Frances Bula header image 2

More details, public and private, from the Olympic village scrums

January 10th, 2009 · 55 Comments

If everyone could just PLEASE REMAIN CALM.

As unpopular as this might be to say right now, I’d just like to warn everyone that there’s nothing more dangerous or potentially uninformative as a media pack in full pursuit of a crisis. Everyone scrambles to find a detail that’s worse than what the last guy/gal just reported. It would be really helpful if everyone could sit back and take a deep breath before running off screaming into the night.

Good. Now, having said that, we all got so much information this afternoon that it was hard to pack everything into the space that we had, whether that was two minutes, 600 words, five minutes, or a full page.

So, on top of the Globe story I wrote and Gary Mason’s column, here are some additional random facts from the afternoon. (And before I go any further, a huge thank you to Connie in the mayor’s office, who allowed me to use her computer to file my story this afternoon after my laptop failed to function. This caused much hilarity for all as I sat at the reception desk for the mayor’s office, typing my story.)

1. Gregor Robertson and Geoff Meggs told people there that Vision councillors voted AGAINST the proposal back in September 2007, where the city agreed to conditions that would allow Millennium to get financing from Fortress. Those two conditions were providing a $193-million loan guarantee on the total $750-million loan. The other, and this was the news that came out today, was providing a completion guarantee, i.e. the city guaranteed that if Millennium failed, it would find a way to finish building the project. That completion guarantee stipulated that the project had to be finished according to the original designs.

2. The Vision councillors consulted with people in the development industry to assess the deal. Two of the names mentioned as consultants were lawyer Mitchell Gropper (described this way on the website of his law firm, Farris Vaughn: Gropper is rated by Lexpert as one of Vancouver’s leading lawyers in mergers & acquisitions, corporate finance and corporate commercial, one of Canada’s 40 “Deal-Makers”, one of Canada’s 100 most creative lawyers, and one of Canada’s 100 leading cross-border transaction lawyers) and Morley Koffman, described this way on his Koffman Kalef website.

Morley is a founding partner of the firm with over 45 years’ experience as a corporate and commercial lawyer acting for clients in a variety of industries. A few representative legal retainers include the creation of and operating procedures for Cantel Limited, special counsel for projects for B.C. Hydro and B.C. Lumber Trade Alliance, and the secondary offering in the U.S. for shares of USFreightways for US$250 million. Morley currently sits on the board of directors of Ainsworth Lumber Co. Ltd. and Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. Morley was appointed Queens Counsel in 1986.

3. Neither the “senior city manager” who briefed us nor Gregor Robertson had an estimate of how much the city might lose if a. it had to take over the project from Millennium and b. the 730 market condos sell for way less than originally anticipated. I’ve had one developer sketch out a quick pro forma for me, suggesting that if Millennium was paying $1 billion for the project (200 for land, 800 for construction costs), it was probably expecting to make a 15-20 per cent profit, so $150-200 million. If condo prices are down 20 per cent, that would mean break even — but it still doesn’t mean a loss. Or it (or the city) could try to hang on until prices rise again, but that would mean carrying costs, so it would have to bet that a future price rise would be more than ongoing carrying costs, which are considerable.

I’m happy to publish additional amateur speculations on construction-loan financing and $1-billion project pro formas. It seems to me this issue has now become the do-it-yourself development topic du jour, so we might as all weigh in with our thoughts.

Finally

4. There are still a zillion questions about all of this. I have covered this deal extensively and I still don’t know

a. How much the city had to pay, over and above the $30 million it got from the federal government, for the 250 units of social housing. Hard to believe it built that much housing for $30 million in the recent era of sky-high construction costs.

b. Who pays for what when it comes to the market rental housing. Is the construction cost for those 120 units included in the $875 million total cost?

c. What is the city’s total cost for all the other amenities it provided for the neighbourhood — walkways, bridges, roads, parks, etc.?

d. Why do Millennium’s construction costs seem so high? At $875 million, as we now know, to build the project, that’s about $875 a square foot for the million feet of condo space — very high for that, but maybe that’s a wrong calculation.

Go ahead, kids, post away on all this.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • spartikus

    I note that CityCaucus.com is contradicting, or attempting to contradict, Francis’s G&M story:

    The reality is that when Vancouver submitted its bid book in January of 2003, the month after Mr. Campbell took office, it stated clearly under the portion related to the athletes village: “The site is currently owned by the City of Vancouver and will be either developed by the City or partially or wholly sold or leased to developers or non-profit housing societies … The City of Vancouver has guaranteed to construct, at its cost, the permanent infrastructure and facilities for the Vancouver Olympic Village.”

