taal
Senior Member
Yep I see the rationale I just thought I recall reading they were trying to keep the HQ (not warehouse) downtown.
There are a ton of none warehouse jobs they support e.g. IT and what not.
Last edited:
- Thread starter themarc
- Start date
Yep I see the rationale I just thought I recall reading they were trying to keep the HQ (not warehouse) downtown.
There are a ton of none warehouse jobs they support e.g. IT and what not.
TOareaFan
Superstar
Yes....but, I would imagine, that there are a lot of people at LCBO head office that are involved in designing/managing stores and leasing space and buying product, etc and locating them near the airport and major highways that cross the province would make sense (that is why a lot of companies with retail operations are not downtown with their H.O.) once you have the warehouse guys and the store ops guys and the buyers out of downtown....then it makes sense that the support functions like IT/HR/etc follow them.
Combine those inefficiencies with lower rent achieved out there and I would imagine a fiscally responsible owner would want this crown corp to be, either, in Etobicoke, Missisauga, Brampton or Vaughan with a combined office/warehouse location.
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
http://news.ontario.ca/medt/en/2014/9/buyer-sought-for-lcbo-lands.html
"The RFP will also require the final purchaser to provide LCBO with a new head office facility and downtown retail store to lease for the relocated Queens Quay store. The LCBO retail store must be in a new building in the Queens Quay area."
"The RFP will also require the final purchaser to provide LCBO with a new head office facility and downtown retail store to lease for the relocated Queens Quay store. The LCBO retail store must be in a new building in the Queens Quay area."
Automation Gallery
Superstar
taal
Senior Member
I'm not so sure, I imagine only a limited # of employees would really be responsible from going store to store, and there are plenty downtown anyway. Also keep in mind all the existing folks who are already working for the HQ downtown, they could be living there now, so there may be a lot of turnover - though I'm sure they won't have problems filling the role regardless.
I think there are various retail outlets in the states, Target is a good example. I just don't think I see the need to be very close to a hiway - I mean there is a hiway downtown as well last I checked as well : )
WislaHD
Superstar
I'd like to see the LCBO office space converted to lofts and the new LCBO head office be built in one of the new buildings.
Though I can't imagine a view of Lakeshore/Gardiner would be that attractive.
Though I can't imagine a view of Lakeshore/Gardiner would be that attractive.
You mean their current view isn't that attractive?
TOareaFan
Superstar
Right-on, id rather it stayed put
There is nothing there that says the H.O. facility has to be at the current location or anywhere downtown at all. It says they need a store there, sure, but all the RFP requires is that the proponent provide a new H.O. facility to the LCBO.
TOareaFan
Superstar
I would hope that a strong consideration be given to a cheaper location that provides access to stores....who are top retailers in our country? Wal-Mart and Loblaws? There must be reasons they are both located near highways, near the airport. There are probably lots others but those I know of without resorting to Google.
Yes, I know there is a highway downtown...but to get to provinces main thoroughfare from there takes some time.
I get that the majority of people on here are biased towards offices being downtown....but not all can or should be and if the goal of the province is to maximize the value and cashflow coming from its assets (like the LCBO) then cost reduction on its space and time efficiency of their employees is something to be considered.
taal
Senior Member
I'm not sure I agree; The one argument that you don't have me sold on is: Oh look company X is in the suburbs, said company is similar in nature to the LCBO, so it only makes sense. I think many companies that relocated to the suburbs happened during a period of time 1980s -> 2000, where just about all cities in NA lost a substantiation amount of their workforce to the outer parts of the city, simply because at that time that was the trend and very few people lived in the core of cities. So companies that you see there today, not all of course, but some are simply a fallout from that period, relocating a company after the fact is tough. Canadian Tire / Target / Nordstrom are a couple example of retail companies that locate close to the core.
Also couldn't we extend your augment further and say all provincial employment should be moved out of the core (and there is a huge amount of this) ?
TOareaFan
Superstar
Your either twisting or misunderstanding what I am saying...I am saying look at why so many large retailers locate in locations like Loblaws, Walmart and others do and see if those reasons make sense and if, combined with the lower cost of suburban real estate makes sense. The Loblaws H.O. is no accident of the generation....it was a purpose built post 2000 facility.
Target Canada located its head office in precisely the sort of location I am talking about....right by the airport and by the 401. Have no idea where Nordstrom will have its Canadian H.O. (or if it even will have one)....yes, Canadian Tire locates at Yonge and Eg. Not every rule applies or is followed by everyone....but if the LCBO makes a blind assumption that it has to be downtown that (IMO) is an irresponsible call.
