Northeast False Creek | Proposed

[jollyburger]

Francl is designing something next to Plaza of Nations for Concord Pacific?

900 Pacific Boulevard
901 COOPERAGE WAY

https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public...ctId=273718028

Narrow site so might be another Arc?

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Francl is designing something next to Plaza of Nations for Concord Pacific?

900 Pacific Boulevard
901 COOPERAGE WAY

https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public...ctId=273718028

Narrow site so might be another Arc?

That was supposed to be a social housing site.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by officedweller

That was supposed to be a social housing site.

There was a new agreement in 2023 that saw Concord give the City of Vancouver three sites, and some cash into the NEFC viaduct replacement funds, and in return Concord were allowed to develop the remaining three sites reserved for social housing. The original Expo Lands agreement only allowed the City to buy the sites.

The three sites the City received are all in development, and the number of social housing units will be the same as the agreement anticipated on all six sites, as two of them will be much bigger buildings than originally identified. I'm a bit surprised Concord have taken this long to identify a project on their sites.

[jollyburger]

They got building grades on the other two sites in 2019 but nothing happened with those at the time.

[officedweller]

Thanks.
Maybe Concord is moving now to get a jump on the Plaza of Nations project.
Is that one being redesigned?

[jollyburger]

Join us at the Expo ‘86 at 40 Symposium to explore shared goals for this last undeveloped piece of Vancouver’s downtown.

Expo ‘86 at 40 is a half-day symposium that will convene landowners, community leaders, Hogan’s Alley Society, City representatives, academics, and Vancouver residents.

We’ll hear updates from the City of Vancouver about the Northeast False Creek Plan, and identify opportunities for working together to advance the Plan.

Left empty since Expo ‘86 ended, the Northeast False Creek Plan presents a generational opportunity to reconnect the Downtown core and fulfill reconciliation and redress goals. Hear from landowners, Planning Department staff, Hogan’s Alley Society, representatives from Chinatown, and more, about the opportunities to unlock the potential for this last undeveloped piece of Vancouver’s downtown.

Join us to:

Hear from Josh White (General Manager of Planning, Urban Design and Sustainability at the City of Vancouver), Djaka Blais (Executive Director, Hogan’s Alley Society), Geoff Meggs (former City Councillor)

Explore shared goals for Northeast False Creek that benefit all stakeholders

Align visions from landowners and community groups with City objectives

Identify practical steps and partnership opportunities to accelerate progress

Event Details

Date: Friday, January 23, 2026

Time: 9:30am-1:00pm

Location: SFU Harbour Centre

https://www.hogansalleysociety.org/e...t-40-symposium

[s211]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

https://www.hogansalleysociety.org/e...t-40-symposium

Geoff Meggs? There isn't a pass hard enough.

[urbanight93]

Speaking of Geoff Meggs, he wrote a nothingburger article recently, ahead of the “Expo 86 at 40” event this week. The event is free on Friday at SFU downtown.

https://www.thetyee.ca/Opinion/2026/...ole-Vancouver/

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by s211

Geoff Meggs? There isn't a pass hard enough.

Now that's a name I happily haven't heard in a long while.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by urbanight93

Speaking of Geoff Meggs, he wrote a nothingburger article recently, ahead of the “Expo 86 at 40” event this week. The event is free on Friday at SFU downtown.

https://www.thetyee.ca/Opinion/2026/...ole-Vancouver/

His article last year to The Tyee about the project mentioned this

The rezoning will determine, once and for all, how much Concord Pacific must pay for the Expo lands under the terms of a “participation mortgage” that guarantees the province $1.50 per square foot of density achieved over certain benchmarks, multiplied by an index reflecting the increase in the value of B.C. real estate since 1988. It will not be a small number but should not be a deal-breaker for a company of Concord’s global reach.

At four million square feet, the density on this last phase is equivalent to almost one-third of all the density Concord has built on the lands since 1988. (The original plans anticipated about 12 million square feet of development.)

That “participation mortgage” cash will flow exclusively to the province, which must use it to manage the contaminated soil remaining on the site.

