Didn’t put this up yesterday, but here’s my story on the announcement about the big tower development for Burrard on the current Pattison Toyota site.
As I note in my story, although the development is mostly condo, it also has 200,000 square feet of office space because the developers (Pattison, who owns part of the block, and Jon Stovell at Reliance, who owns another part) believe there’s a market for that these days.
That’s something commercial brokers have been noticing, too, with the result that there are many plans afoot for new office buildings in downtown Vancouver. A relief for those who fear that downtown Vancouver is turning into the bedroom community for people working in Burnaby, Richmond, Surrey office parks.
21 responses so far ↓
1 The Fourth Horseman // Oct 28, 2010 at 11:23 am
I am wondering what the differing market conditions are —or how they have changed—for this project since in the not-too-distant past folks like Concord and the Aquilini’s said they couldn’t afford to build commercial space?
2 Roger Kemble // Oct 28, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Dear, dear Frances,
“Downtown starts to boom again . . . ”
What a kind trusting person you are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q&feature=player_embedded#!
This is not a boom.
This is money moving out of currencies, which are rapidly devaluing into printed worthlessness paper.
No, this ii smart money divesting into commodities: real estate being about all that left of that in Vancouver . . .
Good luck and God bless . . .
3 Dan Cooper // Oct 28, 2010 at 12:27 pm
As I wrote over on the G&M site comments, these new buildings suggest to me that recent reports of the Death of Business in Vancouver (due to tax rates, bike lanes or what have you) are somewhat exaggerated.
4 Frances Bula // Oct 28, 2010 at 12:54 pm
@Fourth Horseman and Roger. All I know is that commercial brokers, like Avison Young, say the office vacancy rate is seriously squeezed downtown, major tenants are out looking for space, and people appear to be reaching the point where they will pay $40 a SF, which is encouraging developers like Aquilini (who, yes, put his office project on hold before) and Pattison to think that office space is viable again. More to come on all of this office development, I am being told.
5 blah // Oct 28, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Lets not get ahead of ourselves here…until there is a single-purpose office building physically under construction (not planned or proposed), I would hesitate to call it a boom! The last single purpose office building to complete was phase 2 of Bentall 5 which completed in ’08.
6 Tiktaalik // Oct 28, 2010 at 2:16 pm
For at least a certain segment of the market there is very little (ie. count on two hands) appropriate spaces available.
There was a bidding war over the place where my office is.
7 Ron // Oct 28, 2010 at 4:26 pm
The only significant office space currnetly under construction downtown is at: (1) Jameson House podium; and (2) Hotel Georgia podium (to be occupied mostly by the College of Physicians & Surgeons).
Single purpose towers initiated, on hold or working their way through include: (1) Bentall’s tower at 745 Thurlow (23 storeys, probably the furthest along); (2) Aquilini’s Rogers Centre tower (20-ish storeys?); (3) Oxford Properties recent proposal for a 36 storey office tower on the University Club site (1021 West Hastings) that has been so far rejected by the Urban Design Panel; and now (4) the Reliance/Pattison stubby tower.
There are rumours of other office towers but nothing made public.
8 Tom // Oct 28, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Dan,
Office space that isn’t even approved yet does not equal business occupying said space.
By the time this building gets built and occupied, its 2014.
Nice try, businesses downtown are suffering and trying to spin it any way else is just patently false.
Now the question is, what your motivation is? Or is it just that you don’t get it?
9 spartikus // Oct 28, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Office space that isn’t even approved yet does not equal business occupying said space.
Jimmy Pattison likes to roll the dice just for kicks, I hear.
Nice try, businesses downtown are suffering and trying to spin it any way else is just patently false.
Cursed cyclists.
what your motivation
What is your thought pattern?
10 gmgw // Oct 28, 2010 at 10:04 pm
Question: Given that this development is going to have bicycle lanes on two of its contiguous streets (assuming they survive till 2014), and Burrard will be impractical for the purpose for any number of reasons, where are the architects going to put the entrance to the parking garage/loading docks?
gmgw
11 Roger Kemble // Oct 29, 2010 at 3:02 am
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; Or close the wall up with our . . . fill in the blank . . . dead.
I guess this is where I came in . . . “Downtown starts to boom again . . . designed by renowned Vancouver architect Jim Hancock . . .
Errrrrrr . . . renowned for what Frances?
“In a sign of downtown development roaring back to life, B.C.’s wealthiest businessman announced Tuesday plans for a half-billion-dollar development at the city entrance on Burrard.
Whooo-ah the midway, the Ferris wheel, shooting gallery, popcorn, cotton candy, all back whooo-ah.
So Mr. Vancouver’s wealthiest is riding high: is he about to prod into one of Vancouver’s sacrosancts . . . errrr . . . view corridors?
I await anxiously for that inevitable avalanche from our opinionates . . .
Where is Lewis N? Forever unctuous and supportive: black is white and everyone is right! voony no room for shiny trinkets here, Tessa, where is Tessa? spartikus, the spell-checker, Michael G. sage, measured do I hear predator quietly and haaaa . . . my favourite little planner, oh please no more Botox you are so pretty.
A ha gmgw has waded in, but where’s Glissando? I love those two but know innately we would hate . . . if we met!