No, not at all. I am not advocating a 401/airport location for the LCBO strictly for the cost savings...I am doing so because it appears to me there are logistical advantages and a side benefit is the cost savings. As a crown corp. it operates quite separately from government and does not have the same sort of daily interaction with Queens Park that, say, the ministry of labour does from 400 University. Likewise, most governmental operations don't have logisitcal interaction on a day to day basis with 634 stores (plus over 200 agency stores) around the province.
taal
Senior Member
I was referring to Target and Nordstrom in the states, both of which have downtown headquarters; Anyway I do see your point but I think there are counter arguments, amazon is another good example no, with most of the development in downtown Seattle (and the downtown of various other cities) but of course they have large distribution centers, maybe the argument being they don't have physical retail stores
Maybe the LCBO has polled their employees about the move.
One of the reasons that so many companies are heading back downtown is that employees are telling them that's where they want to be.
There would certainly be no shortage of downtown locations available to the LCBO for a new head office, and it could easily go two ways.
1) Any of the big developers who might buy the LCBO lands will undoubtedly have other office space available somewhere downtown just waiting to be filled. With all the new buildings that are being built now or are poised to be built, space is becoming available. So if developer X buys the LCBO lands, and has plans for a new building that they need 30% more leased before it can go up, bang, they've got it with the LCBO. Or maybe they own an existing complex which is being vacated by company Y who are consolidating in another one of the new towers downtown. The older building isn't sexy enough to attract A++ private sector corps at the moment, but bang, they've got a crown corp ready to show some prudent spending by not going into the flashiest new building. The LCBO goes into the older building after a modest revitalization, and the government can look smart keeping that corner of town in good shape.
2) The LCBO lands are large enough that the new owner identifies a site and builds an office building on it right away, moving the LCBO into it. Waterfront Toronto and the City of Toronto are happy because they don't want just a dormitory suburb on the Waterfront, they want a mixed-use community with employment space, and LCBO employees are already used to the commute to the site, so they are fine with just the jump to the left. Sure, there are a couple of them that come in from Brampton and wish the HO was moving close to the airport, but there are a pile who live centrally and for them a commute to suburban Mississauga would be very disruptive. By staying onsite, the question of how fair the move is to what percentage of employees can be avoided.
There's no shortage of appropriate office space opportunities in and around our core that would make an LCBO HO move away from it attractive, let alone a necessity.
42
One of the reasons that so many companies are heading back downtown is that employees are telling them that's where they want to be.
There would certainly be no shortage of downtown locations available to the LCBO for a new head office, and it could easily go two ways.
1) Any of the big developers who might buy the LCBO lands will undoubtedly have other office space available somewhere downtown just waiting to be filled. With all the new buildings that are being built now or are poised to be built, space is becoming available. So if developer X buys the LCBO lands, and has plans for a new building that they need 30% more leased before it can go up, bang, they've got it with the LCBO. Or maybe they own an existing complex which is being vacated by company Y who are consolidating in another one of the new towers downtown. The older building isn't sexy enough to attract A++ private sector corps at the moment, but bang, they've got a crown corp ready to show some prudent spending by not going into the flashiest new building. The LCBO goes into the older building after a modest revitalization, and the government can look smart keeping that corner of town in good shape.
2) The LCBO lands are large enough that the new owner identifies a site and builds an office building on it right away, moving the LCBO into it. Waterfront Toronto and the City of Toronto are happy because they don't want just a dormitory suburb on the Waterfront, they want a mixed-use community with employment space, and LCBO employees are already used to the commute to the site, so they are fine with just the jump to the left. Sure, there are a couple of them that come in from Brampton and wish the HO was moving close to the airport, but there are a pile who live centrally and for them a commute to suburban Mississauga would be very disruptive. By staying onsite, the question of how fair the move is to what percentage of employees can be avoided.
There's no shortage of appropriate office space opportunities in and around our core that would make an LCBO HO move away from it attractive, let alone a necessity.
42
TOareaFan
Superstar
^all possible. What I am saying is the LCBO should be looking at this as an opportunity to look at all options and consider if a) logistically and b) from a cost efficiency point of view they need (or should even want) to be downtown.
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?
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?
There's much more involved in where your office is located than saving $10 psf. Otherwise why wouldn't they all move to Elliot Lake? They could probably save $20 psf or more doing that.