If Concord’s final overall density on the lands exceeds the 1988 benchmarks by two million square feet, for example, that density payment could reach $300 million, nearly equivalent to the original purchase price.

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2025/01/...loser-Reality/

[Planner 9]

Originally Posted by urbanight93

Speaking of Geoff Meggs, he wrote a nothingburger article recently, ahead of the “Expo 86 at 40” event this week. The event is free on Friday at SFU downtown.

https://www.thetyee.ca/Opinion/2026/...ole-Vancouver/

The Meggs article is actually very informative. From what the article is saying this is what is probably going on:

1. For over 25 years, developments relied on pre-sales (selling units before construction) to secure bank financing. Since interest rates rose in 2022, that system is broken. Rates are much higher, pre-sales collapsed, and banks will no longer provide financing. As a result, many projects, like NEFC, are stalled — and the city is aware of this.

2. A new funding approach is being put together for this project with help from senior levels of government. Governments will provide financing in return for a share in profits (participation mortgages) – plus they can negotiate public benefits like faster infrastructure or guaranteed housing delivery.

3. We’re likely to see more of this. With the pre-sale model no longer working, governments participating in financing can deliver housing and public benefits more effectively than long zoning battles.

[djmk]

Originally Posted by Planner 9

The Meggs article is actually very informative. From what the article is saying this is what is probably going on:

1. For over 25 years, developments relied on pre-sales (selling units before construction) to secure bank financing. Since interest rates rose in 2022, that system is broken. Rates are much higher, pre-sales collapsed, and banks will no longer provide financing. As a result, many projects, like NEFC, are stalled — and the city is aware of this.

2. A new funding approach is being put together for this project with help from senior levels of government. Governments will provide financing in return for a share in profits (participation mortgages) – plus they can negotiate public benefits like faster infrastructure or guaranteed housing delivery.

3. We’re likely to see more of this. With the pre-sale model no longer working, governments participating in financing can deliver housing and public benefits more effectively than long zoning battles.

I think the housing we currently need is not the housing that requires pre-sales. And I don't know how much profit there is renting to the lower income renters.

I would be hesitant allowing the government to finance these large fancy projects. Oakridge costs over $5 billion+ dollars. If a project like that goes bust, that is a serious blow to the tax payer. In the past, we allowed the foreign investor to pre-buy/invest/take the risk in housing. To shift that risk to the taxpayer seems risky

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by djmk

I think the housing we currently need is not the housing that requires pre-sales. And I don't know how much profit there is renting to the lower income renters.

I would be hesitant allowing the government to finance these large fancy projects. Oakridge costs over $5 billion+ dollars. If a project like that goes bust, that is a serious blow to the tax payer. In the past, we allowed the foreign investor to pre-buy/invest/take the risk in housing. To shift that risk to the taxpayer seems risky

"Under such a scenario, a participation mortgage could theoretically be a financing arrangement in which the provincial government provides upfront funding for the viaducts demolition and new road network, in exchange for repayment plus a share of future development revenues generated once the land is built out. As a form of low-cost financing, this approach would allow the major upfront capital costs needed to kickstart the NEFC Plan to be deferred until high-density development projects are ready further down the road."

It sounds like the City (in this scenario if it went ahead) would get an infrastructure loan to proceed with the public works before the rezoning is enacted (separating the two elements) and the CAC money is paid by the private developer to the City once the rezoning is complete.

The City is only "on the hook" if this property is never rezoned - which I realize yes it's already been unzoned for decades, but this approach seems very typical, no? A City getting money from higher level of governments to build / fix City infrastructure.

EDIT: I'll add that if the City proceeds before the property is rezoned, CAC money provided, the City would be able to build the new roads, remediate, build the new park, and all the eastern City lands - two whole City blocks - would be ready for development (Hogans Alley)

[Planner 9]

Originally Posted by djmk

I think the housing we currently need is not the housing that requires pre-sales. And I don't know how much profit there is renting to the lower income renters.

I would be hesitant allowing the government to finance these large fancy projects. Oakridge costs over $5 billion+ dollars. If a project like that goes bust, that is a serious blow to the tax payer. In the past, we allowed the foreign investor to pre-buy/invest/take the risk in housing. To shift that risk to the taxpayer seems risky

The thing is, the BC government has had a participation mortgage on these lands since the original 1988 sale. It was a way for the province to share in the land lift over time without taking on the risk of building it. The public sector has always had a financial stake in whether the project moves ahead.

