Downtown Vancouver Updates

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

That is just ridiculous.

Can you think of a single office project being built right now that is not building precisely to the maximum height permitted by the city, whether it be 92 metres or 168 metres? Whatever the permissible height for an office site is, the developers are building to it, down to the very foot:

The permissible height for 410 West Georgia is 92 metres; the developers are building to 92 metres. The permissible height for 601 West Hastings is 109 metres; the developers are building to 109 metres. The permissible height for 320 Granville is 115 metres; the developers are building to 115 metres. The permissible height for 753 Seymour is 123 metres; the developers are building to 123 metres. The permissible height for the Stack was 168 metres; the developer's proposed to build to 168 metres.

And the permissible height for 601 West Pender is 337 feet, 9 inches; the developers are proposing to build to 337 feet, 6 inches:


Source: https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/601-west-pender-street-vancouver-office-tower

In every case, the developers are using up every single damn foot of height the city will allow.

The city-mandated height limit is exactly the determining factor for this building's proposed height (and every other current office project's height). There is zero basis (and is preposterous) to think otherwise.

I'm not a proponent of view cones, I wont even bother playing devils advocate in their favour. Get rid of 99% of them.

That being said, they are definitely not the only reason why Vancouver office market is chronically under supplied.

The issue has more to do with who owns commercial RE in Vancouver, and how its financed.

Development costs have ballooned, counter to what many like to think developers don't have hundredths of millions sitting in cash waiting to buy and build.

Most developments already have to be underwritten by more than one lender, often 2 or even more. This is a legal nightmare and a significant deterrent to a deal. That's the issue with a run of the mill tower cost 200million+.

Secondly, and most importantly I would argue, our cap rates are notoriously low. Lowest in North America, even after the recent boom.

This means the institutional money has difficult time justifying deploying capital in Vancouver, where even though with 2% vacancy they are only looking at sub 4% cap rates.

Which is precisely why you have our local developers delivering "small" one off towers to market, and not arguing particularity hard to loosen height restrictions, etc.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by cov

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.

This is the part where it becomes useful to get off the keyboard and into an open house - the Broadway Plan team says it concerns every cone within the corridor. That's most of them.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Urbanmetro

Mega cities like New York, Tokyo, Paris, London with 271million sqft of commercial space doesn't have anything outside central London...

Huh? Chicago has a massive inventory of suburban office.

[Klazu]

That's a very informative reply, rofina. Thank you.

[logan5]

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.

Keep in mind that Gilmore Station is required by the City of Burnaby to build a certain amount of office space to go with all that residential they are building. The Gilmore Station office tower in no way reflects accurately the actual demand for office space here.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

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?

The existence of the Viewcones is both an aesthetic as well as economics argument. Both areas are shortchanged for downtown Vancouver as a result having it sticking around for decades. The sooner we get rid of the Viewcones, the faster we can build something that benefits us economically and aesthetically. Unless you are one of those non-existent folks spending your day standing on Fairview Slopes or on bridge decks admiring the hills of the North Shore, you should be asking for the Viewcones to be eradicated immediately.

Originally Posted by logan5

Keep in mind that Gilmore Station is required by the City of Burnaby to build a certain amount of office space to go with all that residential they are building. The Gilmore Station office tower in no way reflects accurately the actual demand for office space here.

So why does Onni need to build such a large office tower if there is no demand? I never knew a developer can choose to be financially suicidal. Furthermore, you just spelled out another good of the City of Burnaby: demanding developers to do something right and useful. Sure beats having Viewcones around: only coneheads can think of such a thing.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by s211

Huh? Chicago has a massive inventory of suburban office.

I don't see any highrises outside Chicago's downtown proper.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

I don't see any highrises outside Chicago's downtown proper.

That might be because in many cities offices aren't necessarily highrises. Chicago has about 132 million sq ft of buildings in the CBD - which itself covers a large area, and over 100 million sq ft in the suburbs.

Washington DC has 111 million sq ft of space but the suburbs have much more than that - Northern Virginia alone has 133 million sq ft with suburban centres like Tyson's Corner. There are strict height limits on buildings within DC itself - no more than 130 feet high!

