale, these excessive delays will have to be eliminated.

So will the current property tax disadvantage that offices confront. Prime downtown condominiums are priced at up to $2,000 per square foot with prime AAA downtown office space worth perhaps 25 per cent of this. However, property taxes are roughly five times as much. Reducing this enormous differential would help make the economics of office space considerably more attractive. Considering a property tax holiday for unoccupied space (for the empty building space only, not for the underlying land) would also help. Reducing the huge tax differential would also reduce occupancy costs to Vancouver's typical small offices and potentially increase the demand for office space in the process.

Since the greatest disincentives to downtown office development are related to policy and process, fixing them can and should be reasonably easy.

Specifically, the planning process could offer fast and preferential approvals to Vancouver downtown office development. Densities are absurdly low, with floor space ratios (densities) at a roughly seven, compared with Calgary's FSRs in the 15-20 range downtown.

Building heights need to be raised considerably to facilitate higher densities. Instead of 400-foot limits, buildings of 600 to 700 feet should be commonplace, not exceptional, in our land-scarce downtown peninsula. (Calgary has no height limit in the downtown core.)

To accommodate higher, denser and thus more economical office buildings, the city must dramatically revise or eliminate the constraining view corridors that have shackled the development of tall and large office buildings in the core.

An easy and highly economical way to accommodate such buildings is to link them directly to existing and planned SkyTrain stations in the downtown peninsula, but also at such well-served locales as Broadway and Commercial, Broadway and Nanaimo and Broadway and Granville (in future) on the Millennium Expo lines and at Cambie and Broadway and Oakridge on the soon-to-be finished Canada Line. Failure to exploit this vastly improved accessibility wastes the opportunities for higher density and lower auto use provided by costly transit investments.

Finally, the downtown office development process must be crafted on a solid understanding of the needs of the small-office-plate market where developers need help to reduce risks and improve profitability to make new downtown office construction attractive to developers and tenants alike.

Michael A. Goldberg is emeritus professor at the Sauder School of Business, the University of British Columbia.

© The Vancouver Sun 2008
There were plenty of good points he made aside from what I bolded. I guess I was just most intrigued by the idea of 600-700 foot towers being the norm. Some taller towers along the Broadway Corridor would be nice too. We could have a great secondary uptown skyline.
__________________
Terminal City
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Feb 8, 2008, 8:31 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 32,231
Here's an old article from the Vancouver Sun quoted at the Fair Tax Coalition. Note that Council has started to address the imbalance and has raised residential taxes slightly or was that drop commercial taxes?

Quote:
Vancouver Sun
Friday, February 16, 2007
Page: H1 / Front

The Hidden Cost of Condos
By: Don Cayo

How did municipal taxes get so skewed?: Every time a modest commercial block falls to a condo tower, the city budget suffers

This year's property tax bill for the old Brodie Brush Building at Cambie and Smithe will likely be twice as much as the building is worth -- not counting its underlying land.

The bill will be split among four tenants. Last year, the portion paid by the largest of them, Art Works Gallery, exceeded $60,000. That's more than three times what gallery owner Deanna Geisheimer paid in tax for the same space 10 years ago, and a lot more than her annual rent.

This year's tax bills haven't been sent out yet, but Geisheimer fears she'll be clobbered again. The plain, two-storey former factory that houses her business squats amid a forest of glitzy glass condo towers, and this year the assessed value of the land shot up 50 per cent -- a far bigger jump than ever before. It now stands at almost $10 million, or 110 times the building's value.

Other businesses have been hit as hard by what many Vancouver business people see as an unrelenting assault from city hall. Since last summer, 42 businesses have folded or fled from the five-block Yaletown Heritage Area, and half the premises they used to occupy have no new tenant.

Yaletown is particularly hard-hit because of its astronomical land values, but the sting is being felt in every neighbourhood.

Over on Burrard, not far from the bridge, Henry von Tiesenhausen of Commercial Electronics notes that, in a five-year period when the tax on his home increased 16 per cent (and when his company's sales were flat) his business taxes rose 102 per cent.
"I have to ask the question," von Tiesenhausen said in a letter to Mayor Sam Sullivan, "is it worthwhile even operating a business in the City of Vancouver?"