    Compared to…

    It was the previous Vision/COPE Council that committed the City of Vancouver to develop the Athletes Village for VANOC.

    …now, it’s entirely possible that within a month of Campbell taking office he committed the City to this obligation, but that’s not what’s implied.

  • Don

    just a quick note that when i was in planning school we were told the rule of thumb was a 25% profit for the development industry. otherwise why tie up your $$ for 3+ years? anyway, this whole thing is quite the distraction and hopefully we can see our way through it and it doesn’t have a major impact on the other positive things that the new council was hoping to achieve.

  • Don

    just a quick note that when i was in planning school we were told the rule of thumb was a 25% profit for the development industry. otherwise why tie up your $$ for 3+ years?

    anyway, this whole thing is quite the distraction and hopefully we can see our way through it and it doesn’t have a major impact on the other positive things that the new council was hoping to achieve.

  • Scott

    More questions…. Why did the City of Vancouver release a news release on November 6, 2008 (prior to the election) inclusive of the following statement:

    “The City is conducting business related to Southeast False Creek and the Olympic Village pursuant to a ****unanimous*** Council mandate.”

    http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/newsreleases2008/NRolympicstatement.htm

    No councillor subsequently denied the facts therein. It’s all now too baffling.

  • tommi

    Did someone not yet tell Gregor and Geoff Meggs that the election is over and that they won?

  • Chris B

    If the city is guaanteeing the loans, why does the city not just take over the project? Convert more of it into social housing at least and kill two birds with one (very expensive) stone. Or increase the rental component, as Vancouver’s rental market is so very very tight.

  • VHB

    So, 1/3 of the units have ‘sold’, huh? What does that mean exactly? When the market price plummets, how many of these 1/3 will actually complete? Will the city pursue specuvestors into bankruptcy?

    For example, imagine someone put the deposit for a unit on a home equity line (shock! in Vancouver? no way!) . They have no cash, just ‘housing equity’ in their principal residence. Now their bank won’t extend them more credit since their principal residence is underwater (ie home value less than mortgage + HELOC).

    Come October 2010, the CoV comes along and tells them to complete on their ‘purchased’ unit. Dude can’t obtain financing. Can’t flip it.

    Question: Does the CoV force this specuvestor into bankruptcy? Does the CoV seize their assets? Their primary residence?

    Fun questions. Oh, but maybe I’m wrong. After all, everyone knows that condos only go up in value and that rich Asians will buy up the surplus. Right Bob?

    Bottom line. The estimate used by Mason in today’s G&M ($300million) is a BEST case scenario. More likely to be $500 million lost. But the city won’t realize the loss because that would be too politically painful. They’ll hold onto the units and rent them out, for FAR less than the cost of carrying the capital, but the optics will be better.

  • VHB

    I don’t mean to sound so doom and gloom, but I’m just trying to inject a dose of reality about real estate around here. Too many are still drinking the booster’s koolaid.

    Bob R, Helmut Pastrick, Camron Muir, etc. assured everyone that Vancouver is different, that the boom was sustainable, and various other sweet nothings.

    They were wrong. The sooner people accept that, the easier this will all be and we can go back to living our lives. Let the denial stop so we can move on to building a sustainable city.

  • T W

    Our elected representatives, past and present, should have looked beyond their partisan blinkers, looked at the real public interest, and when the deals were being made (in camera ?) obtained independent professional advice. That said, how city staff and the elected representatives allowed all the risk to be downloaded to the City if the project environment changed is beyond belief.

    Not much consolation to low income and middle income citizens in Vancouver who will have to pay, at least initially, for the sins of the Olympic boosters and their fellow travellers.

  • Bob Ransford

    Scratching out a pro forma on the back of a napkin on this one is complicated by many factors. Lack of accurate information on the Fortress financing– what is it costing?

    What penalties are charged as the project drags on waiting for condo sales to repay the construction loan?

    Who can accurately predict when condo units will sell and at what price?

    Gary Mason guesses an overall shortfall of +/-$ 300 million. I have used my own assumptions – which are wild guesses at best– and I am at somewhere around half that, say $150 million as a net shortfall.

    The city originally heralded this deal as another great example of the profitable operating entity known as the Property Endowment Fund, with this one PED deal generating $190 million for the PEF from the sale of the land to Millennium. What is not clear is what that number represented relative to the city’s cost of the SEFC lands, including the costs of original land acquisition, infrastructure, etc.

    Clearly, that $190 million is at great risk of disappearing after covering project shortfalls. The real story is that the taxpayers are likely at risk of losing even more.

    One wonders how the city could have ever touted this land sale to Millennium the way it did.–so much for the wonderful model of real estate development success—the Property Endowment Fund.

