Whitecaps Stadium | 15,000 seats | proposed

[Rusty Gull]

Where's the responsibility to the community on the part of The Port?

It seems that they are acting quite aggressively lately towards any present and future tenants/owners on the waterfront. First came the announcement that they're kicking The Cannery out. Now they're in a public scrap with the Whitecaps over land negotiations.

At some point, Premier Campbell, or dare I say it, the feds, will need to get involved.

[jlousa]

The Whitecaps are offering to trade back the airrights over the tracks and $1, so it's not really 30,000sqm to 10,000sqm. The airrights are not nearly as valuable. Also the VPA did not own the land west of Canada Place, that was owned by a spin off of CP Rail, it was also not sold for a song and dance, they were paid quite nicely for it.

I've always though they should make the stadium with an intergrated cruise terminal anyways, that way Ballentyne could be converted over to container/cargo only and the VPA has there expansion space there.

[twoNeurons]

It probably has partly to do with the fact that Lenarduzzi "WANTS" the stadium... and so is at a disadvantage because his emotions are tied.

Most realize that he's willing to do a lot to get soccer in Vancouver and Canada and so they're trying to milk him.

It's a shame that he may have to go to Surrey to get a Stadium built.

[jlousa]

I think the problem is not that he wants it really bad and his emotions are showing, I think it's because he wants to pay $1 for the land. It's not VPAs fault that they bought the airspace over the tracks and are unable to make it work. They should've added clauses to the original purchase, it seems pretty obvious from my standpoint that someone at the Whitecaps really dropped the ball. (pun intended).
Still think a solution can be found, it's a rare case where I'm an optimist.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by tintinium

It's a shame that he may have to go to Surrey to get a Stadium built.

They'd probably have it approved in 5 minutes after he asks them......then they would proceed to throw flower pedals (or nachos) behind him wherever he walked until he dies.


With Vancouver City Council, you basically have a dozen turkey vultures that will claw and poke at him.

GET SULLIVAN OUT OF OFFICE!

[Rusty Gull]

I hate to say it, but I agree with the group here -- BUILD IT IN SURREY!

The Whitecaps did everything right in this case, with a gorgeous facility with sustainable transit connections and an appropriate location.

But since they've been stymied by City Hall, the Port and the local NIMBIES, why not build the mother of all stadiums in Surrey, with the mother of all tailgating parking lots beside it, and we'll all drive our SUVs (revving our engines through Gastown on the way) to enjoy some footie!

[officedweller]

Who knows what type of interest in the Port Lands is being contemplated - but if the Port is hung up on "value" and thinking of it as a real estate deal

- they could just enter into a Ground Lease for the site and development control would stay with the Port under the terms of the lease; or

- or they could encumber the site with a Restrictive Covenant that only allows permitted stadium-related uses with ancillary commercial space (so that they can't cash in and build an office tower on the site (like @ GM Place) or sell it to condo developers if the Caps go belly-up).

Otherwise - built it somehwere along the Skytrain Line - Burnaby, New West or Surrey. i.e. expand Swanguard and add a Skytrain Station at Cnetral Park.

[GMasterAres]

As much as I love Surrey living in the city all my life and purchasing property in it, it is difficult to compete view wise with having a waterfront stadium for soccer in Vancouver. It would be a big blow I think not to have it at the proposed location.

Any way you slice it (and I was on a harbour cruise poker sailing just a few days ago), Vancouver and especially down town is a beautiful city and when you throw in the mountains, water, and stanley park as your back drop, it's difficult for any city in the region to compete with that.

I think from a revitilization standpoint, it could benefit from being located in the Scott Road flats right behind the station or right along the river in Surrey. Could help spark a development push for a riverfront along with New West on the other side + with the SFPR (highway) going in, future improvements to the river crossing, sky-train, and the in-development new downtown Surrey just up the hill, a permier soccer stadium could really benefit that area and the area benfit it.

That and the NIMBYs would be happy around Gas Town that there would be no increased traffic and they could remove 1 lane on every road for rollerblading as is planned... ... :-)

But with all that said, I still think it would be a shame to not be constructed on Vancouver's waterfront. Real shame.

[jlousa]

*sigh* why do people keep blaming the COV on this one, they are not even involved in it at this point. The COV is supportive of the stadium, they would like it built. They cann't force the VPA into anything, this is only between the Whitecaps and the VPA right now. The COV only balked at the original proposal which didn't have support from most stakeholders, the next two proposals have met with COVs approval.

[flight_from_kamakura]

Originally Posted by officedweller

- they could just enter into a Ground Lease for the site and development control would stay with the Port under the terms of the lease; or

- or they could encumber the site with a Restrictive Covenant that only allows permitted stadium-related uses with ancillary commercial space (so that they can't cash in and build an office tower on the site (like @ GM Place) or sell it to condo developers if the Caps go belly-up).

these are good ideas, and i'm thinking a lease with covenant is probably the only way this deal gets done, but we'd still have to solve two issues:

1) i suspect the whitecaps will want to leverage the aerial development rights (for which they paid handsomely) as part of any deal... after all of this, the value of those rights will certainly be lower in the near term than when kerfoot snapped them up. how do those rights get leveraged in a swapout for a leasehold?

