I hope you're having as much fun as I am because I feel like this discussion is actually reaching new corners of the topic
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
True, not every tenant wants a large floorplate... but the majority of potential "big" tenants DO want a large floorplate. Why build something from them that they don't want, when we can easily build what they do want in Mount Pleasant, the Flats or somewhere else?
|
Well there's a reason why tech giants tenants (like Google out in the Bay area as opposed to San Francisco, etc) are generally located outside of downtown CBDs; one of the reasons is that those CBDs weren't able to offer them large floorplate office spaces due to them building out. Much like the COV will never be able to offer them as well. The negotiating point with the COV IS to offer more sq. ft in height.
Since we are speaking specifically on Tech, I think that you may be underestimating how many tech companies are open to operating from towers. Hate to draw non-Canadian examples but the
One World Trade Center has a huge list of tenants
including tech companies. And then there is China that is
constructing a set of highrises specifically for a tech giant of their own. I get that we don't have the booming tech industry that China and the USA does but I just wanted to draw those comparisons that even certain tech
giants are open to operating out of high rise models. BTW, I'm not suggesting 90+ floor office towers as I know that the COV's next tallest will definitely be a combo of Office and Residential.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
What we're trying to do with more height is cram as many smaller tenants in as possible, and that's a fine goal in itself, but I suspect that quantity of towers (which is what we're doing) is more important than size for that goal, at least in the near future.
|
I think that a certain bias that you are harbouring when it comes to larger tenants is that you are thinking that every large tenant/business is a tech giant. Businesses the size of tech giants are more so the exception than they are the standard. A
large business is defined as a company that employs at least 500 workers. Whereas
Google currently employs
100,000 people and
Amazon currently employs
798,000 people. Amazon, Google, and a business that employs 500 people would be considered large tenants as per the benchmark, but their numbers totally demand a different set of infrastructure from each other even though they would be classified in the same category as a business with 500 employees.
And by the way, I'm not sure if the Google and Amazon numbers are global employees or not TBH.
IMO, a large business that has 500 employees would certainly be able to make-do with occupying a set of floors
(like 10 floors; ~50 workers per floor to not feel crowded? I'm not good at this calculation; I'm probably giving them sweatshop conditions 
) within a high rise building. However, that building needs to be able to offer the floors they require for such an occupation. And with the office vacancy in COV at 4.7% during a pandemic, it doesn't seem like the city is offering an attractive option for larger businesses to invest in.
When speaking on quantity of towers, you can host more businesses within a taller tower. This reduces tower sprawl in the region, reduces the carbon-footprint of these businesses, and reduces the geography needed to host these businesses. For the record: I'm not against tower sprawl but a lot of these city policies have certainly encouraged it in the rest of region - perhaps needlessly. IMO tower sprawl encouraged by backwards city policies is a symptom of the COV's inefficient use of its land.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
Not an official policy, but you read correctly, and yes, it's a thing: almost every city in Canada rezones the non-residential first - occasionally, the lowrise rentals. It explains a whole lot about the last few decades of spot zoning and demovictions. |
Gotcha. Thought that I missed an additional point. I don't think that I ever mentioned specific areas to rezone? Just that the view cones among other city policies stifles development in the areas the COV has rezoned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
The City has very recently been willing to challenge homeowner enclaves; the suburbs appear to be doubling down on the "islands in a sea of sprawl" model. There's going to come a time where Coquitlam and Lougheed and Brentwood have to choose between halting growth or expanding into suburbistan - and in that regard, Vancouver is far ahead.
|
The COV does deserve the credit for expanding into Suburbistan (by the way, I am going to steal that). My criticism is that the COV hasn't kept up with its rezonings on par with the demand of locals - however this is a whole other topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
No doubt. Still, I have to ask whether 82 floors' worth of condos for $1050+ per square foot is really for working Vancouverites; sounds like the exact same kind of catering to the 1% (10% if you're generous) that blew up in Westbank's face.
|
I'm kind of veering off topic here as well. But Oakridge was
never marketed to working Vancouverites to begin with, and it will never be meant to be purchased by local working Vancouverites below the top 1%. Oakridge was designed for the rich (specifically overseas rich) from the jump. 'Tis just a bad benchmark to measure with as it doesn't represent working Vancouverites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
Thing is, many posters are missing the forest for the trees. Let's say the viewcones and shadowing policies chop off about 40-50k square feet per tower (using the Jenga tower as reference). So after fifty such projects, you'd be losing out on up to 2.5 million square feet.
To put things in perspective, downtown has about 24 million square feet of office space right now - 2.5 million more is a 9-10% increase.
|
This kind of points out how we have lost out on potential employers, taking into consideration that we have a 4.7% vacancy rate in offices
during a pandemic. And based on that stat alone, it seems like we could have accommodated that amount of sq. ft per tower to achieve a healthier office vacancy rate from that calculation.
