The Exchange | 115.7m | 31fl, 13fl | 400,000sqft. | Completed

[jlousa]

Yes a developer has to earn the right to develop outside current zoning. The property in question is zoned for 9.0FSR and would like to build at 21FSR. They have no right to do so, and hence must earn it. The Jameson went thru the same process when it applied for it's rezoning and had to earn it's high FSR.

While there's no guideline for min seperation required in the CDB they are not asking to redevelop within existing guidelines hence the issue. If they wanted to redevelop at 9FSR they could do so, the developer isn't interested in that though.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I understand that, but we need to realize that the site is zoned for an FSR of 9.0 and is asking for and ultimately going to land an FSR of 21. That's a major increase, the city can't just dole out an increase like that, it needs to be earned. Having the developer work with it's neighbours is mandatory in cases like this. I don't think the city is sending out a bad signal at all on this one, if anything it's telling developers that they can land serious density if they are seeking commercial space.

If the city's intent was to encourage developers for high density commercial, they sure ain't showing it here. I know I'm not in the inside when it comes to Vancouver real estate but from what I can see here, and it seems I'm not alone, is the only reason why we have this ridiculously long process to approve this project is because of the Jaimeson residents, not because this particular developer had to èarn its FSR increase.

If the Jaimeson residents are NOT a factor, then I can believe it. But they are, they clearly are the sole factor why this developer cannot *easily* move forward with this particular project. I for one am tired of it, and tired of this Living First crap that is ongoing in downtown Vancouver, IT SIMPLY HAS TO STOP!

Frankly, I think Credit Suisse should just scrap this project. They are wasting their time with the pigheadedness of the CoV staff that is running this process (which I suspect, are ``NPA hacks``) and send a message. Afterall, despite their willingness to take extreme risks at building a downtown job producing office tower in the eve of a BC NDP rule, they are treated like crap!

[jlousa]

They aren't tying up the project though, it was one of the last to come to the table and is already at the public hearing stage, it's moved along quite quickly. Look at 320 Granville and how far behind that one is and there aren't residents involved. The city planning dept certainly has alot of faults but this isn't one of them.

Not sure how a developer walking away from a major upzoning on one of their properties out of spite of the process would make economic sense, but I'm willing to hear you out.

[queetz@home]

Isn't 320 Granville delayed because the design was encroaching on someone else's property? That's a pretty big design flaw, imo, and does merit some kind of review. But what seems to be happening here in Credit Suisse Tower is they are having difficulty in designing a building within their property because of NIMBYs.

As for economics, if you cannot maximize your space, and have to give up some of it just to appease some snobby neighbour, clearly there are other alternatives where you can make your dough. Vancouver isn't the only place in the planet where you can build an office tower downtown and make money on, you know. I know what the CoV is asking to adjust is "small", but for me, its the principle of the whole process.

Might as well sell that land to one of the many residential only developers and build somewhere else. I hear Calgary is still screaming for more office space...

[jlousa]

So you'd sell a property currently limited to 9FSR instead of shifting the design by 1.5ft and being allowed to build at 21FSR? Luckily not too many developers would make that decision and will instead work with the city. Besides they are not giving up any space to snobby neighbours, they are asking the city to give them more space then they are currently entitled to.
The 320 Granville proposal is not delayed because the design encroaches on a neighbouring property, the architects have the ablity to design a building within the legal lot, would certainly be humourous to see someone try that though.

At the end of the day we will have this tower approved at the proposed height/density asked for by the developer within very minimal changes. If it gets built remains to be seen, but it will get approved.

[Spork]

Certainly the economics may not change all that much, but again, it is the signal.

I am also not at all well informed about the real estate/development industry, but I have to wonder, is this how the process plays out in cities around the world? What is the risk of taking the entire CBD and saying that FSR does not apply? What is the rationale for FSR in a business district?

I am asking these questions because I honestly could not tell you, and and genuinely interested in knowing. Unnecessary red tape bothers me.

Hopefully this is not too off topic.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Guys the city is is asking them to shift the corner by 1 foot and 6 inches, no loss of density just a shift. Seems pretty reasonable and certainly not a deal breaker.

So it's not the slicing of the corner at an angle (chamfering) that was shown in the report?

[dleung]

It's annoying how, as with MNP tower, the ones with nice/interesting crowns get buried in the view shadow of cluttered boxes like Fairmont Pacific Rim. How on earth did the latter earn its density?

[cornholio]

To be honest I am in awe that there are any office buildings being built at all. I understand there is demand, but why? My only hunch is that old habits take time to break, and executives make decisions based on past trends. If that's the case the cities current policies will take time to have the effect they should be having, they will need to establish new trends and change habits to kill that demand...

I don't understand the justification in moving any office space in to Vancouver, yet alone downtown. It is poor use of company funds, and makes you a hostage of a unpredictable municipal government. Something like the office park proposed at the airport, now that is a excellent location for anyone to locate.

[squeezied]

^ economies of agglomeration

There are advantages for a company to be near other companies. As it is with residential real estate, "location location location". Locating in downtown (the largest employment centre of the region) has its significant benefits. See link above.

