Downtown Vancouver Updates

[TwoFace]

Ouch... That is a very telling article. I hope it doesn't have any impact on existing Developments going forward.
I don't have the stomach for looking at open pit swimming pools for the next 5+ years.
_______________________________________

"He said construction costs currently are running at almost $300 a square foot"

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I've been saying that for awhile but everyone keeps pointing to our low vacancy rates, wait until the boom is over to see how quickly it spikes. When the time is right office space will be built, but not any sooner. I'll let the experts decide when that time is.

I have to disagree, I think the demand is here for some reasonable office towers, but not at these prices. Vancouver's economy is not high finance so our firms cannot justify paying such high prices to stay in the downtown core. When they see the sticker shock of being downtown they determine it isnt worth the price to be downtown as they can probably function just as well otuside the core for 25% less cost. I think once construction costs come down, and the city further rectifies its tax imbalances we will see a surge of commercial construction downtown.

[flight_from_kamakura]

i agree with you, but i'd like to quibble with you on this:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I think once construction costs come down, and the city further rectifies its tax imbalances we will see a surge of commercial construction downtown.

actually, property taxes are high for both homeowners and commercial property owners, and to me it seems that further shifting of the tax burden onto residents is a terrible solution. really, there's not much the city can do. a real solution will come with either amendments to the vancouver act to allow for expanded revenue streams (a city-wide sales tax, or a new capital leverage regime, for example), or further provincial/federal supports for capital spending on the maintenance side (more of the gas from the feds would help, as would/will the carbon tax funds).

regardless, the plan sammy and his crew are pushing to bring it close to 4-1 is a terrible way to go. trying to get to an american ratio without adding the additional revenue streams open to u.s. cities is just plain incompetent.

(sorry for the drift. in effect, a drift from a drift!)

[phesto]

It has been rumoured for several weeks that Aquilini couldn’t get financing on the GM Tower project, which I hinted at in previous posts…this isn’t really that shocking. The only reason they’ve taken the project to this point (through rezoning, with renderings etc) is to try and show they’re serious and to attract a major tenant or two, but at $45 psf, they only got “one nibble”.

With the current state of the debt market right now, combined with the high construction costs that leftcoaster and jlousa have already referred to, it is just really bad timing, regardless of how low vacancy is.

I’ve said all along that Bentall is in a much better position to build given the state of their current portfolio of office space downtown and their ability to backfill lower quality space upon construction of 745 Thurlow, and I suspect that it will be the next office tower downtown. Much better location too if you need tenants to pay prelease rates above $40 psf to get your financing. But there is no rush from their perspective. If you wanted to bring space to the market at the peak of the rent cycle, you're already way too late.

[jlousa]

Leftcoaster,
I'm not sure I share your optimism on the demand side, as you probably know there is hundreds of thousands of sqft of unoccuppied AAA space right in the CBD town asking in the $40range with no takers, most of this vacancy doesn't even show up on the stats as it's sublease.
I would love to see a few new office towers built more then probably anyone else here, I just don't see the economic reasons though. This isn't a case of what came first the chicken or the egg. If we build it that doesn't mean they will come. A new office tower requires signature tenants, I don't see any emerging in Vancouver. We need to find a niche and exploit it. I don't envision us stealing finance from Toronto or oil and gas from Calgary. Forestery and Mining are what we have to exploit, maybe videogames but that's a smaller market, global transportation is another sector we could try and conquer. Maybe oneday we can be a global hqs for the emerging "green" economy.
I do agree that this tower isn't dead at all, once costs come down it will be built as will many others, and yes we will steal some businesses back from the burbs when the prices stablize. New startups will then move into that empty suburb (cheap) space and the cycle will continue.

[phesto]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Leftcoaster,
I'm not sure I share your optimism on the demand side, as you probably know there is hundreds of thousands of sqft of unoccuppied AAA space right in the CBD town asking in the $40range with no takers, most of this vacancy doesn't even show up on the stats as it's sublease.
I would love to see a few new office towers built more then probably anyone else here, I just don't see the economic reasons though. This isn't a case of what came first the chicken or the egg. If we build it that doesn't mean they will come. A new office tower requires signature tenants, I don't see any emerging in Vancouver. We need to find a niche and exploit it. I don't envision us stealing finance from Toronto or oil and gas from Calgary. Forestery and Mining are what we have to exploit, maybe videogames but that's a smaller market, global transportation is another sector we could try and conquer. Maybe oneday we can be a global hqs for the emerging "green" economy.
I do agree that this tower isn't dead at all, once costs come down it will be built as will many others, and yes we will steal some businesses back from the burbs when the prices stablize. New startups will then move into that empty suburb (cheap) space and the cycle will continue.