    Is there a lesson in this? Governments– with civil servants who lack business experience and with politicians happy to blindly follow the “professional” advice of those civil servants-should NOT be in the real estate development business– Property Endowment Fund or no Property Endowment Fund.

  • LP

    VHB, not sure what you do for a living but your estimation of a $500 Million loss is crazy at this point. For anyone to start rolling out profit/loss figures “in their estimation” is simply a waste of everyones’ time.

    Everything did Friday was political posturing, nothing more nothing less. Yes Gregor is being honest with voters as promised, but the reality is that his ‘honesty’ does nothing to change the parameters of the deal for the city.

    By painting the worst possible image of the project and by blaming the previous council and mayor for everything, he’s trying to effectively brush off a very big loss during the later part of his term (when him or Ray Louie will be trying to win the next civic election). They can say we told you so.

    Now, in the event they pull a few strings, get some new financing, and work any loss down to a realistic level, they can take all the credit and show everyone what amazing managers they are.

    Perhaps if they do a good enough job on the OV project, people will give them a pass for their other transgressions while in office. After all, the OV and potential loss or savings on their watch will TRUMP all other ‘petty’ issues, wouldn’t they?

    So, the NDP, Gregor and team, are in a win win right now. Blame everyone else, as close to the last election as possible so you can pull out that parade in three years, do your best to fix it, and bask in your glory. Remember, nothing was your fault.

    Brilliant move. That may just be checkmate!

  • RossK

    Oh, for the 33-and-a-third Market/Affordable/Social Housing deal days gone by that were going to be way too expensive because they were going to cost the PEF, what….

    $50 million?

    .

  • Lucy

    I just thought I would ask why in the spirit of “OPEN NEW GOVERNMENT” so persuasive in the election runoff, do we now have what sounds like in the Vancouver Sun leaked information from quote “A Senior city official, who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity…”. Why hide behind an Unnamed Official when open information and credibility is essential here? Please help me understand!!

  • foo

    Well, Ross, if you think that deal would have only cost the PEF $50m, I have an Olympic Village to sell you….

  • foo

    LP,

    There are 1000 condos. If they end up selling on ave for $500k, that’s a $375m loss. Plus the other losses we don’t know about yet.

    I’m with VHB. In 2010->2012, good luck selling out for even $500k ave. $400m-$500m loss is my predicition.

  • Pingback: re:place Magazine()

  • Wagamuffin

    High finance and low politics—always a heady brew.

    Kind of like a nitro glycerin cocktail, which is on a par with drinking the Kool Aid, I guess.

    The worst case scenario works on both levels. Finacially, discount all the bad news now (though at this point math should tell us that $300 million would be the worst of the worst, not $875 million—that is the total cost, not loss—of the project). Politically as mentioned above by LP, it puts Vision in a nice position and helps the NDP in Vancouver even more, if that’s possible.

    The province will have to help out, of course. The electorate, which is probably tired of being cranky will have one more opportunity to play Whack-A-Mole. The next 8 weeks before the blackout period will be fascinating to watch.

  • Larry Campbell

    OK, so I apologize for guaranteeing that Vancouver would build the Olympic Village … my bad!

    but good move, greggie – blaming those foul npa-ers! 🙂

    um, on the whole ‘previous city government thing’ though…? you’re kind of trashing Raymond Louie, David Cadman and Heather Deal, all of whom voted to approve the village financing …

    but hey! you won the election … you can stop campaigning and start leading now …

    greggie? leading? you know? not campaigning but leading? … did anyone tell you you’d have to lead eventually?

  • LP

    Foo,

    Like I said speculating without all the terms is foolish, go ahead though if you have nothing better to do. Suggesting a $500M loss on a $875M project is very excessive.

    Vancouver real estate has dropped 11% according to the latest stats, and will continue to fall. However suggesting an over 50% drop to realize a $500M loss is a bit much. In essence what you’re suggesting is that a $2M home will sell for $900K at that time. If prices fell that much, by the very nature of the drop it would start a real estate boom from speculators buying up cheap real estate. By that time with any construction all but halted, prices would start to soar. Your reasoning lacks logic.

    For those more inclined to suggest a loss of $0-$200M, there is still security in place by the developer that defaults to the city under certain circumstances that could offset some of any/the loss – again depending on the parameters negotiated.

    You and VHB, you go girls….(p.s. guys just didn’t sound right in that phrase – sorry no disrespect intended).

    Larry,

    Is that really you? Great comment, if it was! Now a days it’s hard to believe anyone is who they say they are on blogs.

  • RossK

    foo–

    I’ll take it!

    .

  • condohype

    I had a tough sleep last night. The Olympic Village predicament has far-reaching effects on our city. However this ends up, it will amount to significant monetary losses which in turn impacts all the services, programs and infrastructure we use and enjoy.

    The political consequences are the least of our concerns. The political blame game is not irrelevant but it is a distraction from more important questions. How does Vancouver deal with this? What’s the best solution? How do we ensure the response does not repeat the mistakes of the past?

    To that last point, I hope our leaders can understand the corrupting influence of real estate hype. When I look at how the Millennium deal is structured, culminating with the disastrous 2007 completion guarantee, it has all the indicators of decision-making driven by real-estate hype. Many city managers and elected officials, like much of the real-estate obsessed public, got caught up in the exuberance of our own self-appreciation. We bought condos to no end because we believed we couldn’t lose. “Real estate only goes up, the world wants to live here, it’s a gamble NOT to buy…”

    I love Vancouver and I hate that we’re having such a hard time growing up. I love the city because I believe it’s on the edge of incredible potential. But the city is so young, seemingly stuck in perpetual adolescence. Will we ever think past the latest fad? I hope one day we come to understand who we are, and leave the culture of condo hype behind us.

  • VHB

    “In essence what you’re suggesting is that a $2M home will sell for $900K at that time.“

    That sounds about right for 2012. Likely will not get there for fall 2010, but who knows.

    We`re down 15% and we`re still in the 2nd inning here.

    Again, you can swim in denial if you`d like, but that`s where we`re going.

    LP. nice try at playing the credentials card on the internet. Doesn’t work that way here. I’m pretty sure I’d win an offline credentials battle anyway, but that’s another matter.

    Here are my numbers:

    Costs: 875K is the construction cost, current estimate. I know nothing about construction, but I have a feeling this project is unlikely to come in under budget. So that’s a lower bound estimate.

    Costs: LP, did you include the land cost that the city was supposed to get?

    Revenues: Around 1 million sf of marketable condos. By October 2010, they would be VERY lucky to get $500/sf, enviro-doo dads or not. That means $500 million of revenue.

    Profit / Loss: you do the math. $500 million loss would be doing well, I think.

    VHB
    BTW, where`s your 875K coming from other than the land of hopes and dreams. Is that what you expect the 2010 turnkey cost to be? Are you including the loss of the 200M for the land?

  • VHB

    LP, what is your projection of $/sf of revenue?

    My projection comes from this. We’re currently around 15-20 months of inventory. That implies about 3-4% down a month. Repeat for the next 18 months. Heck, even 2% down per month from current prices would get us well under $500/sf.

    And we still haven’t seen:
    a) Banks seriously cut back on financing condo purchases. Point to ponder: what downpayment do you think banks will require for a condo purchase by late 2010?

    b) Employment hasn’t seriously been affected here yet. Point to ponder: what will the supply/demand balance look like with 10% unemployment in BC?

    Look, I’m not claiming powers of clairvoyance. I just watch CNN and see what happened in the US. You can drink at the ‘Vancouver is different’ fountain all you like. I’ll continue sipping reality tea.

  • LP

    VHB,

    I read this following comment on The Vancouver Sun story of the same topic. It summed up some numbers rather well, so I’m doing a simple cut and paste.

    “written by someone calling themselves an investment banker”:

    This article / the Mayor’s comments are not quite accurate – the city is on the hook for completion and cost overruns, but it has not guaranteed repayment of the Fortress loan (big, big difference), and so the 317 million funded by Fortress is at the hedge funds own risk. Backing out the 317 million of Fortress funding, the city’s net liability would be 558 million, NOT 875 million. Condo units woud have to sell at an average of $558,000 just to cover the city’s completion and cost overrun obligations to Fortress. If the city wants to also recover the unpaid portion of the land (171MM) add another $171,000 per unit, so units would have to sell in the range of $729,000ish for the city to breakeven. This ignores the value of the commercial component of the project, which, if factored into the equation, would further improve things. The units were probably worth over a million dollars each at the height of the market, so the $558,000 per unit figure is perhaps achieveable, but who knows witht the current state of the RE market. Bottom line, I think tax payers will not be ultimately at risk, but in the final alaysis, the City will have almost given alway prime development lands away for free…..

    VHB your simple math and doomsday scenarios are lots of hot air. Take a breath, relax and let things shake out.

    My point in all of this from the start is that this is political in nature, the NDP have another election coming in May and any negativity gains them points.

    Announcing this at this time is not in any way productive to the negotiations, it only upsets the taxpayers. There is only one obvious reason for his actions.

    And to Larry Campbell, Gregor can’t stop campaigning because they still have another election to win. Perhaps he’ll start leading after that first week in May.

