Oakridge Park | 13 Towers | 154m | 52fl | 5M sqft | U/C

[Marshal]

1. Vancouver has rich people. They take up space just like everyone. Get over it.
2. Rich people do take transit, if its good enough.
3. Rich people need more than just minimum wage earning service providers. They also need lawyers, doctors, educators, architects, and all the retailers everyone else uses, or a richer version thereof. Rich people drive our economy in many ways, beyond their purchasing power.
4. Most rich people are deserving.
5. Oakridge is one mall, being developed in a manner that should surprise no-one.
6. As mentioned, if you take the area as a whole, Oakridge and the Cambie corridor are sparking a whole complex of change to the once sleepy middle of the city. It is not out of place given the explosive amount of development metro wide.
7. Yes, it will still be an expensive retail node, but to call it a gated community mis-defines what those are. In essence, the gate is to remove the area from contact with the outside. All large buildings are in some sense gated in that they are not freely open to the public. Beyond that, it matters not how expensive the units - especially if the public is being invited in by way of a shopping centre (not a mall anymore, but a centre or complex nonetheless), and a transit/office/service hub.
8. Asking someone to leave, while tempting, especially in this case, is a weak way to respond. Better to just not respond. Negative old ssguy always barks out some silly reactionary nonsense, and then disappears. A troll? Maybe, but probably unwittingly.

[Lexus]

2020 August 3

Untitled by Lexus, on Flickr
Untitled by Lexus, on Flickr
Untitled by Lexus, on Flickr

Untitled by Lexus, on Flickr

Untitled by Lexus, on Flickr

Untitled by Lexus, on Flickr

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by TwoFace

J Anytime you can reconfigure a dead parking lot is a good thing.

That's not the point. Housing for the average Vancouver would do the exact same thing. This development was advertised in China/HK BEFORE it was in Vancouver which speaks volumes about who will be buying them.

If the city gave a continental damn about the city's housing crisis {which they most decidedly don't} then they would have stipulated that all buyers must qualify for CMHC mortgages. This would have meant that only Canadian citizens could be buyers so it doesn't become a money laundering pit and enclave for the uber wealthy.

This is right up against a PUBLICALLY built and subsidised transit station and so it should be the public that benefits and not rich speculators. The people who are most reliant on transit are being pushed away from it.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

That's not the point. Housing for the average Vancouver would do the exact same thing. This development was advertised in China/HK BEFORE it was in Vancouver which speaks volumes about who will be buying them.

If the city gave a continental damn about the city's housing crisis {which they most decidedly don't} then they would have stipulated that all buyers must qualify for CMHC mortgages. This would have meant that only Canadian citizens could be buyers so it doesn't become a money laundering pit and enclave for the uber wealthy.

This is right up against a PUBLICALLY built and subsidised transit station and so it should be the public that benefits and not rich speculators. The people who are most reliant on transit are being pushed away from it.

One answer lies in if the development was affected by the recent DCC from Translink.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

That's not the point. Housing for the average Vancouver would do the exact same thing. This development was advertised in China/HK BEFORE it was in Vancouver which speaks volumes about who will be buying them.

If the city gave a continental damn about the city's housing crisis {which they most decidedly don't} then they would have stipulated that all buyers must qualify for CMHC mortgages. This would have meant that only Canadian citizens could be buyers so it doesn't become a money laundering pit and enclave for the uber wealthy.

This is right up against a PUBLICALLY built and subsidised transit station and so it should be the public that benefits and not rich speculators. The people who are most reliant on transit are being pushed away from it.

Yes, we can each choose which side of the divide we want to fall on with regard to this issue. I side with affordability and the average Vancouverite. If someone thinks that means I should leave, well they can eff themselves. Maybe a local party could commit political suicide by using "Just leave" as their slogan on this issue.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

That's not the point. Housing for the average Vancouver would do the exact same thing. This development was advertised in China/HK BEFORE it was in Vancouver which speaks volumes about who will be buying them.

