Downtown Vancouver Updates

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

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

really? "want" can go. fixed that word for you.

clearly you don't care to actually take the time to rationally think about this and look past your own misinformed opinion on it and therefore there is no point in giving you more evidence than already provided over the many posts before.

enjoy living in your ignorance

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

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%.



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

If you are referring to the Stack, that was the maximum allowable height for the site (550’) before it was cut by the city to the current 528’ due to a new shadowing regulation.

So the original height was restricted by view cones / policy, and the new height is due to shadowing restrictions.

I already explained that plus the other towers which have been reduced not because the developers didn’t want to build higher but because of height restrictions.

Again, every office project is being built as high as permitted by the city on every site, this can’t be sheer coincidence.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

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%.

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

So you rather we forsake those potential businesses and have them locate elsewhere?

You seem to be grasping at straws here buddy.

[a very long weekend]

Another thing that people don't really talk about is that NIMBYism and zoning actually cost the country GDP growth. Well documented in the USA (even published on by the White House in 2015), but not really talked about in the nascent pro-growth circles in Canada.

That said, despite that and all the other woes induced by pointlessly restrictive land use rules and some of the world's most stringent and autocratic planning bureaucracies, there's some indirect good in it.

Much in the same way that the US' immigration policies benefit Canada, with US companies dumping their spillover workers up in Vancouver, etc., Vancouver's growth policies benefit other suburbs and towns in the lower mainland, bringing the real possibility of a multi-polar region in time. Even within Vancouver, the dam will eventually break and you'll eventually get a council in favor of rezoning transit adjacent housing areas to allow office. Christ, most of the non-CBD transit proximate areas in Vancouver are just 1 story tall. It's unbelievable to walk down Commercial Drive all these years later and it's all still 1 story shacks like you'd find in some remote village. Still blows me away that people there don't see 80% of the city as tabula rasa, especially given how unattractive it is, just wooden shacks. But it is what it is.

The point is that for all the negative, there's some perverse benefit to the policy as it exists now. Namely, spreading the wealth around.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

If you are referring to the Stack, that was the maximum allowable height for the site (550’) before it was cut by the city to the current 528’ due to a new shadowing regulation.

Most importantly, pointing to the Stack as the economically optimum height for an office tower is in fact not a defence but a damning indictment of current policy, since that site is a special case whose allowable height far exceeds the allowable height of 99% of all other downtown sites, some of which, despite being more strategically located to mass transit, are limited by policy to less than 100 or even 90 metres.

Thus, if one believes the Stack represents the economically effecient use of land, then one is conceding that current policy is imposing substantial waste and inefficiency in 99% of all other cases, where policy restricts heights far below what one believes is an efficient use.

That's a damning indictment of current policy, indeed, and it's thus surprising to see one maintain the incoherent position of both defending a policy while at the same time conceding it's a source of substantial waste and inefficiency in almost every case.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

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.

For the first point, 50+ is an extrapolation of what you seem to want - when you're not using the faux laissez faire argument, you're saying it'd make the city "more interesting." I doubt that you mean that just ten more floors worth of Stack are all we need.
And yes, developers seem to want office towers in the 30-40 range. Let's put the CoV aside - Gilmore Place is in "developer-friendly" Burnaby and has no height restrictions whatsoever, and their proposed office tower is 37 floors. One floor higher than the final version of The Stack. Talk about wastefulness, right?

The second point is under review. It's entirely possible to support an overhaul of the viewcones while questioning why every single office tower needs to be 38 floors high.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

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.

If even replacing the Empire Landmark makes a profit that's worth the teardown, then there's no reason why redevelopment has to be limited to empty or grey space. And in many generations, there's no reason to expect that the CBD will have 2019's boundaries.

The status quo is currently shifting as we speak. And as is often the case when the extremists in both the "no change" and "not enough change" camps are increasingly upset about the rate of that shift, it would seem that the City's shifting it right.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by logan5

Which project are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Metro-One

If you are referring to the Stack, that was the maximum allowable height for the site (550’) before it was cut by the city to the current 528’ due to a new shadowing regulation.