There is currently about 100,000 sq ft of vacant space in AAA towers right now, sublease or otherwise. Not much, but you're right, the only companies with an appetite for it would use it for expansion, and at the asking rates, they would rather just make do with what they have until the market cools a bit.

The only companies that are paying in the upper $40's psf rent are in dire need of space downtown. For the most part though, leasing activity has been very slow in AAA over the last few quarters.

[officedweller]

Hmmm the BC Place thread has been closed, so I'll post this here.

Retractable roof for B.C. Place would be great, but do it fast

Michael Smyth, The Province
Published: Friday, April 25, 2008


A Mud Bay Drilling crew conducts soil tests at the southeast corner of B.C. Place Stadium Thursday. Gerry Kahrmann - The Province

The warm weather may be slow in arriving, but it'll soon be time to put the top down on the old convertible for some fun in the sun. But does the same go for shabby old B.C. Place?

The Gordon Campbell government is deciding what kind of new roof the stadium will get in time for the Olympics -- and speculation is rampant they could opt for a snazzy retractable model.

Any fan who's spent a gorgeous, sunny day sitting inside for a Lions game would love the option to peel back the roof. But is it possible to put a retractable roof on B.C. Place in time for the 2010 opening ceremonies? And how much would it cost B.C. taxpayers?

"Less than $100 million," insists an enthusiastic Cyril Silberman, owner of one of North America's leading designers of lightweight, retractable stadium roofs. He dismisses earlier cost projections of $150 million to $200 million. "It's a doable project and it could be done in 24 months at a reasonable cost, but only if they got moving on it very soon."

"Very soon" is clearly the timetable David Podmore is working under. The chairman of the B.C. Pavilion Corp. -- the government agency that runs B.C. Place -- confirms a report and recommendation will soon go to cabinet for a decision.

"We've been conducting a very thorough review, investigating all of the alternatives, and our recommendation will be ready in the next few weeks," Podmore told me.

He wouldn't tip his hand about which way the corporation is leaning, but he makes no secret he personally likes the retractable option.

"I think it would be wonderful," he said. "It would give the stadium a lot more utility. We could hold a wider range of events. It would be a more comfortable environment for people. And it would be more energy efficient."

Podmore said B.C. Place spends $1.4 million on electricity every year just to keep the Teflon bubble inflated. And even then it can still be ripped apart in foul weather, as everyone saw last year.

But is a retractable roof feasible and could it be built on time?

Critics point out the walls of B.C. Place were designed to support a fabric roof. Could that be why Mud Bay Drilling of Surrey is taking soil samples outside the stadium right now, to see if the ground could support the exoskeleton needed for a new retractable roof?

"Well, I suppose that could be the reason," Mud Bay's Gordon Gibbons told me. "They didn't tell us why they wanted the drilling done. They want to test the stability of the soil for some reason."

Silberman, owner of Uni-Systems of Minneapolis, Minn., said testing soil stability would be a precursor to anchoring cables that would tether down a retractable fabric roof -- a design his company specializes in.

Birdair, the manufacturer of the existing B.C. Place roof, discussed retractable options for the stadium with his company some time ago, but Silberman says no one from the B.C. government has contacted him directly.

"I wish they would," he said. "There are some exciting North American options out there for B.C. Place, but the jungle drums say a German company has the inside track."

The bottom line: A retractable roof would be awesome for B.C. Place and a wonderful new asset for the city. But whatever the government decides, they better decide quickly. Any construction delays at this late date could be disastrous for the 2010 opening ceremonies.

