601 Beach Crescent | 166m | 56 Fl | Proposed

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

Src: 2018 McMinsen and 2024 whatnext

Thanks for the update, whatnext! If its ok I have created a derived work using your photo in this 2018 to 2024 animation of this site.

Oh well, all good things to those who wait, I suppose.

What was the last thing that was on this land? It’s been empty for as long as I can remember

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

What was the last thing that was on this land? It’s been empty for as long as I can remember

I'm guessing parking lot or something for Expo 86. It was beside the Kodak Pacific Bowl.

Empty in the 1970s with some industrial buildings/storage to the south.



https://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/nst-5548

Seems like there were some single family houses next to the Seymour off-ramp during construction of the bridge in the 50s



https://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/seymour-approach

Probably some industrial as well



https://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/...of-false-creek

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

Src: 2018 McMinsen and 2024 whatnext

Thanks for the update, whatnext! If its ok I have created a derived work using your photo in this 2018 to 2024 animation of this site.

Oh well, all good things to those who wait, I suppose.

Cool!

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

What was the last thing that was on this land? It’s been empty for as long as I can remember

Originally it was developed by the Vancouver Manufacturing and Trading Company in the very early years of the city (by 1890), and by 1912 the Sullivan Fireproof Wall & Partition Co of Canada's manufacturing plant was roughly in the middle of the site, and Robertson & Hackett's Sash and Planing Mill was on the southern edge of the site (extending to the east and south as far as False Creek). Beach Avenue stopped at Granville, as the base of the wooden Granville Street Bridge blocked a route. Wallace's shipyard was also there in the early 1900s. There were still the mill's industrial buildings on the site in 1968, so they were cleared for Expo, and have been empty ever since.

]
[City of Vancouver Archives c 1902]


[City of Vancouver Archives 1920s].


[City of Vancouver Archives 1968]

[Jimbo604]

Photo src: me

Current status. Pano wide image is a bit distorted. Hard to find a decent Google Street View of it before this one 2011.

Website isn't showing content like it was in August. 601beachcondominium.ca

[griswold]

I guess that means this one isnt happening? Ridiculous that this was first proposed way back in 2018 and nothing has happened yet.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

Website isn't showing content like it was in August. 601beachcondominium.ca

That was an independent broker website promoting the project.

601beach.com goes to https://www.pinnacleinternational.ca...ities/601Beach

Seems like it's 2029 completion now?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

That was an independent broker website promoting the project.

601beach.com goes to https://www.pinnacleinternational.ca...ities/601Beach

Seems like it's 2029 completion now?

Wasn't there a drop dead date with the city coming up though?

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Wasn't there a drop dead date with the city coming up though?

November but it's already been extended once so it's not much of a drop dead date.

[svlt]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

That was an independent broker website promoting the project.

601beach.com goes to https://www.pinnacleinternational.ca...ities/601Beach

Seems like it's 2029 completion now?

Where did you see the new completion date referenced? Couldn't find it on any listed site.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by svlt

Where did you see the new completion date referenced? Couldn't find it on any listed site.

Just saw it referenced on a presales website but I guess most of them still have 2027/2028

https://vancouverpresaleslistings.co...ies/601-beach/

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

November but it's already been extended once so it's not much of a drop dead date.

Didn't it give the city the chance to get the site back for $20 mil? They should push for it. I know SSPers have no love for cityhallwatch but the terms of this deal sounds like yet another sweetheart deal for the developer:


...Basics of the deal

The City structured the terms of the sale to provide free financing to Pinnacle, and to lock in a land value established in 2016 for an indeterminate number of years. The initial payment at the time of sale was only $20 million, about 16% of the total price of $124 million. The balance, about $104 million, is to be paid at some point in the future, basically at a time of the developer’s choosing. The City’s current (and at the time of sale) Director of Real Estate Services, Jerry Evans, has confirmed via e-mail to this author that no interest is being charged, and that there is no provision for adjusting the land price in response to years having passed since the sale in 2016.

Similar pattern to Little Mountain/Holborn deal

The terms of the City’s sale of this site in 2016 under mayor Gregor Robertson are reminiscent of the Province’s sale in 2008 of the Little Mountain social housing site to Holborn Properties. That sale was priced at $334 million, of which $211 million was structured as an interest-free loan to Holborn until 2026.

Whether intentionally or otherwise, the Little Mountain and 601 Beach sales both provided an incentive for purchasers to delay development and resulted in the sites remaining vacant for years. (See “B.C. government gave developer $211M interest-free loan in Little Mountain land sale,” Jeremy Allingham, CBC, 31-Aug-2021)...

https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/...-vacant-still/

[Spr0ckets]

I seem to recall that it was indeed a sweetheart deal for the developer and in addition to the extensions allowing them to delay getting a start on development and not accruing any interest on repaying the remainder of the balance of the sales price.

If I'm not mistaken, didn't they also get that sale for lower than the site's actual assessed value at the time - or lower than it would have been had it been in the open market?

The city got a lot of criticism for that deal, and probably rightly so.

And these delays seem to be vindicating those criticisms.

At the current pace, the land on the old Granville bridge loops might get developed and built up before anything happens on this site.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

I seem to recall that it was indeed a sweetheart deal for the developer and in addition to the extensions allowing them to delay getting a start on development and not accruing any interest on repaying the remainder of the balance of the sales price.

If I'm not mistaken, didn't they also get that sale for lower than the site's actuall assessed value at the time - or lower than it would have been had it been in the open market?

The city got a lot of criticism for that deal, and probably rightly so.

And these delays seem to be vindicating those criticisms.

