Downtown Vancouver Updates

[officedweller]

I think Oxford did a good job on the Amazon Building at 402 Dunsmuir, despite the operable windows.
Just don't want this to have gray mullions and, as you mention, an overall residential look.

The lowest cube on Oxford's The Stack will also have operable windows.

... makes me wonder if this is also an Oxford tower.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

But some people claim the city's current height policies don't substantially hinder the economically optimum height of downtown office development. So, you should have nothing to fear in their absence, right?

That's true - The Stack would've only been two floors higher than it is, even without viewcones. But "two 38s followed by absolutely nothing" would be lame too. Neither the city nor this forum want a boom-bust cycle.

Originally Posted by logan5

What you are saying is everything is fine the way it is, but it's not. Vancouver has one of the hottest office markets in North America, which means the city is in high demand by the tech sector (a good thing), but we are severely stunting office tower development, despite a huge demand. Any other city would be building 60 story office towers, but here we are building inadequate 20 story buildings. Just plain dumb.

Many other cities have overbuilt and found themselves with a bunch of half-empty towers. Seven "inadequate" buildings, plus another seven in the pipeline and the Mount Pleasant and Flats rezonings, is hardly "stunted."

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I think Oxford did a good job on the Amazon Building at 402 Dunsmuir, despite the operable windows.

Yes, it's true Oxford did in this case, but "despite" being the key word. (An office building always looks better without them.) It also won't remain as inoffensive as it is appears right now when the windows eventually get opened and closed, willy-nilly.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Many other cities have overbuilt and found themselves with a bunch of half-empty towers. Seven "inadequate" buildings, plus another seven in the pipeline and the Mount Pleasant and Flats rezonings, is hardly "stunted."

We have a 2.6% office vacancy rate in Vancouver. You do realize that that is a very low number right? We have been building office space at an unprecedented rate in the last decade, and the vacancy rate is actually shrinking despite all this new office space coming on line.

There's so much bureaucracy in this city, it has become an out of control frankenstein. All the City can do is stand and watch in awe.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

We have been building office space at an unprecedented rate in the last decade, and the vacancy rate is actually shrinking despite all this new office space coming on line.

Well, not really. There were five buildings completed in 2015; MNP, 980 Howe, Telus Garden, 745 Thurlow and Pacific Centre, They were the first completed in five years - apart from a couple of office podium (Hotel Georgia & Jameson House, both strata space, I think), the previous tower was Bentall 5 in 2007 (and then only the top third). At the end of 2015 the vacancy rate was at 10% as a result.

Over the next two years the vacancy rate dropped to 5%, partly because of new leasing and partly because other office space was demolished for residential development (like the building on Alberni where the Kengo Kuma tower is being built). The Exchange completed in 2017, and there's been nothing completed since then Downtown, as the developers scramble to play catch-up. The Amazon building at 402 Dunsmuir will be the next, but then there's a lag until six more complete over the next year or two. The big jump in demand from the US tech companies only really showed up about three years ago, just at the point that developers were finally getting confident about building.

(edit - this seems to be a pattern - Colliers show vacancy got down to 1.6% in 2008 and 3.5% in 2011, before vacancy rates went back up, and there was more space to chose from).

[Vin]

Originally Posted by logan5

You could argue that a skyline is a fairly superficial thing, but you can’t argue that we are quickly running out of sites for office development in the downtown peninsula, and we are wasting these sites. We need to get max FSR out of these sites, and that means building higher.

Vancouver is now one of the least affordable office markets in the country, and just like the residential market, the City is negligent in responding. They hide behind the view cone policies like scared little girls, afraid to make the obvious changes to a policy that at this point is stunting the growth of the city. For Christ’s sakes, quit holding this city back.

Skylines are never, ever superficial. They really define cities and make them interesting.

Totally with you regarding the Viewcones: the stupidest policy conceived in this City.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

^^^^ Impressive list. I hope we aren't caught with a glut of space if/when the long expected recession happens.

Being negative about the business growth potential of Vancouver I see? Not likely to happen, and even if it were to, the deflated lease prices would only encourage even more companies to relocate to downtown Vancouver: a win win for all.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by logan5

We have a 2.6% office vacancy rate in Vancouver. You do realize that that is a very low number right? We have been building office space at an unprecedented rate in the last decade, and the vacancy rate is actually shrinking despite all this new office space coming on line.

There's so much bureaucracy in this city, it has become an out of control frankenstein. All the City can do is stand and watch in awe.

And with fourteen new towers and dozens of lowrises coming online, that number can only get higher.

Whereas Calgary's "height for height's sake" attitude has created a 24% vacancy rate, which with Telus Sky underway, will also only get higher; again, they're currently trying to get homeowners to move into the offices!

