HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Downtown & City of Vancouver


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2481  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2024, 3:39 PM
Changing City's Avatar
Changing City Changing City is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 8,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyburger View Post
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

https://thetyee.ca/News/2022/09/26/Ken-Sim-Wants-Mayor-Vancouver/
The Broadway Plan enhanced the TRRP by giving

Right of first refusal for existing tenants to return to the new building at their current rent, or a 20% discount on city-wide average market rents, whichever is less

Tenants may choose to receive a temporary rent top-up equal to the difference between their current rent and rent in a new unit during construction of the new building

Returning tenants will return to new homes that are an appropriate size for their household


If the Plan hadn't included those policies, it seems obvious that there would have been far more opposition to it, including, potentially from members of Council. And it was only adopted in 2022, so it's not from the distant past, so circumstances haven't changed since it was adopted. And most developers have known that the plan would include those provisions and should have included them in their pro forma. It's not as if they're paying CACs on their significant up zoning.
__________________
Contemporary Vancouver development blog, https://changingcitybook.wordpress.com/ Then and now Vancouver blog https://changingvancouver.wordpress.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2482  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2024, 6:01 PM
chowhou's Avatar
chowhou chowhou is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: East Vancouver (No longer across the ocean!)
Posts: 3,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Changing City View Post
If the Plan hadn't included those policies, it seems obvious that there would have been far more opposition to it, including, potentially from members of Council. And it was only adopted in 2022, so it's not from the distant past, so circumstances haven't changed since it was adopted. And most developers have known that the plan would include those provisions and should have included them in their pro forma. It's not as if they're paying CACs on their significant up zoning.
Circumstances may not have changed, which just might mean a bad policy is still a bad policy. Just because Sim and ABC are removing a policy doesn't mean it was a good policy they just want to get rid of to ruin the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2483  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2024, 6:26 PM
GenWhy? GenWhy? is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 4,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by chowhou View Post
Circumstances may not have changed, which just might mean a bad policy is still a bad policy. Just because Sim and ABC are removing a policy doesn't mean it was a good policy they just want to get rid of to ruin the city.
The housing and planning departments and councils have a track record of developing policies to fail out in the real world. The biggest one is the "pace of change" policy, which killed developments for the earlier version of the Secured Rental Policy and the entirety of the Grandview-Woodland plan area.

Pace of change was originally in the Broadway Plan, I think to prioritize non-residential lots. It was essentially calling for minimal development over a much longer timeline. So were the minimum lot frontage requirement of 150', tower-per-block rules, etc.

There was plenty of bad elements to the Broadway Plan that were removed / not included through amendments before it was implemented and ABC did a great job.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2484  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2024, 6:43 PM
seamusmcduff seamusmcduff is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 616
If the rental replacement program in the plan was a bad policy, don't you think we would have seen far fewer proposals? It seems like many developers are fine with the requirements, there's been plenty of proposals on existing rental sites.

Of course many developers will complain and would prefer for the requirements to be relaxed, but that doesn't necessarily mean the requirements are unfeasible. Developers are always going to push to make things as easy as possible for themselves.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2485  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2024, 6:54 PM
chowhou's Avatar
chowhou chowhou is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: East Vancouver (No longer across the ocean!)
Posts: 3,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by seamusmcduff View Post
If the rental replacement program in the plan was a bad policy, don't you think we would have seen far fewer proposals? It seems like many developers are fine with the requirements, there's been plenty of proposals on existing rental sites.

Of course many developers will complain and would prefer for the requirements to be relaxed, but that doesn't necessarily mean the requirements are unfeasible. Developers are always going to push to make things as easy as possible for themselves.
We can't know if it's a bad policy or not with just the absolute number of proposals, we'd have to see whether or not removing the policy increases the number of proposals.

It's death by a thousand cuts. Are social housing requirements unfeasible? No. Are rate of change limits unfeasible? No. Are ROFR policies unfeasible? No. Are DCCs and CACs unfeasible? No. Is rent control unfeasible? No. Are public art requirements unfeasible? No. Are shadow studies unfeasible? No. Are tree retention requirements unfeasible? No. Are setbacks unfeasible? No. Are public engagements unfeasible? No. Are demolition waste requirements unfeasible? No. Are minimum efficiency requirements unfeasible? No. Are multiple egress staircases unfeasible? No. Are FSR limits unfeasible? No.

Death by a thousand cuts, though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2486  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2024, 7:00 PM
GenWhy? GenWhy? is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 4,783
The initial wave of applications, when boiled down, really only shows the desperation land owners were in to secure their development potential rights. If you missed that boat you'd be reduced to building only a 6-storey building... so if you already had a 4-storey on site... you are sitting on that property, gutting it, and kicking everybody out anyway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2487  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2024, 7:03 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by chowhou View Post
We can't know if it's a bad policy or not with just the absolute number of proposals, we'd have to see whether or not removing the policy increases the number of proposals.

