Downtown Vancouver Updates

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

thats what you have to do to do business in this city than you do it - the city says do this or you can't do this what else do you do?

me thinks you may have missed my point...

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Looks like Concord is doing more wheeling and dealing, first they dealt away their commercial space obligations and not they're doing the same with their social housing requirements. In lieu of meeting current obligations in the Cambie bridgehead area they are proposing giving the city title on 58 W Hastings and 117 E Hastings. Have to admit I'm not all that surprised but I am disappointed. Would not be surprised to see the city accept the trade even though they've talked the talk about spreading social housing throughout the city instead of concentrating it in the DTES.

The City took cash in-lieu of social housing for the location above the HSBC (next to Urban fare) because the government funding wasn't in place at the time for the housing to be built - so instead of an unfinished podium sitting there for years, Concord paid cash.

Of course, there's the added benefit to Concord of removing social housing from proximity to their project, but they have built a lot of social housing within the existing Marinaside and Pacific Blvd projects.

WRT the Bridgehead sites - is that the one next to The Max?
Or is it on the "Colours" sites? (It may be a good thing to move it away from the Casino)
i.e. will a tower rise on the site next to The Max?

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

me thinks you may have missed my point...

i never even read your point only the post above yours

at some point though developers have to say enough already - that or just pull out entirely

i don't see the point of making concord the bad guy here

[hollywoodnorth]

BOOM! out of nowhere >>


Vancouver mulls downtown 'cultural hub'
Suggested site where Vancouver Art Gallery wants to move

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/01/13/bc-art-gallery-cambie.html#ixzz1Ax0lT2O8

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The City took cash in-lieu of social housing for the location above the HSBC (next to Urban fare) because the government funding wasn't in place at the time for the housing to be built - so instead of an unfinished podium sitting there for years, Concord paid cash.

Of course, there's the added benefit to Concord of removing social housing from proximity to their project, but they have built a lot of social housing within the existing Marinaside and Pacific Blvd projects.

WRT the Bridgehead sites - is that the one next to The Max?
Or is it on the "Colours" sites? (It may be a good thing to move it away from the Casino)
i.e. will a tower rise on the site next to The Max?

I think the next to MAX site .... which is good as that site has been dead and crap for so long now. good to potentially see it turn into a tower with retail!

[officedweller]

Doubt there would be any retail on that site - The Max retail barely wraps the corner onto Beatty (and I think those spaces are vacant or soon to be vacant).

That end of Georgia has been touted as the Cultural Preinct for a long time - they're just trying to create some "buzz" for the Art gallery - maybe to support the City's position.

++++++++

Here's the NEFC amendment, and DPs for Colours 1 and Colours 2 with the amenity contributions descriptions, etc.

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20110118/documents/p7.pdf

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20110118/documents/p5.pdf

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20110118/documents/p6.pdf


DUH,
I just realized that the site being offered - 58 West Hastings is the site that Concord was going to develop but the DTES protested....
So DTES is getting what they wanted.

http://www.changeeverything.ca/blog/nanc...ty-hall-please-stop-condos-58-w-hastings

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

i never even read your point only the post above yours

at some point though developers have to say enough already - that or just pull out entirely

i don't see the point of making concord the bad guy here

Concord will never pull out because they essentially got their land for free. (The portion they sold to Henderson more than covered what they paid the province for the entire site and the province agreed to pay for the soil remediation).

My point is they have gotten huge value from the City already. They have made hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars based on the development rights they negotiated. Part of that negotiation resulted in certain responsibilities.

Now it seems every time they come upon something they have already agreed to do they try and pull out and say “Poor us. This is too onerous.”

I'm just sayin'

[SpongeG]

yes being forced into something by the city in the first point is my point

i'm not on either side but i guess my point is both sides play games and its not surprising when side pulls out and they shouldn't be looked badly upon any more so than the other side

[phesto]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

yes being forced into something by the city in the first point is my point

i'm not on either side but i guess my point is both sides play games and its not surprising when side pulls out and they shouldn't be looked badly upon any more so than the other side

Huh?

