The Butterfly | 178.6m | 57Fl | Completed

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by EdinVan

Promising, except for the fact that people are being kicked out of their homes. So many people are being displaced as these types of projects come up. Where do these people go, especially those who are older and on fixed incomes?

Part of the application is building an entire portion of the project devoted to lower income housing.

i believe it is at least replacing the lost units and possibly providing more, but I don't totally remember.

[Graham_Yvr]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Part of the application is building an entire portion of the project devoted to lower income housing.

i believe it is at least replacing the lost units and possibly providing more, but I don't totally remember.

Senior's housing specifically IIRC.

[Feathered Friend]

Some new information is out for this project as it heads to the next council meeting.

The title will need an update, as the tower has been increased by 1 floor and is now at 57 floors - 178.6 meters.

Also, given the most recent comments, I had to post this:
http://council.vancouver.ca/20170627/regu20170627ag.htm

In response to staff design condition to
reduce the rental building height to be in keeping with the maximum allowable podium height
under the West End Community Plan, the applicant has proposed to eliminate a floor from the
rental building, resulting in a total of 61 social housing units.

Tenant Relocation and
Protection Requirements Tenant Relocation Plan Offer
Financial Compensation  Provide each tenant with two months free rent.
 One additional month of free rent for those with tenancies of longer
than ten years.
Notice to End Tenancies  FBC will provide regular project updates to tenants throughout the
development process.
 A minimum of two months’ notice to end tenancy after all permits are
issued is required.
Moving Expenses – flat rate
or arrangement of preinsured
moving company
 A flat rate of $750 will be provided at a minimum to all tenants.
Assistance in Finding
Alternate Accommodation
(3 options)
 Applicant has committed to providing tenants requesting assistance
with three options in Vancouver, including two options in the West End.
 All options will rent for no more than 10% above their current rental
rate, unless otherwise agreed to with the tenant.
 The applicant should consider: assessing all tenants for rent subsidy;
contacting non-profit social housing operators to identify unit
availability within their portfolio; assisting in adding qualified tenants
to BC Housing registry; and appointing a Tenant Relocation Specialist to
identify suitable accommodations.
First Right of Refusal with
20% discount off starting
rents

 Tenants who are eligible under this relocation plan will be offered the
first right of refusal to return to the new units once completed if they
meet the eligibility criteria of the new social housing building (i.e.
Income below BC Housing HILs with rents set at 30% of income).
 Tenants who are not eligible for social housing (i.e. income above HILs)
will be offered a market unit at a 20% discount off market rents for
newer product as published by CMHC. Any subsequent rent increases
for returning tenants will be in line with the Residential Tenancy Act.
 Residents of 1021 Nelson Street are of particular concern to the City
and must be offered the First Right of Refusal. The tenant contribution
to rent will not exceed 30% of income, however, rent supplement
programs could be accessed to increase total rent if available.

This should be heading to the public hearing on July 18th or 20th. As the Pearson Dogwood rezoning hearing is also being scheduled at the same time, I wouldn't be surprised to see this one pushed to the 20th hearing date.

[Metro-One]

Good news! Thanks for the info.

[trofirhen]

This is one building that gets my adrenaline going. As long as they don't dumb it down - and it seems, so far that they won't -- it will be one of the most striking skyline additions.

[officedweller]

Cool, thanks for posting.

[s211]

$100M in CACs !?!?!??????!

And still the city planning department will claim that it's not one of the major reasons that housing prices in this city are at insane levels.

(yes, yes, not the only reason but, for goodness sakes, surely culpable)

[Prometheus]

Based on a superficial glance of the above document, the $99,000,000 CAC total doesn't seem to include the social housing component of the project. So, unless the cost of the social housing is included under another category of CAC costs, the city-imposed costs of the project to the developer (and ultimately the homebuyers) could be substantially higher than that. Either way, the $99,000,000 in extra costs alone is astonishing.

[privatejet]

I think its a valid point if the City is asking for nearly 300 a bsf ( CAC, DCL PBA etc.) and receiving that.
Is the City implicitly saying that in order to obtain other public benefits (Isocial housing parks etc) that all new market housing in the West End will be higj-end luxury.

If that's the policy, fine. Let's 1. Have a discussion about it. 2.be transparent about it. It seems a bit rich for City politicians being concerned about the "middle class" being starved of housing options when these type of CACs are being begot I negotiated. Outside of North East False Creek. Downtown will have a limited number of units coming to market....

[Anorak]

Originally Posted by s211

$100M in CACs !?!?!??????!

And still the city planning department will claim that it's not one of the major reasons that housing prices in this city are at insane levels.

