[New Westminster] Anvil Centre | 11 Floors | Completed

[officedweller]

and the City is looking to sell the office tower part in 2014:

http://www.royalcityrecord.com/new-w...-2014-1.795848

[s211]

Originally Posted by officedweller

and the City is looking to sell the office tower part in 2014:

http://www.royalcityrecord.com/new-w...-2014-1.795848

Hopefully they will have better success than when they unsuccessfully tried some time ago.

[officedweller]

I think that was for a P3 partner to build it, right?
I guess if the City does all the leg work and lines up a few tenants, then that makes it more appealling for a purchaser.

[queetz@home]

Regardless of whether the building has tenants, or if its P3, etc, one thing I am curious about is how this sale would work.

The Merchant Square is on top of the Anvil Centre. I'm assuming Anvile Centre, owned by the city, is on top of city owned land.

So if I were a potential buyer of Merchant Square, what exactly would I be buying?

Is it sort of like a "strata titled" office space of sorts?

Or is it a leasehold where the city still owns the land and leased for 99 years or something like that?

What if the city decides to redevelop Anvil Centre...would the buyer still be able to "keep" the building?

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

Regardless of whether the building has tenants, or if its P3, etc, one thing I am curious about is how this sale would work.

The Merchant Square is on top of the Anvil Centre. I'm assuming Anvile Centre, owned by the city, is on top of city owned land.

So if I were a potential buyer of Merchant Square, what exactly would I be buying?

Is it sort of like a "strata titled" office space of sorts?

Or is it a leasehold where the city still owns the land and leased for 99 years or something like that?

What if the city decides to redevelop Anvil Centre...would the buyer still be able to "keep" the building?

It could work a number of ways.

The most likely would be the purchase of an airspace parcel. Essentially the building would be legally subdivided volumetrically, much the way a piece of land is subdivided. This difference would be that it is defined in 3d rather than 2d.


It is very common for mixed use buildings.

[itinerant]

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

It could work a number of ways.

The most likely would be the purchase of an airspace parcel. Essentially the building would be legally subdivided volumetrically, much the way a piece of land is subdivided. This difference would be that it is defined in 3d rather than 2d.


It is very common for mixed use buildings.

How would this work for maintenance where one parcel is doing work that affects others adjacent to it? Or for changes or maintenance to the structure. Or for shared ameneties like parking? What about access through adjacent parcels to reach yours?

Is there a notion of common property, right of way, etc which must be common to all adjacent parcel owners?

How is it taxed?

Can you give an example where a mixed use building is divided in this way?

[queetz@home]

So lets say they are going by that route (airspace parcel), how about the land beneath it?

Is the city then restricted from making decisions on the land?

If not, would the potential owner be at the mercy of the city later down the road?

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

So lets say they are going by that route (airspace parcel), how about the land beneath it?

Is the city then restricted from making decisions on the land?

If not, would the potential owner be at the mercy of the city later down the road?

The Woodward's project is one example.

The rights and duties of the parties are set out through a number of legal agreements, covenants, easements and rights-of-way. Most of these agreements are registered on the title of the property and can't be removed (discharged) with out the consent of all of the signatories.

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by itinerant

How would this work for maintenance where one parcel is doing work that affects others adjacent to it? Or for changes or maintenance to the structure. Or for shared ameneties like parking? What about access through adjacent parcels to reach yours?

Is there a notion of common property, right of way, etc which must be common to all adjacent parcel owners?

How is it taxed?

Can you give an example where a mixed use building is divided in this way?

It is taxed as any property is taxed. It is seriously no different, legally, than a parcel of land. It has a legal title registered at the land titles office. BC Assessment assigns a value, and they get a tax bill in the mail.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

The Woodward's project is one example.

The rights and duties of the parties are set out through a number of legal agreements, covenants, easements and rights-of-way. Most of these agreements are registered on the title of the property and can't be removed (discharged) with out the consent of all of the signatories.

Gotcha. So to summarize as an example in layman's terms...

a) If the owner of Merchant Square wants to tear down and rebuild a different building, he cannot do so without consent of the city.

b) If the city wants to redevelop the entire Anvil Centre into something else, it cannot do so without the consent of the owner of Merchant Square

c) In order for any of the above to happen, both the city and owner of Merchant Square has to agree to move forward with any plans proposed that could affect each other's property, otherwise nothing will change.

Make sense?

