Sen̓áḵw (Squamish Nation) | 11 Towers | 171m | 58fl | 4M sqft | U/C

[s211]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Article:

Squamish Nation members are also being asked to approve the idea of having as many as 30 per cent of the units potentially sold on a leasehold basis, with a maximum 120-year lease. This is a new idea for the Squamish, who have typically done traditional rentals, such as their arrangements with a mall in West Vancouver.

Ah, sorry I missed that.

120 years seems very generous when compared to what I've seen proposed elsewhere on another un-named first nation's leasehold structure. Eventually, they shifted toward the general market norm (nowhere near 120 years though).

[cairnstone]

CKNW had a Squamish band member on the Simi Sara show. They have not received approval yet from the band as a whole or have any contractual arrangement with there named partners. So im going to assume this is a slow news day filler the same as a 3rd crossing to the north shore or the bridge to the island.

[mezzanine]

Looks good! I hope the squamish nation does well with this project!

[misher]

I'm just going to laugh if we have this amazing part of Vancouver with towers and amenities with little to no public feedback/government input. And then this crappy portion of town beside it with lowrise buildings and a skytrain station that was the result of public feedback.

Going to be funny if democracy and public input builds a worse area for locals than private industry. I'm already imaging this ghetto with high crime and shopping carts while we have this beautiful area of towers and flying cars a block away.

[privatejet]

Interesting project. There is no point in discussing Westbanks contract (as I haven't seen anything public aside from a vague 50% profit share)
However, if you exclude land costs, CAC etc., the pro-forma on 5000 rental units should be very financable.
With a first nation sponser and probably thus a CMHC cheap guarantee the cost of financing will be very low.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by privatejet

Interesting project. There is no point in discussing Westbanks contract (as I haven't seen anything public aside from a vague 50% profit share)
However, if you exclude land costs, CAC etc., the pro-forma on 5000 rental units should be very financable.
With a first nation sponser and probably thus a CMHC cheap guarantee the cost of financing will be very low.

Agreed.

This would bring in over a $100 million annually in rent. I don't think financing will be an issue.

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by privatejet

Interesting project. There is no point in discussing Westbanks contract (as I haven't seen anything public aside from a vague 50% profit share)
However, if you exclude land costs, CAC etc., the pro-forma on 5000 rental units should be very financable.
With a first nation sponser and probably thus a CMHC cheap guarantee the cost of financing will be very low.

It will be over 20% of CMHC total pooled funds for rental housing guarantee nation wide so not sure how that will fly.

https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/nhs/rental-construction-financing-initiative

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by misher

I'm just going to laugh if we have this amazing part of Vancouver with towers and amenities with little to no public feedback/government input. And then this crappy portion of town beside it with lowrise buildings and a skytrain station that was the result of public feedback.

Going to be funny if democracy and public input builds a worse area for locals than private industry. I'm already imaging this ghetto with high crime and shopping carts while we have this beautiful area of towers and flying cars a block away.

I hope Squamish Band opens up the wallet and pays for the station that will be needed to service this scheme.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by cairnstone

I hope Squamish Band opens up the wallet and pays for the station that will be needed to service this scheme.

On what transit line?

You sure have an ax to grind with this project. Are you a NIMBY neighbour?

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

On what transit line?

You sure have an ax to grind with this project. Are you a NIMBY neighbour?

Nope I live 30 km away from it can't see it from my house. What I see if a half laid plan that will have big effects on the whole area.

Issues

1. 6000 units that are to be managed as a city within a city.
2. Upwards of potentially 20000 people will live in this scheme
3. No transit terminal
4. Lease land that has a whole bag of legal issues
5. Vancouver tax payers will absorb a huge cost do to the related property. Portion will be addressed via private tax collection
6. No parking or limited parking
7. Historically in this city rental projects are not up kept well.
8. Who is going to build this project. As they are talking a 5-6 year build out. That will be 3000 bodies trades people commuting from the valley.\
9. Where is the 3 billion coming from that is needed
10. what will this site be like in 25 years if the economy collapses. Will the city buy it for a $1 like the Belmoral
11. The huge LED signs that will be on both sides of the bridge.

These are a few points that make me wonder.

[misher]

Originally Posted by cairnstone

Nope I live 30 km away from it can't see it from my house. What I see if a half laid plan that will have big effects on the whole area.

Issues

1. 6000 units that are to be managed as a city within a city.
2. Upwards of potentially 20000 people will live in this scheme
3. No transit terminal
4. Lease land that has a whole bag of legal issues
5. Vancouver tax payers will absorb a huge cost do to the related property. Portion will be addressed via private tax collection
6. No parking or limited parking
7. Historically in this city rental projects are not up kept well.
8. Who is going to build this project. As they are talking a 5-6 year build out. That will be 3000 bodies trades people commuting from the valley.\
9. Where is the 3 billion coming from that is needed
10. what will this site be like in 25 years if the economy collapses. Will the city buy it for a $1 like the Belmoral
11. The huge LED signs that will be on both sides of the bridge.