A growing number seem to be asking the same thing -- and answering in a way no one wants to hear. While commercial growth in the city has long trailed residential, the last two years have seen a disturbing new trend. For the first time, more businesses closed than opened.

All this says something is broken and needs to be fixed.

As I see it, it's not just one problem, but three:

First, Vancouver's success in building vibrant, high-density neighbourhoods has come with high hidden costs that nobody at city hall seems to have a handle on. The policies that drive the transformation from commerce to condos need to be rethought with an eye to how to stop losing money on every new tower.

Secondly, it is not fair that business property is assessed by one standard yet taxed according to another. This invites aberrations like the bizarre levy on the Brodie Building. The city justifies tax increases with the logic that at least the owner has an ever-more valuable asset, but this is not the case for business owners, who usually rent.

Thirdly, the total tax burden on businesses is way out of whack. They pay far more than the cost of the services they consume, while home-owners pay far less.

A soaring tax base
How does a prospering city -- one experiencing not only an explosion in land values, but also a great deal of new construction that adds hugely to its tax base -- get into such mess? It's easy to see how a soaring real estate market might make it too costly for some businesses to hang on to the sites they occupy, but why do taxes go up so much faster than market-driven prices?

After all, every time a ho-hum commercial block falls to the wrecker's ball and a condo tower rises from the rubble, the city's tax base shoots up. A building worth a few tens of thousands is typically replaced by one worth tens of millions, enlarging the base for the city to tax.

It takes some head-scratching to understand it, but this kind of development -- something that happens all the time -- actually produces a brutal hit to the city budget. It results in your tax bill and mine inching up once again, while the city's remaining business properties get clobbered.

In the last 15 years, Vancouver has added well over 40,000 new homes, mainly condos or townhouses. A great many of them were built where a business used to be. So the hits on your tax bill really add up.

Indeed, every new condo unit built in the city today will shift $1,000-$1,500 of annual costs to other taxpayers, according to the careful calculations of Paul Sullivan, a property tax specialist with Burgess Cawley Sullivan and Associates, and the technical co-chairman of the Vancouver Fair Tax Coalition.

Sullivan reckons that each new condo unit shifts 30-40 cents of extra tax to each of the city's 153,000 homeowners, and 13 times that much -- $4 or $5 -- to each of the 14,000 commercial properties. (The average commercial assessment is just under $1.2 million, or not quite 21/2 times the average home.)

To understand why, look at the taxes on the Brodie Building, and what will happen if or when it is razed to make way for condos.

The land is already assessed at $10 million. This is considered to be "its best and highest use" -- i.e., as if it were the site of a condo tower, not just a handful of modest businesses. Of course, the value of a new 100-unit condo tower would be about $39 million, or 400 times more than the $90,000 building that is there today.

Yet the city's tax take from the redeveloped property would drop by about $22,000
How can this be? After all, the value of the new building plus the land adds up to nearly $50 million, or five times more than the land and the old building.

Well, the existing site is taxed at the business rate, which is six times higher than the residential rate. If you do the math, a six times higher rate on a $10 million property produces a tax bill of $152,000, while the residential rate applied to 100 units with a combined value of $49 million works out to just $130,000.

But the $22,000 loss of tax revenue is just a small part of how redeveloping the site would hit the city budget. The big impact is on the cost side of the ledger:

A formula that estimates how much demand various properties place on the city deems that the current occupants of the Brodie Building consume $72,000 worth of city services, while the occupants of 100 condos would consume $235,000 worth. Thus, Sullivan calculates, city revenue will drop by $22,000 -- or 14.8 per cent of what it gets from the existing property -- and its costs will rise by $213,000, or 227 per cent.

Higher and higher taxes
What happens when the city takes this kind of budgetary hit?

Well, it never seems to tighten its belt. It just ratchets up its tax bills.

The way it makes up the shortfall goes a long way to explain how Vancouver's property tax system got to badly skewed.

Prior to 1983, back in the day when the B.C. government set property tax rates, the business rate in Vancouver was roughly 21/2 times the residential rate.