2) the vpa will doubtless want a very nice chunk of change for the land rights, and though i don't know him or his team or what they're thinking or how bad they want it, experience and common sense tell me that kerfoot won't be tossing in another xxx million dollars for another set of development rights.

here are my questions:

1. is it likely that political pressure gets this moving a bit quicker? (i suspect kerfoot and the gang are already making discreet inquiries here and there)
2. would the whitecaps hold on to the aerial rights AND payout for the waterfront leasehold? (this is what i would do in that situation, because man, those rights are going to be very very valuable in a few years!) if so, it would make them a power player in the area... or there could be some kind of arrangement with the city...
3. is it likely anything happens on this before march 2010? (i suspect so.)

[jlousa]

To answer you questions

1) I'm sure they are trying, but no federal polictian would even think about getting involved in assisting a billionaire build a private stadium on federal property, really bad optics.
2) The air rights are only as valuable if the land owner wants it to be, the Feds could decided to deed the land to the city as a park and those rights would become worthless. (very unlikely)
3) I imagine something will happen before the end of summer, one way or the other.

[TwoFace]

They should go here...

http://football.ballparks.com/CFL/BC/oldindex.htm

[flight_from_kamakura]

Originally Posted by jlousa

To answer you questions
1) I'm sure they are trying, but no federal polictian would even think about getting involved in assisting a billionaire build a private stadium on federal property, really bad optics.

LOL LOL totally!

Originally Posted by jlousa

2) The air rights are only as valuable if the land owner wants it to be, the Feds could decided to deed the land to the city as a park and those rights would become worthless. (very unlikely)

yeah, i was thinking that the developer might build it out in conjunction with the seawall extension/transit place, and deed part of the property to the city in exchange for something greater onsite, or somewhere else, or something for another developer who bought parcel rights, etc.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by jlousa

*sigh* why do people keep blaming the COV on this one, they are not even involved in it at this point. The COV is supportive of the stadium, they would like it built. They cann't force the VPA into anything, this is only between the Whitecaps and the VPA right now. The COV only balked at the original proposal which didn't have support from most stakeholders, the next two proposals have met with COVs approval.

Very well said. The COV isn't holding it up, the council and mayor aren't holding it up. It's really the VPA that is to blame. If it doesn't go through you can't blame Sam or anyone else in the COV as much as some people would like to.

[leftside]

The Gastown residents were in support of the second proposal (over the railway tracks - further west).

Quite funny calling Gastown residents NIMBY's. I would have thought a more appropriate term considering the amount of social housing, drug treatment centres, crackheads, shelters, nightclubs and bars would have been IMBY's

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by flight_from_kamakura

2. would the whitecaps hold on to the aerial rights AND payout for the waterfront leasehold? (this is what i would do in that situation, because man, those rights are going to be very very valuable in a few years!) if so, it would make them a power player in the area... or there could be some kind of arrangement with the city...

From what's been said on the news, it sounds like a transfer of Kerfoot's title to the railway lands (subject to the railways right of way) in exchange for the Port lands. Now that suggests that Kerfot would give up all development rights over the railway lands - so I'll bet that Kerfoot wants full development right over the Port Lands (i.e. not a ground lease and without restrictive covenants).
Buit I agree with you that if Kerfoot can't get full development rights over the Port Lands and have to settle for a ground lease, Kerfoot should hold onto the railway lands too. But in that case, the Port doesn't get much incentive to grant Kerfoot those rights (whereas the exchange would have secured for the Port access to the railway lands.)

[TwoFace]

Originally Posted by leftside

The Gastown residents were in support of the second proposal (over the railway tracks - further west).

Quite funny calling Gastown residents NIMBY's. I would have thought a more appropriate term considering the amount of social housing, drug treatment centres, crackheads, shelters, nightclubs and bars would have been IMBY's

How true, the only thing of their concern is the retention of affordable housing in the neighbourhood.
And Gastown merchants are the biggest boosters and flying the Whitecaps flag.

[Jacques]

it so funny how many posts the fault on calling Gastown NYMBIES when you sure agree on DUMPING all the crack heads from your FN neighbourhood and allow SROS and Ghetto DTES as long as it is not in your face, well too bad , I voted for the second proposal, get your facts str8.

[TwoFace]

Originally Posted by Jacques

it so funny how many posts the fault on calling Gastown NYMBIES when you sure agree on DUMPING all the crack heads from your FN neighbourhood and allow SROS and Ghetto DTES as long as it is not in your face, well too bad , I voted for the second proposal, get your facts str8.

You sound confused, what we are saying is that the community is NOT against the plan, it’s a monetary and railway access control thing between the Caps and the Port.

[officedweller]

Based on the Waterfront Station Transportation Hub plans, Kerfoot owns most of the land right behind teh Station - so maybe Kerfoot is trying to hold onto that hub area and just exchange the railway lands further to the east.