If the city gave a continental damn about the city's housing crisis {which they most decidedly don't} then they would have stipulated that all buyers must qualify for CMHC mortgages. This would have meant that only Canadian citizens could be buyers so it doesn't become a money laundering pit and enclave for the uber wealthy.

This is right up against a PUBLICALLY built and subsidised transit station and so it should be the public that benefits and not rich speculators. The people who are most reliant on transit are being pushed away from it.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Or you could always leave as well.

That kind of response is pretty stupid no matter at whom it’s directed.

I mean lots of people leave cities when they can't afford to live in it or need to find a job. It's called migration.

It's easy to blame Oakridge but look at all those people living in tiny little townhomes around False Creek or someone living in a single family development. You could just as easily lump their housing decision into how the market is priced.

[Marshal]

There are always good arguments in favour of solutions to affordability. But ssguy doesn't give any, and he is saying a bit more than that: a developer should not be free to market their project in whatever way they see fit; for people to come here from China/HK is not good; that the City doesn't give a damn (just ignore every thing that government has and is doing on this file); that city leaders (a political institution) should be able to predetermine acceptable and non-acceptable home buyers; money laundering can be solved by excluding foreign participation in the market; rich people should not benefit from public infrastructure.

There is a lot of fallacy and 🞵🞵🞵🞵 loaded into the back-end of this. Sounds like ssguy would be more comfortable living in mainland China himself.

FAVOURING AFFORDABILITY IS GOOD, given we have an affordability problem. Our real estate SHOULD BE SOLD TO LOCALS FIRST. Forcing this would be against the free economics of our system, and ultimately would be against us all; and, SPECULATION IS EVIL. Speculation is a key to our economy. If you don't like it (I often don't) you have to tackle much bigger issues in the Capitalist system . . . you can't just fling 🞵🞵🞵🞵 on 'speculators,' as if they were all the same. Every homeowner is one, after all.

ssguy's rant is just a knee-jerk reaction to things which are more complex than his apparent thinking ability. It's fine to argue his main points. But, argue them and stop 'yelling.'

As big as the Oakridge redevelopment is, it is just a small piece of the overall development across the Vancouver region. As I said in my last post: rich people exist and take up space. Rich is relative. To some of us, they exist in all of our development areas. The whole West Side is full of them - including the areas around Oakridge and the Canada line. Same with West Vancouver. Should government have the power to evict them when we need space for affordable housing (whatever that is).

Vancouver has become a bigger city than many are used to. Like Manhattan, Toronto, San Francisco, London, Paris, Milan, but also places on our scale, like central Vienna, Zurich, Seattle, Lyon, Brisbane, and so on: all of these have large prime areas that are rich ghettos, areas also knit into their respective fabrics, and areas many other people use and enjoy.

Often, people here lament Vancouver's lack of head offices, and large corporations. If we had more of these, we would have a stronger economy (perhaps). But if we did have more, what would that entail. One thing it would, would be an influx of smart, rich, powerful people, people with the expertise to run and advance our economy. (Yes, that's an anti-Trump whistle. And yes, it might hurt the ears of ssguy, even if he doesn't recognize it.)

We have plenty of rich people. Get over it. Hopefully they don't go away.
Without them we would be an economic backwater.

[TwoFace]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

That's not the point. Housing for the average Vancouver would do the exact same thing. This development was advertised in China/HK BEFORE it was in Vancouver which speaks volumes about who will be buying them.

If the city gave a continental damn about the city's housing crisis {which they most decidedly don't} then they would have stipulated that all buyers must qualify for CMHC mortgages. This would have meant that only Canadian citizens could be buyers so it doesn't become a money laundering pit and enclave for the uber wealthy.

This is right up against a PUBLICALLY built and subsidised transit station and so it should be the public that benefits and not rich speculators. The people who are most reliant on transit are being pushed away from it.

