General Vancouver Development Updates II

[seamusmcduff]

Passive house should have higher up front costs, but for the operator will end up being cheaper to run and maintain, right?

[PBlonde]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

How do you propose we address the homeless crisis?

I cut out your example because it's a complete straw man.

I'm well aware of how tax rates work. We need housing for all of the lower-middle income workers that actually do the jobs we rely on in the city. Moderately below market rentals help address that need.

How is it a straw man? There is no exaggeration or misrepresentation whatsoever. If anything, that was a conservative estimate of the inequity between 2 people that could qualify with only one receiving benefit. A tax credit or similar would be a far more equitable basis to solve that problem.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by PBlonde

How is it a straw man? There is no exaggeration or misrepresentation whatsoever. If anything, that was a conservative estimate of the inequity between 2 people that could qualify with only one receiving benefit. A tax credit or similar would be a far more equitable basis to solve that problem.

It's a straw man because you made up a fictional scenario to argue against.

[PBlonde]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

It's a straw man because you made up a fictional scenario to argue against.

It's not at all fictional, it's the current reality. BC Housing's own website under their FAQ of "When will I get an offer for housing?" states as follows: "The demand for subsidized housing far exceeds the available supply. As a result, it is not possible to predict when a unit may come available. Wait times depend on the number of unit turnovers and the needs of other households applying for housing."

I'm not suggesting there's not a problem, I'm simply saying that BMR units are an inequitable solution to reducing cost of living burdens. There is very limited supply of subsidized rental units, far more than the number of people that would qualify to obtain.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by PBlonde

It's not at all fictional, it's the current reality. BC Housing's own website under their FAQ of "When will I get an offer for housing?" states as follows: "The demand for subsidized housing far exceeds the available supply. As a result, it is not possible to predict when a unit may come available. Wait times depend on the number of unit turnovers and the needs of other households applying for housing."

I'm not suggesting there's not a problem, I'm simply saying that BMR units are an inequitable solution to reducing cost of living burdens. There is very limited supply of subsidized rental units, far more than the number of people that would qualify to obtain.

Your example based on pennies is the margin example not the norm.

Yes, demand far exceeds supply. And your suggestion is to not approve more below market rental, just end the idea?

[PBlonde]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Your example based on pennies is the margin example not the norm.

Yes, demand far exceeds supply. And your suggestion is to not approve more below market rental, just end the idea?

So after doing some further digging, looks like the actual typical cut-off is $80k per year. My math still holds on the discount for a 1 bedroom unit $4,800 saved based on 20% of $2k per month. That's a 6% differential of benefit to income at the absolute top end of the range.

Not once did I say it should be ended, I'm pointing out an inherent and inequitable limitation of the existing solution, that being you cannot match the total amount of people that need the assistance with units available. Requiring BMR as part of new developments is also likely to reduce the amount of new buildings going forward which will mean less supply, and likely more government intervention in the future.

A tax credit for 20% of rents paid in a HCOL area would be more equitable and would have the same effect.

[whatnext]

Gee Terry Hui, that kind of sounds like economic blackmail to get out of paying a tax bill:

B.C. property firms say $91M tax bill will jeopardize construction
VANCOUVER — British Columbia property companies controlled by prominent developer Terry Hui say a tax bill of more than $91 million will jeopardize construction projects if they're made to pay up after a 12-year audit by the Canada Revenue Agency.

Darryl Greer, The Canadian Press
about 2 hours ago

VANCOUVER — British Columbia property companies controlled by prominent developer Terry Hui say a tax bill of more than $91 million will jeopardize construction projects if they're made to pay up after a 12-year audit by the Canada Revenue Agency.

Vancouver-based Adex Securities Ltd., One West Holdings Ltd. and an affiliated numbered B.C. company filed an application in Federal Court earlier this month seeking to halt the minister of national revenue from issuing tax assessments dating from 2007 to 2013....

...The application says one or two construction projects will be halted if the companies lose $91 million of working capital, while the companies allege the CRA acted improperly by trying to maximize the amount recovered near the end of the fiscal year to "improve performance metrics" while under threat of federal job cuts.

https://www.biv.com/news/real-estate...ction-11907266

I find it kind of funny he uses the term "performance metrics" and the federal gov't in the same sentence!

[jollyburger]

Issues Report: Proposed Land Use Change for Former Molson Brewery
Exceptional Industrial Site

The Molson site is the only self-contained site of the five sites/areas identified in the Council
Motion and is not contiguous with any other industrial lands. As such, staff believe this
exceptional site, unique among the five areas, should not await further planning as with other
areas, before seeking land use re-designation in the Metro 2050 Regional Growth Strategy
(“RGS”). This change in the short term will provide a clearer, more predictable understanding of
the future of this site as a comprehensive mixed-use development, rather than a stand-alone
industrial site.

https://council.vancouver.ca/20260224/documents/r6.pdf

[jollyburger]

‘Significant rise’ in development projects seeking approval at Vancouver city hall

Vancouver city staff say a “significant rise” in rezoning applications going to public hearing this year is connected in part to the approval of the development-enabling Broadway, Cambie and Rupert-Renfrew plans.

