Office Market Discussion

[officedweller]

and, east of Cambie it would probably "change the character of the neighbourhood".

[s211]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

I've actually been following that particular project since 2000, and if you see an entry in Emporis about that building (or Penny Lane), it was entered by *me*....man that was such a long time ago. So I do vaguely recall something about some deadline imposed by the City of Calgary to get it built or else they have to start all over on the app.

The actual reason is far more scary on the "whups" scale.

[twoNeurons]

Scary in what way?

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

You've seen my posts in 1021 Hastings and know I have been cheering for Oxford. Even suggesting that Credit Suisse do the same for their yet to be built office tower. Be nice if Oxford owns and is building the other office tower projects. And who was the developer of PWC Place again? That was also built "with or without an anchor tenant", and yet they were handsomely rewarded for that...

It was Cadillac Fairview who developed PWC place, although don't expect them to build on spec at the moment. You bring up a few examples of successes building on spec but there are also many failures, and there is usually little incentive to develop in such manner. We all want to see it but we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars here, people aren't going to risk that kind of capital just to appease a few urban dreamers.

They always picked on Eight Avenue Place, their favourite whipping boy, and yes, there is still some guts involved because the devs could have simply abandoned the whole process as having an empty 50 storey office building would have killed them financially. But they built it anyway, and now its full, the devs laughing themselves at the bank and for sure are taunting those know it all real estate analysts how deeply wrong they are

It may be full but the project was still a DISASTER. They offered cut rates to fill up the building and lost a substantial amount of money on the project.

I was in absolutely no way a success and the developers aren't laughing at the bank, in fact most of them don't even work at SITQ any more as a result of the project.

[red-paladin]

If it was so bad, why are they building the second tower right after?

[s211]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Scary in what way?

Let's just say there was no turning back.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

If it was so bad, why are they building the second tower right after?

Becuase they need to make some money back

Honestly they need to hit this second building while the rent curve is at its peak so they make up for the ugly deals they had to do a few years ago.

[officedweller]

Interesting / sad that the office towers being built in Calagary and Toronto - at 800,00 sq ft and 980,000 sq ft are twice the size of the office towers being built in Vancouver:

http://www.building.ca/news/developm...ts/1001832827/

[Millennium2002]

As we all know, the views are precious in Vancouver. You really can't get away with that...

At the same time, in some ways I'm surprised none of the other cities in the region have actually went ahead with attracting sizable office towers vs apartments... Surrey for example could really use a few more in the city centre... even Coquitlam and Burnaby might be good contenders as well. None of these places have significant restrictions... and yet... I guess the idea of being at or very close to Downtown Vancouver is the key.

[Metro-One]

Burnaby is the only city in Metro Vancouver outside of downtown that has a decent collection of larger sized office buildings.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

As we all know, the views are precious in Vancouver. You really can't get away with that...

At the same time, in some ways I'm surprised none of the other cities in the region have actually went ahead with attracting sizable office towers vs apartments... Surrey for example could really use a few more in the city centre... even Coquitlam and Burnaby might be good contenders as well. None of these places have significant restrictions... and yet... I guess the idea of being at or very close to Downtown Vancouver is the key.

It has nothing to do with views and everything to do with tenant types.

Calgary/Toronto have huge tenants that require large floorplates and contiguous space.

Vancouver has tons of small users who don't require larger floorplates.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

It has nothing to do with views and everything to do with tenant types.

Calgary/Toronto have huge tenants that require large floorplates and contiguous space.

Vancouver has tons of small users who don't require larger floorplates.

But you have to ask...why does only Calgary and Toronto (and I guess Montreal too) are the only major cities in Canada that have huge tenants that require large floorplates and contiguous space?

True, Calgary has the energy companies, Toronto has the finance companies. But clearly the world is more than just energy and banking.

So why oh why is Vancouver so stuck with teeny tiny tenants?

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

But you have to ask...why does only Calgary and Toronto (and I guess Montreal too) are the only major cities in Canada that have huge tenants that require large floorplates and contiguous space?

True, Calgary has the energy companies, Toronto has the finance companies. But clearly the world is more than just energy and banking.

Would sort of companies do you expect would have a need for multiple floors in downtown office buildings?

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

But you have to ask...why does only Calgary and Toronto (and I guess Montreal too) are the only major cities in Canada that have huge tenants that require large floorplates and contiguous space?

True, Calgary has the energy companies, Toronto has the finance companies. But clearly the world is more than just energy and banking.

So why oh why is Vancouver so stuck with teeny tiny tenants?

it has a lot to do with business culture as well. For example, Vancouver is a hotbed for mining firms. I have worked with such companies off and on over the last 8 years, and the average employee there rarely goes to the office. they are either on site in Asia / South America / Europe / etc... or on the road at conferences / trade shows, or live half way across the world and only come to their Vancouver HQ once every couple months. So a full office is an extremely rare sight.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

it has a lot to do with business culture as well. For example, Vancouver is a hotbed for mining firms. I have worked with such companies off and on over the last 8 years, and the average employee there rarely goes to the office. they are either on site in Asia / South America / Europe / etc... or on the road at conferences / trade shows, or live half way across the world and only come to their Vancouver HQ once every couple months. So a full office is an extremely rare sight.

But aren't those big companies in Calgary mining firms too?

Or are they categorized differently....say Calgary has the BIG mining firms while Vancouver has the little mining firms....

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

But aren't those big companies in Calgary mining firms too?

Or are they categorized differently....say Calgary has the BIG mining firms while Vancouver has the little mining firms....

Energy firms are not considered to be mining firms generally.

They are actually very different.

Mining companies are minerals (precious metals, rare earth elements, etc...)

Oil and gas are fossil fuels. Yes there is some overlap of course, by they are largely considered to be separate entities. Energy companies tend to be far larger than mining companies as well, and they require far more infrastructure (such as pipelines) and therefore far more office jobs.

the same way companies that specialize in "mining" for gravel / stones are not considered "mining" companies generally.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Would sort of companies do you expect would have a need for multiple floors in downtown office buildings?

I dunno but clearly, Conde Nast is neither an energy company or a finance company. So there are other types of businesses out there that can occupy multiple floors of downtown office buildings....

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Energy firms are not considered to be mining firms generally.

They are actually very different.

Mining companies are minerals (precious metals, rare earth elements, etc...)

Oil and gas are fossil fuels. Yes there is some overlap of course, by they are largely considered to be separate entities. Energy companies tend to be far larger than mining companies as well, and they require far more infrastructure (such as pipelines) and therefore far more office jobs.

the same way companies that specialize in "mining" for gravel / stones are not considered "mining" companies generally.

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?

[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.

[s211]

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?

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