Downtown Vancouver Updates

[Vin]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

After he personally insults him.

Who's "he"?

Originally Posted by Changing City

The City can't do that on the heritage point. It's sad that in 7 years and 6,000+ comments you still don't have a clue what the City can, and can't do with heritage buildings, although it's been explained several times.

[csbvan]

Concord did not pay $1 billion for the site to redevelop it according to it's current zoning designation. The City has considerable leverage to ensure the protection of the historic structure if they so choose.

[Klazu]

Only the original building is worth preserving and everything else should be replaced by something tall that breaks the view cone. Are there any other interesting lots in the view cone shadow behind Saint Paul's that could see an increased development potential?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by logan5

I'm somewhat on board with that. My idea is to convert the St. Pauls section into a shopping galleria, similar to this...

The Galleria in Milan is elegant, sumptous, and totally beautiful. I rather doubt that the St Paul's Hospital buildings could be
converted into anything remotely similar, although the idea is great.

Originally Posted by Vin

The law here is pretty backward when it comes to heritage protection. Hence it is more of a moral obligation than anything else, unfortunately.

Ans so do you think that Concord Pacific will bow to that? Just recall how they were made to come to heel back in post-Expo years.
After acquiring the Expo Lands for cheap, they wanted to build supertalls (70 stoerys plus) on it.
The city said no. Concord offered them some thing like 50 million $ to waiver the regulations. The city still said no and told them they'd have to follow the law
like everyone else. They then did so, but not until after screams of 'racism' by young Victor Li.'
I rather think they want the biggest bang for their pazoozas this time around, too.

[osirisboy]

That view cone is absolutely ridiculous. Do we really need to be “protecting” a little slice of view of the lions from the friggin laurel land bridge?

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Ans so do you think that Concord Pacific will bow to that? Just recall how they were made to come to heel back in post-Expo years.
After acquiring the Expo Lands for cheap, they wanted to build supertalls (70 stoerys plus) on it.
The city said no. Concord offered them some thing like 50 million $ to waiver the regulations. The city still said no and told them they'd have to follow the law
like everyone else. They then did so, but not until after screams of 'racism' by young Victor Li.'
I rather think they want the biggest bang for their pazoozas this time around, too.

Are there any articles about their plans for 70 storey towers or is that just your personal recollection?

Haven't read through this yet but might have some details on the planning process (former Concord employee so caveat)

https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0066245#downloadfiles

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It IS mildly irritating that Vancouverites learn in school about the fundamental checks and balances necessary for a Western democracy... and then grow up and blame Council for not acting like an oligarchic Asian city-state.

This is the real tea. And were the city to act that way they would also complain. Perhaps the complaining is the goal.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Cypherus

Nice of you to explain that for everyone else who is not aware of the situation, instead of always castigating Vin whenever he posts something.

Except Vin will just ignore the realities, clearly explained, and go on spouting his troll nonsense as we have seen here time and time again. His castigation is well-earned.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I can't think of a single example of where they've successfully done that - it's always a negotiation with an owner that allows them greater density (potentially transferred off site) in exchange for the protection of heritage.

If you read the Charter, the City can temporarily protect heritage buildings, but any attempt to limit an owners rights to development must be compensated. That's not going to be feasible - it'll be a negotiation My guess would be that Concord will agree to protect the exterior of some of the heritage building - the Burrard St frontage, obviously.

Here's what they can theoretically build now:
◾Site Area: 292,235 SF, or 6.7 acres
◾Existing Zoning: DD – Downtown District (Sub Area G)
◾Permitted Density: 6.0 FSR (office not to exceed 5.0 FSR), or 1,753,410 SF (under current zoning)
◾Allowable Height: 300 ft (with discretionary increase to 450 ft)
◾View Cones: View cone C1 (Laurel Landbridge to the Lions) bisects the site and likely limits much of the site to at or near the 300 ft. limit (30-storeys for residential).

So a bonus of 250,000 sq. ft. to preserve the facades could see them get to 2 million sq ft, or about 6.8 FSR, without trying to break through the viewcone.

Thanks for the info.

I assume Concord has assurances in place that FSR will be increasing dramatically.

6.8 is rather comical for whats likely to be the largest land assembly in the Downtown core for decades, or possibly ever.

Ignoring a massive amount of expenses;

Land Cost: $1,000,000,000
Build cost: Assume average build out cost of $550 square foot X 2 million = 1,100,000,000.
Lets ignore the tens of millions in soft costs for this exercise...

That's 2.1 billion in expenses.

