Winnipeg | Manitoba Liquor & Lotteries Head Office | Cancelled - Page 6

CoryB · #**101** Posted **Jun 9, 2016, 4:03 PM**

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?

trebor204 · #**102** Posted **Sep 19, 2016, 4:25 PM**

Project has been scrapped

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...ters-1.3768836

rrskylar · #**103** Posted **Sep 19, 2016, 6:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trebor204

Project has been scrapped

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...ters-1.3768836

And working and contributing Manitobans say thank you!

Urban recluse · #**104** Posted **Sep 19, 2016, 6:21 PM**

Definitely the right thing to do.

jmt18325 · #**105** Posted **Sep 19, 2016, 6:22 PM**

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?

esquire · #**106** Posted **Sep 20, 2016, 3:32 AM**

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.

trueviking · #**107** Posted **Sep 20, 2016, 4:24 AM**

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.

trueviking · #**108** Posted **Sep 20, 2016, 4:27 AM**

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.

Ando · #**109** Posted **Sep 20, 2016, 3:24 PM**

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.

Biff · #**110** Posted **Sep 20, 2016, 3:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ando

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.

rrskylar · #**111** Posted **Sep 20, 2016, 3:38 PM**

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!

esquire · #**112** Posted **Sep 20, 2016, 3:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ando

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?

esquire · #**113** Posted **Sep 20, 2016, 3:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrskylar

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?

jmt18325 · #**114** Posted **Sep 20, 2016, 3:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrskylar

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?

rrskylar · #**115** Posted **Sep 20, 2016, 3:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmt18325

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........

jmt18325 · #**116** Posted **Sep 20, 2016, 4:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrskylar

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.

esquire · #**117** Posted **Sep 20, 2016, 4:05 PM**

^ 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.

bomberjet · #**118** Posted **Sep 20, 2016, 4:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

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.

Tacheguy · #**119** Posted **Sep 20, 2016, 8:00 PM**

follow the money on the leases. that probably explains it.

buzzg · #**120** Posted **Sep 20, 2016, 9:18 PM**

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.