1477 West Broadway | 124 M | 39 fl | Completed

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Woah! Those prices - all of them - are a BAD deal. What a joke.

I see there are 24 units still available for rent on rew.ca, so 10% of the total not rented out yet?

Also, I just noticed that the address of the residential tower is 2488 Granville, not 1477 Broadway, is that just the commercial space?

[madog222]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Also, I just noticed that the address of the residential tower is 2488 Granville, not 1477 Broadway, is that just the commercial space?

1477 W Broadway is the address of the lot and the development as a whole. The residential lobby is on Granville so they were given a Granville St. address, the commercial entrance on Broadway is signed 1477.

[jollyburger]

Post from six months ago on Reddit with a bunch of complaints about the build quality.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askvan/comments/1ntrs7f/the_stories_granville_broadway_constant_problems/

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Post from six months ago on Reddit with a bunch of complaints about the build quality.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askvan/comments/1ntrs7f/the_stories_granville_broadway_constant_problems/

Brutal. Makes you wonder how well built these new buildings are.

I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, that there were several comments complaining about the price of parking! SSP assured me that cars would not be needed for buildings built along this transit line!

[Migrant_Coconut]

I also recall certain SSPers insisting that nobody would move in due to the lack of free parking... which is evidently untrue.

Little too early to be drawing conclusions when the thing that's supposed to make cars unnecessary won't open until next year.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I also recall certain SSPers insisting that nobody would move in due to the lack of free parking... which is evidently untrue.

Little too early to be drawing conclusions when the thing that's supposed to make cars unnecessary won't open until next year.

Well to be fair to SSPers I only found one post in this thread about parking and it just said at those rent rates they needed to throw in some incentives in the form of 2 free months rent/parking.

It seems like they are offering 1 month free rent and instead of $300 a month some people are paying 150/month for one year.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Well to be fair to SSPers I only found one post in this thread about parking...

Probably in the Broadway thread, right about the time when this and the Birch tower were in the open house phase; some posters were absolutely convinced that removing parking minimums next to a future SkyTrain was going to be a nightmare.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Probably in the Broadway thread, right about the time when this and the Birch tower were in the open house phase; some posters were absolutely convinced that removing parking minimums next to a future SkyTrain was going to be a nightmare.

Well, apparently it is for renters in these Broadway buildings who need parking. Even though the subway isn’t open this corner would probably be one of the best-served in the city. And yet apparently many of the renters still need/want cars. Maybe urban planning schools in North America need to give their students a lesson in reality.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by whatnext

- snip -

What's apparent is that having less than 2 spaces per apartment at $150/month each has not scared renters away.

Seems like both teachers and students were bang on about underground parking being excessive and artificially cheap. Once the subway opens, the free market will determine how many of them ditch cars altogether and save money.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Well, apparently it is for renters in these Broadway buildings who need parking. Even though the subway isn’t open this corner would probably be one of the best-served in the city. And yet apparently many of the renters still need/want cars. Maybe urban planning schools in North America need to give their students a lesson in reality.

It seems like the market determined many people wouldnt drive and decided to build less parking. People complain about the price, yet choose to live in the building anyways (even before the subway opens...so this is a moot point?). Many (most?) probably dont drive, or use evo, in this building. Seems like market reality ruled in this case, and those thinking you need to maximize u/g parking for a centrally-located rental project to be viable need a lesson in reality.

[officedweller]

People who want parking will go to a building with parking.
People who don't need parking will have a wider choice of buildings.
But note that having a "luxury" building (not necessarily this one) without parking may not be popular with that target market.

[jollyburger]

The office tenants had access to one space for every 1000 sq feet of office space at market rates.

[Spr0ckets]

I can't really blame a developer for opting not to provide (more) parking to their building located right above a major skytrain station,.....AND with a supermarket grocery inside it and at a major intersection just a 10 min bus ride from the center of downtown.
Especially when each stall would be likely to add an extra $50,000 each to their construction costs on average (depending on how many levels they'd have to excavate), and especially when (given the parking rates in downtown Vancouver), they'd be seriously undervalued and depressed in price, just to make the units saleable (thus costing the developer even more money after they are built).

I imagine that any renter who absolutely must have their parking stall will find an alternate option in the immediate vicinity (or not) providing more parking.