Assume you can sell 80% of square footage, that's 1.6 million sell-able sq/ft.

That's $1300 a square foot break even without considering a lot more costs.

I assume, whatever product is built here, wont be all residential for one.

Second, to make this profitable it would have to sell for well over $2000.00 a foot to make worth while.

I haven't a clue what CAC's would be on something like this.

I can definitely say I'm looking very forward to seeing the first pre-sale prices on this site in the next decade.

[chrisel]

The need for the underground West End Substation will be all the more pronounced due to this future development.

Speaking of which, here's BC Hydro's web-page for said substation:
https://www.bchydro.com/energy-in-bc/projects/west-end-substation.html

They have a good video showing the stages of construction.

The Vancouver Park Board's Consultation Response Memo (Under 'reports & documents') was recently issued on July 27, 2020.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by rofina

Thanks for the info.

I assume Concord has assurances in place that FSR will be increasing dramatically.

6.8 is rather comical for whats likely to be the largest land assembly in the Downtown core for decades, or possibly ever.

Ignoring a massive amount of expenses;

Land Cost: $1,000,000,000
Build cost: Assume average build out cost of $550 square foot X 2 million = 1,100,000,000.
Lets ignore the tens of millions in soft costs for this exercise...

That's 2.1 billion in expenses.

Assume you can sell 80% of square footage, that's 1.6 million sell-able sq/ft.

That's $1300 a square foot break even without considering a lot more costs.

I assume, whatever product is built here, wont be all residential for one.

Second, to make this profitable it would have to sell for well over $2000.00 a foot to make worth while.

I haven't a clue what CAC's would be on something like this.

I can definitely say I'm looking very forward to seeing the first pre-sale prices on this site in the next decade.

The site is just over double the land occupied by Concord's Arc and One Pacific, on Nelson. The Arc was 6.9FSR, 29 storeys and One Pacific was 5.6 FSR and 18 storeys. The Arc sold at $1,860 per sq. ft..

I think your $550 per square foot is a bit high - with a project of this scale they should be able to build below $500 per square foot. So imagine 4 buildings like The Arc and One Pacific, and a chunk of old hospital repurposed into something (hotel maybe?). (I think the viewcone limits to about 200 feet, but there, a part of the site that looks like it could go to 450 feet). They build to zoning, with a bonus for heritage retention. No rezoning, no CAC, no Council involvement. It's faster, and there are no requirement to negotiate social or rental units - 100% strata is OK. Even with soft costs they'll still be looking at a 30% profit if they can get the same sale price as the Arc - and this arguably is a better location.

We'll see what comes out in the end, but I can see my scenario being a lot less painful, and still a big project with a very good return on capital for the developer.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

The Galleria in Milan is elegant, sumptous, and totally beautiful. I rather doubt that the St Paul's Hospital buildings could be
converted into anything remotely similar, although the idea is great.




Ans so do you think that Concord Pacific will bow to that? Just recall how they were made to come to heel back in post-Expo years.
After acquiring the Expo Lands for cheap, they wanted to build supertalls (70 stoerys plus) on it.
The city said no. Concord offered them some thing like 50 million $ to waiver the regulations. The city still said no and told them they'd have to follow the law
like everyone else. They then did so, but not until after screams of 'racism' by young Victor Li.'
I rather think they want the biggest bang for their pazoozas this time around, too.

Yeah, developers will always be developers: forever trying to make a fortune from real estate and perhaps not bat an eye on any collateral damage. And that's when local residents and the municipalities need to come in and pressure them to be responsible corporate citizens. Create a media frenzy regarding heritage protection of the hospital is a good way to achieve this. Sooner or later they will realize it props up their reputation to have the original hospital wing preserved as much as possible, while at the same time building something new and architecturally appealing where there is space for it. The City needs to remove the Viewcones here for maximum old wing preservation. Ideally the old structure would have two or three 50 to 60+ towers flanking it, and if they can all be connected by an underground retail structure that would be even better! There could be a hotel, an office tower and a residential block in this development.

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Except Vin will just ignore the realities, clearly explained, and go on spouting his troll nonsense as we have seen here time and time again. His castigation is well-earned.

Funny coming from you.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Cypherus

Nice of you to explain that for everyone else who is not aware of the situation, instead of always castigating Vin whenever he posts something.

When has ChangingCity ever not explained the real world issues and rules effecting a project?

It’s not his fault Vin doesn’t listen.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

When has ChangingCity ever not explained the real world issues and rules effecting a project?

It’s not his fault Vin doesn’t listen.

