750 Pacific Blvd | 87.5M | Proposed

[Jimbo604]

Originally Posted by Changing City

That's not the plan. They'll be removed, as they're seismically compromised. There will be a new bike/pedestrian bridge from Dunsmuir.

That's quite an assumption there.

City of Vancouver still intends to demolish Dunsmuir and Georgia viaducts - Daily Hive : Apr 22 2022, 2:19 pm

In an update on the project this week, the first update on NEFC in years, City of Vancouver staff stated the demolition process for both 1 km long bridge structures that bring Eastside and regional arterial vehicle traffic directly onto downtown’s escarpment will begin no earlier than 2027.

...The costs to carry out viaducts demolition and NEFC are not evident in any existing city capital plan this decade."

Aside from the unfunded costs, who knows what will be happening in five years? Further, the plan will have to be supported by not one but two new city councils (2022 and 2026), you don't know how they will proceed wrt this.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

That's quite an assumption there.

City of Vancouver still intends to demolish Dunsmuir and Georgia viaducts - Daily Hive : Apr 22 2022, 2:19 pm

In an update on the project this week, the first update on NEFC in years, City of Vancouver staff stated the demolition process for both 1 km long bridge structures that bring Eastside and regional arterial vehicle traffic directly onto downtown’s escarpment will begin no earlier than 2027.

...The costs to carry out viaducts demolition and NEFC are not evident in any existing city capital plan this decade."

Aside from the unfunded costs, who knows what will be happening in five years? Further, the plan will have to be supported by not one but two new city councils (2022 and 2026), you don't know how they will proceed wrt this.

Nothing will make the existing viaducts uncompromised seismically, so they won't be repurposed as a park. They have to replaced in some form eventually. How long it takes to replace them is up to Concord Pacific (or when we get an earthquake). The Plaza of Nations rezoning funds allows the first work to start sooner than 2027, but Concord have yet to decide on when they want to rezone their land, the rezoning CAC will fund the rest of the replacement and the earliest the existing structures would be removed. The Capital Plan isn't intended to fund the replacement, although a future Council could chose to add the costs to a Capital Plan if removing them was a priority, and use the Concord rezoning CAC when it eventually arrives to fund something else in the area.

[Vin]

Totally dysfunctional to say the least. Not only are they making a mockery of themselves, but they are also jeopardizing the safety of viaduct users for at least a decade (or two, who knows?) when the originally-intended seismic upgrade funds are now channeled elsewhere for the City's grandiose pet project, which may or may not happen. It would be very funny if further down the road cracks start appearing on the viaducts, and the City is forced to use a huge portion of the little funding they have to fix them, and thus delaying this project even longer.

Rule of thumb: Don't propose anything bigger than having chicken coops in the backyard if you don't possess the funds.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

Totally dysfunctional to say the least. Not only are they making a mockery of themselves, but they are also jeopardizing the safety of viaduct users for at least a decade (or two, who knows?) when the originally-intended seismic upgrade funds are now channeled elsewhere for the City's grandiose pet project, which may or may not happen. It would be very funny if further down the road cracks start appearing on the viaducts, and the City is forced to use a huge portion of the little funding they have to fix them, and thus delaying this project even longer.

What originally-intended seismic upgrades? Link?

If the viaducts started showing any sort of structural compromise, they would be shut down. Whether they would be repaired would be up to the Council of the day. It would probably cost the same, or more, than just building the current project, which is already designed, just not funded until Concord decide to develop. It doesn't help speed things up that thanks to their neighbours in Citygate, Concord don't pay any taxes on their vacant site.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

really not a fan of this type of building. It's like the stroad of building forms, combining the worst aspects of tower and mid-rise, the scale/shadowing of a former with the view-less courtyards of the latter. You can't pay me enough to live in the dark inner-facing units of these buildings. What's the point of 80ft tower separation requirements when you can just bypass it with monster floorplates where inside corner units basically look into each other with worse views than closely-spaced towers

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

What originally-intended seismic upgrades? Link?

If the viaducts started showing any sort of structural compromise, they would be shut down. Whether they would be repaired would be up to the Council of the day. It would probably cost the same, or more, than just building the current project, which is already designed, just not funded until Concord decide to develop. It doesn't help speed things up that thanks to their neighbours in Citygate, Concord don't pay any taxes on their vacant site.

Did you just make that up?

