The Vancouver Business Thread

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

How in the blue helll did you come up with that conclusion?

"If they (Parq) comes up with a plan and it fails, its 100% on them. BUT, if you put on stifling restrictions on a proposal, then you played a role in its demise."

Pretty much every condo proposal has to be modified by the city to get through. If it fails, it's the fault of the city now for not letting it go to its full scale and potential.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The same Plaza of Nations they were relocating the casino from? The only empty space there was the parking lot, and that isn't much bigger than the BC Place site.

The Edgewater more or less was built to its original size. It's the additional space that got nixed by the City.

The Plaza of Nations itself is intended to be demo'ed anyways, so the Casino and some of the restaurant and hotel portions (and I guess a convention centre) could go to the Parking Lot and then they could build the rest after the demolition of the existing site for form a super-casino.

Plus, it'd be on the waterfront.

Though... I'm pretty sure Parq could have gotten denser without breaking into any viewcones, (making it more consistently 14-15 stories towards BC Place) so...

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The Plaza of Nations itself is intended to be demo'ed anyways, so the Casino and some of the restaurant and hotel portions (and I guess a convention centre) could go to the Parking Lot and then they could build the rest after the demolition of the existing site for form a super-casino.

Plus, it'd be on the waterfront.

Though... I'm pretty sure Parq could have gotten denser without breaking into any viewcones, (making it more consistently 14-15 stories towards BC Place) so...

But that's 2020 and beyond; Parq was trying to start in 2011 and likely didn't want to wait around for the NEFC plan to finalize.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

But that's 2020 and beyond; Parq was trying to start in 2011 and likely didn't want to wait around for the NEFC plan to finalize.

For businesses to thrive, there can always be exceptions. Just need willing parties and decision makers with a strong backbone. Redtape can be eliminated or the process shortened to ensure legit businesses succeed.

Funny how the very very strict Viewcones can be broken once the City decided to demo the viaducts and need more density to help pay for it.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The waterfront/Plaza of Nations proposal.


(1)So every failed condo project is Vancouver's fault now for its regulations. Brilliant.


(2)The fact they genuinely expected the DTES to become Gastown 2.0 overnight is their fault. Even with a major concerted effort to gentrify the area, it still would have taken time- lots of time. People still think Whalley's a haven of homeless and crime.


They couldn't build on the Canadian Metropolitan Properties site on the Plaza of Nations?

Also, the province in this case had the final word (it was on Pavco's land). The Casino was still built to close to its original size, even though the number of slot machines and tables were reduced.

Of course, that's assuming they're allowed to, I guess. Concord might try to sue again like what happened when the city decided to sell some of its Pacific Place to other developers, along with Canadian Metropolitan Properties themselves over co-development disputes.

(1) What are you talking about??! Of course not! But the one concerning Parq: the City has a huge part to play with its demise.

(2) The way they tried to gentrify DTES was half-hearted. They basically allowed Woodwards to be redone: that was good. Then they encouraged the surrounding heritage buildings around Woodwards to be redone: that was also good. And it ended there. Gentrification stopped right at Abbott street and stopped moving east basically to pander to the NGOs, and Vision left the area to rot. There was no major clean-up effort to constantly eradicate the street chaos, and vandalism is always tolerated without a concerted effort by the City to fix and maintain things there. The area is always left in a state of filth and remain stinky at all times. Very little presence of beat cops around to prevent crime from happening. Therefore I'm not surprised businesses are not doing so well, or even suffering around there.

You should know that Whalley is improving by quite a bit: recently the City succeeded in moving the camped out folks at Surrey strip to shelters, modular housing north if City Hall. The area around City Hall continues to improve, and maintenance of public places has been pretty good so far, unlike DTES.

Mid 2018:
https://globalnews.ca/news/4286465/whalley-strip-housing-homeless/
Early 2019:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c...s-surrey-homeless-step-forward-1.5034821

It's not perfect and there are still problems, but at least Surrey is taking aggressive steps to deal with this scourge. We call that progress, and businesses will take note of that.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

(1) What are you talking about??! Of course not! But the one concerning Parq: the City has a huge part to play with its demise.

Reports of Parq's demise have been greatly exaggerated.

https://vancouversun.com/business/local-...nces-debt-and-secures-new-equity-partner

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Reports of Parq's demise have been greatly exaggerated.

https://vancouversun.com/business/local-...nces-debt-and-secures-new-equity-partner

Not saying they are broke, but they won't have to deal with such financial difficulties if they had a better start. Parq is still debt-ridden, except they have succeeded in bringing new partners to share the burden now.