Agreed. CC has far more patience than I do. Truly the Lord's work trying to lead the blind.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Agreed. CC has far more patience than I do. Truly the Lord's work trying to lead the blind.

I mean maybe CC doesn't know how to use the ignore function.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The site is just over double the land occupied by Concord's Arc and One Pacific, on Nelson. The Arc was 6.9FSR, 29 storeys and One Pacific was 5.6 FSR and 18 storeys. The Arc sold at $1,860 per sq. ft..

I think your $550 per square foot is a bit high - with a project of this scale they should be able to build below $500 per square foot. So imagine 4 buildings like The Arc and One Pacific, and a chunk of old hospital repurposed into something (hotel maybe?). (I think the viewcone limits to about 200 feet, but there, a part of the site that looks like it could go to 450 feet). They build to zoning, with a bonus for heritage retention. No rezoning, no CAC, no Council involvement. It's faster, and there are no requirement to negotiate social or rental units - 100% strata is OK. Even with soft costs they'll still be looking at a 30% profit if they can get the same sale price as the Arc - and this arguably is a better location.

We'll see what comes out in the end, but I can see my scenario being a lot less painful, and still a big project with a very good return on capital for the developer.

I thought $550 was high as well - I originally had $500 in mind.

The reason for the extra $50 a foot was me thinking shovels wont hit the ground for at least 7 years.

Were in a pandemic now, but trades were very hard to find in Vancouver prior to.

Once the dust settles I'm assuming the industry is going to see a lot of early retirement of small business owners/staff that otherwise might have planned to keep on operating for 2, 3 or 4 more years, being an established trade has been easy money and a lot of companies and a lot of senior (pun intended) guys were sticking around only because of how much business was knocking on the door. I think this will have an impact on labor costs going forward.

Obviously this is all a total guess for entertainment purposes.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by rofina

I thought $550 was high as well - I originally had $500 in mind.

The reason for the extra $50 a foot was me thinking shovels wont hit the ground for at least 7 years.

Were in a pandemic now, but trades were very hard to find in Vancouver prior to.

Once the dust settles I'm assuming the industry is going to see a lot of early retirement of small business owners/staff that otherwise might have planned to keep on operating for 2, 3 or 4 more years, being an established trade has been easy money and a lot of companies and a lot of senior (pun intended) guys were sticking around only because of how much business was knocking on the door. I think this will have an impact on labor costs going forward.

Obviously this is all a total guess for entertainment purposes.

Absolutely, and unless Concord are hot to trot it could be even longer. Assuming they can get the new facility built by 2024 and moved in 2025, nothing happens on site until at least 2027, as you say. It will be a totally different context by then, so it's quite a long-term play by Concord, but they've done something similar by buying the Molson brewery. It'll be interesting to see what, and when their ideas emerge for developing the site; that could be a while as well.

They may wait until we get a new Council led by the SSP Party with 6 councillors voting to abolish viewcones are requiring a minimum tower height of 60 storeys - but I wouldn't want $1bn riding on that possibility!

[WarrenC12]

I'm pretty sure 2026 is the current estimate for the new SPH. We'll know more detail when they pick a consortium to do the build. I expect financial penalties for breaking the timeline, so that should end up being pretty solid.

The demo for the old site will be long and painful I'm sure.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'm pretty sure 2026 is the current estimate for the new SPH. We'll know more detail when they pick a consortium to do the build. I expect financial penalties for breaking the timeline, so that should end up being pretty solid.

The demo for the old site will be long and painful I'm sure.

You're right - the press coverage last year said "the doors will open in 2026". So no demolition on Burrard until 2027 at the earliest, and the earliest completion could be 10 years from now.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Absolutely, and unless Concord are hot to trot it could be even longer. Assuming they can get the new facility built by 2024 and moved in 2025, nothing happens on site until at least 2027, as you say. It will be a totally different context by then, so it's quite a long-term play by Concord, but they've done something similar by buying the Molson brewery. It'll be interesting to see what, and when their ideas emerge for developing the site; that could be a while as well.

They may wait until we get a new Council led by the SSP Party with 6 councillors voting to abolish viewcones are requiring a minimum tower height of 60 storeys - but I wouldn't want $1bn riding on that possibility!

Yes, Concord is certainly banking a lot of Vancouver property. I'm not sure if I like that.

Can you clarify, did Providence Healthcare own the old site directly or was it through the province? It has always kind of confused me what kind of entity PHC was, and how the ownership of St.Pauls differed from VGH etc.