Look at this:

The City of Vancouver’s Viaducts Removal Initiative: Urban Planning or Political Campaign?
https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/...fitch-article/
Has the city been honest in its assessment of seismic hazard?
The city emphasizes that the viaducts are vulnerable to severe damage in the event of a moderate earthquake. In between last year and this year, the city’s estimates went from a magnitude in the low millions of dollars for maintenance and repair, to an estimate of $50 to $65 million for seismic upgrading. How did this happen? Were these eventualities not known before? How does this compare to similar concerns for the three False Creek bridges? Or the Skytrain guideway?

$350-400mil removal versus $65mil seismic upgrade, come on!
Even the $65mil is probably bloated by dishonest City officials.

Doesn't the City have the responsibility to upgrade it seismically to be on par with today's standard if the viaducts were to be kept to live out the rest of their lifespan like other major crossings? This costs a lot less than demolishing them, and therefore should be a lot easier for the City to obtain the funding (or maybe not since they need home owners to chip in).

[Jimbo604]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Nothing will make the existing viaducts uncompromised seismically, so they won't be repurposed as a park. They have to replaced in some form eventually. How long it takes to replace them is up to Concord Pacific (or when we get an earthquake).

A future government (local/provincial) may choose to upgrade them. Or not. The point is nobody knows what the future will bring, yet you put out future events as certainties.

If your crystal ball is so good at predicting the future, a better use would be the stock market instead of community planning predications.

[GenWhy?]

I guess if a future council cancels the area plan and maintains that incomplete highway construction is in Vancouver's best interest. Seems very unlikely.

[jollyburger]

Just build up to 50 storeys in the area, get more CAC money and expediate it

[Vin]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Just build up to 50 storeys in the area, get more CAC money and expediate it

if only that were possible. Again, the City is handicapped by its own policies: dome-shape skyline, mountain views and sunlight are simply too valuable for anything tall to be built there.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

A future government (local/provincial) may choose to upgrade them. Or not. The point is nobody knows what the future will bring, yet you put out future events as certainties.

If your crystal ball is so good at predicting the future, a better use would be the stock market instead of community planning predications.

The Province aren't involved - it's a city responsibility, and it seems an unlikely project to attract Provincial funds, although the replacement ped/bike bridge might. The context of the conversation was whether they'd be retained as a park. You're correct, it's not impossible that they'd be retained, just very, very unlikely, given that the structure would still need the $65m (+ inflation) costs to make it re-useable (actually, $90m in the 2018 report).

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Just build up to 50 storeys in the area, get more CAC money and expediate it

Concord have already been allowed to go to 41 storeys, and go through the viewcones. They don't seem to want to develop at the present time, the project is 'on hold' and the materials from their application five years ago are no longer on the City's website.

[Migrant_Coconut]

PavCo's 777 Pacific is 40 floors tall and explicitly allowed to jut into the viewcones - the lack of height is most likely a developer choice.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

Did you just make that up?

Look at this:


$350-400mil removal versus $65mil seismic upgrade, come on!
Even the $65mil is probably bloated by dishonest City officials.

Doesn't the City have the responsibility to upgrade it seismically to be on par with today's standard if the viaducts were to be kept to live out the rest of their lifespan like other major crossings? This costs a lot less than demolishing them, and therefore should be a lot easier for the City to obtain the funding (or maybe not since they need home owners to chip in).

cityhallwatch as a source? The direct comparison from the 2018 report to Council was $96m to build the new structures needed to replace the viaducts, and $90m to seismically upgrade them. As total replacement was estimated at $120m, with a higher seismic performance as a result, that would be preferred as an approach. All the other costs to reach $360m are things like utility upgrades for the area (that have to be done anyway) and an $85m contingency.

The seismic upgrade would still need the viaducts closed for an extended period, as some columns need replacement on new foundations - it can't be done while the roadway is kept open to traffic. You can guarantee that costs will be higher for upgrading the existing structures if estimated today. And you don't get the reclaimed land including two full city blocks back to redevelop, so there's a significant lost benefit if the viaducts were to be rebuilt.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Changing City

... They don't seem to want to develop at the present time, the project is 'on hold' and the materials from their application five years ago are no longer on the City's website.

I could see the current bad publicity about Chinatown (and the DTES) being deterrants to launching the projects.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I could see the current bad publicity about Chinatown (and the DTES) being deterrants to launching the projects.

Well I mean that section still has to get their rezoning approved, so maybe realistically they're at least 5 years away from Phase 1 occupancy on their site at 811 Carrall. (I assume they'd do it in 2 or 3 phase construction)

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I could see the current bad publicity about Chinatown (and the DTES) being deterrents to launching the projects.

