Broadway Corridor Updates

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by giallo

I can't even begin to describe the contempt I have for these people. We're in the midst of the worst housing crisis in the city's history, and they're still trying to stop anything from being built. It's rare to see such a disconnect, but it's not that at all, it's just pure selfishness at this point.

I wrote in, and supported both. I suggest others do that same.

As did I.

The fact that so many are so selfish makes my head hurt, but supporting these projects does help. The City is not looking for an excuse to deny rental housing so any support they can get to support it is actually useful!

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

https://x.com/BCTaxpayer101/status/1779680305273577724

Project page
https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/1045-w-14-ave

121-129 W 11th Ave isn't the only proposal facing organized opposition, as these notices have been posted along Oak St too.

Yes, 22 storeys right next to downtown Vancouver is what I do envision for this city. Have these people ever been to the West End? What kind of amnesia do these people get? The West End is extremely liveable, walkable, and pleasant, and that's BECAUSE of higher towers, not despite it.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

Yes, 22 storeys right next to downtown Vancouver is what I do envision for this city. Have these people ever been to the West End? What kind of amnesia do these people get? The West End is extremely liveable, walkable, and pleasant, and that's BECAUSE of higher towers, not despite it.

The west end was down zoned to stop more tower development decades ago.



I suspect this is anti development to protect rent controlled apartments by the individuals in those same appartments, which I understand even if I oppose the end result which is freezing Vancouver in time and increasingly high rents for units where someone has moved out/new units.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I suspect this is anti development to protect rent controlled apartments by the individuals in those same appartments...

This understandable fear or desire has been a major item of policy that has not been clearly communicated yet - as you don't find out right away the details from the City as a tenant.

Folks will be able to move back in at the same rent they have now, all still rent controlled and rent going up by the allowable max increase from move-out to move-in.

Alternatively, you could move out and have the developer pay the delta between your old and new rent, live there in a rent controlled apartment for however long it takes for the developer to go from Rezoning to Occupancy, and then say either yes or no to a new apartment at the same rent int he new building.

If you stay in the place you relocated to and the developer "topped up" you rent, that will likely have been rent controlled for 4 years before the new building goes up.

[jollyburger]

Someone wants $39 million for a 0.26 acre site at Broadway/Alberta

https://commercial.fraserelliott.com...st-bc-v5y-1p8/

I wonder how much the alley on those blocks will constrain development.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Someone wants $39 million for a 0.26 acre site at Broadway/Alberta

https://commercial.fraserelliott.com...st-bc-v5y-1p8/

I wonder how much the alley on those blocks will constrain development.

That's somewhere around $350/sqft buildable with some quick math, crazy asking price.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Doubt the alley will be a problem - architects can make anything work with enough FSR.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by madog222

That's somewhere around $350/sqft buildable with some quick math, crazy asking price.

If the selling price of the condo (presumably) is close to 2000/sq foot, is the selling price all that high?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

If the selling price of the condo (presumably) is close to 2000/sq foot, is the selling price all that high?

So far 50 towers are rental. Only one has proposed condos. The Independent sells at $1,260 psf. If someone tried to squeeze a condo onto this shallow lot (which could be done), there's nothing to suggest they could get close to $2,000 psf for the condos. So yes, the asking price seems high, especially as there are so many other better priced locations available to purchase.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by logan5

If the selling price of the condo (presumably) is close to 2000/sq foot, is the selling price all that high?

I’m not in the industry and don’t have the interest to really dig into it but it seems by looking at a few recent sales market value is around $150.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by madog222

That's somewhere around $350/sqft buildable with some quick math, crazy asking price.

Putting a number on the table might be whats needed to shake out adjacent land owners for an assembly. Getting people to explore selling is a much harder hill to climb than getting all the properties to a develop-able price.



If this or a potential assembly were a market rental, what would development charges/CACs/whatever be? This could be a case of the land owner trying to capture those discounts meant to spur rental development.

[GenWhy?]

Purchasing the lane and getting it to dog-leg is the real hill to climb.

