The Ultimate Vancouver Rumour Thread!

[Metro-One]

When I saw “46 floors” and the location for a brief moment I thought, “OMG, a 46 floor office tower? This will surely be downtown’s new tallest!” but that joy was quickly dashed...

I have mixed feelings on this project. If it were hotel I would be in full support. The lack of hotel space, especially with the recent flood of converting non luxury hotels into homeless housing, is quite concerning.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Well, nothing's stopping City Hall from one day allowing hotels and offices in the West End...

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Well, nothing's stopping City Hall from one day allowing hotels and offices in the West End...

Development economics stop developers from wanting to have hotels in the West End, which is why the Coast is now rental apartments and The Landmark is becoming non-market rentals and condos. The same economics would suggest that if developers are allowed to build residential - even rentals - in the CBD it'll be harder to get offices or hotels developed there. Thats's why the Metro Core study and the policy of stopping housing in the CBD was introduced. If commercial space isn't needed any more then it's not a problem. There no sign that's true any time soon.

[Klazu]

I agree with others that this should be a hotel tower. Maybe we could recoup some of the hundreds of affordable hotel rooms lost to junkie housing. Once the pandemic is over, tourists considering visiting Vancouver will be shocked with there being almost no hotel rooms below 4 star remaining in downtown.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I agree with others that this should be a hotel tower. Maybe we could recoup some of the hundreds of affordable hotel rooms lost to junkie housing. Once the pandemic is over, tourists considering visiting Vancouver will be shocked with there being almost no hotel rooms below 4 star remaining in downtown.

Any hotel tower built here would be at least 4 star. The new less expensive hotels, if they get developed in Vancouver rather than Burnaby or Richmond or Surrey, are more likely to be in False Creek Flats, and on Broadway.

[a very long weekend]

I think the point is that a wave of new hotel construction would push down the cost of older hotels rooms, so that a portion of the keys that were lost to junkie housing would return to market.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

I think the point is that a wave of new hotel construction would push down the cost of older hotels rooms, so that a portion of the keys that were lost to junkie housing would return to market.

That's certainly possible, but not certain. There have been more new rooms opened than closed Downtown over the past 10 years, but all the new hotels have been 'executive'. In the West End there has been a net loss of rooms through conversion or redevelopment.

Unlike other cities, nobody has converted or added a new budget offering for years. Several existing budget hotels have been sold as either non-market housing, or redeveloped as condos. I'm sure you can think of several more obvious candidates for redevelopment to residential in the West End and Downtown.

If we saw another high end hotel added here it seems just as likely that existing rooms would be replaced by residential projects rather than their owners trying to run them with lower income from reduced room rates.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

What makes you say that? Is this site any more constrained than the super-tight space between the Guinness Building and the Marine Building, where the MNP Tower--an extremely successful commercial office project--was built? Indeed, to the naked eye, the MNP Tower site looks even tighter.

Furthermore, recent history has shown that building residential towers in the heart of the CBD do not just preclude vital future commercial redevelopment of one site alone; they also can create adverse limitations on any future commercial redevelopment of surrounding sites by the new residents who cry they now have a god-given right to their views in perpetuity and the city politicians who out of political expediency acquiesce to them.

This site is situated within the very core of Vancouver's commercial financial district and has strategic importance to the future economic growth and health of the city. Cannibalizing this important commercial site in the heart of Vancouver's Central Business District with a residential tower, in my opinion, would be shortsighted and unwise.

What makes me say it is that the days of 8,000 square foot office towers being successful seems to be gone. Modern tenants do not want that and the trend has only been exacerbated by Covid. When MNP Tower was constructed it nailed a niche segment that existed in Vancouver, but that segment is more or less dead with the rise of tech and the continued languishing of mining and mid-size FIRE tenants. Just look at the uptake of 601 Hastings. It's a nice tower and will eventually fill out, but they are the last choice of almost any tenant in the core right now due to their plate size.

While I firmly support keeping the core for employment uses, there are some orphaned sites that are too small for economically feasible office developments and those should be identified and relaxed usage requirements been attributed to them.

[jollyburger]

Looks like the south end of the building near the bottom is shaved away from the MacBlo building. UrbanYVR says the architect is Hariri Pontarini Architects

https://www.urbanyvr.com/thurlow-and-melville-rentals/

[jollyburger]

Back in January 2020

We’s cautious optimism was dashed by Stovell, who said, “There’s a real concern that we’re seeing all these tech workers coming in, and they love Vancouver and the lifestyle, but where the hell is everybody going to live? I cannot for the life of me understand why, for example, when you’ve got 7,000 or 8,000 Amazon workers coming to downtown Vancouver over the next few years, that a developer has to fight tooth and nail to get a rental building permit approved. Why can’t we build an office tower in downtown Vancouver that has a higher density with 10 storeys of rental on the top? People could take the elevator to work and not clog up the streets. There’s just such a lack of imagination.”

https://www.westerninvestor.com/news/bri...ver-s-future-under-status-quo-1.24060558

As much as I understand the need for "no exceptions" to OCPs but you are literally on the edge of the CBD. What office towers are there west of Thurlow. Stack, Evergreen, little bit down by Georgia/Cardero. They won't even let them build an office tower next to Waterfront Station, but this is the end of the world? Makes zero sense.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Back in January 2020



https://www.westerninvestor.com/news/bri...ver-s-future-under-status-quo-1.24060558

As much as I understand the need for "no exceptions" to OCPs but you are literally on the edge of the CBD. What office towers are there west of Thurlow. Stack, Evergreen, little bit down by Georgia/Cardero. They won't even let them build an office tower next to Waterfront Station, but this is the end of the world? Makes zero sense.

