Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[jollyburger]

More tall towers being proposed, approved and completed in Vancouver, Burnaby, Surrey and Coquitlam

Developers are seeking approval for two 50-storey towers in the same block where Surrey city council recently gave the greenlight for what will be its tallest building at 67 storeys.


And there are several proposals for more tall towers like this in Surrey that haven’t been made public yet.

“There are ones of similar heights that are moving forward,” said Chris Dikeakos of Vancouver-based Chris Dikeakos Architects Inc. “And it’s not just in Surrey. Burnaby is another municipality. Coquitlam is starting to get applications for some much taller towers.”

He added that with increased land and construction costs, developers are motivated to use all the density they can get and build taller towers. However, there is also a point where it stops making sense to push higher “because things like the cost of structural systems increase as you go higher.”

Across Metro Vancouver, there are more than 20 towers over 45 storeys that have been approved by municipal governments, according to data from Zonda Urban market analyst Justin Lee. More than half of these are in Burnaby. Five are in Coquitlam and Port Moody, while Downtown Vancouver, New Westminster and Surrey have one each.

Some are under construction, like the first phase of Onni Development’s Gilmore Place in Burnaby with its 64-storey towers. Others are closer to completion like Westbank’s The Butterfly at 57 storeys in the West End.

After these, there are 40 more tall-tower projects that have been publicly presented to city councils and are in some stage of seeking approval. Most are in Burnaby and Surrey, followed by Downtown Vancouver and Coquitlam.

“We’ll see if economic conditions allow for them to be built,” said Dikeakos, whose firm is working on the new tall tower approved in Surrey and other projects.

In late 2019, Pinnacle International Development made a proposal for a site near the Lougheed SkyTrain Station. It had three towers including one that would be 80 storeys and 250 metres tall. They would be the tallest buildings in Western Canada. Some more details were presented to Burnaby city council in May 2022 for towers of 80, 76 and 73 storeys, but the project has not progressed further with the city.

Bosa Properties initially proposed a project with two 70-storey towers on Kingsway near the Metrotown SkyTrain Station, but there haven’t been any further details since it was initially presented to Burnaby council in 2021. In December 2022, Bosa sold the site to Keltic Canada Development for more than $100 million.

Metro King by Anthem Properties is a proposal for a 66-storey tower between Kingsway and Hazel streets across from Metrotown that is nearing a final decision by the City of Burnaby.

This pipeline of potential projects is happening as cities have focused on adding density to sites near transit stations and town centres, according to Dikeakos.

“The taller buildings in these types of developments that you are going to be seeing tend to be real, mixed-use ones, meaning they have a commercial base with significant office or hotel use where the first 15 to 20 storeys are commercial even before you get to the residential portion,” he said.

His firm in recent years completed Station Square at Metrotown, which has five towers with the tallest being 54 storeys.

“One of the interesting changes that we’re seeing is that because these developments are being done near transit sites, cities are requiring less parking,” said Dikeakos. “If we had to do the same amount of parking required a few years ago, the depth of these excavations would make them completely unfeasible. (When) we’re not required to do as much parking, it allows us to do these taller towers and still make some financial sense.”

Even though developers are motivated to deal with increasing land and construction costs by building higher, there is a turning point. It will obviously be different for each project, but Dikeakos said that for the Station Square project, it was somewhere at the 52- to 55-storey height.


“That was the maximum we wanted to go in that particular case because things like the cost of structural systems increase as you go higher. The number of elevators potentially increases. Window-washing systems become more complex. There are all sorts of things that actually do add to the overall cost of these taller buildings.”

https://vancouversun.com/business/real-estate/tall-towers-vancouver-burnaby-surrey-coquitlam

[logan5]

Confirms what I was saying earlier in this thread about 1 60 story tower being more cost efficient than 2 30 story towers.

It is also more time efficient when it comes to the proposal/planning process.

[Migrant_Coconut]

“That was the maximum we wanted to go in that particular case because things like the cost of structural systems increase as you go higher. The number of elevators potentially increases. Window-washing systems become more complex. There are all sorts of things that actually do add to the overall cost of these taller buildings.”

It also confirms that there's diminishing returns above 50-55 floors. So 2 x 40 is more cost-efficient than 1 x 60 or 1 x 70.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It also confirms that there's diminishing returns above 50-55 floors. So 2 x 40 is more cost-efficient than 1 x 60 or 1 x 70.

