Toronto 100 Queens Quay at Sugar Wharf | 117.34m | 25s | Menkes | B+H

TOareaFan said:
If, say, Menkes was the successful bidder and as part of their response to the RFP "we have readily available space at 5570 Explorer Drive that has recently been vacated by an international retailer with stores province wide. We will lease that to the LCBO for $10 psf less than currently available downtown rents"...should that be dismissed out of hand?
Click to expand...

Yes. Why should the LCBO go against the trend of moving office space downtown? If my company were moved to a suburb that required me to buy a car to get there, I would look for a new job. I am 29, and know many, many others in my age range (say 25 to 35) who would do the same. Moving from a suburb to downtown makes some people's commutes much more difficult; but moving from downtown to a suburb can make commutes impossible for those without a car. It would be equivalent to a $6,000 to $10,000 annual pay-cut to force an employee to buy a car.

This is particularly a bad decision because the growing car-free demographic tend to be the younger employees, and therefore those you wish to attract/keep to ensure the future vitality of an organization such as the LCBO.

The cost savings of moving to a suburb could easily be eclipsed by lost efficiency & the cost of hiring new employees.
 
Ottawan said:
Yes. Why should the LCBO go against the trend of moving office space downtown? If my company were moved to a suburb that required me to buy a car to get there, I would look for a new job. I am 29, and know many, many others in my age range (say 25 to 35) who would do the same. Moving from a suburb to downtown makes some people's commutes much more difficult; but moving from downtown to a suburb can make commutes impossible for those without a car. It would be equivalent to a $6,000 to $10,000 annual pay-cut to force an employee to buy a car.

This is particularly a bad decision because the growing car-free demographic tend to be the younger employees, and therefore those you wish to attract/keep to ensure the future vitality of an organization such as the LCBO.

The cost savings of moving to a suburb could easily be eclipsed by lost efficiency & the cost of hiring new employees.
Click to expand...

In the second half of 2014 there was 3 million square feet of absorption in the office market in Canada (1.7million in Q3 and 1.3 millio in Q4).....in both quarters, two-thirds of the space leased was in suburban markets and one-third in downtown markets. Because the office towers delivered in downtown markets in the major Canadian cities tend to be larger and of a higher profile, sometimes it seems everyone is moving downtown. It is not the case.

The area around the airport (and the building I gave as one example) is seeing transit growth via the mississauga transitway and phase II of the Crosstown and/or SmartTrack. You are also making the assumption that everyone who works at the LCBO H.O. already lives downtown and ignoring that some of their employees may well live in York/Peel/Halton and would would see this as an improvement to their lives. All these things need to be looked at......

....but if we are going to say "all offices all the time have to be downtown" that is a bit bizarre.
 
TOareaFan said:
In the second half of 2014 there was 3 million square feet of absorption in the office market in Canada (1.7million in Q3 and 1.3 millio in Q4).....in both quarters, two-thirds of the space leased was in suburban markets and one-third in downtown markets. Because the office towers delivered in downtown markets in the major Canadian cities tend to be larger and of a higher profile, sometimes it seems everyone is moving downtown. It is not the case.
Click to expand...

The trend I was referring to was of companies already located in the suburbs moving downtown (increasing) vs. companies downtown relocating to the suburbs (decreasing). I don't have the numbers to back it up, so I could be wrong, but my impression is that this is a growing trend for Toronto. Using Canada-wide stats conflates the issue, and higher absorption in the suburbs could simply indicate more companies growing organically are already in the suburbs.

You are also making the assumption that everyone who works at the LCBO H.O. already lives downtown and ignoring that some of their employees may well live in York/Peel/Halton and would would see this as an improvement to their lives.
Click to expand...

Reread my original post. Most of it is dealing with this exact issue and stating that those who are commuting with cars (perhaps I was not clear enough, but I assume some of these people are from York/Peel/Halton) are less negatively affected by the downtown location than those without cars are affected by the suburban location. Also that those without cars are potentially more valuable employees to please.

"all offices all the time have to be downtown" that is a bit bizarre.
Click to expand...

Not saying this. I think there are definite advantages to offices locating downtown, but it's good to be mixed-use throughout the built-up area. However, suburban offices should be designed to be more accessible and less auto-oriented.
 
TOareaFan said:
In the second half of 2014 there was 3 million square feet of absorption in the office market in Canada (1.7million in Q3 and 1.3 millio in Q4).....in both quarters, two-thirds of the space leased was in suburban markets and one-third in downtown markets. Because the office towers delivered in downtown markets in the major Canadian cities tend to be larger and of a higher profile, sometimes it seems everyone is moving downtown. It is not the case.

The area around the airport (and the building I gave as one example) is seeing transit growth via the mississauga transitway and phase II of the Crosstown and/or SmartTrack. You are also making the assumption that everyone who works at the LCBO H.O. already lives downtown and ignoring that some of their employees may well live in York/Peel/Halton and would would see this as an improvement to their lives. All these things need to be looked at......

....but if we are going to say "all offices all the time have to be downtown" that is a bit bizarre.
Click to expand...

Several comments: First of all, the office absorption figures quoted are for Canada as a whole. Is it fair to assume the Greater Toronto area is fairly represented by suburban versus downtown markets in other Canadian cities. My feeling is that the Toronto area is more advanced than some others in terms of the evolving trend to increasing office density in the downtown cores.

