The Cardero | 81m | 26Fl | Completed

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Shaughnessy has never been known as a site for affordable housing. However, I'd bet all three properties have one thing in common.

Neither has Coal Harbour! What's your point again?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Neither has Coal Harbour! What's your point again?

Actually, this development (on top of the $2,577,000 DCL payment) offered a cash CAC of $13,815,200 to be spent on affordable housing and childcare in Coal Harbour. It's helping pay for the new non-market housing and childcare on top of the new school under construction next to the Community Centre. So indirectly this is providing about 30% of the cost of the 60 non-market affordable housing units and the childcare.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Actually, this development (on top of the $2,577,000 DCL payment) offered a cash CAC of $13,815,200 to be spent on affordable housing and childcare in Coal Harbour. It's helping pay for the new non-market housing and childcare on top of the new school under construction next to the Community Centre. So indirectly this is providing about 30% of the cost of the 60 non-market affordable housing units and the childcare.

If the city wasn't hellbent on providing condo units for offshore money we wouldn't need so much "non-market housing". Every building permitted like this drives up the cost of land further. The White Spot site on Georgia would not have been worth $245 million unless the developer knew they could build for foreign money.

If we have to listen to city planners and urbanists droning on about people biking and walking to work, then focus on building only housing for people actually working in the downtown core.

[GenWhy?]

Appreciate the neat article on the board room!

"...would not have been worth $245 million unless the developer knew they could build for foreign money"

I don't think the City can dictate to what group a condo is sold to.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

If the city wasn't hellbent on providing condo units for offshore money we wouldn't need so much "non-market housing". Every building permitted like this drives up the cost of land further. The White Spot site on Georgia would not have been worth $245 million unless the developer knew they could build for foreign money.

If we have to listen to city planners and urbanists droning on about people biking and walking to work, then focus on building only housing for people actually working in the downtown core.

With the combination of vacant home and investment buyer taxes, foreign buyers disappeared, and covid stopped most travel, but sales prices continued to rise. You don't have to listen to city planners and urbanists droning on, you can ignore them like you do when you're called on racist comments. And good luck finding a politician adopting your weird 'slam the door' policy. David Eby wants more housing built, and Kevin Falcon was working for Anthem when they bought the site next to the White Spot.

Low interest rates drove prices up. Interest rates are now being increased, and prices are starting to fall. Canadian buyers and investors pushed the market up to unsustainable levels. Everything else is minor noise.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Appreciate the neat article on the board room!

"...would not have been worth $245 million unless the developer knew they could build for foreign money"

I don't think the City can dictate to what group a condo is sold to.

The province gave the city the right to create rental only zones. All of the peninsula west of Burrard should be given such zoning to ensure adequate future rentals and to take the development pressure off the West End.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The province gave the city the right to create rental only zones. All of the peninsula west of Burrard should be given such zoning to ensure adequate future rentals and to take the development pressure off the West End.

With literally one or two exceptions, all the only development sites that might be developed with housing west of Burrard are in the West End. Most of the likely future development sites for many years to come already have approved projects - there are only four projects that have been submitted, but not yet approved.

In the area near Thurlow and Burrard developers are already voluntarily switching from condo to rental. The market is already responding to the demand for rental, and limited sales of condos. The existing permits continue to apply, so any approved condo sites wouldn't be affected by a switch in policy.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The province gave the city the right to create rental only zones. All of the peninsula west of Burrard should be given such zoning to ensure adequate future rentals and to take the development pressure off the West End.

I think this building applied for permits in like 2014 and the rental-only policy was enacted by the Province in 2018, and I think by the City in 2020, which included the West End to override portions of the West End Plan with more changes coming to the West End Plan within the Vancouver Plan.