So the original height was restricted by view cones / policy, and the new height is due to shadowing restrictions.

I already explained that plus the other towers which have been reduced not because the developers didn’t want to build higher but because of height restrictions.

Again, every office project is being built as high as permitted by the city on every site, this can’t be sheer coincidence.

Metro is both right and wrong. As was pointed out last week, viewcones had nothing to do with The Stack getting cut down or capped.

Again, there's no cones blocking Gilmore Place, and yet they've decided to go with an office complex that's shorter floorwise than the original Stack.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

So you rather we forsake those potential businesses and have them locate elsewhere?

You seem to be grasping at straws here buddy.

Which straws, where? Businesses are free to locate to Burnaby, New West or Surrey at any time; instead, they apparently prefer to join the queue for a Vancouver space.

[Built Form]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/400-west-georgia-street-vancouver1

Austeville Properties and W.T. Leung Architect proposal stats for 450 W Georgia:

-FSR 15.80 - 16.50
-380,000 sf (35, 316 sm)
-23 floors 286' (87m)
-Parking for 270 vehicles, 132 bicycles
-Public Amenity Space 7,100 sf (660 sm)

There was an open house on Nov 25th at the Queen Elizabeth Theatre

[uzi]

not a fan of the design.

[vanman]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Again, there's no cones blocking Gilmore Place, and yet they've decided to go with an office complex that's shorter floorwise than the original Stack.

Obviously the suburban location of Gilmore Place is much less desirable than the CBD of Vancouver. What a ridiculous comparison. Why is a suburban office tower even rivaling the density of the largest office tower in our CBD's history? There is no other city in Canada facing the same issue.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by vanman

Obviously the suburban location of Gilmore Place is much less desirable than the CBD of Vancouver. What a ridiculous comparison. Why is a suburban office tower even rivaling the density of the largest office tower in our CBD's history? There is no other city in Canada facing the same issue.

Exactly. It is already a wonder that such big office towers are popping up in the suburbs, let alone one that rivals that of the traditional and biggest CBD in the region. With the direction Vancouver is heading, sooner or later that will happen though.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Which straws, where? Businesses are free to locate to Burnaby, New West or Surrey at any time; instead, they apparently prefer to join the queue for a Vancouver space.

Think wider, and global. Again you are grasping at straws here.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Again, there's no cones blocking Gilmore Place, and yet they've decided to go with an office complex that's shorter floorwise than the original Stack.

Hmm, but that's in an unproven suburban office market.

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.

Probably not a big deal that they aren't in one building, as Amazon occupies multiple 40 storey towers in Seattle's South Lake Union district - it just depends on how their departments are organized.

I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon takes space in the new tower at Georgia & Richards in their "precinct".

If Amazon continues to expand, maybe Holborn can get in on the action and jumpstart its Bay Parkade redevelopment, but I'd rather wait for a view cone relaxation to allow them to build at a taller height.

[Urbanmetro]

Originally Posted by Vin

Exactly. It is already a wonder that such big office towers are popping up in the suburbs, let alone one that rivals that of the traditional and biggest CBD in the region. With the direction Vancouver is heading, sooner or later that will happen though.




Think wider, and global. Again you are grasping at straws here.

I have to agree with Vin here. Travel the world and you will find only a handful of other cities that have the amount of office towers OUTSIDE of the city centre or down town core and couple that with high rise residential. In Canada, there's none, unless you call Mississauga a suburb of Toronto. Mississauga is bigger than Vancouver in population...
Mega cities like New York, Tokyo, Paris, London with 271million sqft of commercial space doesn't have anything outside central London...

You can have a good read in the book Vancouverism...

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by vanman

Obviously the suburban location of Gilmore Place is much less desirable than the CBD of Vancouver. What a ridiculous comparison. Why is a suburban office tower even rivaling the density of the largest office tower in our CBD's history? There is no other city in Canada facing the same issue.

