Vancouver Downtown Eastside Discussion

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

You assume they consulted with landowners/developers to get an idea on the rational behind the new zonings. Sure something on East Hastings will be a tough sell for non-social housing but you assume on the side streets/corners that you could see some people take the leap if it's somewhat affordable.

Woodwards resales are still getting $1k/sf.. lots on the market right now but there will always be buyers down there at very small discounts compared to much nicer neighbourhoods.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You don't think more private strata development in the DTES will boost land values?

No link between Chip's guy being in the Mayor's seat and this change in DTES policy?

I'm not commenting on whether this is good or bad long term for Vancouver. But if you think these things aren't linked, I have some prime land in Florida you might be interested in.

You're mistaken. None of the proposed changes have anything to do with strata development. You can read the details on jollyburger's post - it's all about the mix of market to non-market housing, and SRO replacement densities and permitted room sizes. You get to keep your swamp.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Changing City

You're mistaken. None of the proposed changes have anything to do with strata development. You can read the details on jollyburger's post - it's all about the mix of market to non-market housing, and SRO replacement densities and permitted room sizes. You get to keep your swamp.

Sorry "market development" ie for-profit. Keep believing whatever you want I guess.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Sorry "market development" ie for-profit. Keep believing whatever you want I guess.

I don't think the changes move the dial on land values much. I'm sure eventually Lowtide will cash in on their holdings in the DTES and build some market rental with the necessary non-market, but right now they can build all market (with 20% renting at lower rents) at their other locations - and they've already applied to rezone those. I doubt whether these changes will make much difference in the short term to their sites, but it might get Holborn, or Bosa, or Amacon or Onni moving on projects that have been stalled for years. Maybe it'll help some of the vacant non-market sites and buildings, and existing SROs to get redeveloped.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I don't think the changes move the dial on land values much. I'm sure eventually Lowtide will cash in on their holdings in the DTES and build some market rental with the necessary non-market, but right now they can build all market (with 20% renting at lower rents) at their other locations - and they've already applied to rezone those. I doubt whether these changes will make much difference in the short term to their sites, but it might get Holborn, or Bosa, or Amacon or Onni moving on projects that have been stalled for years. Maybe it'll help some of the vacant non-market sites and buildings, and existing SROs to get redeveloped.

Increased density should have an effect on land valuations, doing things more widespread like this instead of spot zoning does eliminate some premium but it's not like the effect will be zero. If you're allowed to build more on the land, it will be worth more.

Don't really care if it's Chip Wilson, or the De Cotiis family, or the Bosa family, etc. all of our development oligarchs will benefit from this development policy, there's not any denying that. Developers are not running charities here. But that's just how the system works, whether it's this, the Broadway Plan, or any other development policy changes allowing more market units to be built.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by mcj

Increased density should have an effect on land valuations, doing things more widespread like this instead of spot zoning does eliminate some premium but it's not like the effect will be zero. If you're allowed to build more on the land, it will be worth more.

Don't really care if it's Chip Wilson, or the De Cotiis family, or the Bosa family, etc. all of our development oligarchs will benefit from this development policy, there's not any denying that. Developers are not running charities here. But that's just how the system works, whether it's this, the Broadway Plan, or any other development policy changes allowing more market units to be built.

Sure. I was responding to a specific reference to Chip Wilson's sites. Higher densities as of right might help development economics for rental projects, but there are so many other options that developers have (West End, Broadway Plan, Secure Rental Policy, etc), that it might not make a great deal of difference to what gets built.

These are just a number of proposed policy changes to try to get more built. As has been shown on other threads, with sites trading at or below $100 psf buildable in more attractive locations, land cost may not be a significant factor. Higher density projects that are therefore bigger will cost more, so may still be difficult to develop unless there are provincial or federal loan funds to cover development costs.

Allowing geater density in the Thornton Park area (which is close to the new hospital, less obviously part of the DTES, and where BC Housing already have development sites) might see development happen sooner, or more easily.

[GenWhy?]

Not to even mention the financial risk of trying to rent and have consistent tenants, low vacancies, for a market rate building in this area.

The rents would have to be low enough to attract and retain tenants, but high enough to support financing.

[officedweller]

I doubt strata developments would be popular in the DTES. Individuals would be more wary about their personal savings than developers willing to take the risk.
Remember that Concord exchanged /sold /donated its site at 58? Hastings.

[jollyburger]

Funding from the federal government incoming.

But I now seriously question the logic of this plan since Michael Geller is totally on board.

“For 10 years, I’ve been trying to get them to change this,” said developer Michael Geller. “They need to allow condos to normalize the neighbourhood.”

Mr. Geller said he doesn’t think the plan goes far enough because it’s only changing the ratio of market rental and social-housing rental.

“They have to have a mix of market rental and ownership to make the neighbourhood a bit more like other neighbourhoods.”

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/v...or-changes-to-housing-policy-in-canadas/

[jollyburger]

Vancouver city council unanimously approved a motion Wednesday from Coun. Mike Klassen that aims to make it easier and faster for entrepreneurs, artists and others to move into the dozens of empty storefronts in the Downtown Eastside.

The motion is in response to Klassen hearing from business associations, building owners and people searching for affordable commercial space that it can take up to a year or more to get the doors open of a potential business or enterprise.

“Let's open the door to safe temporary activation of ground-level commercial units for up to 12 months without the need to permanently change use or zoning,” he said in introducing his motion in the council chamber.

City staff will now look to set up what Klassen described as a temporary occupancy pilot program that would apply to empty storefronts along the Hastings Street corridor and surrounding neighbourhoods such as Strathcona and Chinatown.

The program could be in place by October and expand to other areas of the city, including the downtown Granville Street strip, although an evaluation would first have to be completed of the 12-month experiment in the Downtown Eastside.

Vacancy rates are currently at more than 30 per cent in the Downtown Eastside, which has some of the cheapest rents in the city. Klassen acknowledged crime and street disorder is driving some of that vacancy, but so is red tape at city hall.

https://www.biv.com/biv-rss-newsletter/v...torefronts-in-dtes-mike-klassen-10927666