[jollyburger]

Deecorp owns the opposite corner at Yukon/West 8th.

https://deecorp.ca/properties/388-west-8th/

And 350 West 8th

https://deecorp.ca/properties/350-w-8th/

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Changing City

So far 50 towers are rental. Only one has proposed condos. The Independent sells at $1,260 psf. If someone tried to squeeze a condo onto this shallow lot (which could be done), there's nothing to suggest they could get close to $2,000 psf for the condos. So yes, the asking price seems high, especially as there are so many other better priced locations available to purchase.

Even if you get 1500 per sq foot purchase price, which is realistic, 350 per buildable square foot seems reasonable. If you look at listings for new condos in the dt area, that’s the prices you are looking at. Oakridge was around 2000 per wasn’t it?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

Even if you get 1500 per sq foot purchase price, which is realistic, 350 per buildable square foot seems reasonable. If you look at listings for new condos in the dt area, that’s the prices you are looking at. Oakridge was around 2000 per wasn’t it?

We'll see what it sells for (if it does). This location isn't comparable to Downtown or Oakridge. Maybe it could be one day, but there are court ordered development sites selling in the West End for less than their developer paid, because they couldn't sell condos for $1,500 psf. Duet is the only new condo building currently under construction on West Broadway, and they're hoping to get $1,400 psf.

This is a severely constrained site, because it's only 50 feet deep. If anyone tried to develop it, providing underground parking will either be very expensive, with an elevator, or only worth providing the minimum required for the commercial space. That might work for a rental building, but so far no developer has built condos with no parking.

The site is assessed at $11.2m. It's only 11,000 sq ft (if it's really 0.26 acres, as the ad says), and the maximum for condos the Plan allows is 5.5 FSR, and that has to include the required main floor commercial. The Clydemont Centre at 301 W Broadway is only 7,500 sq ft (150 X 50), so unless the sale includes 333 W Broadway as well, it's even smaller than the sales pitch says. Even if it is 11,000 sq ft, they're trying to get nearly $700 psf buildable, and if it's only 7,500 sq ft then they're hoping for $1,000 per buildable square foot.

So, having looked at it more closely, it's way overpriced.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Changing City

This is a severely constrained site, because it's only 50 feet deep. If anyone tried to develop it, providing underground parking will either be very expensive, with an elevator, or only worth providing the minimum required for the commercial space. .

On its own it's DOA. Even with purchasing the lane (if you can), very costly.

[jollyburger]

Some other listing for the property included the tiny lot across the lane (2439 Alberta)

https://www.loopnet.ca/viewer/pdf?fi...20Broadway.pdf

Broadway Plan said this about the laneways in these blocks

Consider supporting opportunities for lot consolidation across the lane for new development.

https://guidelines.vancouver.ca/poli...n-broadway.pdf

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Some other listing for the property included the tiny lot across the lane (2439 Alberta)

https://www.loopnet.ca/viewer/pdf?fi...20Broadway.pdf

I forgot to mention the icky issue of the different zones.

EDIT: nvm now I can't remember what the City + Metro told us about industrial in this area. We were getting mixed answer on the lane and consolidation

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Some other listing for the property included the tiny lot across the lane (2439 Alberta)

https://www.loopnet.ca/viewer/pdf?fi...20Broadway.pdf

Broadway Plan said this about the laneways in these blocks



https://guidelines.vancouver.ca/poli...n-broadway.pdf

And exactly where and how they would consider re-jigging the lane we're still not sure.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Some other listing for the property included the tiny lot across the lane (2439 Alberta)

https://www.loopnet.ca/viewer/pdf?fi...20Broadway.pdf

Broadway Plan said this about the laneways in these blocks
https://guidelines.vancouver.ca/poli...n-broadway.pdf

That makes sense of the 0.26 acres. Even if it was consolidated with the lane, they'd have to pay for the the lane, which would add cost (and pay for service relocation, maybe?). Then they've got a 13,200 sq ft development site for 5.5 FSR total with a commercial main floor. (They could do more for a rental building with 20% below market).

And they also forgot to mention it's a Heritage B building (because of the mural) which would add costs.