1780 E Broadway | 144m, 125m, 122m | 44fl, 38fl, 37fl | Proposed

[dleung]

Lol, you can bet the day after this project agonizingly crawls over the finish line on a trail of blood and vomit a-la Marine Gateway, some other developer is gonna sail through with a taller/bulkier proposal next door and no one will even notice

[BaddieB]

Someone has to break the seafoam glass ceiling

[scryer]

Originally Posted by dleung

Lol, you can bet the day after this project agonizingly crawls over the finish line on a trail of blood and vomit a-la Marine Gateway, some other developer is gonna sail through with a taller/bulkier proposal next door and no one will even notice

That might be part of the plan. Using this proposal as a decoy while quietly acquiring land nearby to redevelop; and then to use this project as the "precedent" for taller structures seems like it's out of the developer playbook .

[Jimbo604]

Originally Posted by dleung

Lol, you can bet the day after this project agonizingly crawls over the finish line on a trail of blood and vomit a-la Marine Gateway, some other developer is gonna sail through with a taller/bulkier proposal next door and no one will even notice

I just re-read the first page of this thread, from 2019 where a VancouverCourier/VancouverIsAwesome storey is linked. In the story it mentions Bing Thom from 2016, getting close to ten years ago now.

"Bing Thom’s architecture firm was involved in the development plans [for 1780 E Broadway] until he died unexpectedly in 2016.

At a 2016 city council meeting about the neighbourhood's community plan Thom said: “We think there’s an opportunity here to create a different kind of, let’s say, mid-density and mid-rise kind of development on this particular block that could be quite interesting for families and encourage a different prototype in terms of buildings in areas that are surrounded by single-family homes.” "

Yes, there have been many different proposals, companies, architects, policies, community plans, mayors and councils. A lot of everything over this extended time period.

This site could easily be a 15 year process. That is, assuming, the development is approved and construction starts relatively soon. Otherwise, it could be more than 15 years. That's what the public sees. And what the community feels.

[jollyburger]

Seen on CityHallWatch but Crombie REIT's investor call last year mentioned possibly monetizing the Commercial/Broadway project

It is a JV with Westbank. Collectively, we've been working on that entitlement for many years. We're optimistic that sometime in the first half of 2025, we'll have that fully entitled for the three towers and about 1,000 rental residential units. Once we get to that point, we're going to review our options, which will include a monetization of that asset.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4735722...t-cromf-q3-2024-earnings-call-transcript

[officedweller]

Makes sense - neighbours will always make life difficult and who knows about Westbank.

[jollyburger]

Crombie conference call from Feb

Sure. Well, we just brought in Zephyr Baby Street into the portfolio. As we talked about it last quarter, we think that, that is a crown jewel and it's long term to cash flow growth. So it is not on the radar for disposition at this time [Technical Difficulty] on specifically Broadway and Commercial, we continue to work with our partner through entitlement. Once we get through entitlements, we will review where the market is in terms of capital requirements. We have to go into development there.

When we look at the entire pipeline in totality and sort of how do we manage the optimization of our -- that pipeline was upwards of -- its 26 today. It was upwards of 33, I think it was. So, we've developed three, which are the three that we have today. We have one under construction and we sold three. This is the pipeline to manage our sources and uses and cash flow. So, for the major projects that we have today, at this point, there is no anticipation terms that we're going to dispose of

We pushed it out from 2025 to 2026 because that's the reality that we're in right now. We are still anticipating to be able to get that in front of counsel and get that entitlement approved in the half of 2025. And then it just -- it takes time to get from entitlement into development permits to get ready for construction. So we just moved that out to be more realistic of the time frame. We talked about in the first half. It's going to be sometime in the second quarter.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4760228...t-cromf-q4-2024-earnings-call-transcript

[Feathered Friend]

The application is scheduled at tomorrow's council meeting for a referral to public hearing.

Feedback on Shape Your City has been 206 in support, 192 opposed, 27 mixed.

https://council.vancouver.ca/20250415/documents/rr5.pdf

[madog222]

^Public hearing scheduled for the 13th.

[Feathered Friend]

No, May 15th (Thursday) is the date of the public hearing.

https://council.vancouver.ca/20250515/phea20250515ag.htm

I heard there is already over two dozen people signed up to speak.

[madog222]

^Oops!!

Yes, I take it they they are expecting a large number if speaker with it being the only item for the evening.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Hearing has started. One way or another, let's hope we get a final answer by the end of the month.

[jollyburger]

Isn't it at 6PM?

[GenWhy?]

783 written responses. Not too shabby.

Agreed and hope they can get through the speaker list and vote in two sittings.

[PBlonde]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

783 written responses. Not too shabby.

Agreed and hope they can get through the speaker list and vote in two sittings.

The written responses are always amusing to read through. I don't understand why anyone would oppose because the units are "not affordable enough" when these are entirely new units. They can only serve to bring down rents in the area for others. Not to mention there is effectively a 'below market rent' portion of the building of 10% which again, doesn't currently exist.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by PBlonde

The written responses are always amusing to read through. I don't understand why anyone would oppose because the units are "not affordable enough" when these are entirely new units. They can only serve to bring down rents in the area for others. Not to mention there is effectively a 'below market rent' portion of the building of 10% which again, doesn't currently exist.

Lots of people on this very forum don't believe in Supply and Demand. They no doubt write letters to council too.

[PBlonde]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Lots of people on this very forum don't believe in Supply and Demand. They no doubt write letters to council too.

I find it fascinating that they could reject such a basic, well-founded, proven hypothesis and at the same time, they could still possess the intellect to read and write. I would almost expect those two characteristics to be mutually exclusive.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

783 written responses. Not too shabby.

Agreed and hope they can get through the speaker list and vote in two sittings.

My understanding is there's over 100 people on the speakers list, so this will almost certainly be a multi-night event.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by PBlonde

The written responses are always amusing to read through. I don't understand why anyone would oppose because the units are "not affordable enough" when these are entirely new units. They can only serve to bring down rents in the area for others. Not to mention there is effectively a 'below market rent' portion of the building of 10% which again, doesn't currently exist.

If a building has high rents then its perceived that "regular people" cannot afford it and it's bad for society, I guess. They feel "regular people" need new housing at rents they could easily afford, at the expense and charity of a private developer.

Like I don't rent new units because I find them over-priced and too small, but I don't go around trying to ban them or exacerbate the housing shortage.

[PBlonde]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

If a building has high rents then its perceived that "regular people" cannot afford it and it's bad for society, I guess. They feel "regular people" need new housing at rents they could easily afford, at the expense and charity of a private developer.

Like I don't rent new units because I find them over-priced and too small, but I don't go around trying to ban them or exacerbate the housing shortage.

Yep, standard room temp IQ folk that aren't able to critically think. They see a one bedroom apartment going for $3k and think "I can't afford that, therefore no one can, therefore it will sit vacant and is a waste of a housing unit/bad for society".