The Ultimate Vancouver Rumour Thread!

[dleung]

I don't like this for the same reason that 601 Beach is a turd. Stop wall-papering swoopy curves on a building that isn't. Also, he basically recycled the parts from his South Creek Landing building:

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by dleung

I don't like this for the same reason that 601 Beach is a turd. Stop wall-papering swoopy curves on a building that isn't. Also, he basically recycled the parts from his South Creek Landing building:

Well the exo-skeleton thing is swoopy so it works this time.

[logan5]

Or maybe go with a different colour besides white.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

http://www.arnomatisarchitecture.com/project-bioframe.php

Seems to be an overly elaborate sun shade. I doubt it would ever be built, as it would block views too greatly.

[jollyburger]

Was just going through the old DP documents for Rogers Arena and noticed in the renderings a tower over the Skytrain tracks next to the arena. If they remove that section of the viaduct it might make sense but the footprint seems so tiny to fit a tower.

https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/800griffith/documents/renderings.pdf

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Was just going through the old DP documents for Rogers Arena and noticed in the renderings a tower over the Skytrain tracks next to the arena. If they remove that section of the viaduct it might make sense but the footprint seems so tiny to fit a tower.

https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/800griffith/documents/renderings.pdf

The City said 'no' to that idea, I think mostly for engineering and risk reasons. There is a third tower that Aquilini Centre can add to the outside of Rogers Arena, (between the viaducts) but that they haven't moved to develop it yet.

[madog222]

Edit: moved to the downtown thread

[jollyburger]

(moved)

[jollyburger]

New video of Arno Matis Bioframe

• Video Link

http://www.arnomatisarchitecture.com/project-bioframe.php

[vancityfan]

Some owners trying to push for another 1 or 2 towers to be built on 1700 block of Georgia st. That would make it at least 14 new towers slated for the area in a 2 block radius.

Proposed details at http://1723alberni.com

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by vancityfan

Some owners trying to push for another 1 or 2 towers to be built on 1700 block of Georgia st. That would make it at least 14 new towers slated for the area in a 2 block radius.

Not an owner, it's a real estate agent. There's 151 strata units, unless there's some severe problem with the building good luck trying to get anything built there in the next 2-3 decades.

[jollyburger]

Just noticed that the Arno Matis concept is conceived as a project to renovate hotels.

With many hotels facing outdated suites, failing façade and structural systems, and post-COVID ventilation needs, HOW CAN AGING HOTELS REMAIN COMPETITIVE & RELEVANT? BIOFRAME is an ARCHITECTURAL PROSTHETIC that allows existing towers to be repurposed through a modular, mass-timber frame that improves the building’s sustainable performance and structural capacity. The frames add outdoor space to hotel suites and amenities, upgrading hotels and improving the experience, wellbeing and safety for guests & staff.

https://www.radicalinnovation.io/

[RealtorRolando]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Not an owner, it's a real estate agent. There's 151 strata units, unless there's some severe problem with the building good luck trying to get anything built there in the next 2-3 decades.

He's an owner. I would know. Also 95% of the units wouldn't be affected as you don't need to tear down the tower to construct the additional tower, only the 7 townhomes would have to go. That makes the proposition quite different than a lot of the strata windups in the past, where the existing apartments would have to be torn down to rebuild something in its place.

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by RealtorRolando

He's an owner. I would know. Also 95% of the units wouldn't be affected as you don't need to tear down the tower to construct the additional tower, only the 7 townhomes would have to go. That makes the proposition quite different than a lot of the strata windups in the past, where the existing apartments would have to be torn down to rebuild something in its place.

right but how does that work. if everyone in the tower votes for redevelopment but no one in the townhouses does.

they have 80% of the strata. so what then? they force the townhouse people out?

thats not covered in the Strata Wind Up law. its all or nothing.

I dont think 80% of the people can vote to you know kick out the penthouse residents of a tower and change the unit into a gym. or can they?

if so thats a scary prescient.

[RealtorRolando]

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

right but how does that work. if everyone in the tower votes for redevelopment but no one in the townhouses does.

they have 80% of the strata. so what then? they force the townhouse people out?

thats not covered in the Strata Wind Up law. its all or nothing.

I dont think 80% of the people can vote to you know kick out the penthouse residents of a tower and change the unit into a gym. or can they?

if so thats a scary prescient.

So if 80% votes in favor, everyone sells to the developer, as 100% of the building has to be sold to a developer. If there are holdouts, the judges force them to sell at a reasonable price. This happened in a recent example on a complex in thurlow st I believe it was. There was one hold out where the guy was offered 3 million by the developer, and he wanted 10 million. The judge then forced him to sell for 2 million and that was it.

Once it sells, the developer can then do a rentback for the tower residents and the townhomes for a certain period of time. (Given permits and all that takes 5 years or more, not to mention developers like to hold land for a while before building). Once the developer thinks its time to tear down the townhomes, they request that the townhome tenants move out.

The tower residents (which hold 95% of the vote) aren't forcing the townhomes out, the entire strata agrees to sell, the tower residents can also be kicked out should the developer decide to demolish the entire complex and build 2 towers in one go, which is an option they would have since they are in full control of the complex at that point.

Your example isn't the same thing, as its not a strata windup. For your example to make sense, the entire building would have to sold as a windup and then the new owner can turn the penthouses in a gym if they want.

