General Vancouver Development Updates II

[logan5]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

West 4th Safeway





https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/l...-site-11852004

The retail units are distinct from one another, which is something you almost never see. The west side always gets better designed buildings.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by csbvan

The Safeway is closed, TPZ fencing is up, all of the branding has been removed. It doesn't seem like they are wasting time getting construction started.

Building permit was stage issued for excavation back on Christmas Eve, though the permit for demo still hasn't been issued.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Q2 2029 would be a pipe dream, but the sooner they start, the sooner it happens.

3 years is possible for 6 stories with only 2 levels of underground parking, it's only impressive because it's in the heart of Kits. Equivalent buildings out in Langley are getting completed at that pace.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by mcj

3 years is possible for 6 stories with only 2 levels of underground parking, it's only impressive because it's in the heart of Kits. Equivalent buildings out in Langley are getting completed at that pace.

That would be greenfield development out there wouldn't it?

Look I'm not saying it's not possible, but I wouldn't place bets on it.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by madog222

Building permit was stage issued for excavation back on Christmas Eve, though the permit for demo still hasn't been issued.

It seems like there are two demo permits but one got issued on Jan 29, 2026?

https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public...ctId=269976553

https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public...ctId=269903727

It's also deceiving from the street view but it's a horseshoe shaped building with a giant courtyard in the middle. with the podium covering the entire site.

[csbvan]

The blue Super Save fencing went up today. Parking lot (which was being used as free parking for a few weeks) is now fully closed off.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

It seems like there are two demo permits but one got issued on Jan 29, 2026?

https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public...ctId=269976553

https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public...ctId=269903727

It's also deceiving from the street view but it's a horseshoe shaped building with a giant courtyard in the middle. with the podium covering the entire site.

The issued permit is for abatement.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by madog222

The issued permit is for abatement.

I guess the demo permit will get issued once the abatement is finished.

[LeftCoaster]

No sense in getting the demo permit until the abatement is complete. This is the usual sequencing.

I suspect they will hit Q2 2029 unless they hit some major snags.

[jollyburger]

The City of Vancouver has plans to build 24 bedrooms of social housing on a small, sloped lot on Southeast Marine Drive for $8.5 million and use a design for the first time from a catalogue created by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC).

The unique proposal, which city council approved Tuesday, Feb. 3, is considered a pilot project and will use a design referred to in the catalogue as “fourplex 01 BC.” The city council chose the design because it meets the city’s challenge of building on a sloped site.

“The project will also deliver the housing in a considerably shorter timeline than a fully custom-designed building for this location,” the city said in an email to BIV. “The project is estimated to be completed by late 2027.”

The site is located at 3122 Southeast Marine Dr., is 1,220 square metres, or 13,123 square feet in size and has an assessed value of $1.3 million.

A study conducted by the city and CMHC recommended three separate and mirrored four-plexes that will include six one-bedrooms and six three-bedroom units built on the north portion of the site, with surface parking on the south side.

https://www.biv.com/news/economy-law...-buck-11856540

[madog222]

City lead redevelopment of the former Ramada Hotel site at 3475 E Hastings. It's currently being used for supportive housing as Skeena House.

The proposed development consists of an 18-storey mixed-use tower with a 4-storey podium, approximately 155 residential units, and 0.35 FSR of commercial space at ground level.

https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public...ctId=286296565

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by madog222

City lead redevelopment of the former Ramada Hotel site at 3475 E Hastings. It's currently being used for supportive housing as Skeena House.


https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public...ctId=286296565

Maybe it's because of who or what is involved but I'm surprised that's going ahead before their Franklin and Penticton building, since it's a surface parking lot (even if it's just a BG application).

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Maybe it's because of who or what is involved but I'm surprised that's going ahead before their Franklin and Penticton building, since it's a surface parking lot (even if it's just a BG application).

What happened with the lawsuit over the previous social housing project for that site?

https://www.biv.com/news/real-estate...-women-8265157

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

What happened with the lawsuit over the previous social housing project for that site?

https://www.biv.com/news/real-estate...-women-8265157

My recollection was the City won. They had drill rigs on the parking lot a few months ago for utility locates ahead of excavation.

Not sure what this ruling resulted in
https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc...20267/index.do

[GenWhy?]

"The city has promised a parking analysis will be conducted to ensure the development provides replacement parking to serve the needs of the neighbourhood and businesses, according to information posted on the city’s website."

Did not know about that which is crazy expensive and stupid

[jollyburger]

The City of Vancouver’s enabling legislation permits groups of property owners to petition the City to undertake “local improvement projects” that benefit that group. In 1963, a group of merchants petitioned the City to construct a common parking lot that would benefit them. The City accepted the petition. It acquired the necessary land, constructed the parking lot, levied special tax assessments against the benefited properties to fund the construction, and continued to levy special assessments to fund operating expenses in subsequent years. The City’s title to the land is unencumbered and the parking lot remains. In 2019, the City announced its intention to redevelop the parking lot to construct public housing. The applicant commenced a proposed class action on behalf of the affected property owners, claiming that the City holds the parking lot in trust for them.

The trial judge dismissed the action. In a situation where there is no express trust, a government does not acquire enforceable private law trust obligations by implication unless there is a clear indication that the government so intended. In this case, multiple provisions of the statutory scheme in question were inconsistent with an implied trust. In the face of those provisions, the City could not be bound to maintain the parking lot in perpetuity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, agreeing with the trial judge that the available evidence and statutory language could not establish the certainty of intention required for a private law trust. The court also found that the applicant could not establish the legal requirements for a resulting or constructive trust.

https://www.scc-csc.ca/cases-dossier...cherche/40866/

[jollyburger]

Science World market rental COV

Foster outlined the project’s scale in financial terms: an estimated valuation of $701 million after completion and achieving full occupancy, and forecasted revenue to the municipal government of roughly $695 million over the first 35- to 40-year lifespan of the complex, with the revenues gradually increasing over time as the debt decreases.

To get there, however, the project would require major upfront construction financing — likely in the range of $700 million — sourced through a mix of provincial and federal government partners, including Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), and potentially private equity via a development partner.

He also repeatedly returned to the core financial constraint that dominated both this public hearing and last week’s Burrard/Pacific/Hornby project debate: with construction costs and financing needs at this scale, the project’s revenues would need to be largely market-based to service the debt.

When asked about the financial feasibility of setting aside some of the units at below-market rents, Foster said “the biggest issue is that the project would not be able to debt finance through its revenue, given the significant financing that would be required to build this,” adding that, under current assumptions, the project could not support below-market rental units without a substantial injection of direct public funding and/or low-interest construction financing from senior governments — funds he described as extremely limited.

“[Low-interest] federal financing is our preferred financing partner, but we would certainly look to private equity markets as well. It would depend on the development partner that we bring to the table, because the goal would be for the City to come in as an equity partner, a joint venture partner, but it would really be delivered through a private sector partner in terms of the construction. They’ll have something to say about the financing,” said Foster.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/1405...d-0f82cbe06240

[GenWhy?]

Bold for the City to say they can't do it (below market) without a financial miracle, but the City expects private developers to get on with it

[kikin]

"below market" just means "paid for by someone else"

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by kikin

"below market" just means "paid for by someone else"

Any other brilliant pieces of insight you'd like to share?