HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Metro Vancouver & the Fraser Valley


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2741  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2024, 12:41 PM
kja384 kja384 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2023
Posts: 230
An old development at 10662 King George Boulevard was listed for sale yesterday. Owners are the same ones that have a 50 & 46 storey tower approved near the rec center. The large development with several towers at 13317 KGB was also briefly listed, unsure if it was sold.
https://www.collierscanada.com/en-ca/pro...7-whalley-boulevard-surrey-bc/can2015656

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2742  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2024, 9:32 PM
jollyburger jollyburger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 15,586


Quote:
AimForce Development Hit By 3 Foreclosures, Including 67-Storey Surrey Project

Three properties across Metro Vancouver that were owned by a developer called AimForce Development Group are currently the subject of ongoing foreclosure proceedings, according to court filings in the Supreme Court of British Columbia obtained by STOREYS.

The three properties consist of 10227 King George Boulevard in Surrey, 541 Clarke Road in Coquitlam, and 3771 No. 3 Road and 3791 No. 3 Road in Richmond.
https://storeys.com/aimforce-development-group-foreclosures/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2743  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2024, 9:36 PM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant - The New Downtown South
Posts: 8,134
How did they come up with "AimForce". What a strange name.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2744  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2024, 9:45 PM
kja384 kja384 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2023
Posts: 230
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2745  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2024, 7:47 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,980
Not sure what this one is called its on 101 and 139 next to Odyssey Towers

PXL_20240719_033412061 by snub_you, on Flickr

PXL_20240719_033406106 by snub_you, on Flickr
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2746  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2024, 2:19 PM
kja384 kja384 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2023
Posts: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post
Not sure what this one is called its on 101 and 139 next to Odyssey Towers
That would be Centra

https://www.biv.com/news/real-estate/surrey-condo-tower-developer-defends-substantial-delay-8271949
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2747  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2024, 7:04 PM
Spr0ckets Spr0ckets is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by kja384 View Post
That article seems to be less about Davidson Guo and more about his business partner, Kevin Sun.

And yes, he is a very "interesting" character.
Reading about the tawdry and 'wild wild west'-ish nature of the local real estate industry of the mid-2000's to 2010's era when that article was written, it's not surprsing to find now that a company he's (Guo) connected today to is facing foreclosure.

I hope the project and the site get bought out by a more established developer and it gets built on some level (it will probably be nothing like that even if it gets built by someone else, especially with that considerably office podium in today's market)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2748  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2024, 3:06 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 17,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyburger View Post
Okay, the loss of this one pisses me off.

Surrey’s skyline is starting to look good, and is getting some decent height, but I’ve been hoping for some time now that at least one of the taller 200m+ projects will get off the ground to add a decent pinnacle (or two).

Sadly every such project seems to be either endlessly reworked in the proposal phase, forever on the shelf as essentially a rezoning exercise or fantasy, or outright cancelled, such as this one.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/30634635@N03/with/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0_0h9qKlhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2749  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2024, 4:47 AM
kja384 kja384 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2023
Posts: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
Okay, the loss of this one pisses me off.

Surrey’s skyline is starting to look good, and is getting some decent height, but I’ve been hoping for some time now that at least one of the taller 200m+ projects will get off the ground to add a decent pinnacle (or two).

Sadly every such project seems to be either endlessly reworked in the proposal phase, forever on the shelf as essentially a rezoning exercise or fantasy, or outright cancelled, such as this one.
I don't know if Aimforce defaulting is necessarily a bad thing, a "developer" went and created an assembly and got a nice building approved. I am hopeful that a reputable developer ends up purchasing this and we end up actually seeing something go up on the lot. I didn't really have any faith in Aimforce actually executing this development, even their original partner Westland has very little highrise experience.

An issue is the required office space that will be required for this tower due to the location, and the state of the office market. Century Group's 3rd tower near KGH is going to the Advisory Design Panel on the 22nd and they've completely removed the office component for rentals.

The building by Marcon directly west has a sales center currently under construction and there was a lot of interest when the lot was for sale, hopefully we see the same here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2750  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2024, 6:58 AM
Spr0ckets Spr0ckets is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by kja384 View Post
I don't know if Aimforce defaulting is necessarily a bad thing, a "developer" went and created an assembly and got a nice building approved. I am hopeful that a reputable developer ends up purchasing this and we end up actually seeing something go up on the lot. I didn't really have any faith in Aimforce actually executing this development, even their original partner Westland has very little highrise experience.

An issue is the required office space that will be required for this tower due to the location, and the state of the office market. Century Group's 3rd tower near KGH is going to the Advisory Design Panel on the 22nd and they've completely removed the office component for rentals.

The building by Marcon directly west has a sales center currently under construction and there was a lot of interest when the lot was for sale, hopefully we see the same here.

It's possible a new developer or purchaser of the project could still convert most of that office space into hotel and that way it would still fit into the zoning requirements of that location.

And Surrey, like most cities, is in dire need of hotel space.

They wouldn't even need to majorly change the design of the current proposal to achieve that.
You would think (or hope) that this is too prime a location for this development to remain stalled for too long before a new buyer picks it up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2751  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2024, 3:19 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,980
can a buyer pick it up and construct what was going to be? as is? basically or would they have to propose something different?
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2752  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2024, 4:32 AM
Spr0ckets Spr0ckets is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post
can a buyer pick it up and construct what was going to be? as is? basically or would they have to propose something different?
No, a new buyer can buy the site and the proposed project and build it as is.
Or if they want they could modify it and submit a DP Amendment to get the new design approved and build that instead.