I understand what you are saying, but that horse left the barn back in 1988 when Li Ka-shing bought the Expo Lands, it's been an Asian market ever since.
Good read ...

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/this-week-in-history-1988-the-socreds-sell-the-expo-lands

[Marshal]

I have long been an advocate for the poor, the disadvantaged, the powerless. Part of that involves being critical of the wealth disparities of a system based solely on the control of capital. There are huge structural and legislative problems in our Western 'Advanced' world. But, this is a political social battle for a more equitable and overall healthier system/nation/city.

'Richness' is involved in this. But an attack on 'rich people,' however you define them, misses the profound and important issues and lazily just attacks difference while prejudicially defines an group with a error filled brush. ssguy attacks the Oakridge marketers and buyers that exist in his own head, and ignores that they, like everyone, are complex real people.

And again, to repeat, the scale is important. If Vancouver was the size of Winnipeg, and a single giant project was being developed in this way, I would be up in arms too. Hopefully, I would hold my temper and fight it on the basis of real issues, and leave the nonsense aside.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Marshal

I have long been an advocate for the poor, the disadvantaged, the powerless. Part of that involves being critical of the wealth disparities of a system based solely on the control of capital. There are huge structural and legislative problems in our Western 'Advanced' world. But, this is a political social battle for a more equitable and overall healthier system/nation/city.

'Richness' is involved in this. But an attack on 'rich people,' however you define them, misses the profound and important issues and lazily just attacks difference while prejudicially defines an group with a error filled brush. ssguy attacks the Oakridge marketers and buyers that exist in his own head, and ignores that they, like everyone, are complex real people.

There's a huge difference between those who have grown rich while contributing long term to the overall economic system of a city and the global wealthy who jet in looking to add a second, third or fourth home to their string of bangles. For that we're apparently supposed to be greatful for the scraps of food court and retail jobs, though where those workers are expected to live is unclear.

The fallacy that Vancouver would just be some backwater where nothing ever gets built without offshore money is ridiculous. An architect got paid to design all those so-called "dumpy" Sixties and Seventies highrises that sprang up in the West End. Construction workers were paid to build them. And local workers could afford to rent them.

[officedweller]

Thanks!

So I guess that's the former Zellers that has been torn down, with the adjacent Hudson's Bay store still operating?
I think that Zellers amounted to a 1984 addition to the original Woodward's store:


https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/650w41st/documents/history.pdf


https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/650w41st/documents/history.pdf


https://topofmydesk.com/2014/03/27/oakridge-mall-in-the-1960s/

Originally Posted by Lexus

2020 August 3

Untitled by Lexus, on Flickr

[svlt]

I only have a tidbit of intelligent thought to contribute, but while Oakridge may be emblematic of the problem of developments over the past decades, by itself I don't see what anyone is up in arms about at all. It's a fine vision and looks quite attractive and will contribute nicely to the area, much better looking than what was previously there. People can still commute in and around the area and will benefit from the publicly accessible mall and green space.

At the high risk of pandering to the "race" card, reading some of the responses there is definitely some thinly veiled racism tied into comments against this project. So what if there are rich Asians buying this up? Is this less desirable than if rich Europeans bought it up? Or rich Americans? Westbank markets it to "rich" anybody, and Gillispie just happens to find East Asia to be the likeliest of buyers.

No one should need to leave the city solely because of this Project, seriously. There are scores of more affordable housing options available in Richmond, Delta, Burnaby, Coquitlam, New Westminster, etc. This Project isn't going to suddenly increase all of our market values by 10% across the board. You just can't live in the actual Oakridge development and immediate surroundings itself if you can't afford it. Too bad then? Make more money or just try to find compromises in your housing options?

The speculation and vacancy taxes were excellent ideas to curb people from just buying properties and letting them sit. If anything, I would like those penalties and fees to be significantly higher.

But I have zero problems with a developer building something grand that contributes to the design, cachet and footprint of the city - which I find Westbank's Oakridge proposal does - with buyers who are willing to drop some serious money into the city and live here. I'd sure as hell rather be next to a cluster of rich Asians than the junkies defecating and urinating all over downtown east of Thurlow.

