Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

If you add in all the tie-ins, it is half a billion.

What tie ins are you adding in? The project budget includes all the connections to the existing road system, and the upgrades, and a replacement bike and pedestrian route, and a 25% contingency.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Won't somebody think of the poor developers?

There's got to be some sense in which these CAC fees trickle down to the people who purchase the condos. Aren't we concerned about the high cost of housing? It seems to me that the city could negotiate for lower prices in exchange for higher density - might that be a better way to pass the added value on to city residents?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

There's got to be some sense in which these CAC fees trickle down to the people who purchase the condos. Aren't we concerned about the high cost of housing? It seems to me that the city could negotiate for lower prices in exchange for higher density - might that be a better way to pass the added value on to city residents?

There's no mechanism to control market prices of condos, and the few previous attempts to get 'affordable' condos in the DTES didn't work. It's also difficult to set up a system for selling homes at a lower than market price. Who is allowed to buy them? Do they get to re-sell at full market (so just being given a public subsidy, effectively). It's generally viewed as better to calculate the added value, then take cash or in-kind payments. Those can be provided as non-market housing, which guarantees long term affordability of the housing that's built. The intention with NEFC is that a proportion of the housing built will be non-market, so given to the City to own, and then be managed by a non-market agency. That doesn't necesarily mean welfare rate housing, it could be a co-op like the Concert Properties SEFC non-market building.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Of course it did. Was the property worth more or less after it was rezoned? Value is created by changing what can be built on a property as of right. When a Council agrees to rezone, it is creating value out of thin air. Most, nearly all, communities give this wealth creation away for nothing.

No, it allowed for more wealth to be created in the area. The land is more expensive for this reason. Rezoning itself does not and cannot create value- if you rezone an area in Spussum for towers, will the value go up?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

No, it allowed for more wealth to be created in the area. The land is more expensive for this reason. Rezoning itself does not and cannot create value- if you rezone an area in Spussum for towers, will the value go up?

The City of Vancouver disagree with you. "CACs represent a portion of the increase in property value that often results from a rezoning."

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The City of Vancouver disagree with you. "CACs represent a portion of the increase in property value that often results from a rezoning."

You think the people benefitting from CACs are going to agree with that viewpoint?

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by fredinno

No, it allowed for more wealth to be created in the area. The land is more expensive for this reason. Rezoning itself does not and cannot create value- if you rezone an area in Spussum for towers, will the value go up?

Value has been created for that property in Spuzzum through a rezoning, yes. The market may decide that the land lift is currently worth $0 based on comparison with the land value of similarly zoned properties, of which there are none, or residual land value for what you could earn based on a pro forma for the property with the new zoning and local market conditions, but the property absolutely does have more value because the owner as of right can do more things with it.

Were Spuzzum to have a CAC mechanism modeled after the CoV, that project with it's $0 land lift would yield a CAC of $0 (3/4 of land lift). Were the property to increase in value by $4 as a result of that rezoning, Spuzzum would receive a $3 CAC, either in kind or cash in lieu.

Conversely, if your argument is that rezoning a property to higher and better use cannot create value, it would stand to reason by the same logic that rezoning a property to remove various zoning rights would also have no impact on its value. This is, of course, preposterous. If you own a property and now as of right can do less with it than you could before, the property has lost value.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

You think the people benefitting from CACs are going to agree with that viewpoint?

Are you happier with the BC Provincial Government, 2014?

"When a local government rezones land, it usually increases the land’s value which provides a financial benefit to the applicant, usually the owner or a developer."

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

There's got to be some sense in which these CAC fees trickle down to the people who purchase the condos. Aren't we concerned about the high cost of housing? It seems to me that the city could negotiate for lower prices in exchange for higher density - might that be a better way to pass the added value on to city residents?

Developers will charge whatever they can from purchasers. Just because they can be made cheaper (say, without CACs), there's no reason to sell for less.

Rules of supply and demand would come in if we had a market free of rezoning and anybody could build anything anywhere.

Not to mention these CACs are a benefit for local residents more than anybody else (new library next door, child care, community centre, etc.)

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

What tie ins are you adding in? The project budget includes all the connections to the existing road system, and the upgrades, and a replacement bike and pedestrian route, and a 25% contingency.

In 2016, the estimation was 200mil, and early 2018, it ballooned to 360mil, which you are basing your numbers on. It is now almost 2020(the demolition was supposed to start in 2019). With that in mind, I would say 500mil isn't a far-fetched number.