Anyway, thinquing inside thebox,
Where is the planning department? All these biggies comin’ on seem so sort of preemptive, so spontaneous, like all over the place, height density all up for grabs . . . STIR stirring the neighbours,
Oh I remember Brent musing on hi-rises around Burrard and some other place around the Bay and view corridors . . . and . . . and . . . and.
Oh I also remember Augustus Larry B sermonizing on hallowed right to views . . . but . . . but, but, but, but what happened . . . “ We few, we happy few, we band of brothers . . .” and happy sisters?
What happened to our phuccin’ view corridor?
12 Tom // Oct 29, 2010 at 9:16 am
@ spartikus,
You were the only one to mention cyclists, and then you have the nerve to question my thought pattern. You’re quite the piece of work.
I’ve worked for Pattison so I know what his motivations can be, and yes he takes on risk every day.
Do you honestly believe one can accumulate that type of net-worth without taking risk and making more than 4% on your money?
Why not leave your union job, take your money out of the bank, mortgage your home – start a business, and then we’ll talk risk and return spartipus?
13 Julia // Oct 29, 2010 at 12:53 pm
this has absolutely nothing to do with the viability of the business that occupies the building – when will people get this simple fact?
The world money markets are a mess. The most stable risk out there is real estate. There are 3-4 markets in the world where investments might be safe – Vancouver, is one of them. If you can convince an investor that the performa on the building will give them 4-5% return, they are happy. When the markets strengthen elsewhere or interest rates improve, watch out… our hot commercial real estate market is going to absolutely die. The people building these projects will flip them and be long gone before the economic analysis proves them right or wrong.
There tenants of these buildings are struggling with high rents and high taxes – that issue still exists and will continue to hamper the economic viability of our city. Viability means jobs.
14 Roger Kemble // Oct 29, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Well, Julia what a refreshing and gutsy post . . .
I agree with you most heartily . . .
. . . and yet with sadness . . .
For your prognosis of the future is right on!
15 Joe Just Joe // Oct 29, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Julia, I agree with most of your post but not the conclusion.
If a property is making 4-5% annual return with prices peaked like they are now, should markets elsewhere begin to explode and offer much higher returns, there would of course be some selling in order to transfer money to the other markets. But it wouldn’t be enough to cause a significant crash. Here’s why, what is giving a 4-5% return at existing prices would turn into a 6-9% or higher return very quickly for the new owners who bought at those new lower prices. As long as the return is safe and positive it will attract money from somewhere and keep the investment for having any serious capital deprecition.
Now if rents/lease rates were to drop then it’s a different story.
16 Roger Kemble // Oct 29, 2010 at 2:26 pm
JJJ . . . “But it wouldn’t be enough to cause a significant crash.” . . . you are in no position to make such a feel-good prediction!
As Julia made quite clear and truthful for anyone who is awake “The world money markets are a mess.” That is not a state secret!
What is it about her mature insights you do not want to get JJJ?
17 Joe Just Joe // Oct 29, 2010 at 2:51 pm
It’s not a feel good prediction, it’s a prophecy.
I trust Vancouver real estate more then I do suitcases full of printed currency or a brick of gold.
18 Roger Kemble // Oct 29, 2010 at 2:59 pm
JJJ . . of course that is what I am saying . . . for the time being . . .
19 Julia // Oct 30, 2010 at 1:01 pm
I can guarantee you that retail is still trying to claw their way back from 2008. Leases that were signed in 2007-2008 are simply too rich for the current reality and we have businesses slowly but surely exhausting their rainy day money to stay afloat. Combine unrealistic lease rates based on cap rates rather than ped counts and revenue, new drinking laws, HST, and out of control city budgets forcing property tax increases and you are going to push these people over the cliff. Yes, there is always a pie in the sky optimist that will move into a retail space thinking they can make it when nobody else can… but that does not mean they survive the term of their lease and provide people meaningful and stable employment. Don’t look at vacancy – look at turnover.
It’s about jobs.
20 Glissando Remmy // Nov 1, 2010 at 1:51 am
The Thought of The Midnight
“While Jimmy Pattison is penning down his Memoirs entitled ‘The Billionaire’s solitude on the 48th’, Bob Rennie is trying his hand on his first jingle for the strategic fire sale of the Olympic Village.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04QoA44c23A
And I think he’s got it. I think he’s got it. By Gregor, he’s got it!
“The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain.”
…I just received word that I made Santa’s Naughty List. Again!
Anyway. A new ‘wine and dine’ real estate proposal in the city of Vancouver. This is what I’ve got:
Inner Sanctum
Toyota Shmoyota
‘
Sustainable Swing
Affordable Microlofts
Lovable Chihuahuas
Location Lactation
Burrard Bridge
Unbelievable $torie$
Little People
Less Privacy
Sugar Daddies
Home Ownership
Immediate Occupancy
Trendy Hood
Fornicating Views
Olympic Sting
Last Unicorn
Kindergarten Delight
Singles Welcomed
!
I think, that about covers it.
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
21 Higgins // Nov 2, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Roger,
your question was answered. Glissando’s back from his hiatus. N0w, did you get his message? Think acrostic. Glissy, what a son of a gun you are!
Leave a Comment