(yes, yes, not the only reason but, for goodness sakes, surely culpable)

You can argue all day whether or not it's fair, but this $100M in CAC's does not increase price of units. They won't jack the prices past what they were originally going to charge because of the CAC's, developers will always sell their units at whatever price the market can bear, regardless of whatever fees are imposed on them. The only thing that's happening here is developers profits are being reduced.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Anorak

You can argue all day whether or not it's fair, but [B]this $100M in CAC's does not increase price of units. They won't jack the prices past what they were originally going to charge because of the CAC's, developers will always sell their units at whatever price the market can bear, regardless of whatever fees are imposed on them. The only thing that's happening here is developers profits are being reduced.

So, Vancouver real estate developers are getting poorer these days? That's funny.

If you think that increases in the cost of production do not lead to increases in the cost of consumption--that higher production costs are simply borne by producers of commodities, not the consumers of them--then you do not understand how industries and markets work.

[retro_orange]

Basically. Developers aren't charities. No business model has room to foot a bill like that and they would only consider lowering their profit margins if the market tanked.

[Vin]

Extortion at its best.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Anorak

You can argue all day whether or not it's fair, but this $100M in CAC's does not increase price of units. They won't jack the prices past what they were originally going to charge because of the CAC's, developers will always sell their units at whatever price the market can bear, regardless of whatever fees are imposed on them. The only thing that's happening here is developers profits are being reduced.

Better for them to pack their bags and build elsewhere.

[Anorak]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

So, Vancouver real estate developers are getting poorer these days? That's funny.

If you think that increases in the cost of production do not lead to increases in the cost of consumption--that higher production costs are simply borne by producers of commodities, not the consumers of them--then you do not understand how industries and markets work.

I'm not sure how much experience/knowledge of economics you have, but that is simply not true. I will admit however that what Vin said was true; if the costs get sufficiently high to the point where it is no longer worth their while (ie. they are not making the profit they want) they just won't pursue development. In Vancouver, due to the insane price of housing, that point just hasn't been reached; development is still wildly profitable, even with the CAC's and other fees imposed on them by the government. The developers have no choice but to accept the fees they have to pay; it's not like they can ask for regulation from another authority. Since it is so profitable, they still choose to participate in the market and sell their homes at market prices.

Theoretically, the CAC's may increase housing prices as they may reduce demand from developers to build, resulting in lower housing supply, but this is a balancing act that the city plays (and is evidently doing well). Of course this is just from a pure economics perspective and the real world is more complicated, but this is just me explaining why the developers still pay these $99M CAC's.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Anorak

You can argue all day whether or not it's fair, but this $100M in CAC's does not increase price of units. They won't jack the prices past what they were originally going to charge because of the CAC's, developers will always sell their units at whatever price the market can bear, regardless of whatever fees are imposed on them. The only thing that's happening here is developers profits are being reduced.

Oh my goodness, that's so cute.

You appear to have the market/economic acumen of a bureaucrat, and a planner on top if it.

Honestly, post of the week!

[BodomReaper]

My understanding is that it's actually landowners who take the haircut from CACs and any other city-imposed costs known ahead of time. Now that CACs are determined by a fixed formula (rather than case-by-case negotiation as before), developers simply factor them into the price they pay for land. So instead of the landowner getting the entire value of their property, the developer pays a portion to the city. If the city springs a surprise on a developer, then sure, that will most likely be passed-on to consumers. But CACs and social housing requirements are public knowledge for the most part.

In effect, CACs are a mechanism to capture a chunk of the massive appreciation landowners have been enjoying for decades - and in the case of single family homeowners, appreciation exempt from the capital gains tax.

[Vin]

100 mil means 100 units of 1million dollar condo units. Wow that's a lot to just give away to the City. And all for a single condo tower project.

[Anorak]

Originally Posted by s211

Oh my goodness, that's so cute.

You appear to have the market/economic acumen of a bureaucrat, and a planner on top if it.

Honestly, post of the week!

Well if you don't mind, I'd like to know how much knowledge of economics you have that puts you in a position to be so condescending. Being dismissive and acting like you know better than everyone isn't a way to have a proper discussion.

Explain to me this; lets say theoretically a developer initially assesses the market and figures they can sell 100 identical units at $500,000 each, but then gets slammed with $5 million in CAC's, are they going to sell the units at $550,000 now, even though they previously judged the units will only sell at $500,000?

[EdinVan]

Originally Posted by Anorak

Well if you don't mind, I'd like to know how much knowledge of economics you have that puts you in a position to be so condescending. Being dismissive and acting like you know better than everyone isn't a way to have a proper discussion.

Isn't that the way on here?