The Ultimate Vancouver Rumour Thread!

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Vantage

Wow the number of these view cones that are now obstructed by foliage. Good that they want to get rid of some that don't make any sense.

The viewcones that are completely blocked now by trees and leaves are so laughably ridiculous and show just how comical the entire exercise is and has been.

Along with the ones that have been preserving views of the sprawl going up the foot of the mountains in North Van.

No one is ever going to build a 500 or 800m tall tower that will even come close to obstructing the views of the mountain peaks from anywhere in the city, so what even is the point in most of these?

Good thing too that they want to get rid of the ones on the bridges ....certainly the Cambie bridge ones.
Like, who's stopping in the middle of the bridge to enjoy a sight of City Hall or the mountains in the middle of all that traffic whizzing past?
Most people using the bridge are strictly trying to get from literal point A to literal point B.

[Migrant_Coconut]

It's ridiculous how many of these are biased toward either drivers or Fairview/False Creek South locals. There's good views from the Fir off-ramp and the East Van cross, and those are getting redeveloped without incident.

[Vantage]

So many people commenting about this on the Vancouver subreddit don't seem to actually read the report and are crying about how we wont be able to see the mountains at all anymore.

I lost too many braincells reading the comments on that post.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Good thing too that they want to get rid of the ones on the bridges ....certainly the Cambie bridge ones.
Like, who's stopping in the middle of the bridge to enjoy a sight of City Hall or the mountains in the middle of all that traffic whizzing past?
Most people using the bridge are strictly trying to get from literal point A to literal point B.

But even then most of those viewcones are protected by the fact there's an eight lane road going down to the waterfront. At least a lot of people get to see those views versus views like Choklit Park that get used 10 times a day?

Jonathan Rogers Park has one of the most expensive views of the mountains but are they going to stick a view cone there and limit everything below it to the existing 3-4 stories?

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by Vantage

So many people commenting about this on the Vancouver subreddit...

Protip: Reddit's for people who never touch grass because they are so established in their armchair. Don't interact with it.

[madog222]

I've consolidated the existing threads on the Waterfront Hub (CoV most recently called it the Central Waterfront District) and moved the discussion in this tread there. I placed the thread in the de facto planning sub-forum as that makes more sense than the transportation sub-forum given the scope.

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=146079

[PROSTSHOCKER]

Not sure where to put this, but 1770 Pendrell - one of Westbank's rental complexes - was unceremoniously transferred to a new owner (CAPREIT) in a surprise to residents and many employees of Westbank on the 31st. I guess the developer needed a quick buck.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by PROSTSHOCKER

Not sure where to put this, but 1770 Pendrell - one of Westbank's rental complexes - was unceremoniously transferred to a new owner (CAPREIT) in a surprise to residents and many employees of Westbank on the 31st. I guess the developer needed a quick buck.

On Thursday, the Canadian Apartment Properties Real Estate Investment Trust (CAPREIT) announced that it had completed a series of six acquisitions in Q2 2024, for a total of $387.4M.

The most expensive of those six purchases was for The Pendrell, which CAPREIT says it acquired for $137M, while assuming the existing $64.1M mortgage that has an interest rate of 3.1% per annum and an eight-year term to maturity.

The $137M price tag is higher than the BC Assessment valuation of $112,423,000.

CAPREIT did not identify the vendor, but The Pendrell is located at 1770 Pendrell Street — 1754 Pendrell Street, legally — and was developed by Westbank, who legally owned the property under 1700 Pendrell Property Inc. and 1700 Pendrell Holdings Inc. The Pendrell is a 21-storey rental building with 173 units that Westbank completed in 2019.

https://storeys.com/westbank-capreit-vancouver-pendrell-sale/

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by PROSTSHOCKER

Not sure where to put this, but 1770 Pendrell - one of Westbank's rental complexes - was unceremoniously transferred to a new owner (CAPREIT) in a surprise to residents and many employees of Westbank on the 31st. I guess the developer needed a quick buck.

Hmm, some high profile projects completing soon. Buyers walking away from completing or just increased construction costs need covering?

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Hey guys remember the Bing Thom Crystal from way back when?

Well it's back.... sorta, and in a different location.

A year and a half later:


https://www.arnomatisarchitecture.com/images/2024/projects/1380burrard.jpg


https://www.arnomatisarchitecture.com/images/2024/projects/1380burrard_01.jpg

I don't think it's going anywhere though....

[giallo]

Very cool design. Hopefully, we see this one go up, unlike its first version.

