HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2016, 4:03 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,311
Perhaps if they need more space than Medical Arts without an addition would allow they will take up some of that leased office space at True North Square instead of building an addition. It would also not be surprising to see some deal pulled to get MLLC a favourable lease on land that would still by owned by MPI, no?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2016, 4:25 PM
trebor204's Avatar
trebor204 trebor204 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 601
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2016, 6:01 PM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 5,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by trebor204 View Post
And working and contributing Manitobans say thank you!
__________________
I'm sober enough to know what I'm doing, and drunk enough to really enjoy it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2016, 6:21 PM
Urban recluse Urban recluse is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,756
Definitely the right thing to do.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2016, 6:22 PM
jmt18325's Avatar
jmt18325 jmt18325 is offline
Heart of the Continent
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,310
I agree that building on was stupid and costly for nothing - but if you own a mostly empty building, why not put it to good use?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2016, 3:32 AM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is online now
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 21,129
On one level I can appreciate that the easiest thing for MLLC to do if it wants to centralize its offices down the road would be to just lease out a few floors in a downtown office building. But on another level, why is it such a bad idea for MLLC to own its own building? Their chair seemed to suggest that doing so is the equivalent of playing amateur wannabe developer... so what does that say about all the other successful companies that own their own head office buildings?

As drew suggested in the Construction thread, it's telling that the MLLC board didn't have any actual numbers to provide, just vague concerns over the possibility of cost overruns.

Last edited by esquire; Sep 20, 2016 at 11:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2016, 4:24 AM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 10,865
Province has put every single project on hold no matter how big or small. No matter how far along they are or how much has been spent. It will affect the economy soon. We're so brainwashed about deficits. I blame Preston manning.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2016, 4:27 AM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 10,865
All government offices should be downtown. I hope they at least relocate in an existing building. Of course they won't. Province appears to have few higher goals for their moves besides spending less.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2016, 3:24 PM
Ando Ando is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,091
Dan Lett's column in the FP today says they are scattered in 5 buildings, in 4 of which they pay rent. Seems to imply they own one of the 5 buildings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2016, 3:30 PM
Biff's Avatar
Biff Biff is offline
What could go wrong?
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ando View Post
Dan Lett's column in the FP today says they are scattered in 5 buildings, in 4 of which they pay rent. Seems to imply they own one of the 5 buildings.
The main building on Buffalo Place is the one they own I believe. They spent about $8 million a few years back upgrading and expanding it.
__________________
"But a city can be smothered by too much reverence for its past. The skyline must keep acquiring new peaks, because the day we consider it complete and untouchable is the day the city begins to die." - Justin Davidson - May 2010 Issue of New York
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2016, 3:38 PM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 5,880
How on earth can anyone say that consolidating the MLLCC workforce into the renovated former Medical Arts Building makes sense, the supposed savings over a twenty year period were supposed to $20M over twenty years, only speNDP math makes spending a minimum of $75M to save $20M make sense!
__________________
I'm sober enough to know what I'm doing, and drunk enough to really enjoy it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2016, 3:46 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is online now
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 21,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ando View Post
Dan Lett's column in the FP today says they are scattered in 5 buildings, in 4 of which they pay rent. Seems to imply they own one of the 5 buildings.
It's funny how Polly Craik's statement made it sound like doing anything other than leasing space basically amounts to irresponsibly playing wannabe developer. Is that really so? I mean, is Gerry Price an idiot because EH Price has its own buildings instead of leasing them?

How is it smarter to make lease payments on 4 buildings with employees scattered over 5 sites? If the numbers actually do add up, then why didn't they share them?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2016, 3:46 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is online now
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 21,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrskylar View Post
How on earth can anyone say that consolidating the MLLCC workforce into the renovated former Medical Arts Building makes sense, the supposed savings over a twenty year period were supposed to $20M over twenty years, only speNDP math makes spending a minimum of $75M to save $20M make sense!
When did they ever say that the $20 million projected savings wasn't a net figure?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2016, 3:47 PM
jmt18325's Avatar
jmt18325 jmt18325 is offline
Heart of the Continent
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrskylar View Post
How on earth can anyone say that consolidating the MLLCC workforce into the renovated former Medical Arts Building makes sense, the supposed savings over a twenty year period were supposed to $20M over twenty years, only speNDP math makes spending a minimum of $75M to save $20M make sense!


I was with you on this but really? Do you think they were going to abandon it after 5 years?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2016, 3:59 PM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 5,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmt18325 View Post
I was with you on this but really? Do you think they were going to abandon it after 5 years?
The supposed savings figure was $20M over a twenty year period, don't know where the "5 years" is coming from? And when any govt. touts spending money to save money, don't believe them because it has never happened and never will!

And if anyone thinks the $75 million total cost for the renovation was a hard figure........
__________________
I'm sober enough to know what I'm doing, and drunk enough to really enjoy it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2016, 4:05 PM
jmt18325's Avatar
jmt18325 jmt18325 is offline
Heart of the Continent
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrskylar View Post
The supposed savings figure was $20M over a twenty year period, don't know where the "5 years" is coming from? And when any govt. touts spending money to save money, don't believe them because it has never happened and never will!

And if anyone thinks the $75 million total cost for the renovation was a hard figure........


Then that would have to be a net savings.

As for the hard figure - you impose a cap, and done.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2016, 4:05 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is online now
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 21,129
^ Even if it were cost-neutral, you would think it would still be worth it to have the entire operation at one site. The $20 million savings would be gravy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2016, 4:51 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
It's funny how Polly Craik's statement made it sound like doing anything other than leasing space basically amounts to irresponsibly playing wannabe developer. Is that really so? I mean, is Gerry Price an idiot because EH Price has its own buildings instead of leasing them?

How is it smarter to make lease payments on 4 buildings with employees scattered over 5 sites? If the numbers actually do add up, then why didn't they share them?
I was of the same opinion. So they own a building instead of leasing. It's not like MPI who has to deal with City Place. It's typical mumbo jumbo to get in the press and look like they're doing something totally awesome. Meanwhile, it's just typical NDP vs PC BS. That's it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2016, 8:00 PM
Tacheguy Tacheguy is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 811
follow the money on the leases. that probably explains it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #120  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2016, 9:18 PM
buzzg buzzg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 4,941
I'm 100% in support of MLLC being consolidated and relocated to one downtown building, the problem was the one they chose. Massive costs of upgrades, and the "benefit to downtown" wasn't all that great if you look at the design of the expansion. No main floor interaction. Didn't go right to Graham. Had a parking lot in front of it.

There's enough vacant or soon to be vacant office space that already exists (as office) space that there's a way better deal to be had for MLLC.
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 > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:08 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.