Vancouver Infill & Lowrise Updates Discussion

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by GMD

I keep seeing new buildings with that big protruding slab of concrete across the top of the first floor. Is that some sort of new style, or a cost saving measure, or required to meet new seismic requirements. I don't get it.

Apparently its to provide sunlight to the street level. Because when you're walking on a hot day direct sunlight is imperative. It's a government regulation.

[Feathered Friend]

https://kitsilanoblock.com/

1981 Macdonald Street – Kitsilano Block
https://kitsilanoblock.com/
59 Strata Homes, 1 Retail Store (Fresh St. Market)

Development Application Submitted – March 2018
Building Permit Issued – September, 2022
Photos Taken – November 3, 2024

https://www.instagram.com/p/DDQjgAIvc85/

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

https://kitsilanoblock.com/











https://www.instagram.com/p/DDQjgAIvc85/

interestingly enough another project is proposed at this corner making it the 3rd new build at this corner (3 out of 4 corners now)

2828 W 4th Ave
Hungerford Properties has applied to the City of Vancouver for permission to develop a mixed-use building, having six storeys with retail and residential uses on this site, consisting of:

A total of 68 Secured Market Rental units
A proposed FSR of 3.5 (55,594 sq.ft.)
A proposed height of 22 m (72.2 ft.)
Surface parking, providing a total of 28 parking spaces having vehicular access from the lane

https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/2828-w-4-ave

[Feathered Friend]

1807 Larch – L2 Apartments
54 Rental Homes, 14 Moderate-income Rental Homes

Rezoning Application Submitted – January 2019
Building Permit Issued – September 2021
Photos Taken – November 3, 2024

https://www.instagram.com/p/DDS7IM8yirk/?

[osirisboy]

Omg, just use all brick! Would’ve looked infinitely better

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Commercial & Adanac (behind Uprising Breads) under construction. I know there's an application for social housing beside this site at 1656 Adanac but can someone remind me if this building is market or social housing?

[IMG]IMG_6759 by bcborn, on Flickr[/IMG]

my photos

The same building now nearing completion and showing the land being cleared for the new Alma Blackwell housing at 1656 Adanac.

[IMG]ada1 by bcborn, on Flickr[/IMG]
[IMG]ada2 by bcborn, on Flickr[/IMG]
my photos

[gaviscon]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The same building now nearing completion and showing the land being cleared for the new Alma Blackwell housing at 1656 Adanac.

[IMG]ada1 by bcborn, on Flickr[/IMG]
[IMG]ada2 by bcborn, on Flickr[/IMG]
my photos

20241210_130033 by globalbusinesscentre105 H, on Flickr

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

80 Market Rental, & 20 Below-market Rental Homes, 5 Retail Stores
Development Application Submitted – October 2022
Building Permit Issued – April 2024

https://www.instagram.com/p/DBxMQA3yO1W/

For some reason the excavation on this was deeper than I thought it would be for purpose built rental. Not that's it anywhere near downtown condo depth.

excav by bcborn, on Flickr
my photo

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by whatnext

For some reason the excavation on this was deeper than I thought it would be for purpose built rental. Not that's it anywhere near downtown condo depth.

If that square depression is the core, I can't see much maneuvering space for cars down there (plus a ramp). So either it's deep because of inefficiency of the site shape and layout, or there's extra storage and bike space down there.

[Coldrsx]

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

This is a rental building at 2.5 FSR, which according to developers and city planners, should not be economically viable at that low of an FSR. I've seen a number of rental projects in this density range, so I wonder what is making these projects viable, or are developers just bargaining for more density when they claim projects like these are not economically viable?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

This is a rental building at 2.5 FSR, which according to developers and city planners, should not be economically viable at that low of an FSR. I've seen a number of rental projects in this density range, so I wonder what is making these projects viable, or are developers just bargaining for more density when they claim projects like these are not economically viable?

City planners in Vancouver think buildings like this are viable, and so do many developers. There's a Secured Rental Policy which has encouraged them to be developed, and dozens of buildings have been approved in the past few years. They range from 4 storey at around 2.5 FSR up to 6 storey, with 20% renting below market, at 3.5 FSR.

They have been proposed across the city - already this year there's been one proposed on Arbutus, and another on East 49th.

[logan5]

So some developers and some politicians are just crying density poverty when they make the "not economically viable" claim.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by logan5

So some developers and some politicians are just crying density poverty when they make the "not economically viable" claim.

Not everyone has the same profit expectation or the same willingness to cut corners or use less than qualified staff so I would expect there's a range of opinions when it's on the borderline of viability.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by logan5

So some developers and some politicians are just crying density poverty when they make the "not economically viable" claim.

Yeah it isn't economically viable that's why they got a $32 million dollar loan from the BC government to build it.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by logan5

This is a rental building at 2.5 FSR, which according to developers and city planners, should not be economically viable at that low of an FSR. I've seen a number of rental projects in this density range, so I wonder what is making these projects viable, or are developers just bargaining for more density when they claim projects like these are not economically viable?

I'd say, just looking at it face value, 1807 Larch Street was a bit of a one-off. The MIRHP Program cast a very wide a broad net across the City and ended up capturing this former church lot. My memory is a bit fuzzy, but I'd take it that the lot sold almost entirely on the understanding that this could either remain as a church or be rezoned to a 20% below-market rental building at 2.53 FSR.

That changes the game drastically, as you're not competing, in the majority of cases, with other infill options that can make the math a bit more difficult. It also depends on the risk developers are willing to take and the neighbourhood for rents you can capture (I think I've seen more 2.5 on the west side)

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by logan5

So some developers and some politicians are just crying density poverty when they make the "not economically viable" claim.

I wouldn't call it density poverty". Limiting a building's area (for no real reason since we have setback regulations) based on yesterday's math means the blanket city-wide FSR number doesn't work where you want it to, when you want it to.

Either rents need to be quite high or construction and land costs need to stop escalating. The 2.5 FSR is based on city math from years ago.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I'd say, just looking at it face value, 1807 Larch Street was a bit of a one-off. The MIRHP Program cast a very wide a broad net across the City and ended up capturing this former church lot. My memory is a bit fuzzy, but I'd take it that the lot sold almost entirely on the understanding that this could either remain as a church or be rezoned to a 20% below-market rental building at 2.53 FSR.

That changes the game drastically, as you're not competing, in the majority of cases, with other infill options that can make the math a bit more difficult. It also depends on the risk developers are willing to take and the neighbourhood for rents you can capture (I think I've seen more 2.5 on the west side)

It got sold for $12 million.

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news...sing-a-beautiful-open-spacious-sanctuary

EDIT: They got $14,250,000 financing on it

https://gatlandcapital.ca/real-estate-financing/projects/

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Yeah it isn't economically viable that's why they got a $32 million dollar loan from the BC government to build it.

Getting a repayable construction loan from BC Housing doesn't mean it isn't economically viable.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Getting a repayable construction loan from BC Housing doesn't mean it isn't economically viable.

It doesn't prove it isn't economically viable, but it does mean that just because it's being built that's not proof in-of-itself that the project would be economically viable without government support.