[cov]

who are the proponents of the view cone and why is it so untouchable at city hall? Although to be devil's advocate, that corner isn't particularly well-served by transit so lower density reduces transit requirements

[Vin]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I think Oxford did a good job on the Amazon Building at 402 Dunsmuir, despite the operable windows.
Just don't want this to have gray mullions and, as you mention, an overall residential look.

The lowest cube on Oxford's The Stack will also have operable windows.

... makes me wonder if this is also an Oxford tower.

So Amazon would not only be at Telus Garden, but also at the Oxford building and the two new buildings at the Post? I wonder what they think of our City's viewcone policies that castrate office towers such that they can't fit into a single tall building.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Well, not really. There were five buildings completed in 2015; MNP, 980 Howe, Telus Garden, 745 Thurlow and Pacific Centre, They were the first completed in five years - apart from a couple of office podium (Hotel Georgia & Jameson House, both strata space, I think), the previous tower was Bentall 5 in 2007 (and then only the top third). At the end of 2015 the vacancy rate was at 10% as a result.

Which 10 year period was more active? Just going by observation, the last decade has been as busy as I've ever seen (for office development).

[Vin]

Originally Posted by cov

who are the proponents of the view cone and why is it so untouchable at city hall? Although to be devil's advocate, that corner isn't particularly well-served by transit so lower density reduces transit requirements

I'm even thinking if this could be a skinnier but taller tower, it would not be blocking the nicer looking building next to it too. Better transit (buses or street cars) can always come in when an area is dense enough. That's the point of having the CBD. Moreover, City Centre and Granville Stations, and the Graville bus strip are barely a couple of blocks away.

I think Viewcones issues can be addressed, but elected officials are just too lazy or chicken to stir up the hornet's nest because of uninformed people in this City, who believe that they benefit from Viewcones everyday when they actually don't.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by cov

who are the proponents of the view cone and why is it so untouchable at city hall? Although to be devil's advocate, that corner isn't particularly well-served by transit so lower density reduces transit requirements

Actually, the viewcones in the Broadway Corridor are up for review next year.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

And with fourteen new towers and dozens of lowrises coming online, that number can only get higher.

Whereas Calgary's "height for height's sake" attitude has created a 24% vacancy rate, which with Telus Sky underway, will also only get higher; again, they're currently trying to get homeowners to move into the offices!

You just admitted to the fact that without viewcones, a higher vacancy rate can be achieved in this Vancouver. Do be reminded that Calgary is only a city with half our population and currently experiencing a recession, but it probably has a lot more office space and corporate headquarters than Vancouver and Victoria combined. Maybe they did overbuild during the boom times, but at least the businesses can secure better deals to run their operations there. It would be well equipped to handle more businesses when boom times are back once again.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Actually, the viewcones in the Broadway Corridor are up for review next year.

Why stop at Broadway Corridor when they can also review it for the downtown peninsula too, which we are currently discussing?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

Which 10 year period was more active? Just going by observation, the last decade has been as busy as I've ever seen (for office development).

I can only answer that for the city as a whole - not just Downtown, but there was far more space added in the 1970s, and in the 1980s, than in subsequent decades. The amount under construction right now is almost certainly the most ever constructed at one time, but over the whole of the 2010 decade it won't be as much as in either the 60s or 70s. There was a net gain of about 6 million square feet in each of those decades; it's more like 4 million in the 2010s. It's obviously too soon to say whether the 2020s will be more - if all the projects lined up get built, that could easily be a new high number.

Before someone jumps in to argue that Vancouver's office market isn't as dynamic as it once was, and that we're a second-class city compared to how vibrant the property developers were decades ago, that really isn't the case. As office equipment, and especially computers started to get introduced floorspace per worker went up. Around 2000, if you looked at the floorspace and the jobs in that space you'd find an average around 350 square feet per worker. Since then the space per worker has fallen, to around 320 sq. ft. per worker in the later 2000s, and closer to 250 today. Newly occupied space for tech workers can apparently squeeze in to only 125 sq. ft. per worker - so there was a significant increase in employment in the same space over the past 20 years.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

So Amazon would not only be at Telus Garden, but also at the Oxford building and the two new buildings at the Post? I wonder what they think of our City's viewcone policies that castrate office towers such that they can't fit into a single tall building.

Because of course, there's no reason at all for wanting several smaller offices instead of one big one.

Originally Posted by Vin

You just admitted to the fact that without viewcones, a higher vacancy rate can be achieved in this Vancouver. Do be reminded that Calgary is only a city with half our population and currently experiencing a recession, but it probably has a lot more office space and corporate headquarters than Vancouver and Victoria combined. Maybe they did overbuild during the boom times, but at least the businesses can secure better deals to run their operations there. It would be well equipped to handle more businesses when boom times are back once again.