[red-paladin]

Lots of office towers are being built in Calgary and Toronto also...

[wrenegade]

This goes to Public Hearing tonight.

Also, lots of things happening with this project behind the scenes. Stay tuned.

[Metro-One]

I have heard some inside info myself about this project, use to work in the Old Stock Exchange tower.

[s211]

Originally Posted by wrenegade

This goes to Public Hearing tonight.

Also, lots of things happening with this project behind the scenes. Stay tuned.

You have my attention.

[officedweller]

I sense a redsign with a floorplate configuration compatible with view preservation.
But does it include a height relaxation??? (doubt it)

[Metro-One]

Well, my info is probably not as good as others on here, but the Credit Suisse staff involved with the project directly told me they wanted a height increase. If those dreams have already been dashed or not, I don't know, that was about 6 months ago.

They are aware of this forum as well btw

[officedweller]

A height increase would be nice. The problem is the view cone.
Maybe it'll be redesigned without the characteristic peaked roof?

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by squeezied

^ economies of agglomeration

There are advantages for a company to be near other companies. As it is with residential real estate, "location location location". Locating in downtown (the largest employment centre of the region) has its significant benefits. See link above.

I understand that but that's why I said executives making decisions based on old habits and past trends. Times have changed thanks to technology. Supply networks are more efficient, communication is simple and efficient over any distance, the economy and markets are global, etc. I can keep going on and on, there is no need imo to locate downtown, actually its a draw back and more expensive to boot.

Even 20 years ago things were different, we live in a different world now.

So again imo there is NO advantage of being located within walking distance of a "large" number of other companies, ZERO advantage. Thats why I am surprised office buildings are still being built downtown, I would have thought things would have changed by now but I suppose we need another decade for a good turn over of the decision makers within these companies.

I would bet my house on the fact that the office market downtown will weaken and prices will collapse to directly compete with the rest of the region, and make up for the disadvantages of the location. I give it two decade's, and that's only because I am playing it safe as my gut tells me less then that.

[easy as pie]

i think it's more likely that we shift from the financial district model to a more mixed intensive land use model. in san francisco, we're seeing a host of new office projects in two main areas, south of market and mid market. these are going up for the usual reasons: cross-pollination effect, prestige, access to capital, young companies whose executives, managers and employees don't drive and dislike the suburbs, proximity to amenities. in a market this entrepreneurial, many are responses to highly skilled workers' demands in a tight market (noone wants to shuttle out to some generic suburb at 7am) but there's also a strong level of path dependency, namely, the critical importance of extensive and high quality infrastructure. all of these new projects are going up in fairly densely populated areas that are slated to become denser. obviously, the transportation options and available floorspace and that are important, but the proximity to a variety of amenities - housing, green spaces, entertainment, culture, places to socialize and flirt - these are driving the newest office building wave here.

and this is all quite aside from the fact that this ecosystem of intangibles is elemental to the way that business happens here: it's impossible to network whilst telecommuting from a suburban office park.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by easy as pie

i think it's more likely that we shift from the financial district model to a more mixed intensive land use model. in san francisco, we're seeing a host of new office projects in two main areas, south of market and mid market. these are going up for the usual reasons: cross-pollination effect, prestige, access to capital, young companies whose executives, managers and employees don't drive and dislike the suburbs, proximity to amenities. in a market this entrepreneurial, many are responses to highly skilled workers' demands in a tight market (noone wants to shuttle out to some generic suburb at 7am) but there's also a strong level of path dependency, namely, the critical importance of extensive and high quality infrastructure. all of these new projects are going up in fairly densely populated areas that are slated to become denser. obviously, the transportation options and available floorspace and that are important, but the proximity to a variety of amenities - housing, green spaces, entertainment, culture, places to socialize and flirt - these are driving the newest office building wave here.

and this is all quite aside from the fact that this ecosystem of intangibles is elemental to the way that business happens here: it's impossible to network whilst telecommuting from a suburban office park.

Well most office space is built outside of San Francisco and I personally think the pressure will shift towards a more spread model with increased mobility, telecommuting and lower energy costs eventually. I understand what your saying and I am not exactly talking about a office park in say Aldergrove, but outside of the core but still within the urban area. As far as executives and upper management goes you wont find many who dont drive, they simply dont have the luxury to not drive because time and time flexibility is too important and they can never have enough of it. Getting a extra minute per day can in a extreme scenario be the difference between the company thriving or sinking if that means getting or not getting a large contract. As for workers, I would say most prefer to drive as their pressed for time as well but that's just my opinion. Certainly many drive downtown still.

Networking is the big one but its overblown in my opinion, technology is too good now. Actual physical interactions are less common, and YES they are no less important but you don't need as many as you would have 10-20 years ago. Generally speaking you will physically meet only for major milestones or special introductions, not often enough to make a difference if your located within a 10min walk or a 30min drive in the same region.

Being in the same region imo is all that you need for that cross pollination, 10-20 years ago you would have had to be within the same small area of the region such as downtown. Keep in mind that the people sitting at the top of the pyramid are also the slowest to embrace new techniques, habits, and technology for their personal work and business interactions

But hey that's just my opinion, based on my experience.