According to the daily hive, a healthy office vacancy rate is considered to be 8%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
I support a less monotonous skyline, but if there ever comes a time when a new generation of preservationists hates our generation's guts for (somehow) blocking all the views of the mountains from False Creek, then "we needed an extra tenth more offices at the time" may not be sufficient.
|
As you already know, a dynamic skyline is extremely superficial. I could honestly care less about how updating certain city policies is going to affect the skyline, rather I care more about how cutting the red tape on certain policies will drive growth and prosperity for the COV. It also speaks to the values of those who do uphold the view cone policies because it is a very superficial policy in of itself. And for the next generation of preservationists, if they even come to pass, they will have to look no further than the 90's and 2000-2020's to see how city policies have put their children's futures in the COV in jeopardy with arbitrary growth stifling city policies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
But Migrant, every little bit counts right now! Yes it does. But what if I told you that under current zoning policy, the Mount Pleasant industrial area could take up to 8 million square feet of office space? That's a 33% increase! Broadway, Cambie, the Flats, Hastings, all the other rezoning plans outside the CBD, that's maybe 10-20 million square feet.
|
I'm assuming that when you are talking about Mount Pleasant, that you are referring to the
potential density changes along W. 2nd Avenue? It's a very good point and I am personally excited to see the up-zoned industrial and office spaces along that road, and although those changes haven't come into the bureaucratic cross-hairs yet (AFAIK), what about the employment future
beyond these changes?
I will hand it to the COV that it is decent at planning for the near future 2 years at a time, but when it comes to the big picture or the future 10+ years from now, the COV falls short for me. Currently we are seeing the demise of small businesses left and right, and it would be wise for the COV to vie for larger businesses
(specifically tech, IMO) to set up in the COV. We have talked about the large business' infrastructure demands many times but I do have to question whether the up-zoning in Mount Pleasant will only attract small-medium sized office tenants with their office floorplates.
Broadway is going to be very interesting to watch, especially with Senakw on the horizon by the bridge. There are plenty of view cones along Broadway, already stifling developments such as the Cambie/Broadway corner which could have easily accommodated a 30+ tower of some kind on an intersecting Skytrain line. Another opportunity wasted because of a city policy. Iirc, the western portions of Broadway have less view cones but then you have a NIMBY population straight outta hell so who knows what kind of compromises will be made.
To me, Cambie is an example of how
not to up-zone. Residentially speaking, the bureaucratic administration side for the up-zoning of Cambie should have been done in larger chunks rather than one lot at a time. Unless I am mistaken, Oakridge-41st's redevelopments have a stronger focus on residential and retail elements than they do of Office developments? Same with Marine Drive?
I'm not that well versed with the office developments on Cambie beyond Broadway-City Hall so I am open to hearing out your insights
.
The biggest problem for me for the Flats (Fraser River flats, right?) is accessibility. In order to attract the best talent to your workplace, you need to have your business' location accessible. You can interview highly qualified individuals all day and night but if they had to take an uber to get to your workplace then they can't be relied upon to be on time. Or, on the flipside, the potential qualified employee doesn't even apply because they know that they won't be able to make it. Part of the draw to downtown Vancouver and to Broadway is that both areas are BC's top employment centres and they are extremely accessible to everyone in the Metro region. Therefore you would only be able to attract specific office tenants to the Flats, and that would rule out any larger tenants that value transit accessibility in the region.
And then there's Hastings... not only does it have the lack of accessibility (and you can't convince me that a Hastings line is on the way before the region decides on the north shore connection) by rapid transit but you now have to deal with a reputation that's applied to all of East Hastings
(and not just the bad part). These qualities do influence what kinds of tenants your office building is going to be able to attract. And I'm not trying to talk down on any future office tenant in East Hastings but I just wanted to mention that the COV is not going to attract large business tenants to an office building on East Hastings. They'll probably get a bunch of smaller fun start-ups (which is totally fine!) but large business office tenants of 500+ employees are going to demand a location that is accessible, the infrastructure and sq. ft to support their operations, and they are going to want a location with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
Again, many viewcones need to be reviewed - we agree on that. But why spend a lot of effort for a low payoff when you can spend less effort on a high payoff?
|
Why not spend the effort to get the highest payoff for the city?
The secondary and tertiary office nodes that you mentioned are not going to attract large office tenants unless they can offer a higher office floor plate (which we've already been over many times is not going to happen in the COV) or sq. ft in height.
The office developments that you mentioned outside of the CBD are indeed going to help us in the short term (being 2-5 years after being constructed) but I think that we need to stop shooting ourselves in the foot when it comes to attracting
large business opportunities and to start reviewing city policies that are stifling growth and stalling opportunities. To try and make up for the businesses that have had to close down due to the pandemic, and to accommodate future population growth, we are going to need a larger scale solution; and we'll need the infrastructure to support that solution.
For the record: it is going to be a combination of small, medium, and large businesses that pulls the region into a prosperous future. But in the medium-far future (like 7+ years from now) we are going to need to attract more larger employers to provide opportunities that everyday Vancouverites can benefit from. And the COV will need to offer the opportunity to build the infrastructure necessary to support these large businesses. And one of the ways that the COV can do that is to provide that Sq. Ft. via height for large businesses with 500+ employees.
Our politicians and city council is paid by us to make the effort to develop the city into a more prosperous version of itself. At the end of the day, it would be the data collection from the public that poses the biggest challenge for them. They are paid by our tax dollars to do this process without having it extend the bureaucratic process of it all by 4 years (like the city-wide rezoning plan). From my perspective the city council is anything but efficient at data collection, attracting employers, or planning for the future. All of the administrative changes are done one lot at a time, when the Millennials and younger needed these changes to be done yesterday. The effort to double dip with cutting sets of red tape in the name of future generations, is absolutely worth it.
Prev
. 
Linear Mode
