570 Columbia (formerly 105 Keefer) | 27.1m | 9 Fl | Proposed

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

So you think government should buy up sites that have a valuation based on an approved condo development in order to build social housing?

Fair enough, although completely at odds with the view often expressed here that government shouldn't build non-market buildings Downtown, but if they have land, sell the sites for condos and build more non-market where land prices are lower. I thought that was more in line with your previous views, but clearly that's not the case.

So the land is valued at about $16m, Beedie might sell at something over $30m. Do the government buy 129 Keefer that Anthem bought too? And 137 Keefer, also vacant,and approved for condos?

Should they buy 796 Main Street in Chinatown too? That has a land value of $11m, but Bonnis are currently offering it for sale at $23,888,000. (You can see what developers think market land values are in Chinatown).

How is that scenario any "worse" than the provincial government just handing out money to developers to rescue flagging projects and holding no equity in the finished product?

[GenWhy?]

137 Keefer:

"It headed to the Urban Design Panel this week, and was not supported. The minutes aren’t available yet, but we understand the panel didn’t appreciate the style of the building, which needs work to make it fit better into the intent of the Chinatown design guidelines."

They shot down a gorgeous building. Usually they are tweaking crappy design but I've never seen this 2014 post of yours before! And they the 2 buildings up the street got approved. This City is wack, man.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

How is that scenario any "worse" than the provincial government just handing out money to developers to rescue flagging projects and holding no equity in the finished product?

That news article doesn't explain anything, though. If I can piece all the news recently it sounds like it would be akin to Beedie, at this site, getting a good construction loan from the Province to build a market rental building with a component of affordable rentals if they did a rezoning and these items were allowed under the loan program and the area plan. Beedie tried to rezone with seniors housing, but...

Does the Province own any of those sites and will they retain ownership?
Is there a lot of renter displacement?
Are these rezonings?
Are these massive up-zonings allowed by the area plan?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

How is that scenario any "worse" than the provincial government just handing out money to developers to rescue flagging projects and holding no equity in the finished product?

Well, in that scenario the Province are providing funding to enable a development to provide below market rents. But if you want to go full-on developer, buying up sites from the private developers and building non-market, that's great. I hadn't realised you had an inner Jean Swanson waiting to burst out.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Well, in that scenario the Province are providing funding to enable a development to provide below market rents. But if you want to go full-on developer, buying up sites from the private developers and building non-market, that's great. I hadn't realised you had an inner Jean Swanson waiting to burst out.

The loans are great in the short term but what asset does it leave the province (aka you and me) in the long term for the money?

Anyway, I'm glad to see 105 Keefer unanimously approved. I understand wanting to preserve heritage but trying to preserve an empty parking lot was always ridiculous.

[LeftCoaster]

Why should the province be owning these assets at the completion? They are secured rental and below market rental. The province gets all the benefit without the headache and ongoing capital cost of maintenance.

And what asset does the Province have at the end of the project? Its original capital loan with a small amount of interest, which can now be deployed to enable more secure rentals, not tied up in the ownership of the past built rental.

it's an objectively better system.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Why should the province be owning these assets at the completion? They are secured rental and below market rental. The province gets all the benefit without the headache and ongoing capital cost of maintenance.

And what asset does the Province have at the end of the project? Its original capital loan with a small amount of interest, which can now be deployed to enable more secure rentals, not tied up in the ownership of the past built rental.

it's an objectively better system.

As you note, the Province get all their money back after the development is complete. Presumably the developer can then obtain a mortgage based on the rental stream to repay the construction loans (including the Province's financing).

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Why should the province be owning these assets at the completion? They are secured rental and below market rental. The province gets all the benefit without the headache and ongoing capital cost of maintenance.

And what asset does the Province have at the end of the project? Its original capital loan with a small amount of interest, which can now be deployed to enable more secure rentals, not tied up in the ownership of the past built rental.

it's an objectively better system.