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by RealtorRolando

So if 80% votes in favor, everyone sells to the developer, as 100% of the building has to be sold to a developer. If there are holdouts, the judges force them to sell at a reasonable price. This happened in a recent example on a complex in thurlow st I believe it was. There was one hold out where the guy was offered 3 million by the developer, and he wanted 10 million. The judge then forced him to sell for 2 million and that was it.

Once it sells, the developer can then do a rentback for the tower residents and the townhomes for a certain period of time. (Given permits and all that takes 5 years or more, not to mention developers like to hold land for a while before building). Once the developer thinks its time to tear down the townhomes, they request that the townhome tenants move out.

The tower residents (which hold 95% of the vote) aren't forcing the townhomes out, the entire strata agrees to sell, the tower residents can also be kicked out should the developer decide to demolish the entire complex and build 2 towers in one go, which is an option they would have since they are in full control of the complex at that point.

Your example isn't the same thing, as its not a strata windup. For your example to make sense, the entire building would have to sold as a windup and then the new owner can turn the penthouses in a gym if they want.

right but lets be clear. the option of saving the tower and tearing down the townhouses only is ... PURE OPTICS


ANY DEVELOPER WHO BUYS OUT THAT STRATA WILL NOT KEEP THAT TOWER AND RENT IT OUT. its 1 in a 10,000 that a developer does that. EVERYONE KNOWS THIS EVEN YOU.

yes your trying to promote the idea as your a Realtor and dont want to rile NIMBYs. ok great. but you know it will not play out that way. be honest.

also the logistics as the TOWNHOUSE PORTION is where the garage entry is off Alberni. (I HAVE BEEN IN THAT BUILDING MANY TIMES) you know how complex it would be to DEMO the townhouse portion. while still retaining parking access to the main tower? and services? the garbage and recycling are at that end. never gonna happen. sorry.

the play would be to combine this strata with the equally under valued Strata to the North and tear both down as proposed on that Owner created website. I say 50-50 that happens (the combo). but regardless the townhouse only option is madness and lunacy and I wanted to express that.

[RealtorRolando]

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

right but lets be clear. the option of saving the tower and tearing down the townhouses only is ... PURE OPTICS


ANY DEVELOPER WHO BUYS OUT THAT STRATA WILL NOT KEEP THAT TOWER AND RENT IT OUT. its 1 in a 10,000 that a developer does that. EVERYONE KNOWS THIS EVEN YOU.

yes your trying to promote the idea as your a Realtor and dont want to rile NIMBYs. ok great. but you know it will not play out that way. be honest.

also the logistics as the TOWNHOUSE PORTION is where the garage entry is off Alberni. (I HAVE BEEN IN THAT BUILDING MANY TIMES) you know how complex it would be to DEMO the townhouse portion. while still retaining parking access to the main tower? and services? the garbage and recycling are at that end. never gonna happen. sorry.

the play would be to combine this strata with the equally under valued Strata to the North and tear both down as proposed on that Owner created website. I say 50-50 that happens (the combo). but regardless the townhouse only option is madness and lunacy and I wanted to express that.

That's not necessarily true because there is quite a bit of value still in the tower as its only 25 years old, and is a considerably sized tower at just over half the allowed building height. It would make more sense for a developer to hold it for a while (10-20 years) and let the overall land values appreciate while collecting 3+ million a year in rent, then tear it down in the future as a phase 2. Alternatively, it could make sense to refurbish the entire building as the 22 story concrete shell has a lot of value. Similar to what they did with the Cube building.

In the "short term" they could build 1 tower or just hold everything for a decade and rebuild 2 towers at once. The area has many buildings slated for construction and they're not all going up at once. If a developer buys it, they are not going to rush to demolish the entire thing as that would be a pretty financially irresponsible thing to do. Consider that most developers sit on plots for a decade in some cases while waiting for land values to increase over time.

Regarding the parkade. If they do build 1 tower first, the tower tenants are going to be without parking for at least 2 years until they rebuild the underground structure under the new tower. The idea of building around the parkade entrance isn't feasible. If they really wanted to they could construct a temporary parkade entrance ramp on Alberni or Bidwell to connect the parkade under the tower to the street level but I don't think that makes economic sense and you may only get 1 floor of parking access. Whoever needs parking during the construction of the townhome section tower can rent from nearby parkades, get parking from the new towers coming up, uber around, or just move out if it's that necessary to have a stall, also a third of the stalls are permanently empty, makes me think they're not really that vital to the residents. The parking situation is not as big a deal as you would think, not to mention you can walk to everything. Garbage disposal is a non issue as there a million solutions to that.

So no, it's not lunacy, also have you seen what's going on at 1500 Georgia st. Its literally the same construction scenario except that instead of 7 townhomes it was a commercial unit on the eastern end they are are taking down to build 1515 Alberni.

Regardless, the developer would figure out the optimal scenario taking into account costs to building 1 tower and refurbish, or whether both would be better. In both cases the original owners can stay behind if they want to and rent from the developer just like its happening right now in all the neighboring buildings that are developer owned but being rented out while they wait for permits and the right conditions to presell.

[dleung]

Demolish this?!?!



Hope it's just a bad rumour

[rofina]

Originally Posted by dleung

Demolish this?!?!



Hope it's just a bad rumour

Doesn't seem that crazy considering the caliber of building going up in that general area, and the likely prices to be charged for end product could justify the risk.

Selling studios for a million green lights a lot of ideas one would think impractical to say the least.

Definitely doesn't seem any crazier than taking down the Landmark.

[csbvan]

Just so wasteful. It's embarrassing.