Neil
Voyager 
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Dec 20, 2008 0:20:40 GMT -8
Consequently, by simply analysis, and common sense, I would deduce that the lack of space is due to more people feeling they are entitled to prestigious offices, or people determining on their own that the square footage of their current office does not adequately reflect the needed voluminous space to house that prestige. From the quarterly MD&A, on the SEDAR site: On August 25, 2008, we reached an agreement for the sale of our existing head office
building for approximately $11 million. We also signed a 15-year lease with renewal options
for up to an additional 20 years. This will allow for the relocation of our corporate centre to
a new building currently under development in downtown Victoria. This relocation will
provide approximately the same space as we currently occupy in separate locations and
allow for efficiencies by combining all departments under one roof. The relocation is
scheduled for July 2010. We have also entered into a letter of intent to advance up to
$25 million to the developer of the new head office property, secured by a second mortgage
of the property, and to obtain an option to purchase a one-half interest in the property. So, it does appear that all that 'prestige' does not actually require any more space. |
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886 
|
Post by Mill Bay on Dec 20, 2008 10:19:09 GMT -8
Consequently, by simply analysis, and common sense, I would deduce that the lack of space is due to more people feeling they are entitled to prestigious offices, or people determining on their own that the square footage of their current office does not adequately reflect the needed voluminous space to house that prestige. From the quarterly MD&A, on the SEDAR site: On August 25, 2008, we reached an agreement for the sale of our existing head office
building for approximately $11 million. We also signed a 15-year lease with renewal options
for up to an additional 20 years. This will allow for the relocation of our corporate centre to
a new building currently under development in downtown Victoria. This relocation will
provide approximately the same space as we currently occupy in separate locations and
allow for efficiencies by combining all departments under one roof. The relocation is
scheduled for July 2010. We have also entered into a letter of intent to advance up to
$25 million to the developer of the new head office property, secured by a second mortgage
of the property, and to obtain an option to purchase a one-half interest in the property. So, it does appear that all that 'prestige' does not actually require any more space. Ah-ha!... So that means they are going to be opening up a compressed space factory instead. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by ferryrider42 on Dec 20, 2008 11:26:22 GMT -8
Wow, nice sleuthing Neil; that answers many of the questions I had. Though, I was surprised to read about the intent to buy an interest in the property; I think this is news to most of us. I’m totally ignorant about this sort of thing, so does anyone know how the lease rate might change if BC Ferries carries through with buying an interest in the property. Will they still have to pay a lease, or do they effectively own their space in the building?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Dec 21, 2008 4:39:01 GMT -8
They would more than likely still be paying a lease. Lease payments are tax-deductible whereas rent payments are not. The precise structure that the proposed part ownership may take would be an area best left to the likes of Flug. There are definite advantages to being your own (partial) landlord....
|
|
|
|
Post by ferryrider42 on Feb 22, 2009 19:12:27 GMT -8
The new headquarters is comming along now. They started by digging a big hole two stories into the ground, and, are currently building the basement floors. I believe there will be parking down here for those working in the building. This website has some pictures of the current progress: www.vibrantvictoria.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=1395&page=17 |
|
|
|
Post by ferryrider42 on Jun 30, 2009 20:05:24 GMT -8
I was walking past the new building today and happy to see things coming along. I'd guess that by the end of summer most of the concrete and structural work will be finished. Below is a link to a picture (half way down the page). The picture, taken by someone other then me is from 'view st'. The picture is also a little old. They are currently working on finishing the fourth floor. www.vibrantvictoria.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=1395&page=18 |
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Feb 3, 2010 22:19:57 GMT -8
I saw the Atrium Building for the first time yesterday. The first two or three floors out of about 6 floors have the exterior finishings. The upper floors are still a long ways away from having the exterior finished. The interior on those two floors are still at the wiring/plumming instalation stage
|
|
|
|
Post by ferryrider42 on Jul 11, 2010 10:34:51 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Jul 11, 2010 20:57:49 GMT -8
Nice pic. I think the logo looks too small for the building...
BTW, the pic is overwidth: 875px instead of 800px.
|
|
|
|
Post by ferryrider42 on Jul 11, 2010 22:16:58 GMT -8
I agree that the logo is WAY too small for the size of the building. The ownership of this building has gotten quite complex, so I'm not exactly sure who owns what at the moment. I believe the developer currently owns it all, and BC ferries is just leasing two and a half of the floors.
But, if I recall correctly at the end of the lease period BC Ferries has the option of buying at 50% share of the building. In other words, ferries would be making money from the other building tenants.
Since Ferries doesn't currently own the building, I'm betting there where tight rules on just how large their signage could be. Or, another possibility is that city hall just didn't allow for a larger sign. Anyone out there know the real answer, why is the sign so rinky-dinky?