Is there somewhere it is specifically stated that these are all repayable loans? I don't see it in the government's press release/information page:

Nearly 1,500 affordable homes on the way in Burnaby

BURNABY - Families, seniors and individuals in Burnaby will benefit from nearly 1,500 new affordable rental homes with the Province investing approximately $253 million to build several new developments.

"Burnaby is one of the fastest-growing cities in B.C., making the demand for affordable housing in the community among the highest in province," said Premier David Eby. "That's why we're working with the City of Burnaby and other partners to build about 1,500 new affordable homes, including some specifically for Indigenous people, seniors facing homelessness, families with low incomes and people living with disabilities. The addition of these homes will be key to help people in Burnaby who are searching for affordable housing."....

....As part of this investment, the Province has committed approximately $186.4 million through Budget 2023 to build four major housing developments that will provide approximately 790 rental homes in the community. Further details and updates will be provided as plans for each project are finalized. The funding is part of a memorandum of understanding between the Province, through BC Housing, and the City of Burnaby to build new affordable housing in the region.

"Creating new affordable housing for families, seniors and individuals is one of the top priorities for our community and we're pleased to work together with our provincial partners to deliver the type of housing that our community desperately needs," said Mike Hurley, mayor of Burnaby. "This investment supports the work we're already doing in Burnaby, as there are now more non-market rental units in development than market rentals - a sign that our approach to developing affordable housing is paying off for Burnaby residents."

These projects are part of a $19-billion housing investment by the B.C. government. Since 2017, the Province has more than 76,000 new homes have been delivered or are underway, including more than 4,000 homes in Burnaby....
https://news.bchousing.org/nearly-15...ay-in-burnaby/

As a sidebar, I note the plan is to have the government offer forgivable loans to homeowners to build and rent secondary suites below market rates to increase affordable rental supply quickly so condo owners and renters will ultimately be subsidizing those with wealth enough to own a house!

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Is there somewhere it is specifically stated that these are all repayable loans? I don't see it in the government's press release/information page:

What?

loan
noun
1. a thing that is borrowed, especially a sum of money that is expected to be paid back with interest.

2. a. A thing lent; something the use of which is allowed for a time, on the understanding that it shall be returned or an equivalent given; esp. a sum of money lent on these conditions, and usually at interest. †to loan: as a loan.
https://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryen...0at%20interest.

The inherent nature of a loan is that it is to be repaid. If it were a special case and not to be repaid that would need to be specifically stated, not the other way around.

If it was not expected to be paid back they would probably have called it a grant or something along those lines.

[GenWhy?]

Looks like $61.5 million of the $253 million are grants for various senior, low income, daycare spaces.

If Beedie went with the rezoning I'd imagine they would have gotten some sweet sweet grant money for the senior housing they had proposed.

[LeftCoaster]

Hmm, I'd guess then that the grants are for the subsidized housing.

I can't say I'm a huge fan of using grants, but to be honest the residual value of below market housing is almost nil, so giving the grant and making the developer own/run it probably nets out at a similar value to the province retaining ownership after.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

What?

loan
noun
1. a thing that is borrowed, especially a sum of money that is expected to be paid back with interest.

2. a. A thing lent; something the use of which is allowed for a time, on the understanding that it shall be returned or an equivalent given; esp. a sum of money lent on these conditions, and usually at interest. †to loan: as a loan.
https://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryen...0at%20interest.

The inherent nature of a loan is that it is to be repaid. If it were a special case and not to be repaid that would need to be specifically stated, not the other way around.

If it was not expected to be paid back they would probably have called it a grant or something along those lines.