  • VHB

    Whoops. in post 20 I tried to edit out my first more vitriolic response. I ended up leaving it in, in the part after ‘VHB’. Sorry to all–should try to keep it more positive; must be respectful to the space created here by FB.

  • VHB

    If $500/sf is a doomsday scenario, then doomsday it is.

  • VHB

    Some figurings on prices of condos:

    Rent/sf=$2.00.
    Required gross rental yield for cash flow investors to re-enter the market=7% pa.

    This gives us 2*12/0.07 = $343/sf.

    Ok, how about $2.50/sf and 6%? That would be $500/sf.

    The 2nd scenario is quite rosy, in my opinion. But that $500/sf is the best case scenario.

  • PGH

    So Millenium says they will buy the land from the city for $191MM ($20MM up front) and then build 1,100 units (730 free market, 250 social and 120 rental) for $750MM (now $875MM). Once all these units are sold and the debt on the project is paid off Millenium will get the profit left over (if there is any).

    Some points and questions:

    Why is no one asking how Millenium was able to so mismanage this project? And why they can’t get their costs in line. They should be cutting costs/salaries to get their own finances in order. Millenium should be feeling a lot of pain on this project. To the point where their company should be forced in to bankruptcy at some point for gross mismanagement.

    How did Millenium get this project in the first place? They have never done a project this big and now it looks like they are having a tough time managing things.

    How did the original proformas on this project look? You would have to be selling the units at about $880,000 avg to make the project look reasonable. Sales Rev of 1,100 x $880,000 = $968MM less land costs $191MM less construction costs $750MM = $27MM. So their won’t be much left over for financing cost and cost over runs. Maybe I’m missing something?

    How much and who is paying for the social housing and rental units?

    Why not sell all the units as free market units if it returns more cash to the debt holders so that the city doesn’t have to make up the short fall.

    Will the owner of the project pursue pre-sale speculators to force them to complete on their purchases. I hope so!!! Speculation has a lot to do with the unrealistic projections that led to this project in the first place.

    It appears that any hope of a profit for the developers in this project is long gone so what is most important now is who will be owed money, what order do they get paid back, and who is guaranteeing the loans. It is my understanding that Fortress syndicated portions of their $750MM debt facility, so who else is involved here? Are there any unsecured creditors involved in the construction loan? There is more to this storey that needs to come out.

    Anyone that now lends money to this project will require a huge interest rate or a guarantee. At this point the Greggie Robertson needs to stop playing politics, start leading and get together with the Province and Feds to get the project completed. Every effort should be made so that any financing put forward by taxpayers should be in a senior position to any other debt so that the taxpayer is paid off first and Fortress is the one left suffering losses at the end of the day. Let Fortress fight it out in court if they don’t like it. They appear to want to play hard ball, I’d be happy to see the Province and Feds play hardball with this Hedge Fund. City Politicians are in no place to be playing hard ball or managing a project of this size. This size of a project should be well above partisan city politics.

  • RossK

    condohype, above, said:

    “The political blame game is not irrelevant but it is a distraction from more important questions. How does Vancouver deal with this? What’s the best solution?

    Here’s hoping condohype writes out what he/she thinks the best solution/solutions might be.

    Either here or over at his/her own place.

    I, for one, would be very interested in reading it/them.

    .

  • Michael Geller

    I hesitate to comment on this matter since I simply do not have the numbers and have not seen any of the legal agreements. But before I lose sleep over the city’s potential financial exposure, it is important to know some more facts…..

    what are the total hard (construction) costs ; the soft costs: (consultants, fees and permits, marketing, financing, etc) and the land costs for the different components of the project, namely the market condominiums, the market rental housing, the non-market housing and the commercial space.

    What money may be forthcoming from other sources for the non-market housing, commercial space, etc.

    Remember, the project includes rental units that were intended to be refinanced upon completion. If the city has to take back the project, and is faced with losses, it could decide to sell them to minimize losses.

    As one of the writers noted, one must also look at what security the developer has put up to secure the city’s funds, and the potential value of that, in the event of a claim.

    And yes, one must look at the anticipated market price for the condominiums; recognizing those sold to date, with deposits (held in trust) and future sales.

    No one can predict what will happen with accuracy. However, I agree that it will not likely be realistic to achieve average prices above $900 a foot for this product in 2010. At the same time, if the units were offered at $500 a foot tomorrow, they would all be sold.

    The realistic price is somewhere in between, and I won’t be surprised if it ends up around $750 a foot for the majority of the condominiums; although the prime units in the Arthur Erickson building and other waterfront units could well sell in excess of $1000 a foot at the end of the day.

