Northeast False Creek | Proposed

[mcj]

Originally Posted by Architype

I'm not sure if this is new news, but this is a big development, a new tallest for Vancouver.

That's DailyHive speculating from the floor count (65 floors) versus Living Shangri-La at 61 floors. It's probably going to be true, but could not end up being the case if they cramp up the floor spacing.

[Metro-One]

Exact heights aren’t known yet, but the Shangri-La’s 61 floors are already jammed in pretty tight, so odds are in favor of these being new tallest towers for the city.

Not my preferred location for such towers, but given how stupid Vancouver is with limiting height at its heart (Georgia / Granville area) I’ll take it.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by mcj

That's DailyHive speculating from the floor count (65 floors) versus Living Shangri-La at 61 floors. It's probably going to be true, but could not end up being the case if they cramp up the floor spacing.

Well they directly referenced Webb saying they would be Vancouver's tallest FWIW.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by mcj

That's DailyHive speculating from the floor count (65 floors) versus Living Shangri-La at 61 floors. It's probably going to be true, but could not end up being the case if they cramp up the floor spacing.

Yeah, Daily Hive doesn't seem to be very accurate here as usual. Webb was quoted saying "[could] go to 60 to 65-plus storeys, whatever is appropriate" in last month's Vancouver Sun article.

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Well they directly referenced Webb saying they would be Vancouver's tallest FWIW.

They are paraphrasing, not directly quoting. At this point I'm taking anything from Daily Hive that isn't a direct quote as hearsay at best.

[jollyburger]

The old 2017 proposal was 41 storeys/130m.

https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/2024-223-release1.pdf

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Exact heights aren’t known yet, but the Shangri-La’s 61 floors are already jammed in pretty tight, so odds are in favor of these being new tallest towers for the city.

Not my preferred location for such towers, but given how stupid Vancouver is with limiting height at its heart (Georgia / Granville area) I’ll take it.

They presumably would not be tallest in actual elevation either, since this is close to sea level, as opposed to the Shangri-La which is on much higher ground, about 100 ft higher.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Architype

They presumably would not be tallest in actual elevation either, since this is close to sea level, as opposed to the Shangri-La which is on much higher ground, about 100 ft higher.

Yeah, they won’t be the tallest regarding geodesic height, but that’s kind of a cheat anyway.

Because technically a shack at the top of Grouse Mountain could be “the tallest.”

[logan5]

What do the view cones say the height limit is for the site? The developer would almost certainly go right to the height limit.

And the story also mentions maximizing developer contributions towards the removal of the viaducts, so I would think it's a good idea to allow max height/density at the viaduct properties, south of Chinatown.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by logan5

What do the view cones say the height limit is for the site? The developer would almost certainly go right to the height limit.

And the story also mentions maximizing developer contributions towards the removal of the viaducts, so I would think it's a good idea to allow max height/density at the viaduct properties, south of Chinatown.

The most restrictive ones got updated/removed.

I'm pretty sure it'll impede into one of the QE view cones but I assume they'll let it pass in exchange for getting the viaducts removed.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Yeah, they won’t be the tallest regarding geodesic height, but that’s kind of a cheat anyway.

Because technically a shack at the top of Grouse Mountain could be “the tallest.”

"highest".

I've always wondered why people conflate the two terms when referring specifically to geodetic height or elevation.

It would be like saying 'Timmy is the "Tallest" one in the group over there...' - and yet ignoring the fact that Timmy is actually standing on a stack of books sitting on top of a coffee table.

But then again,......saying that "Timmy is the "highest" one,......" would itself be problematic on its own for other reasons, on top of not quite being correct neither.

[Vin]

Never too late to do a follow-up:

Back in 2017:

Originally Posted by Vin

500mil now to do this whole fiasco? No wonder they hired the New York Lansdcape architect. I hope the next City government cancels the entire thing. What a waste of money.

It is amazing that my statement would create such a response:

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

Where did you get that $500 M from? The number I've heard is around $250 M. Also, this project will open up a lot of land for development that will probably be easily worth more than the demolition and construction costs.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Please stop with the baseless FUD.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Please do not feed the troll.

By 2018, this is the new estimate:

https://vancouversun.com/news/vancouver-...0the,news%20and%20home%20design%20trends.
By 2018, when council approved the Northeast False Creek plan for this area, the estimate for the entire project of replacing the viaducts with a street network was between $400 and $500 million.

I wonder how much it would actually take to take down the viaducts and rebuild all the new roads as per Concord's planning today. Has anyone come up with a new figure yet? Concord should be footing all the bill, especially since we have succeeded in them getting higher densities today with the removal of the Viewcone restrictions this side.

[Migrant_Coconut]

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

is this gif supposed to mean?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

is this gif supposed to mean?

They're moving goalposts.

[bb1510]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Exact heights aren’t known yet, but the Shangri-La’s 61 floors are already jammed in pretty tight, so odds are in favor of these being new tallest towers for the city.

Not my preferred location for such towers, but given how stupid Vancouver is with limiting height at its heart (Georgia / Granville area) I’ll take it.