Yes, but on the gov't page I linked it doesn't mention the word "loan". It does use "investment" several times.

https://news.bchousing.org/nearly-15...ay-in-burnaby/

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Yes, but on the gov't page I linked it doesn't mention the word "loan". It does use "investment" several times.

https://news.bchousing.org/nearly-15...ay-in-burnaby/

If you click on the link in the story you found, it tells you that the land is owned by the City of Burnaby in five of the 6 projects receiving grants. Progressive Housing Society owns the other site. Where there are grants rather than loans, the Province is basically making up the shortfall in funding from Federal construction loans or other construction funding, "to address cost pressures to ensure the project remains affordable".

Neither the Feds or the Province are buying land at market value in any of the Burnaby examples. They're directly comparible to any of the '14 sites' or the recent 3 former Concord sites 'sold' to the City of Vancouver, with construction funding and in some cases grants coming from CMHC loans and BC Housing or the Building BC: Community Housing Fund. They're all complex projects, multi-funded by municipal, Provincial, Federal, and in some cases non-profit or private (CAC) funding.

None of the projects in Burnaby or Vancouver involve the Province or Feds buying a site at market value, funding the construction and then leasing the units, which is what you suggested should happen at 105 Keefer.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Changing City

If you click on the link in the story you found, it tells you that the land is owned by the City of Burnaby in five of the 6 projects receiving grants. Progressive Housing Society owns the other site. Where there are grants rather than loans, the Province is basically making up the shortfall in funding from Federal construction loans or other construction funding, "to address cost pressures to ensure the project remains affordable".

Neither the Feds or the Province are buying land at market value in any of the Burnaby examples. They're directly comparible to any of the '14 sites' or the recent 3 former Concord sites 'sold' to the City of Vancouver, with construction funding and in some cases grants coming from CMHC loans and BC Housing or the Building BC: Community Housing Fund. They're all complex projects, multi-funded by municipal, Provincial, Federal, and in some cases non-profit or private (CAC) funding.

None of the projects in Burnaby or Vancouver involve the Province or Feds buying a site at market value, funding the construction and then leasing the units, which is what you suggested should happen at 105 Keefer.

Slightly deviating from the thread topic but I gots to know! - Do you know what these grants are? I imagine I have no idea what they are because I don't do social housing.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Yes, but on the gov't page I linked it doesn't mention the word "loan". It does use "investment" several times.

https://news.bchousing.org/nearly-15...ay-in-burnaby/

Near the bottom of this webpage they list all the funding providors except what the grants are or the program they come from, but all are tied to daycare space, seniors housing, or low income subsidies.
https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2023HOUS0036-000976

[Jimbo604]

Another outcome. 105 Keefer meetings may have inspired changes or clarification of development permit meeting procedure...

Aug 8th 2023 DPB meeting agenda

1. MINUTES
Approval of May 29th, June 12, and June 26th, 2023 - 105 Keefer Street meeting
minutes.
2. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
3. SPECIAL BUSINESS
To discuss adoption of Development Permit Board meeting protocol and procedures.

https://vancouver.ca/home-property-d...mit-board.aspx

[madog222]

Here we go again, new DP submission...
New design from a different architect, this time James KM Cheng, with the same residential unit count and height as the 2017 proposal approved in 2023.

I just noticed that the thread title was never changed from the original 2014 stats, now corrected.

https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/105-keefer-st



Columbia frontage:


Covered full height courtyard:

Images from James KM Cheng / Beedie

[jollyburger]

Fits in with all the junk infill they built in the 80/90s

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by madog222

Columbia frontage:

Images from James KM Cheng / Beedie

Yeah, very repetitious of the "typical" Chinatown style.

On the Keefer facade, I find it odd that the negative spaces (recessed areas) are wider than the brick framed parts of the facade. It may be meant to reduce the bulk of the building, but it gives the facade a sunken look.

The middle of the Columbia side reminds me of that 70s Gastown building with the bay windows that was torn down.

If they were going for an assymetrical look, a chamfered corner on the Columbia corner would have been nice to open up a view to the cultural centre
That chunky column and breezeway don't really work.

[officedweller]

By me Nov 1st: