General Vancouver Updates

[squeezied]

Updates on the Molson Brewery site:

A syndicate of Chinese investors seeks to turn one of Vancouver’s last protected industrial sites, the iconic Molson Coors factory, into “a great sea view apartment development” according to investment documents.

In November 2015, Molson Coors confirmed to Postmedia News the sale of its three-hectare site at the foot of Burrard Bridge to a mystery buyer, for an undisclosed price. Postmedia reported that the sale wouldn’t close until early 2016 and experts estimated the price could have been about $190 million.

Property documents still connect the site to Molson Inc. The site is zoned industrial and protected in that usage by Metro Vancouver’s board and Vancouver city planners, Vancouver’s assistant planning director Kent Munro told The Province on Wednesday.

Munro said the city doesn’t know who the Molson site buyer is and “no one has come in and talked to us.”

Both the city and Metro Vancouver see the site as important for long-term industrial job creation.





Munro said Metro Vancouver would have to approve a residential rezoning before Vancouver council did the same through a public hearing.

“Last year Molson spoke to us before they tried to sell it, about (rezoning) potential, and we gave the same answer,” Munro said.

“It’s in Metro Vancouver’s regional context statement, and the City ... don’t have any plans to change it.”

A spokesman said Mayor Gregor Robertson has not received “any new applications” for the Molson site.

But in online advertisements at vansky.com, a Chinese-language site for investors in the Lower Mainland, Sun Commercial Real Estate apparently announces residential plans for the lands with an ad that includes pictures of the brewery site.

“Sun Commercial real estate brewery project recruit shareholders, 330,000 feet of great sea view apartment development,” says an English translation of Sun Commercial’s materials. The plan says small investors are required to contribute $150,000 and “VIP customers” must invest $100 million. However the VIP contribution is already “full,” documents say.

The plan is “zero risk, high return,” the translated Sun Commercial document says, and “existing brewery investment project in full swing ... almost nearing completion.”

Property, corporate and online documents researched by The Province link Sun Commercial and related numbered companies to Richmond investor Kevin Sun, Vancouver realtor Denise She and vice-president Julia Lau, a former Vancouver realtor.

The company says it brings large and small investors together through “crowdfunding” for projects with massive returns. The Province called vansky.com about the Sun Commercial investor recruitment for the Molson site plan and was directed to call Sun Commercial’s offices.

The Province called Sun Commercial and asked if Kevin Sun, Julia Lau or other individuals could speak to the plan. A message placed through a receptionist was not immediately returned.

Lawrence Lim, president of Mayfair Commercial R.E. in Richmond, has represented Kevin Sun and Denise She in previous deals, including a Coquitlam golf course purchase.

Lim appeared surprised that The Province was aware of Sun Commercial’s Molson site plans, but when told of online documents, he confirmed a deal. “I’m aware of the deal but I can’t comment on it,” Lim said. “There is a twist.”

In one deal advertised online, Sun Commercial reported buying a Cambie property across from Oakridge for $19 million in July 2013 and selling it for $26 million in October 2013, after holding it for just three months. Kevin Sun is director of Qiji, one of the companies connected to the deal in legal documents.

Another Sun Commercial project researched by The Province, a Metrotown land assembly, involves investors including Julia Lau and Mailin Chen.

Mailin Chen is the newly rich construction tycoon from China who made headlines last year with his purchases of a number of Metro Vancouver homes including a Point Grey mansion for $50-million.

http://www.theprovince.com/business/...medium=twitter

Surely these offshore buyers would know about the zoning of the site before they made the purchase? Something's going on here.

[s211]

Originally Posted by squeezied

Surely these offshore buyers would know about the zoning of the site before they made the purchase?

I've been told of a couple of specific examples where the answer to your question would be "no".

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

And the Duke excavation immediately to the south of Vya.


Dec.11 '15, my pics

New crane is up at the Duke site on Kingsway.


Jan.15 '16, my pics

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

Vya has a crane up now. Just one of those little ones. The excavation is well along now.

Dec.11 '15, my pics

Update on Vya.



Jan.15 '16, my pics

[officedweller]

The site has been cleared for this on at Fraser & 17th:

http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2015/0...r-fraser-17th/




http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2015/0...r-fraser-17th/

[vanman]

Pretty interesting to see an entire block of doomed single family homes awaiting the inevitable. Oak + Park, 41 townhomes is what will be taking their place.

[officedweller]

I guess the irony is that those houses would have been decried as "monster homes" back in the 1980s (?)

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I guess the irony is that those houses would have been decried as "monster homes" back in the 1980s (?)

True, but those particular ones won't be missed. Ugly.

