Downtown Vancouver Updates

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by C3YVR

Nice subtle hint on 815 Hornby by Stovell. I think this is exactly the size and location someone like Four Seasons would be interested in for a hotel and residence. Without being too large you keep that feeling of exclusivity and offer something Trump could never dream of.

Doubtful there'd be enough room for a 4S hotel AND residences here, the site will certainly be limited in height by shadowing restrictions on Robson Square.

4S will find a new home downtown, but I'm not sure where. Obvious plug and play is Trump, but no telling if Holborn and 4S can come to an agreement.

[C3YVR]

As Trump only attracted the lowlifes and low IQ, I have no doubt Holborn will have to offer incentives on a tarnished product, and who knows if Four Seasons would bite. But for true luxury, the lower number of rooms and residences you offer only makes them that more valuable. That could be part of the appeal of 815 Hornby to a top end luxury provider. Like I guessed after CF let slip about W Hotels taking over the old Four Seasons, only time will tell.

[Klazu]

I think you are talking about Drai's attracting questionable clientele. The hotel itself attracted just your regular upscale business and holiday travelers.

Still sad about losing Mott32 as it was excellent the few times I went.

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

May 29 '21, my pics

June 20 '21, my pics

[dleung]

Can someone enlighten me on why there's still wood construction in the downtown peninsula at these land prices? I'm surprised they couldn't have worked out a deal with the city to retain the entire garden in exchange for an extra floor in a tower elsewhere that would've more than covered the square footage in this tiny new build.

[WestEnd604]

Originally Posted by dleung

Can someone enlighten me on why there's still wood construction in the downtown peninsula at these land prices? I'm surprised they couldn't have worked out a deal with the city to retain the entire garden in exchange for an extra floor in a tower elsewhere that would've more than covered the square footage in this tiny new build.

Adding an additional floor on a tower in Vancouver is more difficult than putting toothpaste back in the tube.

[dleung]

I mean added to another new project by the same developer, or air-rights to be sold to another developer, you know the usual. The proforma here perplexes me. With the land cost split between so few units, seems like these should be the most expensive townhomes ever, but why isn't it concrete construction then?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by dleung

I mean added to another new project by the same developer, or air-rights to be sold to another developer, you know the usual. The proforma here perplexes me. With the land cost split between so few units, seems like these should be the most expensive townhomes ever, but why isn't it concrete construction then?

They're rental. There's no premium for concrete townhouses. This developer builds rentals, so can build up to the maximum on almost any project without having to buy air rights, or transfer density. There's already plenty of unwanted heritage density in the 'heritage bank', and not many developers wanting to use it.

Four extra rental townhomes as well as 16 rental units in the house all adds to the rental stock in the West End (and the interior of the house gets restored and preserved). A privately owned garden wouldn't be considered trade-off for those extra family-sized market rentals. There were historically other buildings in the grounds, including a glasshouse and garages, so the garden wasn't the original layout anyway.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by dleung

Can someone enlighten me on why there's still wood construction in the downtown peninsula at these land prices? I'm surprised they couldn't have worked out a deal with the city to retain the entire garden in exchange for an extra floor in a tower elsewhere that would've more than covered the square footage in this tiny new build.

Didn't Vision Vancouver get ride of the heritage density transfer (god knows why)? I'm OK with these townhouses as the new construction doesn't completely overwhelm the heritage building, as Grosvenor did with the Leslie House.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Didn't Vision Vancouver get ride of the heritage density transfer?

No, it still exists.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by Changing City

They're rental. There's no premium for concrete townhouses. This developer builds rentals, so can build up to the maximum on almost any project without having to buy air rights, or transfer density. There's already plenty of unwanted heritage density in the 'heritage bank', and not many developers wanting to use it.

Four extra rental townhomes as well as 16 rental units in the house all adds to the rental stock in the West End (and the interior of the house gets restored and preserved). A privately owned garden wouldn't be considered trade-off for those extra family-sized market rentals. There were historically other buildings in the grounds, including a glasshouse and garages, so the garden wasn't the original layout anyway.