That's Vancouver being decentralized as all hell, like no other city in Canada - hence the Regional Centre Plan. It's funny how Omni decides to build a 64-floor condo tower and the MVGA crowd goes "See what the CoV is chasing away? This is how progressive the suburbs are!" but then Omni sticks to 37 floors of offices and now they're all "Yeah, but what can you expect from the suburbs..."

Originally Posted by Urbanmetro

I have to agree with Vin here. Travel the world and you will find only a handful of other cities that have the amount of office towers OUTSIDE of the city centre or down town core and couple that with high rise residential. In Canada, there's none, unless you call Mississauga a suburb of Toronto. Mississauga is bigger than Vancouver in population...
Mega cities like New York, Tokyo, Paris, London with 271million sqft of commercial space doesn't have anything outside central London...

You can have a good read in the book Vancouverism...

If this were the Greater New Westminster Regional District, you'd probably have your unified CBD. But you play the cards you're dealt.

Originally Posted by officedweller

Hmm, but that's in an unproven suburban office market.

That's fair, and the 37 floors could go up or down depending on how many tenants they can find. So what can we expect from a "proven" suburban market?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

Think wider, and global. Again you are grasping at straws here.

Wider like Microsoft and EA and Apple? Telus and TD? Or just MEC?

Amazon and Salesforce can go anywhere in the world, but they came to Vancouver. You're just pushing your height agenda again - if anything's driving away corporations, it's the rent.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Again, there's no cones blocking Gilmore Place, and yet they've decided to go with an office complex that's shorter floorwise than the original Stack.

Exactly.

In the absence of Vancouver's height restrictions, Gilmore Place is proposing an office complex that is barely shorter than the Stack, Vancouver's tallest office tower, whose allowable height is unique and far greater than what is allowed on every other current dowtown site, even sites more strategically located near transit within the central business district. Indeed, at the original 168 metres, the Stack's allowable height is virtually double the allowable height of the latest proposal in the heart of downtown's tech cluster on West Georgia, which is limited by the city to a mere 87 metres.

In other words, in the absence of Vancouver's height restrictions, a virtual suburban wasteland has decided to go with an office complex that is much, much taller than what is allowed on almost every site within the heart of the region's most coveted commercial capital.

I thought you were trying to defend Vancouver's height restrictions, not demonstrate how much of a hindrance they are to the most effficient use of downtown land.

[rofina]

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.

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).

The vacancy rate was 10% on paper only in 2015, this is one time where statistics can be misleading.

Completions in 2015 made it seem like vacancy had shot up to double digits, but in reality the spaces were counted as vacant while TI permits and build outs were proceeding, which is why the rate plummeted immediately.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I thought you were trying to defend Vancouver's height restrictions, not demonstrate how much of a material impact they had on the most effficient use of land downtown.

So anybody who's not with you is against you. That's a lousy way to argue. For the record, to avoid any further confusion, I'm in the "end it, don't mend it" camp. Some viewcones have their uses, some need to be simplified to avoid confusion, some can be added or removed, most of them are just part and parcel of being a developer; in spite of much of downtown being stuck at half The Stack's height, vacancy rates are controlled by other factors. I suppose that would sound like a "defence" from the far end of the spectrum.

But that's besides the point - what I've always said is that the existence of the viewcones is an aesthetic argument, not an economic one. Aren't you always saying that developers wouldn't build something if they didn't think they'd profit from it?

[cov]

If the optimum economy is the true limiting factor and not the view cone then why have the view cone at all? What purpose does it serve and what do we lose if we were to get rid of it? Economic optimum is a fluctuating equilibrium depending on land value and commercial demand of the time. Having a hard cap like the view cone simply isn't logical.

I don't see any plans from Cityhall to review the view cone next year. If it's true then great, but It only affects the few parcels adjacent to Cambie and broadway.