[email protected]

© The Vancouver Province 2008

[Delirium]

i find the buildings at wall centre false creek really bland but there might be hope for the playhouse theater. looks somewhat interesting...



and here's another view of 999 seymour. this is the seymour frontage

[Hot Rod]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Leftcoaster,
I'm not sure I share your optimism on the demand side, as you probably know there is hundreds of thousands of sqft of unoccuppied AAA space right in the CBD town asking in the $40range with no takers, most of this vacancy doesn't even show up on the stats as it's sublease.
I would love to see a few new office towers built more then probably anyone else here, I just don't see the economic reasons though. This isn't a case of what came first the chicken or the egg. If we build it that doesn't mean they will come. A new office tower requires signature tenants, I don't see any emerging in Vancouver. We need to find a niche and exploit it. I don't envision us stealing finance from Toronto or oil and gas from Calgary. Forestery and Mining are what we have to exploit, maybe videogames but that's a smaller market, global transportation is another sector we could try and conquer. Maybe oneday we can be a global hqs for the emerging "green" economy.
I do agree that this tower isn't dead at all, once costs come down it will be built as will many others, and yes we will steal some businesses back from the burbs when the prices stablize. New startups will then move into that empty suburb (cheap) space and the cycle will continue.

Why doesn't Vancouver use its position in International Trade to become the next Singapore/Hong Kong? We should make it 'desireable' to at least have an office for every major multinational company - to have some sort of office in downtown.

Also, there's the possibility of courting Microsoft moreso (corporate relo or at least a skyscraper for the existing Microsoft Canada Hq). What about back-office opportunities? What about film, tourism, and retail hq's? I also don't see anything wrong with growing our existing financial centre.. .. as it's obviously cheaper to do business in vancouver than it is in NY, Chicago, Tokyo, London, or dare I say Toronto. Im not saying get as big as those cities but I am saying there are opportunities that could be exploited.

What we need is sort of a "chamber of commerce" model that many US cities use, where they have people scout companies by having the cc's representatives attend conferences, sporting events, and even run-of-the-mill speculative 'shots-in-the-dark' - touting the city's assets and desireableness.

I think there are creative things that can be done to fill office space and certainly downtown Vancouver has to be one of the most desireable places on this continent.

How do we get the ball rolling? - Im positive once we gain some acquisitions that momentum should ensure we move to steadily toward the 50M sq feet mark (which is what I think downtown should be).

[Hot Rod]

by the way, another way to 'exploit' companies is to truly COURT them when they convention HERE!

Why not sell the virtues of the city while they're here - they would 'at least' spread the word that Vancouver is looking to expand! Surely, companies desire to have offices with connections - Vancouver should tout (and build) it's Asian connections, It's the Gateway to Asia; International Trade should be the biggest sector and I totally could see an International Finance Center (or two) and a much taller World Trade Center located at the new Waterfront Hub complex. .....

wouldn't it be nice, 3 signature skyscrapers at least 700 feet concentrated on the waterfront, with the largest transit hub in the region at their foot. ....

Salivating!!!

[SpongeG]

has anyone seen the proposal for granville street - just north of davie?

they have a rendering if someone has a camera hint hint

it looks interesting

7 stories - 1 floor of retail and 6 floors of residential

finally filling in that parking lot...

[SpongeG]

also a few of the renovations along granville look to be done

that one old hotel is done and the boarding is down with the spaces up for lease, the burger king is boarded up and the upstairs you can see signs of demo

the drug store has a big LEASED on it on now

the empty lot next to the Roxy looks like its getting ready for something to go up

and they really should keep the street closed every weekend - trying to walk from davie to robson saturday night was a pain - there are many places where you just can't walk on the sidewalk due to lineups - argh

edit: addition: and the "oh my godard" gallery is gone and it already says LEASED

[officedweller]

Anyone notice that there's a new Paralympic / RBC sign at the top of the Royal Bank Tower (south side)?

[Hed Kandi]

Downtown waterfront gets reborn
Area could be world-class development
Cheryl Chan

Province

Sunday, April, 27, 2008





Vancouver’s concept plan for the downtown waterfront includes transportation, restaurants, hotels and offices.






An ambitious vision of Vancouver's downtown waterfront area was on display to the public yesterday.

The concept plans of the Central Waterfront Hub, a major redevelopment of the area north of Cordova Street roughly between Granville and Richards Street, included a world-class transportation concourse and new developments chock full of retail and office spaces.

The goals of the plan are two-fold, said city planner Matt Shillito at the open house at the central library.

"The first goal involves the waterfront as a unique place in the region to bring all the transportation modes together," he said.