He didn't read the last sentence of the article.

[SpongeG]

did it stall? no longer happening?

In late 2019, Pinnacle International Development made a proposal for a site near the Lougheed SkyTrain Station. It had three towers including one that would be 80 storeys and 250 metres tall. They would be the tallest buildings in Western Canada. Some more details were presented to Burnaby city council in May 2022 for towers of 80, 76 and 73 storeys, but the project has not progressed further with the city.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

did it stall? no longer happening?

I doubt there's any rush considering the market right now.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

did it stall? no longer happening?

There was an update on the project last year with some more detailed numbers.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

So 2 x 40 is more cost-efficient than 1 x 60 or 1 x 70.

It doesn’t say that at all.

The 60 stories that I said was a bit of a rough number to illustrate a point and make for easy math (but not far off the most efficient floor count) Anyways the article confirms (if you trust Dikeakos) what I was saying about building 1 talker building vs 2 shorter ones.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by logan5

It doesn’t say that at all.

The 60 stories that I said was a bit of a rough number to illustrate a point and make for east math (but not far off the most efficient floor count) Anyways the article confirms (if you trust Dikeakos) what I was saying about building 1 talker building vs 2 shorter ones.

The second to last paragraph says that the optimal height for a project in Metrotown was 52 to 55 storeys. I would assume the optimal height is slightly higher in Vancouver where the land cost is higher, but there are no other concrete numbers in the article to back that assumption up.

But Dikeakos also says this:

with increased land and construction costs, developers are motivated to use all the density they can get and build taller towers

And building taller towers isn't the only way to add density. In fact, it may be possible to have a higher FAR on two 30 storey towers than one thing 60 storey tower. But I guess the other question is whether units on higher floors feel more exclusive and if buyers are willing to pay a premium to purchase them. In that case, building higher isn't only about increasing density but also building a landmark skyscraper with units that can fetch top dollars.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by logan5

It doesn’t say that at all.

The 60 stories that I said was a bit of a rough number to illustrate a point and make for easy math (but not far off the most efficient floor count) Anyways the article confirms (if you trust Dikeakos) what I was saying about building 1 talker building vs 2 shorter ones.

What it says is that A) reduced parking minimums = smaller foundations = cheaper construction, and B) costs get prohibitive at 55 floors and up. Nothing says anything about cost/height ratios, but 60+ apparently runs into the law of diminishing returns... and you yourself have argued that sixplexes and lowrises are much cheaper than any single tower... so it stands to reason that no, taller is not necessarily cost-effective.

And it's definitely a fact that 2 x 300 units is more than 1 x 500, regardless of the final construction bill. I believe that's the entire point of that line of argument.

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

... But I guess the other question is whether units on higher floors feel more exclusive and if buyers are willing to pay a premium to purchase them. In that case, building higher isn't only about increasing density but also building a landmark skyscraper with units that can fetch top dollars.

Come to think of it, all the "tallest in Western Canada" proposals are in some of the least attractive hubs in Metro Van (Gilmore, Lougheed, north side of Kingsway, etc etc) - looks like they're using prestige to compensate for lack of desirability.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Come to think of it, all the "tallest in Western Canada" proposals are in some of the least attractive hubs in Metro Van (Gilmore, Lougheed, north side of Kingsway, etc etc) - looks like they're using prestige to compensate for lack of desirability.

Seems more likely it's tied to land/development costs in those municipalities. I mean sure they're using it to their advantage to have a taller building but if they had the same costs as building the same tower in Vancouver it probably wouldn't make any financial sense.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

And building taller towers isn't the only way to add density. In fact, it may be possible to have a higher FAR on two 30 storey towers than one thing 60 storey tower. But I guess the other question is whether units on higher floors feel more exclusive and if buyers are willing to pay a premium to purchase them. In that case, building higher isn't only about increasing density but also building a landmark skyscraper with units that can fetch top dollars.

The West End plan has floor plate restrictions of I believe 6500 square feet. Some areas may be a bit bigger, but there are floor plate restrictions at around that size. Plus there are minimum separations between buildings of 80’, so in the context of dt Vancouver, height is your only option to gain more density. There are floor plate specs for the Broadway corridor as well.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by logan5

The West End plan has floor plate restrictions of I believe 6500 square feet. Some areas may be a bit bigger, but there are floor plate restrictions at around that size. Plus there are minimum separations between buildings of 80’, so in the context of dt Vancouver, height is your only option to gain more density. There are floor plate specs for the Broadway corridor as well.