Perhaps there should be better social safety nets and more policies to help lower income people out in the city than there presently are, but this development is not the problem at all.

[TwoFace]

The biggest worry right now would be that this project goes into hiatus because of the global meltdown.

[TwoFace]

Originally Posted by svlt

Perhaps there should be better social safety nets and more policies to help lower income people out in the city than there presently are,

There is or "was" lots of money to deal with any social problems or disparities if there was a will to deal with it. I believe the Feds are in the process of handing out over 100 billion to deal with covid-19, substance abuse takes a lot more lives each and every year.

[cov]

Originally Posted by TwoFace

There is or "was" lots of money to deal with any social problems or disparities if there was a will to deal with it. I believe the Feds are in the process of handing out over 100 billion to deal with covid-19, substance abuse takes a lot more lives each and every year.

Some issues require more than just money to solve. Downtown eastside already consume 360m a year in 2014, before additional money pumped in to deal with the fentanyl crisis, so far higher today. Yet conditions have grown worse, and DTES clients feel worse. We simply don't have a solution for the addicts in vancouver. The solution will take time and compromises, it's not possible to simply buy their recovery.

As for whatnext you have to read between the lines of what he's advocating. He's protective of areas like shaugnessey, point grey, single family housing in general while particularly critical of Vancouver house. He is far more concerned with where people are "from" rather than solving any specific issues. Oakridge Mall redevelopment will be far more inclusive than what shaughnessy and point grey will ever achieve. Overpriced sure, but will be more affordable in time.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Thanks!

So I guess that's the former Zellers that has been torn down, with the adjacent Hudson's Bay store still operating?
I think that Zellers amounted to a 1984 addition to the original Woodward's store:


https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/650w41st/documents/history.pdf

Looking at the old photos, you can't help but feel that much of Vancouver is still suburbia. Oakridge area has been upzoned tremendously, but there seems to be only a handful of larger tower proposals going on here.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Marshal

There are always good arguments in favour of solutions to affordability. But ssguy doesn't give any, and he is saying a bit more than that: a developer should not be free to market their project in whatever way they see fit; for people to come here from China/HK is not good; that the City doesn't give a damn (just ignore every thing that government has and is doing on this file); that city leaders (a political institution) should be able to predetermine acceptable and non-acceptable home buyers; money laundering can be solved by excluding foreign participation in the market; rich people should not benefit from public infrastructure.

There is a lot of fallacy and 🞵🞵🞵🞵 loaded into the back-end of this. Sounds like ssguy would be more comfortable living in mainland China himself.

FAVOURING AFFORDABILITY IS GOOD, given we have an affordability problem. Our real estate SHOULD BE SOLD TO LOCALS FIRST. Forcing this would be against the free economics of our system, and ultimately would be against us all; and, SPECULATION IS EVIL. Speculation is a key to our economy. If you don't like it (I often don't) you have to tackle much bigger issues in the Capitalist system . . . you can't just fling 🞵🞵🞵🞵 on 'speculators,' as if they were all the same. Every homeowner is one, after all.

ssguy's rant is just a knee-jerk reaction to things which are more complex than his apparent thinking ability. It's fine to argue his main points. But, argue them and stop 'yelling.'

As big as the Oakridge redevelopment is, it is just a small piece of the overall development across the Vancouver region. As I said in my last post: rich people exist and take up space. Rich is relative. To some of us, they exist in all of our development areas. The whole West Side is full of them - including the areas around Oakridge and the Canada line. Same with West Vancouver. Should government have the power to evict them when we need space for affordable housing (whatever that is).

Vancouver has become a bigger city than many are used to. Like Manhattan, Toronto, San Francisco, London, Paris, Milan, but also places on our scale, like central Vienna, Zurich, Seattle, Lyon, Brisbane, and so on: all of these have large prime areas that are rich ghettos, areas also knit into their respective fabrics, and areas many other people use and enjoy.

