1754 Pendrell | 58m | 21Fls | Completed - Page 6

officedweller · #**101** Posted **Sep 18, 2019, 9:45 PM**

Nicer than a lot of other new buildings.

osirisboy · #**102** Posted **Sep 19, 2019, 12:02 AM**

I like it but It could've done without that banding.

officedweller · #**103** Posted **Sep 19, 2019, 1:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by osirisboy

I like it but It could've done without that banding.

That banding is the equivalent in solar gain reduction to strips of vertical spandrel.
I prefer the banding.

osirisboy · #**104** Posted **Sep 19, 2019, 1:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

That banding is the equivalent in solar gain reduction to strips of vertical spandrel.
I prefer the banding.

I prefer a window wall where they use glass that reduces solar gain on its own. Like trump or mnp

officedweller · #**105** Posted **Sep 19, 2019, 7:49 PM**

Agreed, that's always the best solution.

SpongeG · #**106** Posted **Sep 19, 2019, 9:03 PM**

call me chicken little but am I only one who can see idiots climbing over the balcony to walk onthose things to watch the fireworks or whatever.

whatnext · #**107** Posted **Feb 6, 2020, 9:46 PM**

So I read somewhere rents in this building were $3,000/month for a one bedroom. That's nuts, no wonder developers are having to try all kinds of incentives to get people to rent them.

Changing City · #**108** Posted **Feb 6, 2020, 10:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

So I read somewhere rents in this building were $3,000/month for a one bedroom. That's nuts, no wonder developers are having to try all kinds of incentives to get people to rent them.

Zumper says $2,195.

SpongeG · #**109** Posted **Feb 11, 2020, 5:34 AM**

is this the building in this article?

Quote:

Vancouver is 'disappointed' by developer's actions but has no legal grounds to step in
Jen St. Denis
CTVNewsVancouver.ca

Published Sunday, February 9, 2020

VANCOUVER -- A senior City of Vancouver staffer has sent a sternly worded letter to a developer whose interpretation of a right of first refusal rental agreement differs markedly from both what the city and tenants understood.

But despite the expressions of disappointment, the city says its hands are tied when it comes to legal options to dispute Reliance Properties' interpretation of the agreement.

"We're feeling abandoned by the city," said Kian Gray, one of five West End tenants who hoped the city would step in and hold the developer to what the tenants and the city believed was an offer to move back to a new building at the same rent for two years.

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/vancouver-is-d...p-in-1.4804096

I don't understand this part - renters pay rent of $2350 and get back the difference? how does that work in form of cash or a credit towards the future?

Quote:

But in December 2019, they received another document from Reliance. This one said the arrangement would actually involve signing a lease at the market rent – for Gray, $2,350 for a one-bedroom – and then getting a monthly rebate from Reliance for the difference between the new rent and what they had been paying ($1,112 in Gray's case). At the end of the two years, Gray and his husband would pay the full market rate of $2,350 – a 90 per cent increase, and a rate that would take up around 50 per cent of their combined income.

Changing City · #**110** Posted **Feb 11, 2020, 6:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpongeG

is this the building in this article?

I don't understand this part - renters pay rent of $2350 and get back the difference? how does that work in form of cash or a credit towards the future?

No - this thread is for a Westbank building; the article is about a Reliance project. The tenants (or would-be tenants) lived on Bidwell, so it will be the tower on the corner of Davie that's nearly completed.

The article, as I understand it, says they have been asked sign a lease for the full rent, but Reliance will give them a credit for the amount between their old rent, and the new one (on the lease) for a period of two years. After that they would have to pay the full rent. Alternatively they've been offered a lease at 20% below market, with no credit, but no increase after 2 years (beyond any standard inflationary percentage allowed for all tenants).

SpongeG · #**111** Posted **Feb 11, 2020, 7:17 AM**

ok. thanks. makes sense that way

whatnext · #**112** Posted **Jul 28, 2020, 6:32 PM**

Another accusation of "bait and switch". When Westbank proposed this tower they showed 3 bedroom rates of $2,850 per month, but they are actually renting for $4,975.
https://westendneighbours.wordpress....ell-rent-4975/

GenWhy? · #**113** Posted **Jul 28, 2020, 9:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

Another accusation of "bait and switch". When Westbank proposed this tower they showed 3 bedroom rates of $2,850 per month, but they are actually renting for $4,975.
https://westendneighbours.wordpress....ell-rent-4975/

A very empty accusation, in my opinion. That website seems boldly incorrect on many things.

Of 171 units, "The housing agreement would also include provision for 26 of the housing units to be secured for 30 years with rents 20 per cent below the average West End area market rents". So not every unit.

As well, with the rent increase since the rezoning was enacted in 2014 you'd probably be close to it's starting rent being $3,500, the current West Side DCL waiver maximum. So their math is wrong.

Klazu · #**114** Posted **Jul 29, 2020, 12:55 AM**

That's a lot for a crappy unit that small. No one with brain will pay anything close to that. There are these idiots trying such prices and the units will sit empty.

Reminds me of somegreedy idiot ttrying to rent a 1000 sqft sub-penthouse in one of the new B class towers in Brentwood for $6,500/month. Now the idiot has lowered the price to $4,800 but it still $1,800 overpriced and not moving.