The heart of the redesign is a concourse, a civic space located below street level behind the heritage Waterfront Station building.

It will have access to the SkyTrain, SeaBus, West Coast Express and buses as well as the future Canada Line and potential ferries and a downtown streetcar.

The concourse will have a glazed roof to let natural light in. Some of the proposed elements include airport check-in, cafes and restaurants, and a "bikeade."

The second goal is to "extend the city to meet the water and to create new development sites in the area," said Shillito.

Granville Street would be extended past Cordova to a new road, Canada Place Extension. A new seawall will be built on the water's edge.

The plan also involves creating six new developments that would house hotels, restaurants, office towers and retail and recreational spaces.

Planners still need to conduct technical studies to examine the plan's economic and structural feasibility and its impact on transit and traffic.

Derick McNeil, a Vancouver resident who came across the exhibit yesterday, liked the "exciting" proposal.

McNeil noted Vancouver has a lack of public spaces for concerts compared to other cities like Montreal and said he'd like to see a cultural space in the development plans. "How amazing would it be to see a jazz concert overlooking Burrard Inlet in the sunset?"

© The Vancouver Province 2008

[feisto]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Leftcoaster,
I'm not sure I share your optimism on the demand side, as you probably know there is hundreds of thousands of sqft of unoccuppied AAA space right in the CBD town asking in the $40range with no takers, most of this vacancy doesn't even show up on the stats as it's sublease.
I would love to see a few new office towers built more then probably anyone else here, I just don't see the economic reasons though. This isn't a case of what came first the chicken or the egg. If we build it that doesn't mean they will come. A new office tower requires signature tenants, I don't see any emerging in Vancouver. We need to find a niche and exploit it. I don't envision us stealing finance from Toronto or oil and gas from Calgary. Forestery and Mining are what we have to exploit, maybe videogames but that's a smaller market, global transportation is another sector we could try and conquer. Maybe oneday we can be a global hqs for the emerging "green" economy.
I do agree that this tower isn't dead at all, once costs come down it will be built as will many others, and yes we will steal some businesses back from the burbs when the prices stablize. New startups will then move into that empty suburb (cheap) space and the cycle will continue.

Just to set the facts straight here:

There is nowhere near 'hundreds of thousands' of unoccupied AAA space. Including sublease space there is more like 90,000 SF of available AAA space.

[jlousa]

I can assure you there are more the 90,000sqft of AAA unoccuppied space downtown, In fact there are two building I know for a fact have almost that much available each. They are both not seeking to lease it out so it is not counted, that doesn't change the fact it's sitting there unused. The space is being held by companies that know they will be expanding down the road so they've taken the space now to ensure availablity. You can argue that it doesn't count then as the space does have a tenantive tenant, but it still takes away from future demand. There are numerous other companies with the same scenarios.

Trust me if there really was only 90,000sqft of AAA space available d/t, then office towers would be sprouting up everywhere and they are not. The absorbation rate is ~450,000sqft/yr in Vancouver, according to your numbers we'll be into negative vacancy in a few months.

[achu]

Originally Posted by Hed Kandi

Downtown waterfront gets reborn
Area could be world-class development
Cheryl Chan

Province

Sunday, April, 27, 2008

no mention of the whitecaps stadium at all?

interesting.....

[Jacques]

it is confusing to follow this thread , there is one thread about the WATERFRONT HUB development, that is not in the downtown update, just see under
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=14607pertainign to this subject
as for the Whitecap Stadium there is also a thread at:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=139632
and another one:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=126771
Too many thread about the same subject ought be fixed

[Delirium]

3 harbour green is going to the development permit board on june 2.
looks like it is in fact 32 stories. the mention of 38 was a typo:

277 THURLOW STREET - DE411944 – ZONE CD-1 (COMPLETE APPLICATION)
Applicant: IBI/HB Architects

Request: To develop the final site of the Harbour Green precinct with a 32-storey residential tower containing a total of 82 dwelling units, over four levels of underground parking for 223 vehicles.

but wtf.. 82 units? almost seems like a waste of land. no wonder why that area is dead - there aren't enough units to support any type of activity.
there sure is a lot of parking though! 223 stalls for 82 units. that's on average 2.7 parking stall per unit. seems excessive for a downtown condo.

[nathan6969]

^^I doubt anyones walking to work from this one.