A development like this is geared towards people who want the conviences pointed out above along with the location, but who don't feel they'll need to have to drive around all the time and thus won't need cars.

The market will tell whether there's lots of those around- especially after the skytrain line opens in a couple of years.

[GenWhy?]

We did a tour for MCMs "opening celebration day" and it is super tempting for all the goodies the building has (both active and passive), but I could only guess at the rental rates at that time.

$3,100 for 550sf 1-bed is a bit rich for my cohort, regardless of the views.

We were looking at the 975sf Shoreline penthouse going for $4,100, which while luxurious and possible, still seemed like a money-waster.

[Glow Fun City]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Especially when each stall would be likely to add an extra $50,000 each to their construction costs on average (depending on how many levels they'd have to excavate), and especially when (given the parking rates in downtown Vancouver), they'd be seriously undervalued and depressed in price, just to make the units saleable (thus costing the developer even more money after they are built).

I think even $50,000 seems too low for an underground stall these days…

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Glow Fun City

I think even $50,000 seems too low for an underground stall these days…

Yeah, that's why I said on average.
And of course it gets more expensive per stall the deeper you have to go down and excavate more parking levels.

But you're probably right that for that location specifically, even that average is on the low side.

They were always going to have to provide parking in this tower regardless (for the office/retail and the Citymarket components) - but it goes without saying that not having to provide full parking for the residential saved them tons in excavation and construction costs, and also allowed them to complete earl(ier) enough to begin renting out more than a full year before the skytrain station is scheduled to complete and open.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by officedweller

People who want parking will go to a building with parking.
People who don't need parking will have a wider choice of buildings.
But note that having a "luxury" building (not necessarily this one) without parking may not be popular with that target market.

Yes, but as I pointed out for those renters in the reddit post parking was apparently quite important even at a transit-rich location. What's it going to be like in other parts of the city not so well-served now that parking minimums have been removed. if you want an answer, take a look at the area around that new rental low-rise in Shaughnessy at Granville and W.32nd

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Glow Fun City

I think even $50,000 seems too low for an underground stall these days…

You're correct. The 2023 Council report that eliminated parking minimums in the Broadway Corridor said "the cost to construct an underground parking space is about $60,000 to $80,000, but can increase to over $120,000 per stall depending on site size, layout efficiency, or soil conditions". Those costs won't have got any lower.

The DP for 1477 W Broadway in some ways anticipated that change. The By-law at the time required a minimum of 557 spaces here, and they provided 288. The approval for those had been earlier, when the project was only a six-storey office building. The residential tower was added as a subsequent rezoning, and DP, after the parking was already underr construction.

Today they would only have to provide a minimal number of spaces. 395 W Broadway for example, a 22FSR rental building with 176 apartments and retail and office on the main floor is proposing one visitor's space, and four loading spaces.

[jollyburger]

2025 Metro Vancouver off-street parking study had the cost between 117K-137K. The highest was 230K per stall with bad soil or downtown/urban centres.

Hard costs vs multiplier (design, insurance)

The reality is that construction “Hard Costs” costs associated with a parking stall are only the beginning of a
chain of cascading costs. Policy makers in particular need to understand the full impacts of parking requirements
through a typical development pro forma and on to the purchaser (or renter). One has to consider Design,
Insurance, Development Management, typical Project Contingencies, Finance and Marketing and the typical
(minimum) Development Profit that most lenders require before financing construction of a building. In all
development pro formas, these costs are normally assessed as a percentage of hard cost as shown in the table
below.

https://metrovancouver.org/services/regi...onal-parking-study-final-report-2025.pdf

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Yes, but as I pointed out for those renters in the reddit post parking was apparently quite important even at a transit-rich location.

Because a large component of the "transit-rich" part is still under construction. Also note that it's one or two specific Redditors, not the entire building; I'd be more concerned about how it was mostly green apprentices and TFWs doing the work.

Originally Posted by whatnext

What's it going to be like in other parts of the city not so well-served now that parking minimums have been removed. if you want an answer, take a look at the area around that new rental low-rise in Shaughnessy at Granville and W.32nd

Shaughnessy residents will never not drive; it's a status symbol. Since parking's still in high demand there, the market will continue to force more parking.