That was more or less what it should be. People calculate "fair" rates in various ways, but most agree that businesses should pay somewhat more, for several reasons. For one, municipal taxes give them a deduction for federal and provincial tax purposes, which means each $4 they pay actually costs them only $3. Also, consumption studies show they put more strain on city services per dollar of assessed value.

So if the city were to increase the tax load on business properties at a ratio of 2.5 to 1, commercial property owners wouldn't have much to whine about. And that's just what council did in 1984, the first year it got to set its own tax rates.

At the same time, council adopted a formula, which has changed only slightly, to divide the total tax bill 60-40 between businesses and residents.

What has happened since is that home-building has dramatically out-stripped business growth. This means that existing residents get lots of help from newcomers -- these days about 6,000 a year -- to pay their percentage of the total tax load. But there aren't many new companies to help pay the extra tax load added to the business portion.
In token recognition of this, the city has tinkered with the percentages. The split is now down to 55 per cent paid by business, and 45 by residents. But this does not compensate for the imbalanced growth in a city where residential property values have soared seven-fold over 20 years, while the value of commercial properties has merely tripled.

Today, 83.2 per cent of the assessed value of all property in the city is residential, yet businesses still pay 55 per cent of the property taxes. To generate this much revenue, the general business tax rate has to be set six times higher than residential rates, and the rate for other categories higher still. Utilities pay 12 times more than residents, and the city's 30 remaining major industries pay 10.2 times more.

The current council is the third in a row to commit itself to shifting one per cent of the total tax burden from businesses to residents each year. But there are three problems with this:

First, despite the promise, they don't do it every year.

And even when they do, the impact is minimal. Gallery owner Geisheimer wryly notes that last year, when council lived up to its promise and made the shift for the first time in three years, her tax bill still went up $7,000.

And finally, Sullivan makes the case that the city is shooting at the wrong target. A 1996 study by KPMG found that businesses paid $2.07 for every $1 of city services they consumed, while residents paid just 57 cents. That means business paid 3.7 times more for services than residents paid.

KPMG assumed -- a bit arbitrarily, I think -- that a 3-to-1 ratio would be fair. To get there, it proposed the one-per-cent-a-year shift in tax burden that was adopted by subsequent councils and has been acted on sporadically.

Data published by the city shows slow movement toward the goal of a 3-to-1 ratio, until it finally was reached last year. The trouble is, Sullivan says, the assumption on which the data is based turns out to be far too low.

In 1996 when KPMG did its study, residents were consuming 71 per cent of city services and businesses 29 per cent. Today, after a decade of sharply imbalanced growth, there are more residents and fewer businesses. The result is that residents now consume 76 per cent of services and businesses just 24 per cent.

So, do the math and you find that businesses are now paying 4.7 times more than residents for the services they use. That's a 27-per-cent heavier load than in 1996, when council acknowledged the system was unfair.

Makes taxes realistic
What should be done now?

Two measures are needed:

The first is to tie the tax split -- the portion paid by businesses versus the portion paid by residents -- to actual consumption.

The Fair Tax Coalition proposes that an outside party be hired to do consumption studies every two or three years, and that city tax bills be based on the findings. Thus, as the mix of residents and businesses continues to change, so would the tax split.

Businesses would still, no doubt, pay a much bigger share of the bill than their actual consumption would dictate. But the proportionate load carried by each business would remain constant, probably near the ratio of three-to-one proposed by KPMG a decade ago, and it would not creep upward to the unsustainable level it has reached today.
While this would ensure a fairer burden for the business community as a whole, it wouldn't protect businesses like the Art Works Gallery from the vicious swings that happen when their location is coveted as prime residential land.

Basing each business's taxes on the rent it pays, not on land value, would correct that. This would not mean that businesses, as a whole, would pay either more or less total tax. It would simply even the load so similar businesses would pay similar amounts, and it would protect against sudden wild swings. Yet it would also keep market forces in play and allow neighbourhood business districts to evolve organically. Upscale neighbourhoods would inevitably command higher rents, and thus the more desirable business locations would continue to pay more -- as they should.

