General Vancouver Updates

[whatnext]

I'm a bit confused by this government announcement about 2538 Birch today. have they bought the site or are they just taking credit for previously approved market rentals?

New Vancouver rental homes announced by B.C. gov't
By Emily Marsten
Posted Jun 7, 2023, 1:02PM PDT.Last Updated Jun 7, 2023, 1:03PM PDT.
Those looking for a place to live in Vancouver may soon have a few more options, as the B.C. government announced Wednesday nearly 260 rentals are in the works.

In a news release, the Ministry of Housing says a new 28-storey tower is being built at 2538 Birch St. and will feature a number of affordable units.

It will be the first tall rental building developed along the Broadway Corridor, the province adds.

“We’re taking action to help boost housing supply for people in Vancouver, and this new development adds much-needed stock at both market and affordable levels,” Minister of Housing Ravi Kahlon said.

Metro Vancouver affordable housing targets applauded by advocate
The building will contain a mix of units from studios up to three-bedroom apartments. There will also be underground parking spots, a dedicated dog-washing station, and a playground.....

https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2023/0...ridor-housing/

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I'm a bit confused by this government announcement about 2538 Birch today. have they bought the site or are they just taking credit for previously approved market rentals?

From the horses mouth:

"The development is a partnership between the Province, through BC Housing’s HousingHub program, Jameson Development Corp. and the City of Vancouver. The Province is providing approximately $164 million in low-interest financing for the project, which will be repaid by Jameson Development Corp."

https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2023HOUS0064-000887

[madog222]

It sounds like a new model the Province hopes to continue with other projects.

B.C. Housing Minister Ravi Kahlon showed off a key purpose-built rental housing project on Wednesday in Vancouver, which his government hopes to replicate in order to address the city's housing crisis.

The group drew attention to how two levels of government and the private sector came together to maximize the build's ability to supply much-needed, affordable housing in the neighbourhood.

The development at 2528 Birch Street is a partnership between the province, through B.C. Housing's Housing Hub program, Jameson Development Corp. and the City of Vancouver.

The province is providing nearly $165 million in low-interest financing for the project, which will be repaid by Jameson Development Corp, while the developer provided $81 million for the project. The City of Vancouver provided development cost levy waivers valued at approximately $3.1 million.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...hlon-1.6868533

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by madog222

It sounds like a new model the Province hopes to continue with other projects.

That sounds similar to the CMHC funds for developers to build rental (like Bosa in Burnaby), except the Feds sometimes give the developers a bit of the funding as a gift. With mortgage rates ratcheting up, without a government low-interest loan, housing start numbers would probably be falling off a cliff.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

From the horses mouth:

"The development is a partnership between the Province, through BC Housing’s HousingHub program, Jameson Development Corp. and the City of Vancouver. The Province is providing approximately $164 million in low-interest financing for the project, which will be repaid by Jameson Development Corp."

https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2023HOUS0064-000887

Thanks that clarifies it a bit. It doesn't seem to address if there is a time limit for the agreement or a specific dollar ceiling on rents?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Thanks that clarifies it a bit. It doesn't seem to address if there is a time limit for the agreement or a specific dollar ceiling on rents?

It was all in the rezoning report to Council in 2020.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Thanks that clarifies it a bit. It doesn't seem to address if there is a time limit for the agreement or a specific dollar ceiling on rents?

As a MIRHPP building the 22% (per the referral report) I think got switched over to the new rent increase allowable mamimum, and the rezoning referral report says they sought the DCL Waiver.

This is lazy math averaging all floors but judging by the referral report (2020) I assume waiver rates average maximums for each unit type:

Market
Studio: $2,000
1-Bed: $2,450
2-bed: 3,240
3-Bed: $4,500

Belowmarket
Studio: $1,040
1-Bed: $1,310
2-bed: $1.750
3-Bed: $2,190

Then from 2020 until Occupancy do the 2% increase

EDIT per the amendment I mentioned. Not sure if this means "enacted": "This amendment does not apply to projects that received rezoningapproval prior to July 21, 2021, which must continue to comply with the requirementsspecified and secured as conditions of Council approval."

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It was all in the rezoning report to Council in 2020.

Thanks. So this is a re-announcement of what has been the arrangement since the beginning.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Thanks. So this is a re-announcement of what has been the arrangement since the beginning.

The mix of market and below market has been the arrangement since the rezoning, but that was three years ago. Raising the financing necessary to build the units, with the low interest loan from the Provincial Government, is new. Without that it seems likely to have sat as a vacant site for longer.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Thanks. So this is a re-announcement of what has been the arrangement since the beginning.

The loan from the Province wasn't public information before as far as I can tell.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Thanks. So this is a re-announcement of what has been the arrangement since the beginning.

I'd call it a groundbreaking announcement which is bigger news than application announcement (for we all know applications can me bubkis)

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The mix of market and below market has been the arrangement since the rezoning, but that was three years ago. Raising the financing necessary to build the units, with the low interest loan from the Provincial Government, is new. Without that it seems likely to have sat as a vacant site for longer.

Maybe taxation needs to go up on sites like this that have gone through the approvals and still sit there. Shit or get off the pot.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Maybe taxation needs to go up on sites like this that have gone through the approvals and still sit there. Shit or get off the pot.