Now that the development has stalled, that participation produces nothing and loses value over time. In this case, government financing isn’t about shifting risk to taxpayers — doing nothing simply locks in value loss.

That’s likely what’s going on here.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

... It sounds like the City (in this scenario if it went ahead) would get an infrastructure loan to proceed with the public works before the rezoning is enacted (separating the two elements) and the CAC money is paid by the private developer to the City once the rezoning is complete...

Following this logic, could a city also theoretically take out a loan for a rapid transit line and then pay it back in developer fees? Or does that step on the transit agency's toes?

[mcj]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Following this logic, could a city also theoretically take out a loan for a rapid transit line and then pay it back in developer fees? Or does that step on the transit agency's toes?

Perhaps a downtown Vancouver streetcar line which Translink has little interest in, but would be good for the downtown peninsula. Just an idea.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Following this logic, could a city also theoretically take out a loan for a rapid transit line and then pay it back in developer fees? Or does that step on the transit agency's toes?

Maybe, but the payback for the City is way faster on something like NEFC, which is extremely valuable land.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Following this logic, could a city also theoretically take out a loan for a rapid transit line and then pay it back in developer fees? Or does that step on the transit agency's toes?

Not entirely sure, but cities I've lived in where the city controlled their own transit system that sounds about right - like if a station was to be added to an existing or future transit line extension or a road closure and property acquisition turned into a city park, for example.

If I recall here there are two large properties that are paying CAC money to the City for the City to start work on the whole area (how much that CAC money covers today's dollars I can't remember).

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Following this logic, could a city also theoretically take out a loan for a rapid transit line and then pay it back in developer fees? Or does that step on the transit agency's toes?

That's been debated on the thread about the Arbutus line / Downtown streetcar. In some cities, where the city runs transit as well, presumably that would be possible if there's a convincing scenario that would see the loan being repaid.

In Metro Vancouver's case TransLink is the only agency tasked with operating transit, so they (and the province) would have to agree to a municipality developing a transit line wholly within its borders. It seems unlikely they would receive that approval, although back in the day Suzanne Anton obviously thought it would be possible. She never got the chance to convince other agencies as she didn't persuade enough voters to make her mayor. How any potential operating deficit would be covered is obviously a key question, but one that has never needed answering here.

[Planner 9]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

"Under such a scenario, a participation mortgage could theoretically be a financing arrangement in which the provincial government provides upfront funding for the viaducts demolition and new road network, in exchange for repayment plus a share of future development revenues generated once the land is built out. As a form of low-cost financing, this approach would allow the major upfront capital costs needed to kickstart the NEFC Plan to be deferred until high-density development projects are ready further down the road."

It sounds like the City (in this scenario if it went ahead) would get an infrastructure loan to proceed with the public works before the rezoning is enacted (separating the two elements) and the CAC money is paid by the private developer to the City once the rezoning is complete.

The City is only "on the hook" if this property is never rezoned - which I realize yes it's already been unzoned for decades, but this approach seems very typical, no? A City getting money from higher level of governments to build / fix City infrastructure.

EDIT: I'll add that if the City proceeds before the property is rezoned, CAC money provided, the City would be able to build the new roads, remediate, build the new park, and all the eastern City lands - two whole City blocks - would be ready for development (Hogans Alley)

As you point out, infrastructure-first financing is a normal tool, and cities often get senior government money to build roads and parks ahead of development.

What makes this situation different is that infrastructure alone doesn’t unblock NEFC right now. Even with roads and parks in place, housing still needs financing — and with weak pre-sales and high rates, private lenders aren’t stepping up.

The fact that senior governments are involved at all suggests this isn’t just about sequencing public works, but about filling a financing gap to actually get housing built. In a soft condo market, that likely means more rental delivered up front, which public capital is better suited to support.

So this looks less like a standard infrastructure loan and more like a blended approach to get the whole project moving when the private market can’t carry it on its own.