It's death by a thousand cuts. Are social housing requirements unfeasible? No. Are rate of change limits unfeasible? No. Are ROFR policies unfeasible? No. Are DCCs and CACs unfeasible? No. Is rent control unfeasible? No. Are public art requirements unfeasible? No. Are shadow studies unfeasible? No. Are tree retention requirements unfeasible? No. Are setbacks unfeasible? No. Are public engagements unfeasible? No. Are demolition waste requirements unfeasible? No. Are minimum efficiency requirements unfeasible? No. Are multiple egress staircases unfeasible? No. Are FSR limits unfeasible? No.

Death by a thousand cuts, though.
The surge in applications on the Broadway Plan shows how much potential development all of the above policies repress across Vancouver. A reduction of government risk, and a reduction in DCCs and CACs leads to many many proposals. Some might see it as a sign of success of the Broadway Plan. I see it as a sign of failure of planning in Vancouver everywhere else.

Opposition to the plan also funnily enough causes land holders to apply sooner than they need to for their eventual development plans, to lock in their building entitlements against the risk that the city reverses its openness.

Anyways, so many successes the city points to, are actually signs of a deeply disfunctional market that the city has created through policy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2488  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2024, 7:32 PM
jollyburger jollyburger is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 15,554
Just noticed this about the Bay Parkade redevelopment in an article about 500 Dusmuir

Quote:
Holborn insists it is still moving ahead with the redevelopment plans. “We submitted a Letter of Enquiry on December 20, 2019, followed by a Policy Enquiry Process submission on November 10, 2022, to the City of Vancouver,” the developer told The Tyee in an email.

“Unfortunately, both those submissions were not supported by the City’s staff. However, we are engaged with city staff once again and with City Council’s goals to expedite development approvals, we are optimistic about the potential rezoning of the site in the near term.”
https://thetyee.ca/Culture/2024/01/17/Downtown-Vancouver-Vacant-Hotel/

The old 2006 rezoning enquiry for the parkade/500 Dunsmuir

https://council.vancouver.ca/20061212/documents/tt3_BayParkade.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2489  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2025, 8:19 PM
jollyburger jollyburger is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 15,554
This is from the Housing Supply thread but found this Squamish Lands planning photo from 2024. I mean it makes no sense to me considering the bottom right has Capilano Road, the cloverleaf thing I assume is the Lions Gate Bridge bridgehead but the river is on the wrong side. I assume the 50-60 storey tower thing is International Plaza?



https://liveablecityplanning.com/portfolio/portfolio-4/



https://www.northshoredailypost.com/600-...uamish-nations-80-acre-north-shore-plan/

EDIT: Sounds like that was the historic river alignment.

https://www.squamish.net/community-initiatives/land-development-strategies/

Last edited by jollyburger; Jan 19, 2025 at 9:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2490  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2025, 9:21 PM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 10,032
Going by the scale of the Lions Gate merging lanes, it looks like that blue area (rewilded river?) is in Phases 6-8, and the main group of towers is in the purple area; you can see "-apilano Road" in the lower right of the photo, so it has to still be on the reserve. It also seems like the model includes the half-finished towers across the street.

Think they'll do anything with the rest of the reserve later? Seems like a waste to build so high and then leave all the bungalows as-is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2491  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2025, 9:29 PM
jollyburger jollyburger is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 15,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
Going by the scale of the Lions Gate merging lanes, it looks like that blue area (rewilded river?) is in Phases 6-8, and the main group of towers is in the purple area; you can see "-apilano Road" in the lower right of the photo, so it has to still be on the reserve. It also seems like the model includes the half-finished towers across the street.

Think they'll do anything with the rest of the reserve later? Seems like a waste to build so high and then leave all the bungalows as-is.
Yeah another PDF on their website says it was a historical river routing but I doubt they can open it up since everything north of it to the river is already developed.

Aren't some of those houses next to the bridge owned by non-FN? They might need have to wait for leases or whatever to run out. I think there's also some plan to do something next to the water on the other side of the rail tracks but I assume that's even further down the road. I wonder what the status of the Park Royal lease is.. It was originally a 99 year lease in the late 1950s.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2492  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2025, 9:41 PM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 10,032
Pretty sure Park Royal's getting a standard Vancouver mall makeover once the SkyTrain finally arrives. Maybe the FN'll lobby for TransLink to put it down Skawshen instead of Marine?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyburger View Post
Yeah another PDF on their website says it was a historical river routing but I doubt they can open it up since everything north of it to the river is already developed.
Don't think they need to have it exposed all the way through - a culvert under Glenair and Marine Drive gets roughly the same result.