[logan5]

Too bad. Not much to get excited about these days. We have a ton of stuff coming up in the Broadway Corridor, but it's all copy/paste buildings - 20 to 35 stories, with a few 40 story towers. Even 50 story towers don't garner much attention.

Let's get our swagger back Ken, and start allowing something exciting for the downtown area (that includes Broadway). There are lots of areas outside the view cones, - west of Oak and east of Main, where we should be building signature towers that without our restrictive shadow policy, would be as tall as anything in Toronto, so we are talking upwards of 900 to 1000 feet.

Easing height restrictions would also trigger development in areas that need to be rehabilitated very badly, like the DTES.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I don't think it's going anywhere though....

As dead as Cormandal presumably.

https://storeys.com/vancouver-1380-burrard-pacific-kilborn-foreclosure/

The property doesn't seem to have sold yet.

[Feathered Friend]

‪City Duo‬ ‪@city-duo.bsky.social‬
Rumours are flying that some on city council will try to eliminate the Broadway Plan’s enhanced tenant protections (TRPP) on December 11th. This goes far further than the planned updates by city staff, & has made many in the development industry uncomfortable.

https://bsky.app/profile/city-duo.bsky.social/post/3lcebhip7oc2w

[logan5]

Why would that make the development industry uncomfortable? It would save them money.

[Feathered Friend]

In the near term, absolutely.

In the longer term, the loss of public support could make it more difficult to get projects through, or even impact the future of the plan itself.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

In the near term, absolutely.

In the longer term, the loss of public support could make it more difficult to get projects through, or even impact the future of the plan itself.

I guess it depends on how weak the city-wide tenant protection plan is in comparison. How many tenants are covered in this first initial wave of development? It seems fairly small considering the type of housing stock that is getting redeveloped?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I guess it depends on how weak the city-wide tenant protection plan is in comparison. How many tenants are covered in this first initial wave of development? It seems fairly small considering the type of housing stock that is getting redeveloped?

There are over 12,000 proposed units in about 60 projects. Not all of them have existing rental buildings on the site, but in total around 1,000 older apartments could be redeveloped. Not all of them will have existing tenants, as there's always a fairly frequent turn over, and any developer who is actually getting ready to redevelop will leave vacated units empty for a few months.

How many of the projects are going forward in the near future is obviously unknown. Only a few have been rezoned so far, and none have an approved DP yet, apart from the two on Broadway that predated the plan, at the station, and on Birch. Nobody was displaced by those towers.

The main issue would seem to be that the plan was approved on the basis of tenants understanding that if they were to be displaced, they would be temporarily rehoused and have the right to return to the new building, if they wanted to. Changing that after adoption of the plan is pretty underhanded, but some ABC members seem not to care about earlier policy, as we saw with the recent (failed) attempt to allow natural gas heating in new homes, which would have reversed an earlier decision, undermining the City's climate change policy.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The main issue would seem to be that the plan was approved on the basis of tenants understanding that if they were to be displaced, they would be temporarily rehoused and have the right to return to the new building, if they wanted to. Changing that after adoption of the plan is pretty underhanded, but some ABC members seem not to care about earlier policy, as we saw with the recent (failed) attempt to allow natural gas heating in new homes, which would have reversed an earlier decision, undermining the City's climate change policy.

Doesn't the city-wide TRPP include right of first refusal on coming back into the new building? The enhanced benefit seems to be how the average market rate is calculated so certain units could end up being several hundred dollars cheaper than their current rent.

RE: policy. I mean if that's true then you also have to live with all future dumb policy decisions by ABC being immune from revision.

The Tyee's interview with Sims before the election.

Q: Council voted to bring in protections for renters displaced by redevelopment in the Broadway Plan. Renters whose buildings are demolished for redevelopment would have the right to return to a new unit at the same rent they were paying before. Would you support extending the Broadway Plan renter protections across the entire city?

A: Extending a certain plan over the entire city — there are a lot of unintended consequences. I think we have to look at it on a case-by-case basis and see what works and make sure that people don’t fall through the cracks. And we have to make sure that whatever we do, doesn’t have a long-term, unintended consequence of actually taking more rental units out of the market.

https://thetyee.ca/News/2022/09/26/Ken-Sim-Wants-Mayor-Vancouver/

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

A year and a half later:


https://www.arnomatisarchitecture.com/images/2024/projects/1380burrard.jpg


https://www.arnomatisarchitecture.com/images/2024/projects/1380burrard_01.jpg

I don't think it's going anywhere though....

We finally get an interesting rumor, but it’s DOA. Well, moving on.