    In other words, I am not saying there will not be a potential loss to the city. There may well be. Whether it is simply forgoing the value of the land is one possibility; there may be a need to inject additional funds.

    However, in either case, I would expect the ‘losses’ to be offset by the value of the security put up by the developer. (None of the details of which have been made public.)

    One should also not forget that this is only a portion of the overall SEFC development, and the city may well profit from future phases.

    Finally, this is a very unfortunate situation and like you, I am very saddened by the prospects of the city losing money on this venture. I cannot understand why many of the decisions have been made. But I will predict that at the end of the day, the actual losses by the city (above and beyond possibly foregoing the land payment) will be significantly less than the numbers being bandied about. Indeed, there may not be any ‘loss’ at all. But we will need to wait and see…calmly!

  • LP

    Michael Geller,

    Thanks and truly great comment!

  • condohype

    Well, a catastrophe of this scale is a bit outside of my pay grade. As a rule, I don’t make decisions that put me at risk of financial ruin. Crazy, I know!

    I’m unsure of what to propose as the best solution. There’s too much we don’t know, including the contractual details with the developer, financier and the city. Generally speaking, the best solution can only come from understanding of the mistakes that brought us here. If any response involves speculating on future real estate prices, it is the wrong response.

    I care deeply about Vancouver and want to see this resolved with the least amount of damage. I plan to attend Monday’s special council meeting. From there, I should have more to say.

  • Tony Danza

    Hey what’s everyone so worried about, a similar thing happened to Montreal. They only had to live in squalor for what 35 years before the debt was repaid? Hoocodanode?

  • Tony Danza

    Michael, what method do you use to calculate your projected $ sq/ft values of the condos one to two years in the future?

  • VHB

    When prices are rising at 20% per year, no one cares about rental yields because they are compensated by capital gains.

    When prices are dropping at 20% per year, momentum easy-money seeking investors sit out. But who starts buying to provide the bottom? Yield-seeking investors.

    So, how will these units be priced?

    A) Capital gain specuvestors will suddenly get loads of bank funded 0-40 mortgages again and buy them all up.

    B) Prices fall until rental yields attract cash flow investors. If investors believed they could get $3/sf and were happy with a 5% GROSS yield, we’d see prices at $720/sf. I don’t think that’s likely.

    I dispute the idea that $500/sf condos would be ‘scooped up’ in today’s market. In case you hadn’t noticed, there is a huge glut already on the market, about 28K more units in GVRD coming, and the demand side has seen a 50% drop as the specuvestors leave the market.

    No condos are being scooped up, even at ‘low’ prices like $500/sf. Bubble-nomics is over. It’s back to boring old yield investing. Ho-hum.

  • VHB

    Ok. Sorry to bog down this nice blog in financial analysis.

    Here is my point: Even hard-headed, public-spirited, experienced, and intelligent people like Frances B and Michael G. are, IMHO, not getting a firm grasp on what a disaster the condo market is and will be for this city.

    In a very neighbourly way, our friends in the US have given us a 2 year-ahead vision of what is coming. Yet too many smart, intelligent, public-minded, and experienced people cling to the ‘Vancouver is different’ bit. This does no service to Vancouver’s citizens.

    We can not progress until people open their eyes to what is now happening and will be happening over the next 3 years. Once reality is grasped, we can start to rebuild. But on a solid foundation, not a sandy one.

  • RossK

    ch–

    I agree most wholeheartedly.

    Whatever we do – no more reliance, whatsoever, on speculation.

    Which, unfortunately, even in all its reasonableness and cautiousness, at least from the POV of someone in the development business, is still a significant component of Mr. Geller’s ‘prediction’.

    .

  • “Resident”

    People can we focus on the important things-it’s snowing again. Gregor needs to focus on fighting off Snowmageddon II: Potholocalypse Now.

  • Chris B

    VHB – one thing in the project’s favour is that these are far better thn condos in “Surrey City Centre” or Semiahmoo Mall in White Rock, or Brookswood in Langley.

    So yes there is a glut. And yes I personally believe that there is some form of huge correction coming but, I do think that this project because of its location will fare better than almst any other spot in the Lower Mainland.

  • VHB

    Chris,

    you’re right. The better quality/amenities/location, however, should be reflected in higher rents. I say that in 2010 these puppies will fetch no more than $2/sf, amid recession and huge glut of rental condos.

    For LB etc, rather than calling my numbers simplistic, please tell me which of my assumptions is wrong.

    a) no more speculation affecting prices
    b) real investors need at least a 7% gross yield
    c) rents will be $2/sf.

    If I’m not wrong about a)b)c), then the price that gets spit out is $343/sf.

    Let’s mark that up 50% for fun to $500/sf. At $500sf, the billion dollar project loses around $500 million +/-.