The province has already agreed to enact legislation this spring to base taxes for port-based businesses on their rent. It would be easy to extend the practice to all of Vancouver, and possibly to other cities if they face the same kinds of inequities.

Given the way lawyers and politicians work, however, this will take time. So city council should take two interim steps without delay:
First, it should get its spending under control. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the city's tax take has shot up 57 per cent in the last 10 years. Even adjusted for population growth, the per-person tax take is up 21 per cent.

Council should cap this year's business tax increases and keep it capped until a long-term, equitable solution is in place.

The council of the day approved such a tax cap back in the early 1990s, when it recognized the alternative was to see many firms die. The dismal vacancy figures in Yaletown today, the fact that the city has fewer businesses this year than last, and the urgent concerns voiced by business owners in every neighbourhood proclaim loud and clear that this grim prospect is at least as real today.

dcayo@png.canwest.com

The Hidden Cost of Condos
The two-storey Brodie Brush Building at 225 Smithe in downtown Vancouver generates $152,350 in annual tax revenues for the City of Vancouver, but uses just $71,695 in municipal services. If one were to imagine (as we have below) that it was replaced with a glitzy Yaletown residential tower, the city would lose $1,000 to $1,500 on every condo unit built.

The numbers as they are Assessed land value: $9.75 million
Assessed building value: $90,000
2006 taxes paid: $152,350
Consumption of city services: $71,695
Net benefit to city: $80,655

The numbers if condos are built
Assessed land value: $9.75 million
Estimated building value: $39 million
Total taxes at residential rate: $129,760
Estimated consumption of city services: $234,670
Net cost to city: ($104,910)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2008, 9:59 AM
raggedy13's Avatar
raggedy13 raggedy13 is offline
Dérive-r
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kamloops, BC
Posts: 4,430
^And here's a related article in today's Vancouver Sun...

Quote:
Mayor sees tax shift as 'doing the right thing'
Sullivan in favour of supporting move to trim business taxes while putting more burden on homeowners


Frances Bula, Vancouver Sun
Published: Monday, March 10, 2008

Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan says he will support shifting taxes from business to homeowners again this year even though it knows it will be unpopular at election time in November.

"But it's important to do the right thing. We know there is a lack of fairness in the tax system."

He will support a one-per-cent shift of business taxes, which translates to a two-per-cent increase for homeowners on top of the four-per-cent increase they are already likely to be facing once the budget is finalized.

Vision Vancouver Coun. Raymond Louie said his party will not be supporting the shift because the city's own fair-tax commission never came up with any solid evidence that a tax shift would have a positive impact for business.

As well, it will put even more of a burden on homeowners, who will have seen city taxes increase by 21 per cent over three years if the tax shift goes through.

Businesses have lobbied the city for years about their taxes, saying they pay a disproportionate amount compared to businesses in other cities across Canada. While other cities see their businesses pay three or four times the rate that homeowners do, in Vancouver it's been closer to five or six times.

There have been some shifts over the past several years to try to change that. A new business lobby called the Fair Tax Coalition was successful in getting the city to shift more in the past two years, as well as prompting the city to create a fair-tax commission.

Commissioner Stanley Hamilton did recommend five years of one-per-cent shifts a year. But, Louie says, Hamilton acknowledged there was no solid evidence that businesses were leaving the city because of high taxes.

fbula@png.canwest.com


© The Vancouver Sun 2008
__________________
Terminal City
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2008, 7:39 PM
zivan56 zivan56 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,206
I don't see why business are complaining. Everything a corporation earns goes towards the business. If a company goes bankrupt, they just open a new one and start over. If a person goes bankrupt, they are on the street, can't afford basic necessities for life, and much more. I would argue that businesses need to pay at least 70% of the tax burden, as their failure simply opens the way for more efficient and better run businesses to take their place.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2008, 10:33 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 32,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by zivan56 View Post
I don't see why business are complaining. Everything a corporation earns goes towards the business. If a company goes bankrupt, they just open a new one and start over.
Well, that's the view the Province has taken with the Cambie corridor.
They problem is when the costs get to the point where you can't afford to / don't want to open another - at least within the City of Vancouver (i.e. office park in Burnaby or Richmond).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2008, 3:39 AM
raggedy13's Avatar
raggedy13 raggedy13 is offline
Dérive-r
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kamloops, BC
Posts: 4,430
Originally posted by Hed Kandi:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hed Kandi View Post
Downtown office vacancy rate lowest since 1981
With top rents higher than last year, many firms are scouting space in suburbs
Derrick Penner

Sun

Tuesday, April, 08, 2008

Vancouver's downtown office vacancy rate fell to its lowest level in a generation during the first quarter of 2008.