These are a few points that make me wonder.

Definitely we are taking it in the ass here. Plus businesses can move there to avoid paying property taxes so they'll likely be able to charge much higher lease rates. They also don't need permits and a bunch of other things. 10's to 100's of thousands can be saved by businesses. Millions if they open a casino. Imagine if the FN open a casino, gas station, weed store, and tobacco store.

Basically their going to cash out building luxury condos for the rich while we somehow build social housing without the bundles we used to get from development fees. Basically turning the surrounding low to mid rise area into a slum ghetto of old rental buildings and social housing surrounding a pristine community for the rich. I can already see the Squamish nation building a wall around their area to keep the homeless out.

[logan5]

Wtf??

[GenWhy?]

The infamous Kitsilano million dollar home ghetto.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by cairnstone

Nope I live 30 km away from it can't see it from my house. What I see if a half laid plan that will have big effects on the whole area.

Issues

1. 6000 units that are to be managed as a city within a city.
2. Upwards of potentially 20000 people will live in this scheme
3. No transit terminal
4. Lease land that has a whole bag of legal issues
5. Vancouver tax payers will absorb a huge cost do to the related property. Portion will be addressed via private tax collection
6. No parking or limited parking
7. Historically in this city rental projects are not up kept well.
8. Who is going to build this project. As they are talking a 5-6 year build out. That will be 3000 bodies trades people commuting from the valley.\
9. Where is the 3 billion coming from that is needed
10. what will this site be like in 25 years if the economy collapses. Will the city buy it for a $1 like the Belmoral
11. The huge LED signs that will be on both sides of the bridge.

These are a few points that make me wonder.

That's some remarkable FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) for a large but not unprecedented redevelopment project.

[cairnstone]

[QUOTE=SFUVancouver;8741198]That's some remarkable FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) for a large but not unprecedented redevelopment project.[/QUOTE

Has anything close to this been built in Canada. This is 7 times larger than Olympic village which also put the developer in bankruptcy and left the city taking over.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by cairnstone

Has anything close to this been built in Canada. This is 7 times larger than Olympic village which also put the developer in bankruptcy and left the city taking over.

In the case of OV, the city went with a developer with a questionable record because they offered the most for the land, then the great recession dried up credit worldwide.

I'm not saying that can't happen again, but it was a perfect storm.

In this case, the land doesn't even cost money, and we have a more well respected developer putting the proposal forward. Private capital looking to make a nice return will be lining up to invest in this.

Your list of concerns is laughable.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by cairnstone

Has anything close to this been built in Canada. This is 7 times larger than Olympic village which also put the developer in bankruptcy and left the city taking over.

To be fair, the 2008 recession put Millennium in bankruptcy because its financier Fortress Capital had a liquidity crises and stopped all scheduled construction payments. The City took over because it still technically owned the land and was obligated to deliver the Olympic Village on time.

The OV had about 1,200 units, so perhaps this project is five times larger in terms of unit count, not "7 times".

But despite the building heights and tight site, this is a far, far less complicated project: (i) no Olympic deadline and complicated ownership situation stymieing conventional financing and requiring single-phase construction; (ii) no 2:1 replacement obligation for red-lined shoreline disturbance that resulted in the creation of an island; (iii) no precedent-setting environmental performance, including district energy and naturalized stormwater management; and (iv) not a City of Vancouver-based 'large development' project, requiring Council Policy Statement and Official Development Plan on top of rezoning.

Originally Posted by cairnstone

Has anything close to this been built in Canada.

Are you for real?

The Amazing Brentwood has 6,000+ units under construction and in the pipeline, plus almost 4M sqft of commercial space. Concord CityPlace and its 7,500 units comes to mind, too. My goodness, The City of Lougheed has 10,000 units planned!

[GenWhy?]

[QUOTE=cairnstone;8741209]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

That's some remarkable FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) for a large but not unprecedented redevelopment project.[/QUOTE

Has anything close to this been built in Canada. This is 7 times larger than Olympic village which also put the developer in bankruptcy and left the city taking over.

How is this 7 times larger?

[logan5]

This development as proposed is unprecedented when you look at the density. 6000 units over 4.7 hectares is insanely dense. That's close to 2000 people per hectare. The West End is 220 people per hectare. Pretty sure nothing in Canada comes close to this level of density.

[cov]

Most of kits is complete crap, an utter disgrace to the amazing amenities surrounding it. Ample of beachfront park, a great community center, directly adjacent downtown view, 10 minutes away from the densest business district in BC, kits could be one the best neighborhoods in Canada but instead its a retirement town of dilapidated walkups and less than 10 decent restaurants.

So glad this is happening. I hope they block as much view cones as physically possible