    “Simple”, this analysis may be. But that’s a virtue. Is it wrong? Tell me where.

    And BTW, any estimate of loss really ought to include the foregone money from the land.

  • Dawn Steele

    Good posts, Condohype.

    We will need to talk about political accountability, but not now. And since this situation is the result of a whole chain of events, it may be more instructive to look at why than who, in the context of this knowledge informing a focus on finding the best way forward.

    The “perfect storm” of factors – rising costs, falling demand, plunging liquidity, fixed completion deadlines and commitments – that created this situation are all inter-related: they fed each other, they fed the broader crisis we’re facing, and their common underlying causes made this result almost inevitable.

    It was all based on blind faiths – assumptions that tomorrow and next year would be pretty much the same as yesterday, faith in markets and certainty in the inevitability of growth. As condohype suggested – we also drank our own Kool-aid about being “The Best Place On Earth”.

    Those blind faiths led us inexorably into this hole and could very well make it impossible to crawl out the other side.

    Smarter people than me should be able to find ways to mitigate and/or dodge the worst-case scenarios – perhaps even to find silver linings (if we probably own it and may not be able to sell it profitably, can we re-jig the plan at this stage to permit more extra social, low-income housing instead and at least get a social benefit for the extra cost?)

    If it’s in everyone’s interest that we minimize the boondoggle, then everyone, including the feds, Victoria, Vanoc, developer, investors etc, need to contribute to the solution.

    And whatever the course, I think the principle of flexibility to respond to changing or unexpected conditions will be key. We got into this mess by betting on the future being predictable – the “Best Place on Earth” utopia where everything’s always looking up (at least when the NDP’s not in power). If anything, we need to have learned that it’s nowhere near that simple.

  • Michael Geller

    Any assessment of future values and sales prices is both an art and a science. My ‘guestimate’ is predicated on what I have seen happen to prices since 1971 when I first started to become involved with housing and real estate markets. Of particular relevance is what has happened to the Vancouver market since 1981 when I first started building in this market.

    It should be noted that I have lived through a number of market ‘corrections’, most notably in 1983 when the company for which I worked (Narod Developments) went into receivership and a period in the ’90s when values dropped below prices achieved in previous years.

    Future values will also a function of cost. I must confess that the costs being discussed for the Olympic Village astound me. While I do not know the total buildable area (including the retail space), they appear to be in the order of $700 a foot, excluding land.

    And it is very important to note that this is not just for the condominiums. This is the average. This includes the cost of the social housing units and the rental housing. which I now understand are being completely financed by Fortress and the city.

    In other words, a portion of the reported $875 million cost is for the social housing. While this is just a guess, it may well approaching $130 million. While the price is extremely high, it should be seen as an investment, not ‘loss’. (And to those who think 2/3rds of the units should be social housing, you make make a corresponding calculation of the ‘investment’.)

    Future values will also be influenced by the location, form of development, and overall community quality. What is being built here is different than most other Vancouver projects. This is both a plus and a negative. But overall, having worked on the South Shore of False Creek, the Bayshore Project in Coal Harbour, and UniverCity, another model sustainable community, I believe this will ultimately be a highly desirable community worthy of international acclaim.

    For this reason, I would value the units above those in Downtown South and Yaletown. The prices will be comparable to the better units in Pacific Place, although lower than Fairmont Estates (which sold for an average of $1500 a sq.ft) and Coal Harbour, where new units were selling well in excess of $1,000 a foot.

    Which brings me to a personal RECOMMENDATION. I believe that given the rampant speculation about potential losses for the taxpayer, there is now a need for the Mayor and Council/City Manager to retain a third party real estate expert to provide an independent opinion on the financial outlook for this project. They should look at the overall pro-forma, and assess the profit and loss at different revenue projections…$500, $600, $700, $800 a foot for the condominiums, and so on.

    They should also look at the value of the rental property, and asses the additional revenues that could be achieved if these units were to be sold, rather than owned by the city and rented out. (I am not saying this should happen, but one should know the opportunity cost of keeping these units).

    They should also look at the commercial property and its value if sold to a pension fund or other commercial investor.

    Presumably this kind of analysis is being done as part of any re-financing, but I think the public now needs to know the results, because quite frankly, I think the recent media coverage and public statements have unduly frightened far too many city residents.

    I hope this is helpful.

  • Michael Geller

    More importantly, the public statements and media coverage are also damaging Vancouver’s international reputation. This is very unfortunate.

  • LP

    VHB,

    I’m not criticizing your sales estimates at all – you seem to have taken that far too personally.

    Rather, I’m suggesting we don’t know far enough about the back-end of the deal to make any profit/loss estimates at this time.