[vanman]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I guess the irony is that those houses would have been decried as "monster homes" back in the 1980s (?)

It seems like a wasted oppurtunity that they're only being replaced by townhomes and not midrises lined by townhomes.

[vanman]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

True, but those particular ones won't be missed. Ugly.

The definition of disposable architecture.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by vanman

It seems like a wasted oppurtunity that they're only being replaced by townhomes and not midrises lined by townhomes.

My thoughts exactly. 41 units for a whole block? Something along oak should be higher density. Still will be great to see those houses go!!

[logan5]

Originally Posted by vanman

Pretty interesting to see an entire block of doomed single family homes awaiting the inevitable. Oak + Park, 41 townhomes is what will be taking their place.

I wonder how long it took for the developer to acquire the entire block? I presume it takes years as we have yet to see a row-house development in Norquay.

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

My thoughts exactly. 41 units for a whole block? Something along oak should be higher density. Still will be great to see those houses go!!

There will be higher density (up to 8 stories) centred at Oak and 67th Ave. Building heights slope down from there. These townhouses are roughly between 62nd and 64th ave.

Marpole Community Plan (start at page 51 for Oak Street): http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/marpol...unity-plan.pdf

I'm quite content with the townhouses here. It's a sensible and good transition to the existing single family neighbourhood.

Anybody interested can view the development plans here: http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...park/index.htm

They're traditional style townhouses and they're quite nice in my opinion. I much prefer this style over the tacky "modern" and "contemporary" crap (again in my opinion) many developers are building nowadays.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by squeezied

I'm quite content with the townhouses here. It's a sensible and good transition to the existing single family neighbourhood.

By "sensible" you must mean that the artificially low density is less offensive to the sensibilities of those who have difficulty adapting to change (and thus more politically expedient and effortless for the city), not that it is a sensible level of density for a busy corridor in a growing city with a real estate affordability crisis, the amelioration of which requires more efficient creation of a much greater supply of housing (i.e. far greater densification) than current land use policies allow.

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

By "sensible" you must mean that the artificially low density is less offensive to the sensibilities of those who have difficulty adapting to change (and thus more politically expedient and effortless for the city), not that it is a sensible level of density for a busy corridor in a growing city with a real estate affordability crisis, the amelioration of which requires more efficient creation of a much greater supply of housing (i.e. far greater densification) than current land use policies allow.

There's nothing wrong with townhouse developments. They play an equally important role in the diversity and densification of housing as do midrises and highrises. Density does not guarantee affordability.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by squeezied

There will be higher density (up to 8 stories) centred at Oak and 67th Ave. Building heights slope down from there. These townhouses are roughly between 62nd and 64th ave.

Marpole Community Plan (start at page 51 for Oak Street): http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/marpol...unity-plan.pdf

I'm quite content with the townhouses here. It's a sensible and good transition to the existing single family neighbourhood.

Anybody interested can view the development plans here: http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/...park/index.htm

They're traditional style townhouses and they're quite nice in my opinion. I much prefer this style over the tacky "modern" and "contemporary" crap (again in my opinion) many developers are building nowadays.

I'm not talking about tall or mid rise buildings. Im talking about higher densities. That area could have easily double the units without going more than 3-4 floors

These townhomes would be good where all the single family homes are on the side streets. And get rid of the current sfh

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by squeezied

Density does not guarantee affordability.

Densification (i.e., the efficient creation of greater supply) does guarantee downward pressure on prices, which is precisely what Vancouver needs.

By contrast, restricting density restricts supply, and restricting supply increases prices, precisely what Vancouver does not need (but precisely what city policy is doing).

That is economics 101.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

I'm not talking about tall or mid rise buildings. Im talking about higher densities. That area could have easily double the units without going more than 3-4 floors

These townhomes would be good where all the single family homes are on the side streets. And get rid of the current sfh

If you go over land value maps, you'll notice that residential arterials are notably less valuable than commercial arterials, and that residential arterial land is much less valuable than land off the arterial, while commercial is much more. Zoning allowing up to mixed use with apartments would allow for a use which *benefits* from an arterial location, rather than being degraded by it, and still allow more housing.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Densification (i.e., the efficient creation of greater supply) does guarantee downward pressure on prices, which is precisely what Vancouver needs.

By contrast, restricting density restricts supply, and restricting supply increases prices, precisely what Vancouver does not need (but precisely what city policy is doing).

That is economics 101.

It's true in theoretical economics, and certainly over the long term. But look at what's happening around Metrotown, with affordable 3 story wood apartments being torn down and replaced with higher density concrete condos, which are far more expensive to rent.

[osirisboy]

Bdawe, not sure what your point is?