General Vancouver Development Updates II

[jollyburger]

Revised design of the development at East 1st/Rupert

Same architects. Carbon copy of those East Hastings developments in Burnaby.

https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/3282-3296-e-1-ave-2

Old design



https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/3282-3296-e-1-ave

[jollyburger]

DCL/CAC changes mostly revolve around installment payments.

The City has published a bulletin outlining the changes that indicates the floorplate guideline of 8,000 sq. ft will apply not just to mass timber towers and social housing projects, but also towers that exceed 40 storeys. The floorplate guideline for all other towers ranges from 4,000 sq. ft to 7,200 sq. ft, depending on whether the site is one that can accommodate a tower, whether it is a corner or mid-block site, and the site frontage.

https://storeys.com/vancouver-dcls-cacs-policy-changes-2025/

https://guidelines.vancouver.ca/bulletins/bulletin-residential-tower-floor-plates.pdf

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Zepfancouver

Posted on Aug 17, 2021 General Vancouver Updates - Post #9869 - Driven by it countless times...Today it was gone (Must be signed in to view)

Public art made of stacked cars to reappear in new Vancouver location

If anyone has info on the secret location and when it will be erected, please share, I'd like to capture the work.

As of March it seemed like they were going to reinstall it this month.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DHFHblwSbQH/

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

https://guidelines.vancouver.ca/bulletins/bulletin-residential-tower-floor-plates.pdf

[jollyburger]

Feb 2025

While 6,500 sq. ft. will continue to be the starting point, development sites with a larger street frontage will generally be given larger floor plate size allowances of about 7,200 sq. ft, but the degree of flexibility also depends on whether the development site is a mid-block location or an intersection corner location.

“In terms of corner sites, you don’t have as many of the same tower separate issues on one side, so there’s just more ability. You’re not impacting a neighbouring development site on a corner site as much as you were if you are on a mid-block site,” White told Daily Hive Urbanized.

“You can shift the massing over to one side, for instance, and in order to achieve a larger larger floor plate, that’s a perfect example of how a site condition should drive the outcome.”

For taller towers of over 45 storeys, the City will enable larger floor plate sizes of about 8,000 sq. ft.

He says taller buildings need larger floor plates by necessity for reasons such as an additional number of elevators, spaces for utilities, and seismic structural design codes, along with the consideration of enabling more optimal floor plan layouts, especially for residential uses.

For example, he notes, Vancouver’s tallest building of Living Shangri-La has tower floor plate sizes of 11,000 sq. ft. If this project were forced to limit their floor plate sizes to 6,500 sq. ft, it would never have been built.

“We should focus on the design we care about and the efficiency of the tower, not so much to sticking as close as we can to 6,500 sq. ft.,” he said.

“We should be driven more by principles and not a number.”

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-flexible-building-development-policies

[jollyburger]

They're getting rid of some of the fins on Keltic's Nexus project

3.Declare the elimination of vertical and horizontal fins on the east elevation (L3-9) and horizontal fins on the south elevation (L3-9). Note: Neighbouring buildings will eventually obscure these elevations and block daylight. In this future context, 18” deep vertical fins are impractical as they have a significant impact on views out from oblique angles.

https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public/Default.aspx?PossePresentation=Guest&PosseObjectId=263012589

https://www.mcmparchitects.com/projects/220-prior-street/

[jollyburger]

I mean it's up to the city to receive their own advice and balance that with whatever industry or the market is telling them.

Kind of odd that for an article talking about DCLs they don't mention that this project was eligible for DCL waivers but they specifically declined to use them (?)

Development Cost Levies (DCLs) – The site is subject to the City-wide DCL and Utilities DCL,
which will be calculated on the floor area proposed at the development permit stage.
This application is eligible for a waiver of (a portion of) the City-wide DCLs applicable to the
residential portion of the building, however the applicant has elected not to seek the waiver. As
per Section 3.1B of the Vancouver Development Cost Levy By-law, the decision to seek the
waiver is made at the rezoning application stage. Should the applicant wish to request a DCL
waiver at a later stage, the application would be expected to return to Council for a subsequent
Public Hearing to amend the rezoning conditions.
Based on rates in effect as of September 30, 2024 and the proposed 73,875.5 sq. m
(795,190 sq. ft.) of residential and 6,907 sq. m (74,346 sq. ft.) of commercial floor area,
the DCLs are estimated to be $32,853,490. The childcare facility is also subject to $20 in
nominal DCLs under the DCL By-law.