OTOH I doubt anybody would object to giving Klahanie Park a water feature.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2493  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2025, 6:01 PM
LowerLonsdaleMike LowerLonsdaleMike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 182
It's interesting how nobody is talking about the Squamish Nation waterfront land immediately east of the Lions Gate Bridge that has been levelled and remediated. I'm certain that something big is on the horizon for that whole area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2494  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2025, 6:44 PM
jollyburger jollyburger is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 15,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by LowerLonsdaleMike View Post
It's interesting how nobody is talking about the Squamish Nation waterfront land immediately east of the Lions Gate Bridge that has been levelled and remediated. I'm certain that something big is on the horizon for that whole area.
They were just doing remediation on the land before it gets transferred back.

You assume a new Low Level Road from Park Royal connecting over to the new Sewage Plant road is the basis of any development down there.. so maybe 20 years down the line.

Quote:
Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) released their annual tender for the Remedial Excavation Program at the Pacific Environment Centre (PEC) Site remediation, this year, in a two-pronged format to firstly pre-qualify suitable vendors and later issue an invitation to tender to the down selected contractors. KBL was among eight (8) organizations invited to Phase 2 of the highly competitive bid process. The scope of work included the transportation and disposal of 28,500 tonnes of previously excavated contaminated soil, and the excavation, transport, and disposal of 53,700m3 of contaminated soil. Additional optional work for which our pricing was accepted involves excavation 23,700 m3 of soil, and transport and disposal of 47,400 tonnes of contaminated soil.SCOPE OF WORK
https://kbl.ca/projects/pacific-environment-center-site-remediation/

2007

Quote:
Ending a toxic nightmare

The waterfront lands that lie at the north end of Lions Gate Bridge, directly across from Stanley Park, have for decades been a toxic nightmare for the federal government, which leases the property for $6-million a year, but can't use it because of pollution.

For years, Ottawa has struggled to come up with a way to decontaminate the property and negotiate an end to a 71-year-lease it signed, in 1974, when there were grand plans to build a new Pacific Environment Centre and coast guard base on the site.

Those plans fell through after the local MP, Jack Davis, who was the project's champion and the Liberal minister of environment, was defeated in the 1974 federal election. Then the pollution was discovered -- and the land became known as a toxic site where rocks and seashells turned bright green from zinc and copper percolating through the groundwater.

Deposits of heavy metals and layers of sulphur were found throughout the 22-hectare site, penetrating deep into the ground, where they created acid rock drainage that flowed into Burrard Inlet, killing fish.

The contaminants came from ore concentrate that had spilled from thousands of passing train cars, turning the scenic waterfront property into one of the most hazardous sites in the country. Eventually, the land was put behind a chain link fence, watched over by video cameras, and people in haz-mat suits digging test pits replaced the beachcombers who once walked the shoreline.

Now, the government has given the green light to a bold plan by Peter Krahn, an Environment Canada engineer and manager of the so-called PEC lands, that will launch a massive recovery program to restore the property -- and, it is estimated, cost millions of dollars less than earlier forecasts.

And fittingly enough, given the history of the site, there is a political aspect to the latest plan for the PEC lands. Mr. Krahn is hoping the success of the restoration project will help launch his campaign to become the Conservative candidate for North Vancouver. He was expected to file his nomination papers this week.

"I've been getting up at 4:30 to work on the campaign, and then at 7:30 I go in to work on the site," said Mr. Krahn, who has helped Environment Canada prosecute some of the worst polluters in the province.

Mr. Krahn said that when the final pieces began to fall into place this year on the PEC project, he started to think about entering politics "and doing something to help the environment on a larger scale."

The PEC lands, however, didn't help Mr. Davis, an early environmental crusader who lost despite his promise to turn the site into a thriving government centre.

Mr. Krahn (who if he wins the nomination will likely face popular Liberal incumbent Don Bell) says he is hoping voters will be more favourable to his plan.

"Essentially, we're going to mine the site," said Mr. Krahn, who has arranged for empty ore trucks offloading at a nearby bulk port facility to detour to the PEC lands and take tens of thousands of tonnes of contaminated soil back with them to a mine in the British Columbia Interior.

This spring, in a full-scale test, 18,000 tonnes of toxic soil will be loaded onto those trucks and taken to the mine, "halfway to Prince George," where copper will be extracted. At the same time, sulphur recovered on the PEC site will be trucked to the mine for use in a heap-leaching process that will extract copper from ore bodies at the mine.

