Oakridge Park | 13 Towers | 154m | 52fl | 5M sqft | U/C

[vanman]

It felt like it took ages to see any progress at all now that area is construction mayhem.

[officedweller]

Looks like the rooftop park is now half open plaza.
From Building 7, someone can't add. Adding 4 floors to 17 yields 23 (?).

Major Revision to Oakridge Centre Development Includes Increased Rental & Office Density, Heights

...
The new proposal seeks to increase building heights for the remaining phases above those approved in 2018, with up to 9 additional storeys per building. The proposed changes also include changing building form such as tower floor plate size; converting some condo density to rental; and adding new office space.

The majority of the site that is affected by the proposed rezoning is outside of the scope of the first phase of construction, which is projected to take four years to complete.

Overall details include:

• 775 new housing units, including 319 additional market rental units and 94 moderate income rental units;
• 377,260 sq. ft. of new office space;
• Increase in overall density from 3.71 to 4.10 FSR;
• Increase maximum heights for Buildings 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and the northeast office building;
• No changes to buildings 1, 3, 4 & 8 (First two approved phases).

One of the more significant changes is to Building 5, previously a 43-storey condo building, which will now be converted entirely to market rental housing with 52-storeys and 587 units. The tower will be 477 ft. in height making it the tallest all rental tower in Vancouver.

...

http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2020/1...nsity-heights/

[Changing City]

The overall changes proposed at Oakridge are summarized on the City's response webpage. The height and design changes are significant; here are the numbers associated with the changes.

There would be 362 more condos, but the overall average unit size must have shrunk, as there's actually less space in the condo buildings overall. There are 319 more market rentals proposed, and 94 Affordable rental in addition.

There's a reduction of around 18,000 sq ft of retail, but a huge increase in office - over 316,000 additional square feet added as podium space to reach around 800,000 sq. ft. of office proposed overall.

[whatnext]

I'm reading this as "we couldn't find enough offshore buyers for our overpriced units so we've redesigned and shrunk them for the local plebes".

Am I wrong?

[csbvan]

I get the increase in market rental units, everyone is doing it. But shrinking the unit sizes? In this condo market? Strange.

[GenWhy?]

You usually sell based on square foot and rent based on unit size.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Looks like the rooftop park is now half open plaza.
From Building 7, someone can't add. Adding 4 floors to 17 yields 23 (?).

There's two new floors of offices in the shared podium with building 6.

Building 6 - 2 offices storeys increase of 5.1m

Building 7 is 143.90m to proposed 162.30m

If you look at the new drawings:

https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applic...e-drawings.pdf

And compare it to the old diagram with the rezoning overlay:

https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applic...comparison.pdf

[officedweller]

I was referring to the Building 7 description in this chart:

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I was referring to the Building 7 description in this chart:

But the two missing floors are just those two shared office floors between 6 & 7

[LeftCoaster]

I guess something had to break.

Despite an initially strong launch there does not seem to be a ton of interest for $2,500+ condos not in the downtown core.

I think the big takeaway here, aside from the bigger heights, increased density etc... is what this will do to the timeline. With Quadreal looking to take advantage of the Covid slowdown in retail traffic by shutting down the mall they could no longer afford to wait for a drawn out risky condo sales process for high end large units. This new plan greatly reduces the size and avg cost of each unit, as well as allowing them to launch towers , 9 and 10 immediately. It appears as though are now only 2 phases in total, which is a vast departure from their previous construction plans AFAIK.

As well they should now be able to ease the parking requirements, or at the least not have to worry about it hindering sales of market units.

What is also interesting is that Tower 5 is now the tallest in the complex at 154m, making it taller than the highest end condo towers. I wonder if it is secured rental or if Quadreal can turn around and sell it in 20 odd years when the high end market is back.

[Metro-One]

Isn’t tower 5 Shoen as 477ft? Making it 145.4m?

Which would still make it the tallest.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

What is also interesting is that Tower 5 is now the tallest in the complex at 154m, making it taller than the highest end condo towers. I wonder if it is secured rental or if Quadreal can turn around and sell it in 20 odd years when the high end market is back.

