Downtown Vancouver Updates

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Of course, it is the moral responsibility of all to care for their fellow man. The things is, should that be imposed or voluntary? Is charity better than government imposition?

"Christian charity" sounds good but unfortunately not all 'Christians" are charitable and our society is no longer very religious. Hence, given that we all live and survive in the mutual environment of economic systems guided by GOVERNMENT it is imperative for government to take the necessary steps to protect the social/economic interest of all of us,......and not just the wealthy who have benefited the most from the rules and resources of our political economic SYSTEM (which is inherently ORGANIC/interdependent and NOT atomistic/individualistic in nature/essence)!

[jollyburger]

One of the units. Interesting all the spaces have two washrooms each.

Similar rent for an 850 sq feet space in South Granville.

Est. Monthly Rent: $6,749
Size 910 SF
Type Retail (Street front)
Gross Rent $89.00/SF
Base Rent $65.00/SF
Additional Rent $24.00/SF

https://spacelist.ca/p/bc/vancouver/1001_denman_st/5

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Maybe because rents are too high and everything in Vancouver must be a luxury brand or massive chain now.

No more interesting, local, and or affordable stores and restaurants allowed anymore.

The owners got screwed due to bad investments.

I have pointed out before that the City bylaw not to let the building go higher here actually handicaps the business of renting these units out. To recoup for the high-priced land, the developer has to sell/lease the CRUs at a high price, resulting in insane rental rates. Such low-rise street retail does not work downtown, or even anywhere in Vancouver now. This will dissuade other developers from improving the quality of buildings along that stretch, on in much of West End. Regressive indeed. The only way to help lower rental rates is to allow developers to build more retail space for the increasingly high density downtown neighbourhoods.

Originally Posted by jollyburger

One of the units. Interesting all the spaces have two washrooms each.



https://spacelist.ca/p/bc/vancouver/1001_denman_st/5

They must be anticipating food and beverage businesses (the only thing viable now) to snatch up the units there, but to no avail.

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by Vin

The owners got screwed due to bad investments.

I have pointed out before that the City bylaw not to let the building go higher here actually handicaps the business of renting these units out. To recoup for the high-priced land, the developer has to sell/lease the CRUs at a high price, resulting in insane rental rates. Such low-rise street retail does not work downtown, or even anywhere in Vancouver now. This will dissuade other developers from improving the quality of buildings along that stretch, on in much of West End. Regressive indeed. The only way to help lower rental rates is to allow developers to build more retail space for the increasingly high density downtown neighbourhoods.




They must be anticipating food and beverage businesses (the only thing viable now) to snatch up the units there, but to no avail.

The market determines the rates, not your pseudo logic. I suppose you believe the densest towers are the most affordable as well.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Vin

The owners got screwed due to bad investments.

I have pointed out before that the City bylaw not to let the building go higher here actually handicaps the business of renting these units out. To recoup for the high-priced land, the developer has to sell/lease the CRUs at a high price, resulting in insane rental rates. Such low-rise street retail does not work downtown, or even anywhere in Vancouver now. This will dissuade other developers from improving the quality of buildings along that stretch, on in much of West End. Regressive indeed. The only way to help lower rental rates is to allow developers to build more retail space for the increasingly high density downtown neighbourhoods.

Except the cost of land is a function of what you can build on it, so upzoning the land only ups the price of the land.

This land would have been bought for a multiple of what could be build, as all land is. The rents are dictated by the market not some strange residual income equation.

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

Dec.11 '15, my pic

The Ormidale Block nine and a half weeks later…


Feb.16 '16, my pic

[officedweller]

Chinese [company snags] Vancouver’s biggest real estate prize: All four Bentall Centre towers
By Garry Marr, Financial Post February 17, 2016 3:04 PM

...Anbang Insurance Group Co. Ltd., a Beijing-based company with a reported US$114 billion in assets, is buying what amounts to a 66 per cent stake in Bentall I, II, III and IV ...

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/chinese+inve...centre/11725989/story.html#ixzz40TLvZPP8

[Vin]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Except the cost of land is a function of what you can build on it, so upzoning the land only ups the price of the land.

This land would have been bought for a multiple of what could be build, as all land is. The rents are dictated by the market not some strange residual income equation.

You can build 10 stories, but that doesn't mean the land price will increase 10 times right? So in effect, there are still lots of benefits, enough to trickle down to cheaper rents even if the land cost is doubled.

If we make it 15 stories, the result would be even better.

Land cost is a function of what you can build on it, but it is not straight-line proportional.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by squeezied

The market determines the rates, not your pseudo logic. I suppose you believe the densest towers are the most affordable as well.

Yes, people who cannot afford a low density single family house tend to buy a townhome. Those who cannot afford a townhome will buy a condo. Do you follow this logic or should I elaborate further?

[Vin]

Came across this:


https://www.biv.com/article/2016/2/bc-supreme-court-approves-city-rezoning-allow-west/


B.C. Supreme Court approves city rezoning to allow West End rental tower
Westbank wants to build a 21-storey, 178-unit market-rental tower on Pendrell Street

Feb. 16, 2016, 12:24 p.m.
Real Estate
By Glen Korstrom
Controversy around the proposed tower resulted from concern about view loss and excess density | Westbank

B.C. Supreme Court on February 16 ruled that the City of Vancouver’s proposed rezoning of a site on Pendrell Street near Denman Street is OK to proceed.


That opens the doors for Westbank to build a proposed 21-storey, 178-unit market-rental tower.

Six West End residents had tried to block the project by appealing to the court for a judicial review of a rezoning decision in which Vancouver city council voted five to three to convert three adjacent lots to the CD-1 zoning that would allow the project.