At the current pace, the land on the old Granville bridge loops might get developed and built up before anything happens on this site.

it just boggles my mind that governments keep entering into these deals. Want to know one more reason why housing costs are so high? Because governments keep transferring the risk of building from the developer to the taxpayer with shitty deals like this. There's no incentive for the developer to proceed quickly and add units to the market.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

it just boggles my mind that governments keep entering into these deals. Want to know one more reason why housing costs are so high? Because governments keep transferring the risk of building from the developer to the taxpayer with shitty deals like this. There's no incentive for the developer to proceed quickly and add units to the market.

I realise your life's work for the past 15 years is to post 23,000 comments, mostly about development in Vancouver, with an apparent target of at least 90% negative and/or critical of developers, planners, architects, engineers and politicians.

This comment follows the same pattern. The deal the City of Vancouver struck with Pinnacle is quite different from the BC Liberal deal with Holborn. Little Mountain had no break clause, so Holborn have been able to sit on the site for years, without building anything, or even obtaining any permits. Pinnacle had to get a rezoning (that took a while as the design was refined, while the pandemic slowed most development applications). They submitted their subsequent development application in 2021, and it was approved in 2022. They then set up a sales office and started to try to pre-sell the condos.

As you gleefully point out in the context of other projects, changes to foreign ownership, vacant homes taxes and removing short term rentals have all reduced demand for strata units, while interest rates rose significantly to reduce inflation. So new condo sales have been slower, and some developers have switched to rental. Here, that wouldn't work, because the sale of the strata tower has to cover the price of the land purchase, and the construction of the 152 non market homes to be given to the City of Vancouver as part of the CAC.

Maybe Pinnacle will be unable to sell enough units to get financing to develop the tower. The City pay them back the $20m deposit, and get the site back. Pinnacle are out of pocket on the design and permit fees, and the taxes they've been paying every year. The City get a site back that probably wouldn't get developed for years, with no tax revenue coming back to them, and no prospect of any affordable housing on the site for the foreseeable future. How is that not a worse prospect for Vancouver taxpayers?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I realise your life's work for the past 15 years is to post 23,000 comments, mostly about development in Vancouver, with an apparent target of at least 90% negative and/or critical of developers, planners, architects, engineers and politicians.

This comment follows the same pattern. The deal the City of Vancouver struck with Pinnacle is quite different from the BC Liberal deal with Holborn. Little Mountain had no break clause, so Holborn have been able to sit on the site for years, without building anything, or even obtaining any permits. Pinnacle had to get a rezoning (that took a while as the design was refined, while the pandemic slowed most development applications). They submitted their subsequent development application in 2021, and it was approved in 2022. They then set up a sales office and started to try to pre-sell the condos.

As you gleefully point out in the context of other projects, changes to foreign ownership, vacant homes taxes and removing short term rentals have all reduced demand for strata units, while interest rates rose significantly to reduce inflation. So new condo sales have been slower, and some developers have switched to rental. Here, that wouldn't work, because the sale of the strata tower has to cover the price of the land purchase, and the construction of the 152 non market homes to be given to the City of Vancouver as part of the CAC.

Maybe Pinnacle will be unable to sell enough units to get financing to develop the tower. The City pay them back the $20m deposit, and get the site back. Pinnacle are out of pocket on the design and permit fees, and the taxes they've been paying every year. The City get a site back that probably wouldn't get developed for years, with no tax revenue coming back to them, and no prospect of any affordable housing on the site for the foreseeable future. How is that not a worse prospect for Vancouver taxpayers?

While I realize your training as a planner no doubt included learning to bow and scrape to developers, there’s no disguising this was a shitty deal. David Eby’s blown a $5 billion hole in this years finances alone. Acquiring this site from the city and building social housing be chump change. But our supposed socialist leader is quite happy to deal out breaks rather than build the housing.

[Changing City]

duplicate

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

While I realize your training as a planner no doubt included learning to bow and scrape to developers, there’s no disguising this was a shitty deal. David Eby’s blown a $5 billion hole in this years finances alone. Acquiring this site from the city and building social housing be chump change. But our supposed socialist leader is quite happy to deal out breaks rather than build the housing.

Little Mountain was a shitty deal. This one wasn't, although it remains to be seen if it can leverage over 150 social housing units on the site.

You want The Provincial Government to buy the site to build social housing? As well as the three ex-Concord sites they're already funding in the same area? And the multiple sites they are currently funding in the DTES, and those they're planning to develop in the future like the Balmoral site, and the Salvation Army temple site? BC Housing have contributed to thousands of units in the City of Vancouver, outside Downtown as well as near this site. Why would you want them to add an expensive site where the private sector could deliver the social housing as part of a condo tower project?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Little Mountain was a shitty deal. This one wasn't, although it remains to be seen if it can leverage over 150 social housing units on the site.

You want The Provincial Government to buy the site to build social housing? As well as the three ex-Concord sites they're already funding in the same area? And the multiple sites they are currently funding in the DTES, and those they're planning to develop in the future like the Balmoral site, and the Salvation Army temple site? BC Housing have contributed to thousands of units in the City of Vancouver, outside Downtown as well as near this site. Why would you want them to add an expensive site where the private sector could deliver the social housing as part of a condo tower project?

Yes they’re supposed to build social housing next door. So? Aren’t we in a housing crisis? Don’t we need all we can get.

You seem to think developers are avuncular Father Christmas figures, kindly doling out social housing for free. They’re not. The cost of building those units will be rolled into the price of every market unit in that building. Thus dragging condo prices upward. Developers are business people. There’s nothing wrong with that but don’t expect them to build social housing for nothing.

[whatnext]

Just one panel of hoarding left up all around this site. The rest seems to have disappeared over the summer.

[IMG]IMG_2288 by bcborn, on Flickr[/IMG]
my photo