I was mostly thinking of the developments in Metrotown where there is one 40 to 50-storey strata tower plus a 20-storey rental tower. If economics were a strong enough case those would all be one tower instead. But obviously there must be other factors aside from "taller is better". For rental / strata I imagine it's simpler from an administrative side to be located in different buildings.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by logan5

Confirms what I was saying earlier in this thread about 1 60 story tower being more cost efficient than 2 30 story towers.

It is also more time efficient when it comes to the proposal/planning process.

Many actually propagate the lie that anything taller than 40 stories becomes less efficient and a lot more expensive.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Vin

Many actually propagate the lie that anything taller than 40 stories becomes less efficient and a lot more expensive.

There's no absolute truth in this area. For example, if a municipality required two parking spots per unit and had dirt cheap land and low demand for apartments, building tall would not make economic sense. The concrete and steel needed to reinforce a skyscraper might make anything exceeding a dozen storeys cost prohibitive. But if a city such as Vancouver relaxed parking requirements, had very expensive land, and had sky-high demand for luxury condos, building 70+ storeys may be the way to go.

So there is no "lie" that is being propagated by anyone. More so there are a bunch of uninformed people like myself and you who have no idea about the specific market, economic, or regulatory forces that may influence one development to go to 65 storeys while another only goes to 20.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Vin

Many actually propagate the lie that anything taller than 40 stories becomes less efficient and a lot more expensive.

No it's 200 stories.

It's probably a mistake to only factor in the economics of scale on a larger tower. If you build a 50-60 storey building you will obviously ask for premium prices on the upper level units so won't that also change the marketability of your units?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

There's no absolute truth in this area. For example, if a municipality required two parking spots per unit and had dirt cheap land and low demand for apartments, building tall would not make economic sense. The concrete and steel needed to reinforce a skyscraper might make anything exceeding a dozen storeys cost prohibitive. But if a city such as Vancouver relaxed parking requirements, had very expensive land, and had sky-high demand for luxury condos, building 70+ storeys may be the way to go.

So there is no "lie" that is being propagated by anyone. More so there are a bunch of uninformed people like myself and you who have no idea about the specific market, economic, or regulatory forces that may influence one development to go to 65 storeys while another only goes to 20.

Optimal planning and construction costs are best represented in high rises that range from 50 to 80 stories. Everything else like land costs is artificially inflated for high rise towers and is apparent in Vancouver. Here, limited sites for high rises, due to Viewcones and other reasons, encourage the obscene escalation of land costs. Enough of the untruths.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

No it's 200 stories.

It's probably a mistake to only factor in the economics of scale on a larger tower. If you build a 50-60 storey building you will obviously ask for premium prices on the upper level units so won't that also change the marketability of your units?

That would be the least of your worries if you can build a building that tall: I can see the "We are not Dubai" mentality being propagated here.

[GenWhy?]

Financing something like that is bonkers tho

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

Optimal planning and construction costs are best represented in high rises that range from 50 to 80 stories. Everything else like land costs is artificially inflated for high rise towers and is apparent in Vancouver. Here, limited sites for high rises, due to Viewcones and other reasons, encourage the obscene escalation of land costs. Enough of the untruths.

I'm willing to consider the possibility that you work in cost estimating in Greater Vancouver, and know what you're talking about. Can you link the study or article that shows that anything as tall as 80 storeys has an 'optimal planning and construction cost'.

It seems to contradict what Chris Dikeakos was saying, but what does he know? He only designed many of the tall towers in Burnaby, Coquitlam, Surrey etc. The studies I've read say you can't generalise around the world, or even in many countries, because every city has a different context for the cost of construction, prevailing construction method, regulations (and particularly seismic requirements) etc.

And all the studies I've seen point to increasing height on towers over 50 floors adding additional costs per floor for structural strength on the lower floors, and extra elevators at a certain point, and wind bracing on super talls (and/or a damper). I've never seen the Vancouver study that show the optimal height to build to make the most money (which is what assume you mean by 'most efficient'?).

Studies also show that taller towers use more energy per unit, because of the extra costs associated with elevators, air handling and to get water pressure to higher floors. I assume you're not talking about the energy efficiency of operating the building.