LandlordBC CEO David Hutniak told Business in Vancouver that the court’s decision was great news because people complain about housing becoming unaffordable in the city and this is a way to alleviate that concern.

“We have such a chronic shortage of purpose-built rental in Vancouver and we’ve had a huge gap of 25 or 30-plus years from building it [in the West End],” he said.


“We need to get this cycle going again of building new stuff, which becomes affordable in seven to eight years.”

Mayor Gregor Robertson was also elated.

“This is a very positive step for both the West End and affordable housing in Vancouver,” he said.

“This new development provides 178 new rental homes, including 26 at below market rents, in a neighbourhood with one of the lowest vacancy rates in the city. This is the type of housing Vancouver needs and we are pleased that it can now proceed.”

Residents who took the matter to court were concerned with the site making the area too dense, blocking views and otherwise disrupting the neighbourhood.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Apparently BC Hydro (I suppose) wants to remove the space frame from Cathedral Square Substation and replace it with "end caps" above each vent tower. I remember when the space frame actually had a plastic roof or membrane on it.


http://former.vancouver.ca/devapps/566richards/index.htm

Came across these pics of Cathedral Square from 1986 at the Vancouver Archives:


http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/cathedral-square-block-35-2


http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/cathedral-square-block-35-4


http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/description-in-progress-5306

[Jebby]

Wow, it actually used to look pretty good.

[whatnext]

Its laughable that for such a wet city, Vancouver can't seem to maintain or even create many covered outdoor spaces.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Vin

“We need to get this cycle going again of building new stuff, which becomes affordable in seven to eight years.”

Mayor Gregor Robertson was also elated.

“This is a very positive step for both the West End and affordable housing in Vancouver,” he said.

“This new development provides 178 new rental homes, including 26 at below market rents, in a neighbourhood with one of the lowest vacancy rates in the city. This is the type of housing Vancouver needs and we are pleased that it can now proceed.”

Says the mayor who's second office is seemingly domiciled in Westbank's office.

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by Vin

Yes, people who cannot afford a low density single family house tend to buy a townhome. Those who cannot afford a townhome will buy a condo. Do you follow this logic or should I elaborate further?

Yes please elaborate further, you've certainly proven yourself to be a person of logic in this forum.

Except your logic had nothing to do with my point. Adding additional floors will not make those retail units any cheaper. The market determines the rates. Any cost savings the developer makes from building additional floors is profit for the developer. You're fooling yourself if you think it'll translate to cheaper rents. Developers will charge what they can charge, regardless of whether they will make a profit or not. Do you follow this logic? Or do you think the City is the bad guy and developers are the good guys with altruistic intentions?

If you think allowing taller buildings will produce a more affordable product due to the economies of repeating same floor plates for multiple floors, then you must think a unit in a 60 story tower is markedly cheaper than an identical unit in a 6 story midrise. For all intents and purposes, they aren't. This is pretty obvious.

[BodomReaper]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Wow, it actually used to look pretty good.

I love it - almost has an Islamic feel to it.

The park still remains one of the best outdoor spaces in downtown, always packed to the brim with international students and office workers during lunch hour.

[phesto]

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

I love it - almost has an Islamic feel to it.

The park still remains one of the best outdoor spaces in downtown, always packed to the brim with international students and office workers during lunch hour.

I used to walk by this park every day up until about a year ago and I would say the vast majority of users are homeless people. The park is often littered with garbage from people rifling through the bins for empties. Not a very nice spot anymore.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by squeezied

Yes please elaborate further, you've certainly proven yourself to be a person of logic in this forum.

Except your logic had nothing to do with my point. Adding additional floors will not make those retail units any cheaper. The market determines the rates. Any cost savings the developer makes from building additional floors is profit for the developer. You're fooling yourself if you think it'll translate to cheaper rents. Developers will charge what they can charge, regardless of whether they will make a profit or not. Do you follow this logic? Or do you think the City is the bad guy and developers are the good guys with altruistic intentions?

If you think allowing taller buildings will produce a more affordable product due to the economies of repeating same floor plates for multiple floors, then you must think a unit in a 60 story tower is markedly cheaper than an identical unit in a 6 story midrise. For all intents and purposes, they aren't. This is pretty obvious.

Of course the retail units can be cheaper The City can step in and regulate rental rates for the strata to encourage local business growths, as well as providing benefits for residents. It could be a "contribution" to the City for allowing the developer to make more profits from more residential strata units sold, and that comes with taller buildings. Now is that logical enough for you? Obviously this City can do more for us than enforcing viewcones and having the intention to tear down viaducts.

Need also to comment about why a unit in a 60 storey condos in this City does not necessarily come cheaper than that of a 6-storey building. With so few lots allowed to go tall, developers who can manage to grab those limited sites build higher end products catering for the rich to justify the high purchasing cost. Having a penthouse unit in this city is highly prestigious and very expensive, and CoV ensures that. Opening up 40 more sites for 60 storey towers and then you will see how the prices would fall significantly.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Came across these pics of Cathedral Square from 1986 at the Vancouver Archives:


http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/cathedral-square-block-35-2


http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/cathedral-square-block-35-4


http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/description-in-progress-5306

Awesome-looking park when it was new: way better than the current Nelson or Yaletown Parks, or even the library saquare. Why can't the City maintain parks, especially the downtown ones? There should be bylass not to let the homeless sleep in parks. More landscaping maintenance would be nice too.

[osirisboy]

I think it's the worse park we have. It has a terrible interaction with the street. The formally covered area seems to always have binners with all their shopping carts people smoking and littering. I hope the new park on Richards will be different