Maybe. They've acquired a fair amount of property that they're hoping to convince Vancouver City Council to allow development that might be at variance with current policy. (The brewery, the Westin Bayshore, St Paul's). At some point they're going to have to engage with the City for a package that allows development on all of these, but there are other reasons why it might take a while.

We know they're reluctant to develop any non-market housing - they sell sites to the City if they have to, but they've never built anything like the Pinnacle building the City encouraged on the former Concord site by Granville Bridge. I can see them sitting on their assets in the hope of a Council less motivated to require affordable and non-market housing, (especially as there are very low holding costs on the site here). The non-market housing on the Plaza of Nations site is integral to the project - not a stand-alone building - and being built as part of the overall scheme (and counted as part of the CAC). That may be something Concord are hoping to avoid?

[officedweller]

Concord did build some social housing in the Marinaside and Roundhouse areas (seniors midrise between Concordia I and II, co-op housing behind the Roundhouse, and co-op (?) housing next to Cambie bridge), but that could have been before Federal funding was cut. There's also a midrise on the north side of Pacific between the two Parkview towers.

The tower above the HSBC at Davie and Pacific was supposed to be social housing, but Concord paid cash in lieu because of a lack of Federal funding, and then built condos to avoid future phasing.

Apart from the site sold to the City then sold to Pinnacle, the other sites are all still vacant (Beatty & Nelson, the Expo/Pacific Blvd triangular verge, Pacific Blvd next to the Cambie Bridge off-ramp, plus I think there may be another site next to the Pinnacle site (?).

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Concord did build some social housing in the Marinaside and Roundhouse areas (seniors midrise between Concordia I and II, co-op housing behind the Roundhouse, and co-op (?) housing next to Cambie bridge), but that could have been before Federal funding was cut. There's also a midrise on the north side of Pacific between the two Parkview towers.

The tower above the HSBC at Davie and Pacific was supposed to be social housing, but Concord paid cash in lieu because of a lack of Federal funding, and then built condos to avoid future phasing.

Apart from the site sold to the City then sold to Pinnacle, the other sites are all still vacant (Beatty & Nelson, the Expo/Pacific Blvd triangular verge, Pacific Blvd next to the Cambie Bridge off-ramp, plus I think there may be another site next to the Pinnacle site (?).

You're right, Concord developed some of those early non-market projects, but I'm not sure they developed all of them. I think the senior's building at 183 Drake was built by the Society for the Christian Care for the Elderly, (completed in 1999). The Quayside Family Co-op was a Concord / Van Maren development, and is now owned by Red Door Housing Society, and Yaletown Mews on the north side of Pacific was developed by Concord (now owned by Affordable Housing Society). 1267 Marinaside is the Roundhouse Co-Operative Housing Association, and I think Concord may have built that too. There's also a non-market rental component to Parkview Tower on Davie, called Bridgeview developed by Brightside (with BC Housing) as an air right parcel.

But in the past 20+ years they've avoided building anything non-market. The City allowed the non-market site at Spectrum to become Cosmo, another condo, (and I think used the funds to buy the site at 58 W Hastings from Concord, where the new Chinatown Foundation non-market / health centre is finally under construction).

Beatty and Nelson, and the Expo triangle and the Cooperage Way/Expo sites are, as you say undeveloped, and I think there are three other sites reserved for non-market near Granville Bridge, 1502 Granville in front of 601 Beach (the Pinnacle site), 450 Pacific and 431 Beach. They're intended for mid-rise buildings.

So in the early days Concord went along with integrating non-market housing into their developments, but not for the past 20 years. And the other point is those early non-market buildings are all stand-alone; there are none with the non-market in the podium, or as part of the condo structure as will happen at 750 Pacific. In the meantime I understand there have been several attempts to get things built on the vacant sites, but only 601 Beach is going anywhere soon. (Maybe). The only positive note is that I think the arrangement is that when they finally get developed, all those undeveloped sites have to be sold to the City at their historic value, not current day value.

[officedweller]

Yeah, when I said Concord "built" I really just meant "on the former Expo Lands..." rather than who physically built or funded the projects. The Bridgeview one is the one between the Parkview towers I mentioned, but that was built before "Concord" entered the scene as the "face" of Pacific Place. I think they subcontracted the north side of Pacific to another company and sold the retail units as strata. When the strata retail failed, Concord retained ownership of the retail on the south side of Pacific.

Concord has also avoided building office projects as well, which makes you wonder about the Metrotown commercial components.

The one perhaps positive aspect of the delays is that maybe the non-market standalone parcels yet to be built can now be built at higher (non-market) densities than previously considered.