It's been proposed, but never introduced. The 'meanwhile park' option would also have to be removed, which is a Provincial matter. To be fair to the developers, the borrowing costs on the project if they'd financed it from a bank would have risen significantly from 2020 to today, if they could find someone to loan over $150m. There are plenty of condo projects, and a few rentals stalled for that reason, and forcing a sale of the site or the developer going bankrupt wouldn't get anything built any faster. There are several non-market buildings paused for insufficient funds (as building costs keep rising), and taxing their sites wouldn't seem to be a productive way of getting the housing built.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It's been proposed, but never introduced. The 'meanwhile park' option would also have to be removed, which is a Provincial matter. To be fair to the developers, the borrowing costs on the project if they'd financed it from a bank would have risen significantly from 2020 to today, if they could find someone to loan over $150m. There are plenty of condo projects, and a few rentals stalled for that reason, and forcing a sale of the site or the developer going bankrupt wouldn't get anything built any faster. There are several non-market buildings paused for insufficient funds (as building costs keep rising), and taxing their sites wouldn't seem to be a productive way of getting the housing built.

It might. Concord and others with deep pockets could scoop it up for pennies on the dollar.

Meanwhile the tax revenue can be used to alleviate other housing issues (TMH for homeless, etc.)

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

It might. Concord and others with deep pockets could scoop it up for pennies on the dollar.

Meanwhile the tax revenue can be used to alleviate other housing issues (TMH for homeless, etc.)

Others might - I suspect Concord wouldn't touch it as they have only ever built rental where they have to (Burnaby) and never where they can avoid it, or where it's non-market. (In fact, they haven't actually built the rental in Burnaby yet - it's in the next phase of their Metrotown project, that they haven't started). At least the Province stepped in and made the Birch St project viable - presumably we'll see more like this.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Others might - I suspect Concord wouldn't touch it as they have only ever built rental where they have to (Burnaby) and never where they can avoid it, or where it's non-market. (In fact, they haven't actually built the rental in Burnaby yet - it's in the next phase of their Metrotown project, that they haven't started). At least the Province stepped in and made the Birch St project viable - presumably we'll see more like this.

Just a random company I picked.

The point is, these taxes and hammering companies that delay create incentives for others to act. The good old free market needs a push once in a while.

Those "parks" are a joke too. Forcing them to build (and collecting tax in the meantime) is far better for society IMO.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Just a random company I picked.

The point is, these taxes and hammering companies that delay create incentives for others to act. The good old free market needs a push once in a while.

Those "parks" are a joke too. Forcing them to build (and collecting tax in the meantime) is far better for society IMO.

I think the problem with 'forcing' sites to be built is that you might see significant underbuilding. It would certainly have to be enforced across the whole of the region, or even the Province. Development is a balancing act between risk/reward - developers will just build more in Burnaby or Coquitlam if they see too much risk acquiring sites in Vancouver.

You'd also see some serious unintended consequences. Taxing BC Cancer for their undeveloped site on W 10th? Hit Atira with extra tax for the site at 420 Hawks that they can't get the funds together to build? (Which kind of proves their relationship with BC Housing wasn't as cosy as some think).

If a site is a parking lot, does that pay extra tax? If it has a food truck hub, does that change its status? If the City won't give a permit (105 Keefer) even thougfh the project meets the zoning, does the owner have to pay extra tax? I think generally, given the likelihood that if a site can be developed, it will be, carrots (to encourage what society needs to be built) are better than sticks.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Others might - I suspect Concord wouldn't touch it as they have only ever built rental where they have to (Burnaby) and never where they can avoid it, or where it's non-market. (In fact, they haven't actually built the rental in Burnaby yet - it's in the next phase of their Metrotown project, that they haven't started). At least the Province stepped in and made the Birch St project viable - presumably we'll see more like this.

Is Concord still a "family" company? If so, it is odd they would be so resistant to the long term, stable cash flow of a rental building.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It's been proposed, but never introduced. The 'meanwhile park' option would also have to be removed, which is a Provincial matter. To be fair to the developers, the borrowing costs on the project if they'd financed it from a bank would have risen significantly from 2020 to today, if they could find someone to loan over $150m. There are plenty of condo projects, and a few rentals stalled for that reason, and forcing a sale of the site or the developer going bankrupt wouldn't get anything built any faster. There are several non-market buildings paused for insufficient funds (as building costs keep rising), and taxing their sites wouldn't seem to be a productive way of getting the housing built.

Some developers are looking to delay payments owed to the City of Vancouver on sites (that they vastly overpaid for). I wonder if ordinary citizens will be able to get such relief based on rising interest rates and increased costs due to inflation?

Major developer asks to delay $10 million payment to Vancouver city hall
The request could be a sign of things to come, says a Vancouver property developer and real estate consultant
Author of the article: Dan Fumano
Published Jun 07, 2023

Anthem Properties, a major Vancouver developer, wants to delay a $10 million payment it owes city hall, citing “market uncertainty from recent interest rate increases, coupled with unprecedented increases in hard costs.”

A 33-storey tower with 127 market condos was approved by Vancouver in 2021 for the former site of a Chevron gas station on West Georgia Street near the entrance to Stanley Park.

When Vancouver’s previous council approved the rezoning, Anthem agreed to pay $26 million in community amenity contributions.

The developer paid the first $15.6 million, as agreed, before council enacted the zoning bylaw. The remaining $10.4 million was to be paid before the city issued the first building permit for the property, or by 24 months after the enactment of the zoning bylaw, whichever came first.

Now, Anthem is asking for the second payment to be delayed and tied to a late stage of the building permit. The “outside date,” 24 months after the bylaw enactment, would remain the same....

....“Staff have carefully considered this request, and are of the opinion that accepting the modification would support the timely delivery of housing while ensuring satisfactory payment of the (contribution’s) outstanding balance,” the report says. It stressed the deferment would be on a ‘one-off’ basis and not change the city’s policy for community amenity contributions....

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-...uver-city-hall

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I wonder if ordinary citizens will be able to get such relief based on rising interest rates and increased costs due to inflation?

I didn't realize "ordinary citizens" pay CACs...