Are you sure you understand the need for "no exceptions" to OCPs? The CBD is pretty small. Commercial buildings outside the CBD aren't protected (like the office block that was where the Kengo Kuma residential tower is going up). Inside the CBD they are.

Here's how it can play out. Reliance are allowed their residential tower. A few years later there's a recession. Just like in 1993, or 2003, or 2015, the office vacancy rate reaches 10%. A developer of an older building across the street from the residential tower says "Well, there's one right across the street, so why can't I build one? There's no demand for offices, and I'll be providing housing for Downtown workers". If that's approved, then 'just across the street' becomes 'just across the lane', and so the CBD slowly gets weakened. In the meantime, if residential values are significantly higher than commercial values, the land values get distorted to reflect the higher residential value, and property taxes go up for commercial tenants.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Are you sure you understand the need for "no exceptions" to OCPs? The CBD is pretty small. Commercial buildings outside the CBD aren't protected (like the office block that was where the Kengo Kuma residential tower is going up). Inside the CBD they are.

Here's how it can play out. Reliance are allowed their residential tower. A few years later there's a recession. Just like in 1993, or 2003, or 2015, the office vacancy rate reaches 10%. A developer of an older building across the street from the residential tower says "Well, there's one right across the street, so why can't I build one? There's no demand for offices, and I'll be providing housing for Downtown workers". If that's approved, then 'just across the street' becomes 'just across the lane', and so the CBD slowly gets weakened. In the meantime, if residential values are significantly higher than commercial values, the land values get distorted to reflect the higher residential value, and property taxes go up for commercial tenants.

Ya it's a slippery slope I sit in on all the time where I get my Client's frustration but I do get the City's long term planning perspective. Jon has other lots. Land value distortion is a BIG deal.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Stupid question - conversely, if office demand spikes again, what's stopping a developer from pitching a commercial tower in a residential area (if rezoned for mixed-use)?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Stupid question - conversely, if office demand spikes again, what's stopping a developer from pitching a commercial tower in a residential area (if rezoned for mixed-use)?

Not stupid at all - and it's even happened in the not too distant past. 745 Thurlow, the green box near Shangri-La, was built in a zone that allowed residential. The reason that was possible was that Bentall, the developer, already owned the parkade on the site, and had for many years, and wasn't a residential developer. The site value didn't really reflect the residential potential, perhaps because the parkade was so big that was the basis of the site valuation. Similarly, the recently completed office building on Water Street tenanted by Microsoft could have been developed as a residential building. So providing the zoning permits it, there's no reason other than land economics (residential sites are usually worth more) and demand (office space outside a core isn't generally as attractive to major tenants), then nothing stops it. Generally though, residential in Vancouver wins most times.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Stupid question - conversely, if office demand spikes again, what's stopping a developer from pitching a commercial tower in a residential area (if rezoned for mixed-use)?

They are currently studying if land exists outside of the CDB. Results are unknown at this time.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

That's certainly possible, but not certain. There have been more new rooms opened than closed Downtown over the past 10 years, but all the new hotels have been 'executive'. In the West End there has been a net loss of rooms through conversion or redevelopment.

Unlike other cities, nobody has converted or added a new budget offering for years. Several existing budget hotels have been sold as either non-market housing, or redeveloped as condos. I'm sure you can think of several more obvious candidates for redevelopment to residential in the West End and Downtown.

If we saw another high end hotel added here it seems just as likely that existing rooms would be replaced by residential projects rather than their owners trying to run them with lower income from reduced room rates.

Is that number of rooms certain? The ones I recall closing seemed to have quite a few rooms (Coast Plaza, Inn on False Creek) while the new ones seem to be much smaller (Hotel Blu, Trump).

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Is that number of rooms certain? The ones I recall closing seemed to have quite a few rooms (Coast Plaza, Inn on False Creek) while the new ones seem to be much smaller (Hotel Blu, Trump).

Exchange. Parc (2 hotels). And a few smaller ones I can't be bothered to look up.

[rofina]

I read through the last couple of pages, and I want to make an observation.

Its a bunch of educated people talking policy and trying to interpret how those policies will drive outcomes.

Would we not be better served with a more market driven approach?

Why not let developers simply build what the market is willing to uptake?

Perhaps, once gone to presale, there would be no appetite whatsoever for this tower, in its form, at the cost it will take, ultimately forcing the developer to reconsider.

Would that not be the ultimate best case scenario? Or perhaps even a mix use, office in 60% of lower half, and residences in the 40% above.

The rigidity in thinking and micromanagement of outcomes in the building process here to me seems very counter intuitive and shockingly unimaginative for a City that would bill it self as progressive.

Completely open to being wrong about this, but would love to know why/how.

[officedweller]

These are being proposed as market rentals - so there is no presale - the developer is deciding there is a market (he is willing to take the risk).

Zoning is all about restricting and allowing certain uses.

The other problem with residential in the core is what happened at Jameson House and The Exchange.
The residents complained about loss of views and overlook into their suites, which caused changes to The Exchange floorplates and the installation of louvres to prevent overlook (despite the fact that the alley side of Jameson House had small windows in anticipation of neighbouring buildings).

Office and hotel buildings can be built denser / closer together because there is no expectation of privacy or the users are transitory.
With residential use mixed in, tower spacing disputes would impair the ability to build densely in what would be shoulder to shoulder office blocks (like Scotia Tower and VCII).

PS - if Reliance is so eager to build rental housing downtown, what's the hold up with its tower at Davie & Hornby (Burrard Place IV)?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by officedweller

PS - if Reliance is so eager to build rental housing downtown, what's the hold up with its tower at Davie & Hornby (Burrard Place IV)?

Good point. Probably what's holding it up is that they haven't built tower 3 yet - but there's nothing (but their anticipated return) stopping them making that into a rental too.