DCL rates are subject to future adjustment by Council including annual inflationary adjustments.
DCLs are payable at building permit issuance based on rates in effect at that time. A
development may qualify for 12 months of in-stream rate protection from DCL rate increases,
provided that an application has been received prior to the rate adjustment. See the City’s DCL
Bulletin for details on DCL rate protection.

'What are we building for?': Aiming to boost development, Vancouver may delay amenity, infrastructure upgrades

For years, Vancouver heaped more expectations and costs on developments, White said, “and the price did always bail us out. But when the music stops, and you still have all those costs layered on top of each other, then it stops making sense anymore. And we are at that reckoning point.”

City council has already approved a few individual requests from developers looking to change projects in a shifting market, including delaying millions of dollars in city fees, and one developer’s recent request to pay $55 million in cash to get out of a commitment to build 102 below-market rental units.

Those were individual examples, but the city will likely continue to look at systemic changes to make things work, beyond next week’s recommendations on levy deferrals. Other cities, like Surrey and Coquitlam, are looking at development viability measures, too.

“It will continue to show up in community amenity contributions that are less than we’ve become accustomed to. And that’s the economic reality of the viability crunch that we’re in,” White said.

White sees his role at city hall coming with “a healthy tension” acting as both “a regulator and facilitator.”

“And we don’t get the outcomes we care about, if they don’t build,” he said. “It’s about the art of the possible.”

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columni...nsiders-allowing-developers-delay-levies

https://council.vancouver.ca/20250415/documents/rr5.pdf

[GenWhy?]

"“It comes down to a fundamental question: If we’re building, what are we building for? If we’re not getting affordability, if we’re not getting public benefits — and if we’re now, in fact, even taking on debt to build these things?” Ollenberger said. “What are we doing it for? You don’t build for the sake of building, that’s not good enough. You have to build to make improvements in some of these things that matter.”"

I'd really like to nail the point in time when building private rental housing wasn't good enough on its own.

[seamusmcduff]

I would think building enough housing for our growing population would be a worthy enough goal, considering it's something we've been failing to do for decades. The only reason we have to include affordable housing units in projects in the first place is because of this failure. In cities that have a glut of housing affordability comes as a result of excess supply.

[whatnext]

LOL, so in essence "who knew building for offshore money and investors wouldn't be viable forever?"

...As the real estate market continues its downward turn, local governments across Metro Vancouver (and beyond) have shown a strong willingness to tweak their policies in an effort to provide some relief to homebuilders and to get shovels in the ground. The latest municipality to do so is the City of Vancouver.

"Development viability is under increasing strain due to a wide range of factors, such as construction cost escalation, impending tariff implications, an elevated interest rate environment, and recent changes to immigration policy, all of which have created greater uncertainty and dampened consumer and investor confidence," said the City in a report that will be considered by Council next week. "At the same time, the cost basis for construction – including land, labour, regulatory requirements, and government charges – has dramatically outpaced inflation since 2019, while home prices have approached affordability ceilings."

"The investor pool is shrinking, driven by the end of foreign investment, stagnating rent yields, and diminished expectations of future appreciation," added GM of Planning Josh White, who authored the report and hinted at the changes in an interview with STOREYS last month...(bold mine)
https://storeys.com/vancouver-dcls-cacs-policy-changes-2025/

Why is it the city only seems to get the Supply part of Supply and Demand? Damping down Demand is not a negative.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Why is it the city only seems to get the Supply part of Supply and Demand? Damping down Demand is not a negative.

The City continues to not fully understand supply. Rental construction is in a similar situation

I assume this is the Report they're speaking about:

https://council.vancouver.ca/documents/r2_003.pdf

[GenWhy?]