Actually, the Shangri La has really generous ceiling heights in the Estates section from floors 44 to 61 (technically 62 for the second floor of the PH's which are behind the fins) with 10' floor to ceiling clear, and that's with a continuous dropped ceiling for recessed lighting and speakers, not a perimeter drop like at the Pac Rim or HG. PH floor at the SLV has 12-15' clear in certain areas

[jollyburger]

Some legal loopholes for Concord's development.

Another hurdle for the development is the question of how much more Concord must pay to the province according to terms of the 1988 sale.

As part of that $320-million deal, the land was sold with a so-called “participation mortgage” that required a developer to pay additional money to the B.C. government if it built more than 12 million square feet on the site.

Development on Northeast False Creek will definitely take it over that benchmark. This week’s rezoning inquiry significantly increases the density Concord is looking for on the site after the city recently loosened some of its mountain-view protections that were limiting tower heights in that area.

When the property was first sold, there were estimates the participation mortgage extras would bring in as much as $500-million. More sober calculations recently have been more in the $100- to $200-million range.

B.C. Housing Minister Ravi Kahlon said in an interview two weeks ago that the province was considering legal action against Concord to resolve some of the conflicts.

On Thursday, he issued a more conciliatory statement via e-mail to The Globe and Mail: “The Province, City of Vancouver and Concord have agreed to sit together over the coming months to resolve outstanding challenges for housing to advance on the remaining Expo lands. We look forward to working together to find ways to advance housing in Northeast False Creek.”

Mr. LaClaire said things would move along a lot faster if the province would provide some solid numbers about how much money from the participation mortgage the city could get for the road changes and for the low-cost housing that is expected to be part of the development.

“A lot of the value is going to the province. Unless they direct that back to this location, I don’t see how anything happens,” he said.

If that isn’t settled soon, the land might sit empty for more decades, he fears.

“The project has sat for 40 years. It could sit there for another 10 or 20 years, that’s the reality of this.”

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/a...oped-vancouver-waterfront-gets-new-plan/

Details on the mortgage

The agreement, a document attached to the land-title records for Concord's land, stipulates the company will have to start paying the province $10 per square foot for any density over 12 million square feet on the lands but below 13.2 million. Above 13.2 million, the rate was set at $12.50 per square foot.

However, those rates were subject to an indexed increase that is tied to the average increase in sales prices of Vancouver condos and single-family homes.

No one at the city was able to even guess what the bonus payments might end up being, but they are estimated as large enough that Vancouver wants a part.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/bri...revenues-from-expo-land/article26838689/

[officedweller]

Of course the City wants to weasel in on it.

Those payments are consideration for the original purchase price (the price that was woefully low ($125M?). The City had no part in the previous ownership of the lands subject to that payment (i.e. Expo lands, not city roads, etc. to be closed), did it?

It'll be tricky to see what square footages can be attributed to the Expo lands lots, given that the area will be replotted.

The City's consideration for transfer of the road space is Concord's contribution to its pet project of demolishing the viaducts.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Of course the City wants to weasel in on it.

Those payments are consideration for the original purchase price (the price that was woefully low ($125M?). The City had no part in the previous ownership of the lands subject to that payment (i.e. Expo lands, not city roads, etc. to be closed), did it?

It'll be tricky to see what square footages can be attributed to the Expo lands lots, given that the area will be replotted.

The City's consideration for transfer of the road space is Concord's contribution to its pet project of demolishing the viaducts.

I think it was $145 million in total plus this over 2 million sq feet "bonus"

I guess the province was really pushing for these lands to be developed.

Kahlon said the province was frustrated enough with the pace of development that was prepared to review the original agreements in the 1988 land deal between the province, city and Concord, and wasn’t ruling out litigation.

He said he wants all parties at the table to agree to a plan that could see work begin by the end of the year.

“All the pieces that are necessary are there, that is what is frustrating about this,” he said.

“BC Housing has come to the table with affordable housing options as well as a part of the plan.”

The province, however, appears unwilling to contribute to the cost of removing the viaducts. Concord says it will contribute $110 million to the demolition, while another developer will also contribute $100 million.

The estimated cost to remove the viaducts was $438 million in 2018, before the recent bout of inflation that has seen budgets for major public works balloon dramatically.

https://globalnews.ca/news/11019889/kahlon-pressure-concord-northeast-false-creek/

Kind of funny the initial Li Ka Shing development of this are was called West Coast Venice. Deja vu with the new Portofino inspiration.



https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/this-week-in-history-1988-the-socreds-sell-the-expo-lands

Maybe we can get a total teardown of the International Village site with similar density to help fund the viaduct removal?

[Migrant_Coconut]

You had me at “demolishing Tinseltown.”

[officedweller]

If Concord had actually built a financial centre of office towers between the viaducts as originally proposed,
I wonder if that would have saved the area?

The question now is whether market condos would be saleable on the International Village Mall site
- but it is the most underdeveloped of the 4 parcels.
Too bad it didn't work, as that's the nicest mall downtown, architecturally.

The other parcels, Paris Place, Espana and Firenze (as well as nearby Woodwards) were all developed and sold
when there was still promise for rehabilitating the DTES.
That hope no longer exists.

... and the new Concord lands are a step removed, being closer to the water.