BTW: sorry for my sloppiness in image size.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Jul 12, 2010 4:16:29 GMT -8
I agree that the logo is WAY too small for the size of the building. The ownership of this building has gotten quite complex, so I'm not exactly sure who owns what at the moment. I believe the developer currently owns it all, and BC ferries is just leasing two and a half of the floors. But, if I recall correctly at the end of the lease period BC Ferries has the option of buying at 50% share of the building. In other words, ferries would be making money from the other building tenants. Since Ferries doesn't currently own the building, I'm betting there where tight rules on just how large their signage could be. Or, another possibility is that city hall just didn't allow for a larger sign. Anyone out there know the real answer, why is the sign so rinky-dinky? BTW: sorry for my sloppiness in image size. I reviewed the sign bylaws, and without a variance, a fascia sign like the BC Ferries sign looks like it is limited to 9 m^2 (~100sf). So there is a good possibility they may have run up against that limit. |
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Jul 12, 2010 15:41:49 GMT -8
Just out of curiosity, is the sign on the current fleet house larger?
I'm thinking that maybe it wouldn't affect bylaws if they just moved the sign from the current building to the new one, since that's not technically a 'new'sign...
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Jul 13, 2010 4:16:40 GMT -8
I reviewed the sign bylaws, and without a variance, a fascia sign like the BC Ferries sign looks like it is limited to 9 m^2 (~100sf). So there is a good possibility they may have run up against that limit. More plausible and probable was that the current size of the sign was specified into the plans, without any consideration of variance, since that requires additional time, hearings, etc. etc. Dude, the plans are based on the bylaws...that's why architects have their jobs...they don't just design buildings, they research the bylaws of a township and give their clients feedback on what is or isn't allowed within the current "rules". Yes, variances definitely add to the construction duration, and BCFS probably decided not to "fight the fight" to obtain the variance because of the time factor, but all that would have happened before the final version of the plans was submitted to the zoning/building department for final approvals. So more probable and plausible is my statement that the sign size was limited by the sign bylaw. |
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Jul 13, 2010 8:07:28 GMT -8
Dude, the plans are based on the bylaws...that's why architects have their jobs...they don't just design buildings, they research the bylaws of a township and give their clients feedback on what is or isn't allowed within the current "rules". Yes, variances definitely add to the construction duration, and BCFS probably decided not to "fight the fight" to obtain the variance because of the time factor, but all that would have happened before the final version of the plans was submitted to the zoning/building department for final approvals. So more probable and plausible is my statement that the sign size was limited by the sign bylaw. No kidding. If there was any deviation from the sign bylaw, it would have been picked up quite awhile back as noted, since variances require public hearings for the surrounding neighbourhood's input. I doubt very much it was a measure of wanting to "fight the fight", snce such a concept obviously never entered the picture. So in this instance I doubt BCF was even thinking in terms of being adverisal to the City of Victoria. More plausible is that noheavy research was done, since the architects had designed the building to meet within the parameters, rather than reaching for any perceived limitations and since he is a local archittect, obviously would be fully aware of what Victoria allows in terms of building height, signage, etc. So speicfic research wouldn't be done, since he would be up to speed on changes to any buliding requirements that the City of Victoria has There is no "Zoning Department" but rather "building and engineering". Zoning is an end product of both the planning department's wanting for specific local areas of a city to and what is approved by Council. The Zoning itself ends up in the By-Laws and zoning maps once approved by Council. Actually, to be correct, it's Planning and Development, of which Zoning is overseen by Planning, and I suspect Thom Pebernat, Zoning Administrator might be a little perturbed to find his job was going to be axed. As for you comment about the lack of specific research, since many architects tend to have a large area they serve, they may or may not be up to speed on a particular set of bylaws. If they are up to speed will all the variation of the local bylaws, then good for them, less work for the same billable hours. (I would also be concerned if I hired an architect that I found out didn't take the due diligence aspect of their contract seriously.) You also seem to forget that the architect works for the client, and the client will often have certain requirements which the architect will then assess the feasiblility of providing in the final design. And trust me on this, most businesses want people to see them, and the bigger and flashier they can get approved, the better. I'm not saying this is BCFS's approach, but it is generally true, I would be very suprised if the architect didn't inform BCFS upfront about sign dimensions and the consequences of exceeding them. As for my comment about "fighting the fight"...after seeing the lengths that some developers and communities will go to in order to prevail in a variance application, I would consider any variance application a place ripe for a battle, and, therefore, would weigh my options accordingly before wading in. The final decision about how to proceed always lies with the client, not the architect, and, consequentially, the ultimate design is subject to the final approval of the client. Sometime a governing authority will not grant the client's desires, but again, the final outcome lies with the client...they aren't obligated to proceed with the project if they feel they aren't satisfied with the product they are being allowed to build! |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 24, 2010 7:03:49 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on Sept 14, 2010 16:43:01 GMT -8
Interior preview of the new Atrium building, courtesy of A Channel...
|
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Oct 7, 2010 20:57:23 GMT -8
Here's a look at the 'old' fleet house on Fort Street today. Most of the BC Ferries signage has already been removed, and all that remains is the company flag. I believe they expect to be all moved into the new Atrium building by the end of the month.  |
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Dec 18, 2010 0:20:16 GMT -8
|
|