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

Gotcha. So to summarize as an example in layman's terms...

a) If the owner of Merchant Square wants to tear down and rebuild a different building, he cannot do so without consent of the city.

b) If the city wants to redevelop the entire Anvil Centre into something else, it cannot do so without the consent of the owner of Merchant Square

c) In order for any of the above to happen, both the city and owner of Merchant Square has to agree to move forward with any plans proposed that could affect each other's property, otherwise nothing will change.

Make sense?

Yes. They will be in for the long hall.

I mean they may be able to make some changes to their properties, but the portions of each parcel that contribute to the function of the building as a whole would have to be maintained in perpetuity.

[queetz@home]

Looks like Merchant Square has been sold.

New West mayor to announce “one of the most exciting things the city has done”

The City of New Westminster is set to announce the long-awaited sale of Merchant Square.

Sources say the official announcement will be made during Mayor Wayne Wright’s annual address on Monday night. While sources say the deal is done, Wright wouldn’t provide any details about his speech.

[s211]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

Looks like Merchant Square has been sold.

New West mayor to announce “one of the most exciting things the city has done”

Interesting to find out who, considering that the City could not find a buyer a year or so ago.

[officedweller]

Here's the press release:

http://www.newwestcity.ca/2014/03/03/march-3rd-2013.php

The City of New Westminster has sold “Merchant Square”, the office tower currently under construction as part of the Anvil Centre project in the historic downtown district, to 777 Columbia, a company jointly owned by Kingswood Capital and Duke Holdings. Kingswood Capital is majority-owned by noted Vancouver businessman and philanthropist, Joe Segal.
...

The purchase price for the office tower “shell” is $36.5 million. As part of the agreement, the purchaser has assumed responsibility for tenant improvements and leasing of the nine-storey, 137,000 square foot, Class A, targeted LEED Gold office space. The city will therefore not require $9.5 million that had previously been budgeted for office tower fit out. The City retains ownership of Anvil Centre, Metro Vancouver’s newest mid-sized conference facility, fee-simple land, ground level retail space and three level underground parkade.

[SFUVancouver]

`Sounds like the City did okay. They sold a spec office building without any tenants, kept the parking as a revenue generator to retire the civic centre debt, and made a few million profit on an unimproved office shell. Put this one in the win column.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

`Sounds like the City did okay. They sold a spec office building without any tenants, kept the parking as a revenue generator to retire the civic centre debt, and made a few million profit on an unimproved office shell. Put this one in the win column.

I, being the main "cheerleader" (and mezzanine who also stated it was a "reasonable gamble" so to speak) called it way back in page 4. This despite the fact that others criticized this point of view, including those in the industry. Although I don't have any financial gain in this transaction nor am I a New Westminster municipal taxpayer, I feel a little vindicated by the success of this project.

All the more proof that cities should be investing in architecturally stunning office tower projects if they are able too, that "if you build it, they will come", is not just a line from the movie, Field of Dreams, but a viable business strategy in commercial real estate...

[a very long weekend]

glad it worked out. hopefully the parking structures' demolition moves forward next and new westminster gets columbia and that waterfront area to something great.

[logan5]

Downtown New West actually feels like a downtown. I'd think it would be easy for a Downtown New West office tower to steal tenants away from lesser buildings and locations. I'd like to see a few more.

[BodomReaper]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

All the more proof that cities should be investing in architecturally stunning office tower projects if they are able too, that "if you build it, they will come", is not just a line from the movie, Field of Dreams, but a viable business strategy in commercial real estate...

Frankly I would be terrified if other municipalities looked at this case and concluded from it that it's now ok to gamble public funds in real estate speculation. It's a practice injurious both for taxpayers' who are placed on the hook for a risk that private firms concluded was too big to take, and for those private firms that have to compete with government in a sector that the latter has no justification to intrude into.

[Millennium2002]

There are certainly real risks to governments using the mantra of "build it and they will come", as shown by both the Olympic Village, Lower Lonsdale and Stockton, CA debacles.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-18605326

Having said that... I think the private investors got it wrong early on in this case and chickened out too early for fear their short-term profit would suffer, and now the city is cashing in on the benefit of the doubt in the long run. And this isn't the only local success story: although it's mostly under the radar, Surrey isn't doing too bad at present at drawing in investors + residents and redeveloping its downtown via the SCDC.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that most city governments in this region are smart enough to know by now that one must still do their due-diligence and engage in a benefit-cost-risk analysis before moving ahead with such grandiose projects. And so far, most of them have played it safe while still going where others thought was impossible.