North Shore Updates

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by chowhou

You should have been the BC Liberal spokesperson when they were making the same case for their dividend checks!

FYI if that's your definition of pillaging, then this is by definition pillaging. Unless you think ICBC has a choice in this sale, the province is quite literally undervaluing ICBC's asset in order to extract that free value through a forced sale (in the least charitable terms).

Feel free to make the argument that ICBC is in a stable enough financial state to allow the province to extract some surplus value, but it's silly to say that BC is actually improving ICBC's balance sheet through this sale.

Yes, as you summarized earlier, the NDP is doing exactly what they came after the BC Liberals for in previous years. If anything, it makes a good case for getting the gov't out of car insurance altogether (although that would likely cost drivers more now).

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Would you consider it okay if the BCNDP bought the property for $1? After all, it still would have made ICBC $1 richer...

Depends on how willing ICBC would've been to sell for a dollar. They were evidently willing to sell for $53 million.

The entire premise of this argument is that ICBC was "pillaged" and not simply just eager to take the money and leave rather than hardball; until we get more than just guesswork, the only "partisanship" I see is Rob Shaw making another mountain out of another molehill to "get" a party that he doesn't like.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Depends on how willing ICBC would've been to sell for a dollar.

The entire premise of this argument is that ICBC was "pillaged" and not simply just eager to take the money and leave rather than hardball; until we get evidence either way, the only "partisanship" is Rob Shaw making another mountain out of another molehill to "get" a party that he doesn't like.

BC Assessment assessors are usually pretty good at figuring out the FMV of real estate. I guess you have a case if you sincerely think that BC Assessment was overvaluing the ICBC offices by +100% and no one else would ever buy the property for more than $50MM.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

BC Assessment assessors are usually pretty good at figuring out the FMV of real estate. I guess you have a case if you sincerely think that BC Assessment was overvaluing the ICBC offices by +100% and no one else would ever buy the property for more than $50MM.

Would it have been impossible for a crown corp like ICBC to refuse BC's purchase and hold out for a better deal, possibly from the private sector? Genuine question.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Would it have been impossible for ICBC to refuse BC's purchase and hold out for a better deal? Genuine question.

Considering that BC is the sole shareholder in ICBC and the government chooses the board of the directors? No, I'd say they're basically obligated to do what the government asks. Do you think ICBC could have refused BC's request for dividends?

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Citation needed.

Just because it can do 4.5% for a full three blocks doesn't mean it should. Likewise, buses can make the climb up Burnaby Mountain to SFU, but the slope wears out their transmissions considerably faster - not a good option for a medium rail line meant to last a century.

There's also how 3rd is the main E-W arterial and has most of the buses and current/potential density. Esplanade's really only SkyTrain-worthy up to St Georges; once it becomes Low Level Road, it might as well be Spirit.

I'm not saying it should take that route (at least in my current opinion) but it should be considered. If it weren't for the seabus, it wouldn't be a good route, but it is because of that (and also the ability to elevate the entire section). I would prefer a Keith or 3rd alignment over it.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Considering that BC is the sole shareholder in ICBC and the government chooses the board of the directors? No, I'd say they're basically obligated to do what the government asks.

Fair, though I'd argue that there was a little room for negotiation for a building purchase.

For the record, I'm not saying the Dippers are innocent. Some governments (side-eyes Christy Clark) would've just appropriated the site; the Dippers paid for it. That implies at least one more degree of good faith than the Libs.

Originally Posted by BaddieB

I'm not saying it should take that route (at least in my current opinion) but it should be considered. If it weren't for the seabus, it wouldn't be a good route, but it is because of that (and also the ability to elevate the entire section). I would prefer a Keith or 3rd alignment over it.

Some nutbags want it to go through 13th and Central Lonsdale because Lower Lonsdale's already "covered" by the SeaBus. TransLink should consider that one for all of ten seconds before going "nah."

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Some nutbags want it to go through 13th and Central Lonsdale because Lower Lonsdale's already "covered" by the SeaBus. TransLink should consider that one for all of ten seconds before going "nah."

I'd wait for the actual business case analysis before making a quick judgement like that. There are good arguments for 13th and Lonsdale if the engineering can be justified, and the original BIRT study considered 13th and Lonsdale as a terminus if there was to be a First Narrows crossing.



Technically the "purple" line as originally exhibited in the BIRT study showed termination at Lower Lonsdale without continuation to Park Royal. Further, it was really only a high level concept as a Second Narrows crossing heading towards Burnaby; The routing across the North Shore was left to further studies.



I believe this diagram which is what people have latched onto as the "purple line" was an even higher level proposed by North Shore Connects, without any attached study or business case. Just a line on a map. Once some actual engineers do deeper modelling in the announced business case we'll hopefully have some more concrete alignments to talk about.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Anecdotally speaking, I'm 60% sure one of the studies cited the First Narrows/Central Lonsdale options' inability to connect to Phibbs as a negative, and that was part of why they were thrown out. Guess we'll have to wait for a more official breakdown.

[djmk]

If this property is worth $100M, sell it and purchase significantly more property just a few blocks away. I don't understand why this type of housing needs to be on the arguably the best site in NV

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Anecdotally speaking, I'm 60% sure one of the studies cited the First Narrows/Central Lonsdale options' inability to connect to Phibbs as a negative, and that was part of why they were thrown out. Guess we'll have to wait for a more official breakdown.

The initial BIRT report is still available.

The conclusions there were that all crossings were worth further study; First Narrows, Second Narrows, and even the direct harbour crossing.

BIRT round two was equally if not more flexible in its analysis.