When we hear that even a cash-cow business like a casino is bleeding money, we know something is fundamentally wrong.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

Not saying they are broke, but they won't have to deal with such financial difficulties if they had a better start. Parq is still debt-ridden, except they have succeeded in bringing new partners to share the burden now.

When we hear that even a cash-cow business like a casino is bleeding money, we know something is fundamentally wrong.

You used the word demise...

But yes, you have to have Donald Trump level bad management to go bankrupt running a casino. Parq clearly overextended themselves in the construction process.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by fredinno

"If they (Parq) comes up with a plan and it fails, its 100% on them. BUT, if you put on stifling restrictions on a proposal, then you played a role in its demise."

Pretty much every condo proposal has to be modified by the city to get through. If it fails, it's the fault of the city now for not letting it go to its full scale and potential.

.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

If the city was to say that they are against the construction of condo anywhere in Vancouver, then yes, that would be more similar to this case. They were outright hostile towards the casino proposal from day 1. If it wasn't for the provincial government, nothing at all would have been built. That's the difference.
Condo developers can pretty much build anywhere they want in the downtown peninsula, as long as they follow pre-existing rules and guidelines. The casino bid enjoyed no such luck. The city was openly against the proposal (in fact in the articles posted, they came out against the very idea of ANY casino project, regardless of size or scope). So again, totally different circumstances.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

For businesses to thrive, there can always be exceptions. Just need willing parties and decision makers with a strong backbone. Redtape can be eliminated or the process shortened to ensure legit businesses succeed.

Funny how the very very strict Viewcones can be broken once the City decided to demo the viaducts and need more density to help pay for it.

The height allowance comes with the stipulation of being a rental-only tower. Hardly lucrative.

The casino ended up having a very vocal opposition; if it were all about redevelopment money, they'd have automatically greenlighted it.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

(1)The height allowance comes with the stipulation of being a rental-only tower. Hardly lucrative.

The casino ended up having a very vocal opposition; (2)if it were all about redevelopment money, they'd have automatically greenlighted it.

(1) Again, artificial constraints which are unnecessary for the downtown environment which stifle growths.

(2) Knowing this City, that's not always true. "The biggest" or "the tallest" always scares the local folks in almost everything.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

(1) Again, artificial constraints which are unnecessary for the downtown environment which stifle growths.

(2) Knowing this City, that's not always true. "The biggest" or "the tallest" always scares the local folks in almost everything.

Or rather, the City needs to balance civic and economic growth against affordability, sustainability and aesthetics. It must be nice to only have to care about "biggest and tallest."

[misher]

Originally Posted by Vin

(1) Again, artificial constraints which are unnecessary for the downtown environment which stifle growths.

(2) Knowing this City, that's not always true. "The biggest" or "the tallest" always scares the local folks in almost everything.

Biggest and tallest is generally great for tourism though. That revolving restaurant downtown is a great attraction. I wish we could have a nice commercial 60+floor tower to show off. We need more tourist attractions.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Or rather, the City needs to balance civic and economic growth against affordability, sustainability and aesthetics. It must be nice to only have to care about "biggest and tallest."

Vancouver only has one downtown. Let us have some fun proposing something extraordinary. What's wrong with that? It's not like there will be multiple 80-storey towers form Boundary to UBC. You can have your "smallest and shortest" in all other "villages" within the City. I promise I won't frown on you. You can choose to stay there all you want if 60 to 80-storey towers offend you so much.

Originally Posted by misher

Biggest and tallest is generally great for tourism though. That revolving restaurant downtown is a great attraction. I wish we could have a nice commercial 60+floor tower to show off. We need more tourist attractions.

Can't say I disagree with your statements!

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

Vancouver only has one downtown. Let us have some fun proposing something extraordinary. What's wrong with that? It's not like there will be multiple 80-storey towers form Boundary to UBC. You can have your "smallest and shortest" in all other "villages" within the City. I promise I won't frown on you. You can choose to stay there all you want if 60 to 80-storey towers offend you so much.

And that's your problem. Parq is the largest casino in Western Canada and the Pacific Northwest; PavCo gets 43 storeys' worth of rentals despite heavy opposition; both join the rest of the skyline as one of the densest downtowns in the Western hemisphere, despite less than a million souls living within it. All of that is too "small and short" to you, because you don't care about the city or its already rapid growth or its contraints, you just want a big, shiny Forza background Right. This. Instant.

Conversely, perhaps you'd prefer moving to the UAE? Plenty of megatowers, plenty of malls, plenty of highways, and nobody bothering with useless trivialities like sidewalks or greenery or sewers or basic urban planning - they just build, build, build.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Conversely, perhaps you'd prefer moving to the UAE? Plenty of megatowers, plenty of malls, plenty of highways, and nobody bothering with useless trivialities like sidewalks or greenery or sewers or basic urban planning - they just build, build, build.

...You clearly haven't been to the UAE as Dubai has an automated skytrain system along with plenty of walkable neighbourhoods, extensive gardens, working sewers (surprise!), and it has a huge international academic (specializing in computer and medical sciences) community that chooses to anchor themselves in Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

Migrant, you've made better posts in the past. Talking down another city (of which you dead-wrong about) is no way to achieve a demonstration of your view.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by scryer

...You clearly haven't been to the UAE as Dubai has an automated skytrain system along with plenty of walkable neighbourhoods, extensive gardens, working sewers (surprise!), and it has a huge international academic (specializing in computer and medical sciences) community that chooses to anchor themselves in Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

Migrant, you've made better posts in the past. Talking down another city (of which you dead-wrong about) is no way to achieve a demonstration of your view.

Yes and no. I'll cede the gardens, but modern Dubai itself is almost entirely based along highways. Downtown is basically just a bunch of towers lined up along a twelve-lane with a few overpasses - very little non-MV accessibility, even for the metro stations. Much of the city is superblocks full of mansions and cul-de-sacs and empty sites with no apparent planning at all. The sewers were only added literally a few years ago - in the decades before that, sewage was carted out in giant truck convoys.

Both it and modern Abu Dhabi (much the same, barely has even a bus network) started as vanity projects for rich oil sheiks, and many parts of both cities are still like that. But hey, supertalls and shopping centres, so a certain poster would be right at home.

EDIT: I think you're thinking of Bur Dubai, the "old" district beside modern Dubai. That's definitely a liveable city; the monstrosity next to it, not so much.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

EDIT: I think you're thinking of Bur Dubai, the "old" district beside modern Dubai. That's definitely a liveable city; the monstrosity next to it, not so much.

I have actually lived in both for the last 5 years. I know exactly what I'm thinking and talking about. Twist someone else's words.

Speaking of the UAE, let's talk about Vancouver.

[trofirhen]

Given that this is the Business Thread, and that retail is a large part of that, I'd like to talk about making our shopping streets classier, better lit, and more inviting and elegant.
Alberni Street - the 'Rodeo Drive' of Vancouver - could benefit so much if things like that ugly telephone pole outside PRADA were removed, ground-level lighting installed, and such.
This may seem inappropriate for the Business Thread, but I don't think it is. People are more likely to say "I bought it in Vancouver!" if the city presents itself as a classy place to shop.
The ambience, the look, the feel, all of these act on people SUBCONSCIOUSLY and alter their frame of mind. // Presbyterian utilitarianism has served the city well, but we have to move on.
Mid-level lighting, elegantly designed sidewalks (think Bloor Street, TO), mini parks and squares, a certain design cohesion to the central city, will all add up to lull people into spending money.
^This, of course, is only my opinion. Others will disagree and say that it's all fine as it, but I still think that business and aesthetics fuse together more than we know.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

And that's your problem. Parq is the largest casino in Western Canada and the Pacific Northwest; PavCo gets 43 storeys' worth of rentals despite heavy opposition; both join the rest of the skyline as one of the densest downtowns in the Western hemisphere, despite less than a million souls living within it. All of that is too "small and short" to you, because you don't care about the city or its already rapid growth or its contraints, you just want a big, shiny Forza background Right. This. Instant.

Conversely, perhaps you'd prefer moving to the UAE? Plenty of megatowers, plenty of malls, plenty of highways, and nobody bothering with useless trivialities like sidewalks or greenery or sewers or basic urban planning - they just build, build, build.

So?

I'd rather some of the stuff in the UAE can be brought here.

Population of Dubai = 3.1mil
Population of Metro Van = 2.8 mil

So what's your point?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

So?

I'd rather some of the stuff in the UAE can be brought here.

Population of Dubai = 3.1mil
Population of Metro Van = 2.8 mil

So what's your point?

Dubai:
City population, 3.1M
Metro population, 5.6M
Tourism revenue, $27B+ per year

Vancouver:
City population, 0.67M
Metro population, 2.4M
Tourism revenue, $4.8B per year

So in about twenty-ish years when we're almost two-thirds as big as Dubai and maybe have a third of their tourism industry, we can most definitely think about bigger tourist trap-sized malls and casinos and megatowers. Parq and Pacific Centre and Metrotown and our existing rapid growth suit us just fine in the meantime.