Recommendations
A. THAT Council approve, in principle, amendments to the Vancouver Development Cost Levy By-law, the Vancouver Utilities Development Cost Levy By-law and the Area Specific Development Cost Levy By-law that authorize an option for applicants to pay their Development Cost Levies in three equal installments for development projects with DCLs valued over $500,000, generally aligning with the payment by installment framework in the Local Government Act and generally in accordance with Appendix A;

FURTHER THAT Council approve, in-principle, an amendment to the Vancouver Building By-law to impose a cost recovery fee of $1,000 be collected from each applicant for a deferral;

AND FURTHER THAT the Director of Legal Services be instructed to bring forward for enactment by Council amendments to the Vancouver Development Cost Levy By-law, the Vancouver Utilities Development Cost Levy By-law, the Area Specific Development Cost Levy By-law and the Vancouver Building By-law as generally set out in Appendix A, to give effect to the deferral option.

B. THAT, subject to the approval of Recommendation A, Council direct staff to report back on further measures to optimize development cost levy payment timing and/or deferrals, including possible Vancouver Charter amendments.

C. THAT Council amend the Community Amenity Contributions Policy for Rezonings to lower the minimum required cash CAC payment due at zoning by-law enactment from $20 million to $5 million and in the City’s sole discretion allow the balance above $5 million to be deferred post-enactment as set out in Appendix B, along with associated administrative amendments; Supporting Development Viability and Unlocking New Housing Supply – RTS 17891 Page 2

FURTHER THAT this change, upon applicant request, be applicable to new rezoning applications and applications that have been approved in principle by Council but have not yet been enacted, as shown in Appendix C.

D. THAT Council approve foregoing the calculated 2025 inflationary rate adjustment of 3.2% for the Vancouver Development Cost Levy By-law, the Vancouver Utilities Development Cost Levy By-law, the Area Specific Development Cost Levy By-law; and to Community Amenity Contribution targets and density bonus contributions.

E. THAT Council approve foregoing the inflationary rate adjustment of 5.7% to Community Amenity Contribution targets and density bonus contributions that was approved in-principle in 2024 but deferred to 2025.

F. THAT Council approve, in principle, an amendment to reduce the Development Cost Levy rate for “works yard for public bus transportation” in the Vancouver Development Cost Levy By-law and the Vancouver Utilities Development Cost Levy By-law, to be effective upon approval of this recommendation as generally set out in Appendix A;

AND FURTHER THAT the Director of Legal Services be instructed to bring forward for enactment by Council amendments to the Vancouver Development Cost Levy By-law and the Vancouver Utilities Development Cost Levy By-law to give effect to Recommendation

G. THAT Council delegate the authority to revise the financial security requirements for rezoning applications to allow “pay-on-demand” Surety Bonds as financial security for infrastructure and amenity obligations, in the sole discretion of the Director of Legal Services and the Chief Financial Officer, in consultation with the City Engineer, provided that all financial security revisions are generally in accordance with the criteria in Appendix D.

[whatnext]

I wonder how much of those savings will be passed on to the buyer (or renter)?

[PBlonde]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I wonder how much of those savings will be passed on to the buyer (or renter)?

I imagine there won't be any direct savings passed on. Rather there will be more projects that move forward, thereby increasing supply and (with all other things remaining equal) a decrease in price with more competition in the market for buyers and renters.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I wonder how much of those savings will be passed on to the buyer (or renter)?

There will be no direct savings. Especially if all the other fees and costs continue to increase. Not to mention our vacancy rate not really moving.

[BaddieB]

deleted

[jollyburger]

Trans Am Totem getting installed in the loop on the south end of the bridge near the bus loop/new road connection to Fir Street. Next to the 100 stone sculpture.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DLBd2rfpKn5/

[RedArbutus]

Oh that's a great location for it. Fantastic.

[kikin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

There will be no direct savings. Especially if all the other fees and costs continue to increase. Not to mention our vacancy rate not really moving.

as one struggling with a 25 to 30 year mortgage for the roof over my head I don't want my tax dollars going toward lowering the value of my investment either

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by kikin

as one struggling with a 25 to 30 year mortgage for the roof over my head I don't want my tax dollars going toward lowering the value of my investment either

How do you mean?