Why stop at Broadway Corridor when they can also review it for the downtown peninsula too, which we are currently discussing.

Exactly how high a rate do you want? Calgary also has a fossil fuel sector, which accounts for most of their tenants and GDP. The only way their boom times are coming back is if they diversify their economy (which they aren't) or TransMountain is much more successful than anybody expects.

It's the Broadway Plan, not the Queen Elizabeth Park or Trout Lake plan. Those cones can be left as-is; it's the dozen small ones around False Creek and the bridges that need simplification.

[ericmacm]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

And with fourteen new towers and dozens of lowrises coming online, that number can only get higher.

Whereas Calgary's "height for height's sake" attitude has created a 24% vacancy rate, which with Telus Sky underway, will also only get higher; again, they're currently trying to get homeowners to move into the offices!

Vacancy rates will increase, but the number of companies that will potentially buy office space increases because there is more available and the market gets competitive. It's healthier to have a slightly higher vacancy rate, but having it as low as 2% makes office rates higher, leaving the market unattractive to prospective buyers.

It is a fallacy to compare Vancouver to Calgary in this sense. Calgary built itself on one industry only, and as a consequence, the subsequent oil collapse reduced the need for office space. Vancouver has a much more diversified economy in the way of technology, finance, mining, and other industries, so it would likely never be able to suffer a giant loss of corporate tenancy.

Calgary also did not build "height for height's sake" either. At the time, these office towers were built to the economic height. There are also definitely buildings that got chopped down in height, most notably The Bow.

[trofirhen]

.... regarding the new proposed tower at Georgia and Richards ... IMO, nice clean design, and sets off the "lantern" style of 410 West Georgia. OK, about the height .....
Is it simply and only because of the viewcone restrictuions that a new building is - once again - "truncated?" Sad, really as, IMO, it could have been a few stories higher.
This would have allowed a more visually pleasing (IMO) "step down" effect from 723 Seymour (Vancouver Centre Two), rather than a more abrupt "drop-off. At least it fills in that empty lot.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That's true - The Stack would've only been two floors higher than it is, even without viewcones. Thing is, "two 38s followed by absolutely nothing" would be lame too. Neither the city nor this forum want a boom-bust cycle.

You seem to have as much difficulty remaining consistent as you have difficulty making sense:

You claim one moment that the natural economic height of a Vancouver office tower in the absence of the city's height restrictions is 38 floors, but in the next moment worry that without the current height restrictions developers would build "50+ storey commercial towers." Which one is it? It can't be both.

Secondly, if the economically effecient use of downtown land supports the construction of a 168 metre office tower (38 floors), then you are conceding that current policy is creating substantial economic waste and inefficiency in the vast majority of cases, where current height restrictions are as low as 113 metres, 109 metres, 92 metres and even 67 metres. A policy that imposes such wastefulness demonstrates a profound lack of wisdom and foresight and cannot be rationally supported.

Lastly, the policy of thinking long-term and making the most efficient and intelligent use of a limited and dwindling supply of a precious resource has no causal connection to "boom-bust cycles." On the contrary, thinking long-term is sound, rational policy that will help maintain a healthy supply of job space at affordable rates in the city's commercial heart and keep Vancouver economically competitive--and prosperous--for many generations to come. Maintaining the opposite approach--our current approach--puts that future in jeopardy.

I would encourage the apologists for the status quo--a position as inflexible as it is mired in the past--to critically reevaluate the wisdom and rationality of their stance as Vancouver tries to move into the future. You surely realize that the overly conservative and restrictive nature of the status quo cannot be maintained for too much longer.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by ericmacm

Vacancy rates will increase, but the number of companies that will potentially buy office space increases because there is more available and the market gets competitive. It's healthier to have a slightly higher vacancy rate, but having it as low as 2% makes office rates higher, leaving the market unattractive to prospective buyers.

It is a fallacy to compare Vancouver to Calgary in this sense. Calgary built itself on one industry only, and as a consequence, the subsequent oil collapse reduced the need for office space. Vancouver has a much more diversified economy in the way of technology, finance, mining, and other industries, so it would likely never be able to suffer a giant loss of corporate tenancy.

Most definitely, but we're not so strapped for office space that millions of additional square feet in downtown/Mount Pleasant/False Creek are just going to get swallowed up and bring us bring down to 2%.

Originally Posted by ericmacm

Calgary also did not build "height for height's sake" either. At the time, these office towers were built to the economic height. There are also definitely buildings that got chopped down in height, most notably The Bow.

That's fair. But for some reason in Vancouver, the highest that developers want to go is 38 floors.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That's fair. But for some reason in Vancouver, the highest that developers want to go is 38 floors.

Which project are you talking about?