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by phesto

Huh?

concorde pulled out of a deal but in order for them to develope what they wanted they needed to enter into what i feel is an unnecessary deal with the city - forcing developers to buy land in an area they have no inerest in in order to develop the land they do want to develop though nice and hugsy warmsy is just stupid

it may have worked when the city was booming but the city isn't anymore and why should developers be straddled with projects they never wanted to do

so to see concorde pull out i don't see the problem and to label them the bad guy is unfair

its like me saying sure you can buy my car buy you have to buy my lawnmower and old tv as well

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

concorde pulled out of a deal but in order for them to develope what they wanted they needed to enter into what i feel is an unnecessary deal with the city - forcing developers to buy land in an area they have no inerest in in order to develop the land they do want to develop though nice and hugsy warmsy is just stupid

it may have worked when the city was booming but the city isn't anymore and why should developers be straddled with projects they never wanted to do

so to see concorde pull out i don't see the problem and to label them the bad guy is unfair

its like me saying sure you can buy my car buy you have to buy my lawnmower and old tv as well

The "deal" that Concord is pulling out of is the requirement to provide social housing. 20% across the Pacific Place lands.

Concord would have purchased the Hastings sites on its own accord with the thoughts of developing them - but the economy and the DTES protests quashed that - so they are trying for a "win, win" in its eyes - handing over the Hastings site to the "community" and satisfying the social housing commitment (albeit through different means).

[hazel]

Originally Posted by golog

Same reason why Concord pays 10% of the property tax the city does for its own nearby piece of land in NEFC. I realize this isn't polite conversation, but we'll never stand up for ourselves if no one ever says anything

You do realize that you can appeal if you think their property assessment is too low, or if it is mis-classed?

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The "deal" that Concord is pulling out of is the requirement to provide social housing. 20% across the Pacific Place lands.

Concord would have purchased the Hastings sites on its own accord with the thoughts of developing them - but the economy and the DTES protests quashed that - so they are trying for a "win, win" in its eyes - handing over the Hastings site to the "community" and satisfying the social housing commitment (albeit through different means).

ah but as the OV shows us seems people and buyers and the market has changed - they are more picky and buying into a development that is mixed in with social housing is worthy of buyers taking their dollars elsewhere

concorde is probably just wanting to avoid that and ensure they can sell the development

[Millennium2002]

There's a lot of talk about social housing, but not a lot of people understand it that well. In many cases, people assume that developers are trying to house the drug addict hanging out in some alley in Chinatown next door to you... and that's the scary part... you don't really know what kind of people are living close to you and that deprives your sense of community and safety as a result. The radical activist social housing movement down in the DTES doesn't make anything better and rather just reinforces the fear that some insane person will be living a few doors away.

Maybe a better thing to do would be to highlight those who apply for social housing... like asking legitimate, qualified applicants and their families to tell people their stories: their history, their situation, and what they plan to do in the future. That may just clear up the air for everyone and make social housing more tolerable for future residents, and it may also put some incentive on the social housing applicants to follow through on their resolutions.

[golog]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

yes being forced into something by the city in the first point is my point

i'm not on either side but i guess my point is both sides play games and its not surprising when side pulls out and they shouldn't be looked badly upon any more so than the other side

They weren't forced into it, at least no more than home buyers are forced into buying at any given price.

They made a deal. If they want to re-negotiate or amend the original deal, then it's up to them to give the City an incentive. They want to maximize their profit, the City wants to maximize the value of any land sales or zoning changes.

Maybe it's just juggling things around so that it works better for everyone. If Concord just wants to take a chance at a request to cut costs, of course the City should demand they pay full price so that it is not a dumping of costs onto the City, a handout of money in return for nothing, or an encouragement to everyone who deals with the city to re-negotiate after the fact with the City. Concord wouldn't help the City in the same way by offering to pay extra afterward.

You can work with people without being an exploited spineless sycophant. It's a balance.

If there is merit and reason to Concord's proposal, fine. Work as usual -- I really could care less who actually develops a given amenity, I'm not about to ask to see the owner tying rebar down in a mudpit.