Other factors for the increase in applications include scheduling constraints around the FIFA World Cup this summer and the civic election in October, making the stretch from January to June a busy one.

Staff predict city council will hear 120 to 130 projects before the election, a substantial increase from 68 for all of 2025, 51 in 2024 and 76 in 2023, according to data provided to BIV from the city’s communications department.

As of Jan. 1, the council agenda calendar on the city’s website shows 40 applications have gone to public hearing, with some of them referred to secondary meetings partly because of the volume of speakers.

https://www.biv.com/news/economy-law...-hall-11916053

[csbvan]

I expect the election is one of the biggest reasons here.

Anyways, there is a pretty extraordinary amount of Public Hearings right now. It seems like 2 a week.

[jollyburger]

The Westbank/Promerita Group/BC Housing project in East Van is at council tonight. Up next.

1030-1070 East Hastings Street, (ii) 1115-1129 East Hastings Street & 360 Glen Drive and (iii) 1168-1182 East Hastings Street

https://csg001-harmony.sliq.net/0031...60225/-1/20903

[jollyburger]

Staff conducted an assessment of thirteen potential sites including the current site.

Each option was assessed on technical feasibility, legal considerations, financial and
planning implications (including current and future visibility from the west and north
where the sightline is largely still intact).

While the expansion of nearby development has resulted in a partial obstruction of the
artwork’s western sightline, the East Van Cross at its current location remains highly
visible from the north, east, and south approaches.

Staff did not identify an alternative site that would improve the visibility and accessibility
of the artwork significantly and have determined that re-siting the East Van Cross is not
recommended at this time.

The estimated cost to re-site the artwork ranges between $300,000 and $500,000,
inclusive of engineering assessments, deinstallation, transportation, site preparation, and
reinstallation, fabricating a new base, concrete forming, maintenance of artwork in
current state, staging of flat decks, and more.

https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/2026-...-rts-17737.pdf

[gaviscon]

Just noticed a crane-mounted drilling rig is on the 1221 East 2nd Avenue site.



rendering link: https://www.bccondosandhomes.com/bui...enue#gallery-3

[jollyburger]

BP is still in review for 865 Terminal

https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public...ctId=242760201

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

BP is still in review for 865 Terminal

https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public...ctId=242760201

Same developer and architect as 1221 E Pender, but proposed 3 years later (and 2 storeys taller) The site still has a sign offering units. It seems to be addressed as 851-865 for permitting.

[jollyburger]

Head of Alliance seems to be part of Stoic Capital which arranged some financing for their False Creek Flats projects but most of those announcements date back to 2023

https://stoiccapital.ca/projects/

[seamusmcduff]

So I know development has slowed down significantly, but have luxury projects completely dried up? I'm trying to think of any projects in the pipeline past the current UC ones (15 15, Denman and Alberni, block, Oakridge etc.) and there doesn't seem to be any past the current wave that are anywhere near starting. It seems like even if new luxury products started prepping for construction asap, it would still be years before we see any of them complete

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

So I know development has slowed down significantly, but have luxury projects completely dried up? I'm trying to think of any projects in the pipeline past the current UC ones (15 15, Denman and Alberni, block, Oakridge etc.) and there doesn't seem to be any past the current wave that are anywhere near starting. It seems like even if new luxury products started prepping for construction asap, it would still be years before we see any of them complete

With resale prices still falling, and new condo sales slowing, it doesn't seem likely any large condo projects will move ahead in the immediate future. Onni are still selling units in 1335 Howe, and they finished construction years ago. Apparently they have knocked $50K off the price.

It depends on your definition of luxury, but presumably Prima could develop Monogram at Burrard and Davie if they were able to get a reasonable number of presales, and were confident of being able to sell the remainder in a reasonable time. They developed a smaller Coal Harbour project close to Stanley Park many years ago without any presales, so they were less risk averse than most developers in those days.

Wall Financial are building 1290 Hornby as a strata tower with no presales, but they did the same with their Richards tower, which they operate as a rental building, with the option of selling it off in future, should they choose to do so.

Pinnacle could develop 601 Beach, but they tried, and failed, to sell sufficient units to move development forward.

Asia Standard have recently revised their rezoning application for their two West End towers to replace market rental units with social housing (therefore reducing the CAC they would have paid). That suggests they could also market the project if they identified a sufficiently solid demand.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by gaviscon

Just noticed a crane-mounted drilling rig is on the 1221 East 2nd Avenue site.

Unfortunately it doesn’t look like this is for construction, they just withdrew their building permit.

*** Owner has requested to withdraw this BP application on February 23, 2026. ***

https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public...ctId=147288263

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

So I know development has slowed down significantly, but have luxury projects completely dried up? I'm trying to think of any projects in the pipeline past the current UC ones (15 15, Denman and Alberni, block, Oakridge etc.) and there doesn't seem to be any past the current wave that are anywhere near starting. It seems like even if new luxury products started prepping for construction asap, it would still be years before we see any of them complete

You say it like it’s a bad thing.