Of course, some suburbs have tall towers too. As well as the cluster of 'look at me' towers the City of London - the CBD - has plenty of short office buildings - because there are protected views, but the suburban Canary Wharf area has highrise towers, and tens of millions of square feet of space.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

The existence of the Viewcones is both an aesthetic as well as economics argument. Both areas are shortchanged for downtown Vancouver as a result having it sticking around for decades. The sooner we get rid of the Viewcones, the faster we can build something that benefits us economically and aesthetically. Unless you are one of those non-existent folks spending your day standing on Fairview Slopes or on bridge decks admiring the hills of the North Shore, you should be asking for the Viewcones to be eradicated immediately.

Does it benefit the economy? No, low vacancy was caused by a lull in office construction, and taller towers means longer construction times and the same lull. There's fourteen towers in the works as we speak, and hundreds of spaces outside of downtown.

Does it benefit developers or owners? No, rofina's observed that it's not the viewcones that're the main cause of office shortages. If they weren't making a profit, they wouldn't build at all.

If you're on the Slopes or the bridge, the viewcones are near-useless because they're not views for those areas. It's fine to say that you just want tall towers because you think they look nicer.

Originally Posted by Vin

So why does Onni need to build such a large office tower if there is no demand? I never knew a developer can choose to be financially suicidal. Furthermore, you just spelled out another good of the City of Burnaby: demanding developers to do something right and useful. Sure beats having Viewcones around: only coneheads can think of such a thing.

Gilmore in itself is a risky gamble; Omni's probably hoping that the condo money will overshadow any office tenant revenue or lack thereof. Forcing developers to build at a loss should be left to Jean Swanson.

[Feathered Friend]

I've said this before, but I don't think Onni has any intention of building a full office building at Gilmore.

Voluntary Rental Housing in Commercial Districts, which would allow –
• Up to 49% of commercial space used as rental housing, once other rental requirements are met in a project. If a project has met other obligations such as the 20% Inclusionary Rental, then it may consider adding this above.

https://www.burnaby.ca/Assets/Rental+Use+Zoning+backgrounder.pdf

[Changing City]

This has been mentioned in other threads, but I think this is the right place. The new park at Richards and Smithe goes to the Board of Parks and Recreation next week for final approval. The report says site was identified in the early 1990s, approved for development in 2007, and finally has the funds ($13.8 million plus taxes) to start construction in January.


[City of Vancouver]

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Changing City

This has been mentioned in other threads, but I think this is the right place. The new park at Richards and Smithe goes to the Board of Parks and Recreation next week for final approval. The report says site was identified in the early 1990s, approved for development in 2007, and finally has the funds ($13.8 million plus taxes) to start construction in January.


[City of Vancouver]

I need to digest this "park" design. There are 6 trees and about 500sq/ft of grass.

Frankly, this does not evoke feelings of a park.

[s211]

Originally Posted by rofina

I need to digest this "park" design. There are 6 trees and about 500sq/ft of grass.

Frankly, this does not evoke feelings of a park.

How provincial. You're not feeling the High Line vibe?

[rofina]

Originally Posted by s211

How provincial. You're not feeling the High Line vibe?

Definitely does not evoke High Line vibes.

It evokes a vibe of someone who googled the high line and decided to place a jagged bridge across a small park for no reason.

I reserve final judgement, initial thoughts only.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by rofina

I need to digest this "park" design. There are 6 trees and about 500sq/ft of grass.

Frankly, this does not evoke feelings of a park.

Many on this forum have (accurately) complained that "modern" Vancouver parks need to be more than just grass and trees... now we've got people arguing the opposite. City planners really can't win on this one.

We mostly all agree that the walkway is gimmicky, but otherwise this is a nice change of pace.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Many on this forum have (accurately) complained that "modern" Vancouver parks need to be more than just grass and trees... now we've got people arguing the opposite. City planners really can't win on this one.

We mostly all agree that the walkway is gimmicky, but otherwise this is a nice change of pace.

Yep I agree, though I preferred some of the earlier renderings of this park. It's hard to see what's going on there... that big grey area people are hanging out in, what is that?

[Migrant_Coconut]

From previous history, it's a tiled plaza with fountains.

[SpongeG]

it's a park for the Instagram generation.

[GenWhy?]

It's a normal urban park, without the elevated sidewalk: corner cafe, trees, elevated seating facing south, plaza with water feature, children's play area.

https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/smithe-richards-park-apr-2016-open-house-information-displays.pdf

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by rofina

Definitely does not evoke High Line vibes.

It evokes a vibe of someone who googled the high line and decided to place a jagged bridge across a small park for no reason.

I reserve final judgement, initial thoughts only.

My first impression of it was "gimmicky." I hope I'm wrong.