[Surrey] GEC Education Centre | 165m | 49 fl | Proposed

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[jnijeremy]

Come across an image featuring this project. Seems they are looking for investors.

[Metro-One]

Thanks for posting.

It doesn't need a title, just there if you want one.

[osirisboy]

I kinda laugh when I see "education mega centre". Sounds like something from sim city

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Flynn86]

Any word yet on when they may break ground?

[Shift]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Would be nice if they worked on making affordable housing for locals or local students a bigger part of this project, a massive tower with a significant focus on wealthy international students seems like the epitome of what is wrong with Metro Vancouvers housing market.

Agreed - the tower should be for ALL students - local first and foremost. Not focused solely on international.

[Shift]

A breakdown of the tower's proposed uses by floor:

Ground level:
Lobby for colleges, a concierge desk for the serviced apartments and hotel and two commercial retail units, including a proposed eating establishment oriented towards a proposed plaza and City Parkway.

Floors 2-7:
College classrooms, offices, common areas, outdoor amenity space, an eating area/lounge.

Floors 8-20:
Hotel for short-stay accommodations. The hotel will primarily serve as residences for international students attending short-term school programs, with semesters of no greater than 20 weeks (140 days). ƒThe hotel component will also provide rooms for traditional hotel guests staying for less than 7 days.

Floors 21-54:
Serviced apartments intended for younger students who are attending education programs of a longer duration. The majority of the student residents will be international students, with a smaller component of local students:

Floor 55:
Amenity

I like the tower but the intended use is a disgrace really - given the housing crisis we're in.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Nites]

Originally Posted by Shift

A breakdown of the tower's proposed uses by floor:

Floors 21-54:
Serviced apartments intended for younger students who are attending education programs of a longer duration. The majority of the student residents will be international students, with a smaller component of local students:

Floor 55:
Amenity

I like the tower but the intended use is a disgrace really - given the housing crisis we're in.

Most apartments that are located around UBC and UniverCity are packed with international students anyway. So at least they are telling the truth.

[Blease]

Originally Posted by Shift

Agreed - the tower should be for ALL students - local first and foremost. Not focused solely on international.

I disagree with your assessment, foreign students bring energy and money into communities, they also nudge restaurant and retail scenes a notch higher and dare I say, add a touch of glamour to neighbourhoods.

[EhJay]

Originally Posted by Blease

I disagree with your assessment, foreign students bring energy and money into communities, they also nudge restaurant and retail scenes a notch higher and dare I say, add a touch of glamour to neighbourhoods.

So local students shouldn't have an opportunity to live on campus?

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Shift]

I am interested to know how "primarily international students" is being sought/achieved.

Is this something that is going to be regulated? Is there an intended mix (70% international/30% local)? Will locals be turned away once that allocation is filled, while the bulk of the tower is preserved for international students?

If the latter, sounds like discrimination to me. Local student's don't need affordable housing too? I'm familiar with a few student dorm/short-term hotel towers in downtown Toronto - they are open to all students. A tower of this size should be too.

55-Storeys of discrimination. Cool. Nice landmark tallest tower for Surrey.

[Vin]

Do all the student residents go to GEC? If that is the case, I think it is natural for most of the student population to be international students. GEC is a private school and most locals would not pay that much to get in. Furthermore, local students would just live at home if they can help it. So I don't know why there is such a big fuss. Even at University dormitories, there are almost no local student residents: they are either international or out-of-province students.

[officedweller]

Doesn't UBC given priority to out-of-town students for on-campus student housing?
This is on-site campus housing - so similar priority system.

[Cypherus]

Originally Posted by Blease

I disagree with your assessment, foreign students bring energy and money into communities, they also nudge restaurant and retail scenes a notch higher and dare I say, add a touch of glamour to neighbourhoods.

I agree international students on Student Visas bring money into the communities, including BMW and Mercedes dealerships. After awhile they become permanent residents and then a conduit for receiving money overseas as nominees (agents) to invest in real estate on a non-resident's behalf (usually family members). As the property is in their name, they generally avoid paying foreign buyers tax and even capital gains taxes as they pretend it's the principle residence even though the profit from the sale is repatriated back overseas to the non-resident family member who actually bank rolled the purchase. Sometimes it is reinvested in further real estate for further profit. There comes a point where loopholes have to be closed and from what I hear, CRA is taxing the crap out of these people and already made $377.7 million in unpaid tax (Ontario) and $140.0 million (BC) since the last 2 years.
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/...s-non-compliance-real-estate-sector.html

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Doesn't UBC given priority to out-of-town students for on-campus student housing?
This is on-site campus housing - so similar priority system.

Yes pretty much all Universities and Colleges do. When I went to BCIT you couldn't get into residence if you were local, we were expected to rent an apartment off campus or something. It was for international students mainly.

Not sure if it is an official policy but it is what happened. Same with everything else.

Honestly I don't see the big deal. For some reason "International" anything is such a bad word these days when the fact is most "International" students/investors/you name it pay a fair chunk of money to the government in taxes and tuition so that us locals can enjoy social programs and lower tuition at University.

An International student pays 3 times the amount of a local in tuition alone.

As for this being a "landmark" tower not addressing "regional needs" I challenge anyone to find a "landmark" tower in any city that does so. Living Shangri-la address housing affordability crisis? Trump Twist? Go down the list. Find a single "landmark" tower just in this region along that does.

Hell even in Burnaby with the landmark buildings around Brentwood you'd be hard pressed to afford a tiny apartment in those towers on less than 6 figure income.

There are other projects happening in Surrey and Coquitlam and a few other cities directly addressing affordability, go do a bit of searching. Not every tower should or needs to and quite frankly "affordable housing" provisions in modern towers in Vancouver is a pile of bull shit and simply lip service to convince people that only read Twitter that the City of Vancouver is doing something. Which they aren't, news flash.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Cypherus

I agree international students on Student Visas bring money into the communities, including BMW and Mercedes dealerships. After awhile they become permanent residents and then a conduit for receiving money overseas as nominees (agents) to invest in real estate on a non-resident's behalf (usually family members). As the property is in their name, they generally avoid paying foreign buyers tax and even capital gains taxes as they pretend it's the principle residence even though the profit from the sale is repatriated back overseas to the non-resident family member who actually bank rolled the purchase. Sometimes it is reinvested in further real estate for further profit. There comes a point where loopholes have to be closed and from what I hear, CRA is taxing the crap out of these people and already made $377.7 million in unpaid tax (Ontario) and $140.0 million (BC) since the last 2 years.
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/...s-non-compliance-real-estate-sector.html

Which is fine but frankly that's not a City's problem. That's the Federal and Provincial government's problem. We need to keep things in perspective. The city provides essential services to residents that live here and they do so through basically one revenue stream, property taxation.

Therefor, they are in the business of building new properties and increasing property values so that they can maintain a tax base that allows them to provide the essential services we take for granted such as Police, Fire, water, sewer, garbage, roads, etc.

Last I checked there was very little a city can actually do legally with respect to foreign ownership and people lying on their tax returns. Government doesn't mean equal access. Even within the CRA itself, one department can't just go into the work of another department. So the City has no ability to do anything about tax fraud or evasion.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]