Often, people here lament Vancouver's lack of head offices, and large corporations. If we had more of these, we would have a stronger economy (perhaps). But if we did have more, what would that entail. One thing it would, would be an influx of smart, rich, powerful people, people with the expertise to run and advance our economy. (Yes, that's an anti-Trump whistle. And yes, it might hurt the ears of ssguy, even if he doesn't recognize it.)

We have plenty of rich people. Get over it. Hopefully they don't go away.
Without them we would be an economic backwater.

Good analysis. Still, the City wants the money from the rich but yet have not been focusing on providing for the middle class for decades. Developers are doing what developers do: make profits so they can build more. In a capitalism and free market environment, without guidelines and aims set up by the authorities, businessmen will always sell to those who can pay most for their services and products, ie. developers are not a charity. As for the province and municipalities, the huge tax revenue windfall over the decades should have been used to set guidelines to make housing affordable for all, and having development-crippling policies certainly do not help, and hence the housing crisis of today. We have a very short-sighted government that failed to capitalize on the best moments this City ever had. Only saving grace we've had are the suburb municipalities that have been taking advantage of Vancouver's backwardness and been building up massively, thus allowing a bit of breathing room for middle class folks to live in relatively good environments today, albeit most not residing in the City of Vancouver.

Well, people don't really need to leave the City anymore, even for the very poor. There are many parks to live in now (dripping with sarcasm).

[Spr0ckets]

I genuinely do not understand what the gripe about this is.

There are developments happening in neighbouring adjacent blocks around this development from all directions and a good few of them have some rental/non-market component and some of them are fully rental/non-market with housing geared to the sort of families and people who would never be able to afford to buy into this development, sure.

But aren't they all going to benefit in some way or another to the improvements that will happen to the mall/shopping center as a result?
Whether it be from better services and retail (whether or not you deem them out of their price range) or whether it's more directly by opening up more job opportunities.
Whom do you think are going to man those retail components of the mall? The Tower unit owners?
Even the office spaces that will come with, and likely attract businesses to set up shop there - same thing at a slightly higher income scale.
And then there's the infrastructure improvements in terms of the area amenities, the public park, improved street, sidewalk, arterial systems.

All of these are things that will not only improve the quality of life for everyone NOT living in the towers, but also more directly help improve the property values of the home owners in the vicinity.

Who cares what the race and ethnicities of those buyers will be if you're not going to be able to buy into it and therefore won't have to live next to them (if that bothers you so much)?

A fair argument is to be made as to how such developments are pricing out native born Canadians and Vancouver-ites from home ownership, but that's not an argument that either distinct nor particular and exclusive to this specific development and area nor is it even the direct result of it.

It's emblematic of much larger problem all over the Greater Vancouver Area that pretty much everyone has some small part or role and responsibility for, letting go out of control. And its going to take a long time to fix and sort out.

But presuming that going for the alternative (i.e. letting a fallow parking lot persist in place of a development) is any sort of solution, is frankly speaking delusional.
Anymore than hoping developers are going to start putting up rental-only developments in prime lots and locations like this out of the goodness of their hearts.
These kinds of developments are how most of them make the sort of profit margins that then allow them to actually pursue or build the rental-only projects that we need more of (and from which they make less money from).

The sort of short-sighted reactionary thinking on display in some of these comments just make one shake their head.

Sorry to say, but these sort of expensive developments that create residential units that are out of reach for the "common man" are a certain kind of "necessary evil" we have to live with on some level, because guess what? Rich people are not going to go extinct or "🞵🞵🞵🞵!" any time soon.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Sorry to say, but these sort of expensive developments that create residential units that are out of reach for the "common man" are a certain kind of "necessary evil" we have to live with on some level, because guess what? Rich people are not going to go extinct or "🞵🞵🞵🞵!" any time soon.

Well at least not until socialism kicks in .