If the crucial factor is the location, then Concord better offer enough total compensation to allow the completion of what they promised. I mean developing social housing in Weyburn Saskatchewan wouldn't uphold the bargain they made either.

As a side note, this is from a guy without conviction about social housing in general. The solution to high priced housing, is high priced housing. If you want to speed it up, encouragement development of more new units now rather than later.

[golog]

Originally Posted by hazel

You do realize that you can appeal if you think their property assessment is too low, or if it is mis-classed?

I don't believe I can appeal anyone's assessment but my own.

I can complain to the city to ask them to appeal for themselves, but that's about it.

My reference was from this set of stories earlier this year
Vancouver Courier: Fair value?
Frances Bula: Concord Pacific land assessment to be checked
Vancouver Courier: City won't appeal assessed value of Concord Pacific land: memo

Just imagine for a second -- do you think Concord would have sold you 12 acres of False Creek waterfront from the Cambie Bridge (incl. Coopers Quay) to Science World, for the price of $192,000? (the 2001 value)

Because that was apparently the "fair market value". There's a bit about it being zoned for park land, although that doesn't hold up because it was actively used as industrial or commercial land for either construction storage or hosting events (more recently rented for Olympic pavillions, which produced income to buy the property several times over, and a sales centre.)

Our municipal politics are a system that could hardly be better suited for corruption, from political donations to the execution of City responsibilities.

[SpongeG]

when i say forced to do the deal i think they accepted the terms of the deal at the time as thats how things get done but things have changed i think maybe i'm wrong but i think the days of get the condo now are behind us - people aren't scared anymore like they have been for so many years that they will miss out

people will shop around more and make sure the entire development is up to what they want and concorde knows that and knows to sell it they will have to drop the social housing to ensure good sales not because they are bad as was implied earlier in the thread

[golog]

SpongeG, that's fine. If Concord doesn't like it, they can just pay a full refund. They're in the business of predicting market conditions, the city didn't promise a sellout and Concord has never paid extra money to the city after it turned out to be more profitable than anticipated. Whether they promised a ferris wheel or social housing, they made a deal. If they want to make a new deal, they need to make an offer in line with the city's best interests.

Maybe the Hastings land is worth equal, or more than the equivalent cost of the originally promised amenity. The offered value would have to cover additional negotiations, and the cost of land plus contracting a new developer to build social housing in NEFC. If the city decides on its own to redo the social housing zoning, that's up to them and they can pocket the savings if they so choose. Anything else, and I only agree if I get to be first in line for the free money.

[jlousa]

The 58 W Hastings St site is worth ~$12M, the 117 E Hastings site significantly less. The issue with me isn't if the city is getting enough in return, I'm sure the numbers do work out in the cities favour.
It's that the city is reneging on it's policy which has shown success. Spreading social housing throughout the city helps build complete neighbourhoods and has proven more successful for the residents of that housing. Concentrating the units into the dtes has proven much less successful. While next door to a casino might not be the ideal location I'm not sure anyone can argue that the Hastings site are an improvement. If this deal does go thru hopefully the city will offload the properties and use the money for additional social housing in a healthier location although we know the pressure against the city will be great.

[whatnext]

Looks like the City is getting sued over the STIR development in the 1100 block of Granville:

...Last June, council approved a rezoning application for the 10-storey, 106-suite rental building next door, relaxing several development and parking requirements under the STIR program and waiving $638,000 in construction fees. Construction started in early November.

According to Ahmed’s legal documents, concessions made by city council meant the building could go ahead without a typically mandatory 20-foot setback from the residences next door. As a result, the large south-facing patio shared by all residents of 1130 Granville will be completely walled in by the neighbouring building, which will block light and views from the bedroom, kitchen, and bathroom windows of several of the units. Ahmed said one of his tenants has already given her notice....
http://www.westender.com/articles/entry/...s-city-over-new-building/news-and-views/

This certainly highlights the danger of allowing the city to break its own rules. Is it correct those new units are only 320 sq ft?

(PS is it just me, or is the italics not working?)