The second point - every time we go by the office campus areas in eastern Mississauga, the Creekside area in particular, the vast swaths of areas filled with parked cars is appalling - incredibly environmentally irresponsible. Companies are trading off current lower occupancy costs while downloading all the expenses of commuting by car onto their employees. While the ongoing improvements in transit in the suburban areas are welcome, their impact on commuting by car in these areas will only be at the margins.

With respect to Mississauga, a big difference in occupancy costs has traditionally been the lower tax rates - tax rates held down due to the city's operating costs being subsidized by development charges - charges that were intended to pay for infrastructure. Now, Mississauga is running short of available development land, and has not put the appropriate level of transit infrastructure in place to support increasing intensification. Commercial property tax rates in Mississauga are expected to increase at a greater rate than those in Toronto itself, over time removing much of the current difference in occupancy costs.

Last, but certainly not least - the other factor for consideration is quality of working life for the employees - I believe that for many, if not most people, working in an urban core, with the diversity of services, restaurants, shopping, transit, etc. available is more attractive than driving to an isolated building that is surrounded by acres of parking, with the need to drive everywhere for restaurants, shopping, various errands, etc.
 
TOareaFan said:
The area around the airport (and the building I gave as one example) is seeing transit growth via the mississauga transitway and phase II of the Crosstown and/or SmartTrack. You are also making the assumption that everyone who works at the LCBO H.O. already lives downtown and ignoring that some of their employees may well live in York/Peel/Halton and would would see this as an improvement to their lives. All these things need to be looked at......
Click to expand...

Phase II of the Crosstown hasn't even been funded yet, nor has the final form of Crosstown been determined - to assume these being concrete locational advantages is premature at best - and it couldn't compare against the accessibility of a site right next to the central node for the region (i.e. Union). If one thinks the locational advantage of the ACC is transit (current and future), one are not being honest about the current transportation mix and the overall design of the area.

Depending on the ownership of the future LCBO headquarters vis-a-vis the redevelopment project, it's also arguable that it will only have significant and increasing value. I think it would be harder to argue that in the context of a suburban office project (especially inner suburban locations).

AoD
 
This is really just a more generic argument to be had; Centralize office growth or decentralize ... I don't think TOareaFan is arguing most of the existing and sprawling complexes in the 905 are good, but rather those built around transit and walkabilty, take downtown Markham as an example of that. And its a valid argument .. I'm not so sure I agree with it or believe Toronto has reached the point where its required .. I think we should keep concentrating growth in the core. The GTA has a whole is NOT a very core centrist office market, there is just about as much space outside of the core as in it, there are other office markets in North America that have a lot more in the core % wise (Calgary is a good example).

But of course very long term I think it makes sense to promote dense office use in the outer 416 and 905 in small clusters.
 
roughly 1 out of every 3 jobs are in the downtown core IIRC.

Outside of NYC, Chicago, and Calgary, Toronto probably has one of the highest employment concentrations in the downtown, most american cities don't have too many jobs in the core. Toronto isn't the strongest on this front, buts its not really lacking either. LA, Boston, Montreal, Edmonton, Vancouver, Miami, etc. all have relatively small downtown office markets compared to Toronto.
 
Last edited:
innsertnamehere said:
roughly 1 out of every 3 jobs are in the downtown core IIRC.

Outside of NYC, Chicago, and Calgary, Toronto probably has one of the highest employment concentrations in the downtown, most american cities don't have too many jobs in the core. Toronto isn't the strongest on this front, buts its not really lacking either. LA, Boston, Montreal, Edmonton, Vancouver, Miami, etc. all have relatively small downtown office markets compared to Toronto.
Click to expand...

Where is this information from ? With that said I agree that Toronto is probably near the top 10/20, just that we can support more - I don't agree with the Montreal comment though its fairly up there from what I recall too. Vancouver is kinda of a special case, but yes many American cities have a lot less in the core.
 
TOareaFan said:
<snip> You are also making the assumption that everyone who works at the LCBO H.O. already lives downtown and ignoring that some of their employees may well live in York/Peel/Halton and would would see this as an improvement to their lives.<snip>
Click to expand...

York/Peel/Halton is far too large an area to make a generalization like that true. Toronto's suburban areas are vast and take a long time to cross because of congested roads that won't be decongesting anytime soon. The only serious travel improvements we will be getting in the foreseeable future are along high-order transit lines, so it would be irresponsible to move somewhere that wasn't served well by them.

Since the LCBO is already down by our largest transit hub, and employees have set up their lives to accommodate their travel to work there via transit or private vehicle, then the LCBO can move locally without having to deal with the transportation issue at all. Disrupt their employees travel patterns with a move significantly far from where they are now, and they'll have do deal with a major issue. Why would they want that hassle? They wouldn't.

42
 
Thanks for the update waterloowarrior. Can't wait for this...Anyone want to make a guess on density levels expected on this site?
 
That report read well, but was completed in Oct. 2012. I don't expect that the city is any where near finished with design studies, consultations and reports and I doubt the city is helping companies like pinnacle with carrying costs and design/redesign costs - at some point something has to give. If Pinnacle still has the option of the OMB I think they should take it before they get "planned" down to mid rise.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top