Read this article about the 500mil figure, and that was 2 years ago:
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-city-council-viaducts-demolition-decision-january-31-2018

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

In 2016, the estimation was 200mil, and early 2018, it ballooned to 360mil, which you are basing your numbers on. It is now almost 2020(the demolition was supposed to start in 2019). With that in mind, I would say 500mil isn't a far-fetched number.

Read this article about the 500mil figure, and that was 2 years ago:
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-city-council-viaducts-demolition-decision-january-31-2018

2018 report puts viaduct removal in 2021.

[MIPS]

Was talking to a friend today about the water main issues on Georgia and he mentioned the only reason those pipes were 100 years old was because when the plan for the viaducts and thruway were scrapped, included with the deal was to upgrade utilities under Georgia and Dunsmuir. Can't seem to find anything that indicated that part of the plan however. Can anyone verify this?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by MIPS

Was talking to a friend today about the water main issues on Georgia and he mentioned the only reason those pipes were 100 years old was because when the plan for the viaducts and thruway were scrapped, included with the deal was to upgrade utilities under Georgia and Dunsmuir. Can't seem to find anything that indicated that part of the plan however. Can anyone verify this?

hmm. i am leery of that because water main conditions are evaluated on their own. if no one else can find anything i shall see what i can find.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

No, but a decade of keeping property tax rate increases hovering around 2% are catching up to the city.

https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/inflation-cpi
It seems consistent with average inflation, at least.

[Dave2]

This raises the question, will Vancouver be able to afford to spend $200M on the viaduct project?
https://theprovince.com/news/covid-19-ci...wcm/93b7a6b2-06da-432f-b145-5fe22425b75d

[Metro-One]

The city may have to drop many pet projects.

[djmk]

Originally Posted by Dave2

This raises the question, will Vancouver be able to afford to spend $200M on the viaduct project?
https://theprovince.com/news/covid-19-ci...wcm/93b7a6b2-06da-432f-b145-5fe22425b75d

Can you actually default on your property taxes? I don't think so. The property goes to a public auction.

[Feathered Friend]

As has been noted many times previously, the viaduct removal will be funded through the development of Northeast False Creek. There may be delays due to CAC negotiations with Concord, but that's a separate issue.

It's also important to note that the borrowing costs needed to fund other capital projects has already been approved by a significant portion of those who voted in the last election. Furthermore, in the future I would expect to see a lot of stimulus funding from senior governments to overcome the recession.

Page 35
https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/2015-Staff-Report-Removal-of-the-Georgia-and-Dunsmuir-Viaducts.pdf

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

As has been noted many times previously, the viaduct removal will be funded through the development of Northeast False Creek. There may be delays due to CAC negotiations with Concord, but that's a separate issue.

It's also important to note that the borrowing costs needed to fund other capital projects has already been approved by a significant portion of those who voted in the last election. Furthermore, in the future I would expect to see a lot of stimulus funding from senior governments to overcome the recession.

Page 35
https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/2015-Staff-Report-Removal-of-the-Georgia-and-Dunsmuir-Viaducts.pdf

Rrriight, the same Concord that welched on building the promised park in a timely manner while at the same time collecting commercial rentals on the property? Sure we should trust them?

Someone needs to drive a stake through the heart of this project. I’m tired of the city thinking they can jack up property taxes at 3x the rate of inflation to fund their pet projects. Let it go to referendum.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Rrriight, the same Concord that welched on building the promised park in a timely manner while at the same time collecting commercial rentals on the property?

They didn't. The park was always going to be built last, as the contaminated soils from the other sites will be dealt dealt with underneath it. Citygate residents created a false narrative (that's a polite way of saying they made things up) because they wanted the park sooner.

Originally Posted by whatnext

Sure we should trust them?

They have a choice - make a deal reflecting the value of the rezoned property, or sit on it without being able to develop one of the last waterside lots in the city.

Originally Posted by whatnext

Someone needs to drive a stake through the heart of this project. I’m tired of the city thinking they can jack up property taxes at 3x the rate of inflation to fund their pet projects. Let it go to referendum.

The higher taxes are funding things like social housing. See Feathered Friend's comment above; the replacement is not going to be funded from taxes. If they have to keep the viaducts, and therefore they have to be rebuilt to current seismic code - then your taxes will go up.