From the submitted docs:

The rezoning application proposes to locate virtually all of the
Market Rental homes in the project in Phase 2 in Building 5. If we
have learned anything since the original rezoning in 2014, it’s that a
project of this magnitude, constructed over such an extended period
of time, requires a certain amount of flexibility to succeed.
Depending on prevailing market conditions and the applicant’s
determination regarding how best to phase the construction and
delivery of Phase 2 of this project, it may be preferable to deliver the
project’s Market Rental homes in two smaller buildings – Buildings
8 and 11 – rather than one large building. This flexibility will help
ensure that the project’s delivery can be phased and completed in
the most efficient way possible, which also ensures timely delivery of
the balance of the Park and social housing in Phase 2.
Whether the Market Rental homes remain in Building 5, or in
Buildings 8 and 11, the project will deliver the same number of
Market Rental homes, in the same amount of gross area and to
the same level of quality. This optionality can be embedded in the
Housing Agreement(s).

https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applic...appendices.pdf

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

But the two missing floors are just those two shared office floors between 6 & 7

But the wording still reads oddly.
They're counting those 2 office floors as part of Tower 7 to take it to 23 storeys, but not mentioning the office floors in the description for Tower 7 changes.
The wording just says "Add 4 storeys of residential increasing total from 17 to 23 storeys".
It should read "Add 4 storeys of residential and 2 storeys of office increasing total from 17 to 23 storeys".

**********

Have units in Tower 6 been sold yet?
If so, increasing the height of Tower 5 would definitely impact north-facing views.

[bb1510]

they've actually had quite a bit of success moving high volumes of sales lately especially with people buying large quantities of smaller units in one go (multiple floors at once)

multiple contracts in the high 7 figure, low 8 figure prices for individual unit contracts too

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Looks like the rooftop park is now half open plaza.
From Building 7, someone can't add. Adding 4 floors to 17 yields 23 (?).


http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2020/1...nsity-heights/

Talk about a classic bait and switch.

They must be pretty confident the city will just roll over and give them what they want.

[phesto]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I wonder if it is secured rental or if Quadreal can turn around and sell it in 20 odd years when the high end market is back.

It's listed as secured rental, which is greater of 60 years or life of building.

I will be shocked if they actually keep Building 5 all rental, rather than moving it to the (presumably) less valuable space in the other two buildings. Even in a softer market, the value premium of condo above rental would be significant for the highest floors in that tower. They're smart to have the flexibility in there.

Either way, this would be a huge win for Westbank/Quadreal - the policy they're using to justify this application is an obscure policy called "Issues Report on Intensification of Large Sites to include Moderate Income Rental Housing" that was developed in conjunction with the revisions proposed for OTC and Pearson Dogwood sites (increasing rental on both those sites). Westbank is now squeezing in 400,000 SF of new office space (close to $100M in value lift) with minimal payment to the City (94 moderate income rental units).

Given that the City is willing to grant this while the project is already under construction, I wouldn't rule out further revisions in the next 2 or 3 years as the market dictates. At this point, it's hard to imagine that the City has a firm grasp on whether or not it's getting an appropriate public benefit relative to the value of the site.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Isn’t tower 5 Shoen as 477ft? Making it 145.4m?

Which would still make it the tallest.

There are elevations in the application package, tower 5 is show as 154m.

[LeftCoaster]

Thanks for the info Jollyburger and Phesto, lots of info dumped yesterday and I definitely missed those points.

My guess then is the secured market gets shifted into the towers at the back and the taller tower goes condo. Likely reason the the taller buildingis shown now as rental is because it's harder to fight height of rental vs condo, so get the height approved as rental then shift the condos into the taller building to sell the views.

Originally Posted by whatnext

Talk about a classic bait and switch.

They must be pretty confident the city will just roll over and give them what they want.

Honestly this pro forma is most definitely a bust, so the City either takes the lesser park or gets half a project. QuadReal/Westbank are most definitely not bluffing that the project as designed is not feasible.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Talk about a classic bait and switch.

They must be pretty confident the city will just roll over and give them what they want.

Grass or stone, it's still a large public space, yes?

[rofina]

Originally Posted by phesto

It's listed as secured rental, which is greater of 60 years or life of building.

I will be shocked if they actually keep Building 5 all rental, rather than moving it to the (presumably) less valuable space in the other two buildings. Even in a softer market, the value premium of condo above rental would be significant for the highest floors in that tower. They're smart to have the flexibility in there.

Either way, this would be a huge win for Westbank/Quadreal - the policy they're using to justify this application is an obscure policy called "Issues Report on Intensification of Large Sites to include Moderate Income Rental Housing" that was developed in conjunction with the revisions proposed for OTC and Pearson Dogwood sites (increasing rental on both those sites). Westbank is now squeezing in 400,000 SF of new office space (close to $100M in value lift) with minimal payment to the City (94 moderate income rental units).

Given that the City is willing to grant this while the project is already under construction, I wouldn't rule out further revisions in the next 2 or 3 years as the market dictates. At this point, it's hard to imagine that the City has a firm grasp on whether or not it's getting an appropriate public benefit relative to the value of the site.

Almost as if the bureaucracy is gotten so insanely complicated that few people actually know what's happening or being agreed to.

Who would of ever imagined that to be a reality in Vancouver...