General Vancouver Development Updates II

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It's 'needs based retail, such as a grocery store'. So it could be a drugstore, which also sell groceries these days. There's no Shoppers Drug Mart in that part of the city for example, although I imagine there will be at least one drugstore as part of the campus (just as there is in VGH).

There was a grocery store included as part of the rezoning on Prior St for twin residential rental towers over offices and retail, approved to the north of the new hospital. Then, at the DP stage, the retail switched to mostly restaurant spaces, and the grocery store disappeared.

Its not really the best location for a grocery store either. You want to be able to catch commuters heading home by car also and this is on the wrong corner for that.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Double the height.



https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...peal-1.7418397

While I appreciate that many SSPers disagree, the courts gave the NDP a timely reminder that it is Premier Eby and not King David. The principle at issue here:

...Peter Gall, the coalition's lawyers, said Monday that the ruling is a "very important rule-of-law decision."

"It affirms the constitutional principle that the legislature can't take away or usurp the right of citizens to challenge governmental action," Gall said. "That's what the legislature attempted to do here with the law it passed."

The ruling said the case wasn't about whether the housing crisis "requires action or whether the proposed development should proceed" — the "sole issue" was whether the province infringed upon the role of the court....

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/court-rules-b-...onal-1.7156330

And while using that power for housing might seem innocuous there are many areas where it would not be.

[WarrenC12]

Quoting the lawyer for the NIMBYs is hardly a balanced source.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Quoting the lawyer for the NIMBYs is hardly a balanced source.

That doesn't change the principle.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

It looks like a home furniture store is moving into the old Robinson Lighting at Cambie and 7th. I guess there is no rush on that redevelopment application. Sigh.

And the time you call in a helicopter and transfer isn't that much better than a 10 minute drive (assume it's slightly faster for an ambulance) between the new SPH and VGH

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

It looks like a home furniture store is moving into the old Robinson Lighting at Cambie and 7th. I guess there is no rush on that redevelopment application. Sigh.

Home Quarters

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DD2fQ5DxKnH/

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by whatnext

While I appreciate that many SSPers disagree, the courts gave the NDP a timely reminder that it is Premier Eby and not King David. The principle at issue here:

Note this is an Olympics era law that has been repurposed on various occasions.

A proposed B.C. law would allow municipal officials to enter homes to seize unauthorized and possibly anti-Olympic signs on short notice, civil libertarians say.

Violators could be fined up to $10,000 a day and jailed up to six months, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association said Friday.

The proposed law was introduced Thursday as a bill to amend the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...group-1.786577

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It's 'needs based retail, .... So it could be a drugstore, ...

Oh, the unintended irony...

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

That doesn't change the principle.

Yeah let's just go back to the days when a minority of residents with nothing but time on their hands waste Mayor and Council's time for days and then they vote it through anyway.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Yeah let's just go back to the days when a minority of residents with nothing but time on their hands waste Mayor and Council's time for days and then they vote it through anyway.

I assume this has more to do with the legislation being used on something that was before the courts. Small victories for NIMBYs.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I assume this has more to do with the legislation being used on something that was before the courts. Small victories for NIMBYs.

Yes perhaps it was more about the timing.

[gaviscon]

20241224_111819 by globalbusinesscentre105 H, on Flickr

20241224_111846 by globalbusinesscentre105 H, on Flickr

20241224_112307 by globalbusinesscentre105 H, on Flickr

20241224_111359 by globalbusinesscentre105 H, on Flickr

20241224_111121 by globalbusinesscentre105 H, on Flickr

20241224_110937 by globalbusinesscentre105 H, on Flickr

20241224_111020 by globalbusinesscentre105 H, on Flickr

[osirisboy]

Thank you for all the updates

[Changing City]

Here's the latest installment in the VSB vs Beedie valuation of Kingsgae Mall.

Beedie took on the mall in 2005. The lease came up for renewal in 2017, and based on a valuation of $116m (at 3 FSR zoning), a 2022 tribunal (in a 2-1 split decision) said the rent VSB should receive receive should be $9.6m a year.

Beedie appealed, and a judge has now sided with the minority on the tribunal, and said the value was $20m (in 2017), based on the 1 FSR of retail that exists. That means rent payable would only be $1.65m.

The current valuation for taxation purposes is over $200m, and property taxes are over $2.18m a year, but the existing structure is only valued at $290,000.

[jollyburger]

Unless they plan to continue the legal proceedings you assume making a deal with Beedie on the redevelopment is the best option for both sides.

[logan5]

This is setting up to be the centrepiece development for Mt. Pleasant, with a very sizable retail component, and maybe a movie theatre, so let's hope things can move along here fairly soon.

This property is one where they will have to increase the allowable height in order to accommodate the FSR, and there could also be some height increase from a public space built into the project. I'm guessing there will end up being 40 plus story towers on this site.

[gaviscon]

Originally Posted by logan5

This is setting up to be the centrepiece development for Mt. Pleasant, with a very sizable retail component, and maybe a movie theatre, so let's hope things can move along here fairly soon.

This property is one where they will have to increase the allowable height in order to accommodate the FSR, and there could also be some height increase from a public space built into the project. I'm guessing there will end up being 40 plus story towers on this site.

Who knows, we might see it be proposed, rezoned, and completed even before the Safeway redevelopment at C/B breaks ground.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Unless they plan to continue the legal proceedings you assume making a deal with Beedie on the redevelopment is the best option for both sides.

That would seem logical, but the VSB would have to take a different position from their 2023 statements. Then they were wanting to sell or lease the site for redevelopment - but not to Beedie, who have 53 years left on the current lease.

The board recently agreed a 99 year lease for a rental development on another site at Sir Sandford Fleming Elementary School. For Beedie (or any other developer) to contemplate a 30 storey rental project here (that the Broadway Plan contemplates) you'd think they would want at least the same length of lease.

In the interim, the site is now assessed for taxes at $40m less than in 2022.

[jollyburger]

And it's not even that big of a site so you assume COV guidance on any rezoning will have a huge impact on getting a deal done.

Maybe they can get creative and break the lease but give Beedie full ownership of the prime corner along Kingsway and then let the school board to keep the other part of the site providing income. 40-50 storeys..

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by madog222

Demo permit has been issued for Strand’s site at 456 Prior.

Strand has opted to split the development permit for 456 Prior into two separate applications.

522 Malkin Av = Primary Address

New DP. 1 of 2 for single tower.
East residential tower and Cultural Centre.

Development Permit for DP-2022-00953 Permit in holding.
Applicant preparing 2 separate DP for the same scope, expected Oct.2024.

https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public...ctId=249048569

My guess is they've been in a holding pattern with the St Paul's construction, and that this will allow them to move ahead with the east tower.