Copper oxide ore will be mixed with water and soil containing sulphur from the PEC site, which Mr. Krahn said will create a reaction "like Alka-Seltzer placed in vinegar." The process consumes the acid created while releasing copper metal, which can be recovered at 99-per-cent purity.

Result: The government gets rid of toxic soils, the mine gets copper and sulphur.

"Just on this test alone, each party will save $1-million, and that's a small per cent of what is going to be involved eventually," said Mr. Krahn, who couldn't immediately name the mining company because of contractual obligations.

"It's likely to save tens of millions of dollars by the time we are done," he said. "It's designed to be profitable on both sides. Environment Canada profits by saving money [on the reclamation work]and the mining company saves by not paying to have the trucks come back empty. Plus they get a supply of sulphur and they can recover copper."

In 2005, it was estimated that it would cost $500-million to clean up the site.

The plan then was to have a fleet of big trucks haul the contaminants to a hazardous-materials dump, which would have solved one problem but created another.

Mr. Krahn said he doesn't know what the final cost will be under the new plan, but that it will be substantially less.

Once the site has been cleaned, a process that will take several years, the government can end the lease and return the property to the owners, the Squamish First Nation, which has long-term plans for residential and retail developments.

The government has spent an estimated $100-million on the lease so far -- without getting anything in return except a big pollution problem.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ending-a-toxic-nightmare/article17991327/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2495  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2025, 7:01 PM
LowerLonsdaleMike LowerLonsdaleMike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 182
It's definitely something that will be happening faster than 20 years. It's already been noted on the Squamish Nation's list of priorities to redevelop that land into towers of market mixed housing. I do think this is something flying under the radar, but i'm sure we'll hear news about this area in the coming months as the Squamish Nation moratorium on third-party proposals for redevelopment of priority Nation lands ends April 1, 2025.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2496  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2025, 7:31 PM
jollyburger jollyburger is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 15,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by LowerLonsdaleMike View Post
It's definitely something that will be happening faster than 20 years. It's already been noted on the Squamish Nation's list of priorities to redevelop that land into towers of market mixed housing. I do think this is something flying under the radar, but i'm sure we'll hear news about this area in the coming months as the Squamish Nation moratorium on third-party proposals for redevelopment of priority Nation lands ends April 1, 2025.
They specifically stated the moratorium is on those tiny strips of the IR 5 site. They aren't going to announce anything about development next to Burrard Inlet this year.

Even Nchkay stated this in their 2024 Annual Plan

Quote:
Real estate and development projects are long-term in nature
– developments can take three to eight years (sometimes
shorter or longer depending on size and complexity, permitting,
financing, etc.). When third-party partnerships and business
deal negotiations and terms are included, projects can take over
10 to 15 years from concept to shovels in the ground.

We are still a new development firm — a startup, incorporated
in 2018. Our experience and track record in development to
date is minimal in number but enormous in scale, with Sen̓ áḵw
being our first major project, which received land designation
and business terms approval from a vote by the Squamish
People in 2019. Our development pipeline and projected
portfolio growth are enviable. We are staged to become one of
Canada’s largest First Nation-led development firms.

Our potential project timeline for on-reserve assets extends to
over 15 to 20 years based on the Nation’s current reserve base
(not including additions to the reserve underway by the Nation).
We feel that on-reserve projects are a top priority; however, we
recognize the importance of portfolio diversification and the
variability of project size, scope, and type. Considering the
various programs that the Nation and Nch’ḵay̓ can access to
obtain land through federal and provincial processes,
developing housing through fee-simple land acquisitions will
form part of our approach through partnerships or directly
https://www.nchkay.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/24123_NchKay_AnnualPlan-18June2024_WEB.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2497  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2025, 4:26 PM
jollyburger jollyburger is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 15,554
With the new COV rental towers at Pacific/Burrard it will be interesting to see how tall Concord is going to try and go with the St Paul's site.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2498  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2025, 9:00 PM
jollyburger jollyburger is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 15,554
Councillor Zhou had a Dec 5th meeting I assume with Holborn over the Bay Parkade "Project Overview"

https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/councillor-calendar-2024-12-december-zhou.pdf

Some other councillors had a meeting about it in November.

I assume it's unrelated to Dunsmuir House if that came out closer to the end of the month.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2499  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2025, 9:54 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 41,464
Maybe the Dunsmuir House condition arose as a discussion topic at those meetings, since incorporation of a heritage facade - or not - would be a key part of the project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2500  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2025, 10:22 PM
jollyburger jollyburger is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 15,554
I was looking at the meeting again and it mentions "Nicolette Williams". Someone with the same name is a Project Coordinator at Henriquez so I doubt it had anything to do with the demolition.

The other meeting in November was with Josh White (City Planner)
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 > Downtown & City of Vancouver
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:26 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

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