I was actually wrong, the gold/purple map did come from BIRT, but according to BIRT it actually is just a random line on a map:

Two BIRT alignments were analysed and compared in this Benefits Assessment against a Business as Usual (BAU) case where transit service provided reflects infrastructure investments committed to through the Mayors’ Council Investment Plan. The modelled BIRT alignments were based on those proposed in the BIRT feasibility study with minor updates to ensure a comparable analysis. The Gold and Purple alignments shown in Figure 2-3 were chosen for this study. They do not indicate recommended or approved alignments, and were chosen as:
- It was noted in initial recommendations that an alignment over the Second Narrows is more likely to provide service reaching across the majority of the North Shore; and
- Alignments along the Second Narrows provide better regional connection to municipalities across Metro Vancouver including Burnaby, New Westminster, Surrey, Langley, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, and Port Moody either directly or through via the Expo or Millennium Lines.
Further alignment alternatives analysis will be undertaken during future regional planning work to determine the preferred BIRT alignment.

For some reason I can't find the recent DNV commissioned studies right now (does anyone have a link?) but IIRC they were all more concerned with a Second Narrows bridge replacement than any true alignment.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Got it. Thanks for doing the homework.

Originally Posted by djmk

If this property is worth $100M, sell it and purchase significantly more property just a few blocks away. I don't understand why this type of housing needs to be on the arguably the best site in NV

Because we want SeaBus-adjacent housing to be more affordable, not less.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Got it. Thanks for doing the homework.

Because we want SeaBus-adjacent housing to be more affordable, not less.

It seems like a reasonable argument if you can sell that land as strata development and recoup the value uplift of the project to build more housing than you could without the additional funds. Sure the optics look bad but it's no different from every other project that uses strata condos to make lower/affordable income housing around the city.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Because we want SeaBus-adjacent housing to be more affordable, not less.

It'd be much smarter if the province developed this premium property to its maximum profitability to bankroll purchasing significantly more land in cheaper locations. We want all housing to be more affordable and we don't achieve that by building a few below market rentals on the most valuable real estate.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

It seems like a reasonable argument if you can sell that land as strata development and recoup the value uplift of the project to build more housing than you could without the additional funds. Sure the optics look bad but it's no different from every other project that uses strata condos to make lower/affordable income housing around the city.

Originally Posted by chowhou

It'd be much smarter if the province developed this premium property to its maximum profitability to bankroll purchasing significantly more land in cheaper locations. We want all housing to be more affordable and we don't achieve that by building a few below market rentals on the most valuable real estate.

IMO there isn't much of a difference between (let's say) 400+ affordable units right on top of the Quay and 600+ affordable units out by Grand Boulevard. As with the Coal Harbour social housing where the exact same argument came up, governments want their infrastructure to be easily accessible to all demographics, not just people with enough money to live near it.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

It'd be much smarter if the province developed this premium property to its maximum profitability to bankroll purchasing significantly more land in cheaper locations. We want all housing to be more affordable and we don't achieve that by building a few below market rentals on the most valuable real estate.

I imagine any sale of what is now a provincial site might prompt a land claim by North Shore first Nations.

It's likely the development here will have very little parking as it's so well located for transit, and affordability is a key point of the province acquiring it. Is there transit-adjacent land sitting around, waiting to be bought by the province instead of the ICBC site?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I imagine any sale of what is now a provincial site might prompt a land claim by North Shore first Nations.

And this has previously happened in BC... when exactly?

It's likely the development here will have very little parking as it's so well located for transit, and affordability is a key point of the province acquiring it. Is there transit-adjacent land sitting around, waiting to be bought by the province instead of the ICBC site?

This is a little dishonest, but yes there's plenty of land available for sale all over Metro Vancouver, and in general Metro Vancouver has very good transit accessibility even if you have to walk a few minutes.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

IMO there isn't much of a difference between (let's say) 400+ affordable units right on top of the Quay and 600+ affordable units out by Grand Boulevard. As with the Coal Harbour social housing where the exact same argument came up, governments want their infrastructure to be easily accessible to all demographics, not just people with enough money to live near it.

I'm not sure selling the site would pay for 200 extra social housing units. in 2020 the Coal Harbour unit construction costs were $36.5m for 60 units, or $608,000 per unit. The nominal value with the land is over $1m per unit. (The City already owned the site, so the $25m land value ascribed to the homes was for valuation purposes, rather than an actual expenditure for the housing to be built.)

If there was any land available to buy in North Vancouver as an alternative to the ICBC site, it would no doubt also cost c$400,000 per unit. BC Assessment say the land is worth about $100m. Assuming a developer was willing to pay that, the province would potentially realize a profit of $47m. That might pay for a site for over 100 homes, but probably not 200. And that assumes that there isn't a significant cost for abatement and demolition of the 1980 building, which would lower the value of the site.

[djmk]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Got it. Thanks for doing the homework.



Because we want SeaBus-adjacent housing to be more affordable, not less.

Who wants that? Why not at Phibbs, Maplewood, CapU, etc? There are so many places available on the NS for housing. Why make affordable housing in one of the most expensive pieces of property in NV?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

And this has previously happened in BC... when exactly?

The Feds were unable to sell the Sinclair Centre, and entered into partnerships on Jericho and the former RCMP headquarters in Vancouver. The province passed their Jericho land to the first nations. The former warehouse of the Liquor Distribution Board is now a first nations asset. I'm fairly sure that no significant federal or Provincial property assets have been sold off to private sector developers in the recent past without either a financial settlement with first nations, or their involvement in the development.