I'm assuming a retained garden would be a (privately-owned) public-space that the city might value more than 4 townhouses. I'm just thinking of highest and best use of the land, and cheap low-rise construction doesn't seem to add up to the, maybe $20 million of land that it sits on? I don't know why these wouldn't be at least ultra-luxury townhouses.

There is certainly a premium on concrete townhouses - plenty of stand-alone 2.5-storey concrete townhouse podiums all over False Creek/Coal Harbour. Heck even some of the ones at the back of the new Cambie midrises are concrete.

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

May 26 '21, my pics

Originally Posted by officedweller

Richards Smithe Park

By me today.

The viewing platform over Smithe is being installed.

Originally Posted by officedweller

Richards & Smithe Park

By me today:

June 22 '21, my pics

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by dleung

I'm assuming a retained garden would be a (privately-owned) public-space that the city might value more than 4 townhouses. I'm just thinking of highest and best use of the land, and cheap low-rise construction doesn't seem to add up to the, maybe $20 million of land that it sits on? I don't know why these wouldn't be at least ultra-luxury townhouses.

There is certainly a premium on concrete townhouses - plenty of stand-alone 2.5-storey concrete townhouse podiums all over False Creek/Coal Harbour. Heck even some of the ones at the back of the new Cambie midrises are concrete.

No, the gardens are privately-owned private space. The City would have to buy the site to make it public. The land is valued at $10m, and the house at $12m. There's already City-owned heritage houses in a park nearby.

I don't believe there's enough premium for rental townhouses here for the developer to build in concrete. (Otherwise, he probably would). All the other locations you mentioned are for sale - including the ones on the lane behind Cambie. All the infill laneway townhouses and apartments built under the Laneway 2.0 policy in the West End have been built with a woodframe, although the cladding has been contemporary. Here's one by the same architect as the Gabriola townhouses.

[blacktrojan3921]

Originally Posted by WestEnd604

Adding an additional floor on a tower in Vancouver is more difficult than putting toothpaste back in the tube.

Would explain why I haven't seen any proposals for 200m+ towers in Downtown Vancouver.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by WestEnd604

Adding an additional floor on a tower in Vancouver is more difficult than putting toothpaste back in the tube.

Originally Posted by blacktrojan3921

Would explain why I haven't seen any proposals for 200m+ towers in Downtown Vancouver.

.... I rather doubt that there ever will be. The exception I pray for is an eventual redevlopment of the SW corner of Georgia and Burrard. That there could be a 200m+ landmark tower there.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

June 22 '21, my pics

This park encapsulates current Vancouver for me very well; an inordinate amount of effort, culminating in an attractive, but incredibly pointless bridge to nowhere.

This is literally decision making in Vancouver, in one picture.

Its a statement that resonates beyond its utility for me.

Thank you kindly for sharing.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by blacktrojan3921

Would explain why I haven't seen any proposals for 200m+ towers in Downtown Vancouver.

Short answer: height restrictions due to view corridors.

[zahav]

omg lol it's just a platform at a park, it isn't supposed to have utility or reading too much into it. People like dumb things like this, if it was just grass people would've complained it isn't dyanmic enough. If they had a merry-go-round people would've thought it too gimicky, it's always going to odd to someone

[Vin]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Short answer: height restrictions due to view corridors.

Quick comment: A real pain in the neck.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by zahav

omg lol it's just a platform at a park, it isn't supposed to have utility or reading too much into it.

Its literally the first new park in Downtown in over a decade, designed completely from scratch. Overthinking it? I would be inclined to think the opposite is true if anything, when this sum of money is spent on a park that "isn't supposed to have utility." You encapsulated the prevailing attitude well, not sure if you meant that ironically or not. I'm not faulting you for it, or even disagreeing, this City is filled with folks with your train of thought, and its very surprising how quickly that became so.

People like dumb things like this, if it was just grass people would've complained it isn't dyanmic enough. If they had a merry-go-round people would've thought it too gimicky, it's always going to odd to someone

I agree, opinions are like you know what, everyone's got one.
My point was simple; I'm sure that some people will like it. But the fact an elaborate bridge to nowhere was decided to be the best design for this park is a tell in where minds are at. To your point, if this park turned into a giant Ferris wheel, that would also be a tell of where minds are at.