Likewise they could buy it and start from scratch again and submit and entirely new design, but they would have to get back to the back of the line again (but probably not from Rezoning, but rather a new Design Permit).
This option obviously takes more time and pushes the project timeline several months if not years back.

Anthem did the first option when they bought the site at Marlborough ave. in Metrotown from Accorde Properties who had already submitted not just the Design Permit application, but had gone all they way to having a building permit granted.
The only thing Anthem changed was the project type from Rental to Strata.
But the tower (now known as 'Ethos') is exactly the same.....more or less....in form, height and every other feature as what had been submitted and accepted by the city.
Maybe they changed some of the finishes, and the unit mix and types, but it wasn't that much of a deviation from what was already approved.

Ditto their Southyards project in Brentwood, which is essentially the same as it was when they bought that site and project from Aoyuan who went belly up.

This is even actually an actual business model for some developers who will buy a site or consolidate several, get a rezoning approved for a highrise tower, and even submit an application for a design permit, without ever having the intention of building it, and then when the DP is granted, they sell the site and the project for a profit to another developer who doesn't have to go through the whole process again and can go straight to getting a Building permit and getting it built without the long wait. That's why you'll see a developer like Anthem taking the punt on projects like these where the original developer went bankrupt or ir facing foreclosure, but who had everything in place to get a project built but no longer have the liquidity to do so, and Anthem with their experience can get the wheels moving and the project built much faster than if they had originally bought the original lots and started the project from point zero.

I suspect much the same will happen to this site - with the exception of most of that podium either getting converted from office use to hotel (which would still fit the zoning for tha Central Surrey zone) thanks to the current market, or possibly reduced somewhat and maybe replaced with some rental in the tower instead. Both of those options would take much less time than if they wanted to submit something entirely new, which is weeks and months of going through the whole process all over again.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2753  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2024, 11:56 PM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,980
ok thanks for the answer. I was looking forward to this one as is.
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2754  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2024, 2:20 AM
CoryHolmes CoryHolmes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,031
The demolition of the low-rise townhomes on 105 has begun. Bristol Estates, I think? The first driveway has been fenced off, there's a bobcat and some Port-a-John's onsite, and a demo company has their logo on the fence.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2755  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2024, 7:01 PM
Lexus's Avatar
Lexus Lexus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Vancouver | BC | Canada
Posts: 2,741
2024, Sep 2

132St & 105Ave

Untitled by Lexus LX, on Flickr

132St & 104 Ave

Untitled by Lexus LX, on Flickr

Melrose, 10333 133St
Looks nearly cdompleted

Untitled by Lexus LX, on Flickr

Untitled by Lexus LX, on Flickr

City Centre 4

Untitled by Lexus LX, on Flickr

Untitled by Lexus LX, on Flickr

Komma King George

Untitled by Lexus LX, on Flickr

Untitled by Lexus LX, on Flickr

Untitled by Lexus LX, on Flickr

Belvedere

Untitled by Lexus LX, on Flickr

Untitled by Lexus LX, on Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2756  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2024, 10:34 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 41,487
Nice update, thanks!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2757  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2024, 1:28 AM
kja384 kja384 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2023
Posts: 230
Really appreciate you for all the pictures you take Lexus!

Bosa has submitted a new proposal for their Bristol Estates project. Overall density is the same, main difference is 5 towers + 1 midrise to just 5 towers, larger podiums (midrise density absorbed into larger podiums), more units, and some commercial space.

https://www.surrey.ca/sites/default/files/planning-reports/PLR_7920-0304-00.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2758  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2024, 2:18 AM
GMasterAres GMasterAres is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 3,114
Maybe someone that is a lot smarter than me can explain what the deal is with all new developments having these wavey curvy roads in the middle instead of just straight? It just seems to me like it would be more expensive to build and from a pedestrian/cycling perspective annoying to navigate.

Is it something to do with thinking it slows vehicles down because I thought that was mainly done by narrower roads not making them all curvey.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2759  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2024, 3:57 AM
seamusmcduff seamusmcduff is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 621
As someone who had some involvement in the previous iteration of this project, there was a few reasons.

The first was that it would create visual interest and site lines down the street. But the second, and real reason is that Surrey requires 50 m tower spacing in their urban design guidelines, and the best way to achieve this (taking the surrounding proposals into consideration) was to curve the road, to give the required space to the central tower. Surrey does allow some leeway to the 50m requirement, but it was needed to keep the spacing in that ballpark.

I don't think it would have been done otherwise, as it does end up meaning that more land is dedicated to the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2760  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2024, 6:14 PM
Greetingsfromcanada Greetingsfromcanada is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by seamusmcduff View Post
As someone who had some involvement in the previous iteration of this project, there was a few reasons.

The first was that it would create visual interest and site lines down the street. But the second, and real reason is that Surrey requires 50 m tower spacing in their urban design guidelines, and the best way to achieve this (taking the surrounding proposals into consideration) was to curve the road, to give the required space to the central tower. Surrey does allow some leeway to the 50m requirement, but it was needed to keep the spacing in that ballpark.

I don't think it would have been done otherwise, as it does end up meaning that more land is dedicated to the city.
Much like with "towers in the park", this is going to end up with an urban form that feels empty and is bothersome to navigate. We've not found a single type of highrise planning that's more appealing than a simple grid. We really need to put the absurdity of "urban planning" to bed and go back to what we already know works
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Metro Vancouver & the Fraser Valley
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:03 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.