Colliers International estimates downtown office vacancy at two per cent, the lowest since 1981 when vacancy hit 1.8 per cent.
Across Metro Vancouver, Colliers estimated vacancy at 4.2 per cent, compared with the all-time low two per cent, which was again in 1981.

Downtown, Colliers said some top Class AAA rents have topped $50 per square foot per year on lease renewals, noticeably higher than a year ago, research analyst Shawna Rogowski said.

However, Jeff Rank, managing director of Cushman & Wakefield LePage, said leasing activity in the tight downtown market has slowed, and landlords "haven't been able to [increase] their [rents]."

One of the reasons Rank thinks leasing activity has slowed is because companies are holding back on decisions about their real-estate needs unless their leases expire, or they are expanding.

"There are still some in that category," Rank said.

Computer gaming firms were among the tenants taking up any space they could. Electronic Arts leased 22,000 square feet of additional space at 1110 Hamilton Street and Next Level Games took on 24,550 square feet in the Raffles building at 811 Cambie Street, the Colliers report noted.

Rogowski added that many companies "rushed to do lease renewals and expansion deals" while vacancy rates falling over the past couple of years.

"Now that they've done that, [leasing activity] is a bit quieter with not a lot of space to lease."

Rogowski said many firms are scouting out Metro Vancouver's suburban markets, where new office buildings are being built.

Rank said most of the companies leasing the new suburban office space being built in Burnaby, Richmond and even the Fraser Valley are firms oriented to those markets rather than companies priced out of downtown.

Metro Vancouver's suburban markets, where new office buildings are being built, are where rents are rising.

Rank said Burnaby's top rents have reached around $30 per square foot per year in new buildings. In Richmond, new buildings are fetching up to about $25 per square foot.

"New inventory is definitely moving the market up," he added.

Colliers said the suburbs continue to attract attention because while rents are going up, gross rents can still be half of those charged downtown.
© The Vancouver Sun 2008
I'm getting a little impatient with the lack of downtown office proposals thus far. Glad to see video game companies expanding though. Perhaps several years down the road some of them will get large enough and be spread around enough that they'll need to consolidate their space into one shiny new building??
__________________
Terminal City
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2008, 5:28 PM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,228
There will acutally be a glut of office space within the next 5years. You heard it here first.

Absorbation rate for office space has been ~420K sqft/yr. We are building much more then that even though there hasn't been a signature office tower built in a long time. Beleive it or not we are in line for a downturn in which case the absorbation rate will become a negative number.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2008, 8:15 PM
Hed Kandi's Avatar
Hed Kandi Hed Kandi is offline
+
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlousa View Post
There will acutally be a glut of office space within the next 5years. You heard it here first.

Absorbation rate for office space has been ~420K sqft/yr. We are building much more then that even though there hasn't been a signature office tower built in a long time. Beleive it or not we are in line for a downturn in which case the absorbation rate will become a negative number.

Any idea when the 745 Thurlow tower will start?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2008, 8:51 PM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,228
Hasn't been set as far as I know, I would imagine they'd start early 09, a few months after GM place tower.

Last edited by jlousa; Apr 10, 2008 at 9:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2008, 1:04 AM
thinkingbig thinkingbig is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4
well there has been rumors of office building boom nothing happened yet so far anyone have any updates
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2008, 4:32 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toroncouver
Posts: 11,831
Where did you hear those rumours? Expect a slow trickle of moderate sized (25-30 story) new projects over the next few years... no boom I can see coming.
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 > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Business & the Economy
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:00 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.