    Questions for the back end would be ones like;

    1) How much actual cash has the developer used?
    2) What’s the value of the security pledged?
    3) Of the money Fortress has put up, is the city on the hook for that or is Fortress prepared to walk away from it so they don’t have to put in their total commitment?

    I could go on, that’s just a sample. My point VHB is that you’re focusing too much on the front-end, sales. I can hear the argument now, that the units have to be sold to recoup any money so therefore sales are the most important aspect.

    This is a billion dollar deal and is far more complex then most understand. It seems more so than both the mayor and councilors understand as well. The bottom line here is how much cash has been used, who owned that cash and how does it relate to the deal, how much is secured or rather what was pledged, and finally what is left.

    It isn’t reasonable to suggest a $500M loss on this deal from the front-end alone.

    I agree with Michael’s sentiments regarding the media coverage, public statements and will add bloggers (if they aren’t considered media) as well, are damaging our reputation. It is unfortunate and somewhat unnecessary.

    Again I’ll state my view that this is very heady politics here and that this was a chess move, nothing more. And at the expense of the city’s reputation.

  • LP

    I will add one request to Francis if she reads these comments. Would it be possible for you to get Peter Ladner to speak a bit about this?

    He has taken shots from the present Mayor and some media for his comment during the election that he would rather lose than put the city in a bad position.

    Obviously he will not be able to comment on the information he is obliged to keep confidential but he may be able to offer some thoughts on why we are where we are. He was also a common factor on council for the past 9 years while all of this was being planned.

  • T W

    If monitoring and controlling costs were so important to all three parties, particularly Fortress, then who from the City was monitoring the costs and reporting back to Council on the unfolding escalation of risk to the City ? Was it done by an independent auditor or was everything done “in house” – an obvious example of cognitive bias.

    But I agree with Michael Geller, this is a black eye for Vancouver and BC (more painful from the fact that Vancouver has/had an expertise in natural resource risk management).

  • VHB

    LP,

    thank you for your calm civil tone. I will try to reciprocate.

    I concede that I don’t know the legal details that will allocate the loss. But calculating the loss *is* as simple as comparing costs vs revenues.

    Some sharing of this loss between the public, Fortress, and Millennium will happen. I guess I’m not as concerned about the allocation as the amount of the loss.

    I guess I was working on the assumption that M and F would go belly up and the public will end up holding the can. Time will tell if that is right.

    Mr Geller: I must disagree with your statement about the reputation of Vancouver. The damage was not done by those *reporting* or *commenting* on the problems. The damage was done by those *signing* the deal. (Of whichever party–I have no horse in the partisan game here).

  • Stephanie

    I must disagree with Mr. Ransford that the lesson in this is that government should not be in the real estate development business. The idea that competence is somehow vested in the private sector is a myth that our current economic woes must surely have dispelled.

    That said, anyone who’s been around Council knows perfectly well that a good number of city councillors are woefully out of their depth. Is anyone actually surprised that the partisanship and stupidity that characterizes a lot of what passes for governance in this city has yielded a mess like this?

    What a sorry vindication for people who were dismissed as wet-blanket paranoiacs for believing that the Olympics might actually be, you know, risky.

  • condohype

    LP, I accept your back-end questions, though they don’t refute VHB’s points. The fact is the selling prices the developer intended to secure — prices that were necessary to make the project economically viable — are not going to be achieved. The city’s exposure may be moderated over the long term as it pursues Millennium’s assets, and I have no doubt the city will do everything to take Millennium to the cleaners. But this is all very far down the road. It’s not like Penny Ballam and Ritchie Bros. are en route to Peter Malek’s house to “kick some assets.” We need the money now and the money will have to be borrowed, making the impact to the city budget immediate.

  • Andrea

    I cannot believe that anyone can defend the idea of a “lesser loss” or “minimal loss” r.e. the Southeast False Creek condos. Real estate may go up or down, but none of that will change the fact these babies are being built on some of the most toxic land around. The “waterfront” happens to be False Creek, a no-go zone for professional divers, it’s that polluted. Don’t tell me that it was construction workers’ latrines that fouled this once-pristine pond. Ha ha. What lies to the west of this “can’t lose” development – a nice, industrial apocalypse landscape (very healthy, I’m sure). And what lies to the east – the most squalid manifestation of the homeless crisis (as per Judy Graves of HEAT) beneath the piers supporting Science World. It’s not surprising to hear so many yell when the prospect of falling real estate prices is brought up – even some of our most esteemed homeless, mental health, addict advocates have been flipping away for big $$ for the few years. I know of one well-loved character who had no takers for his over-priced home all summer. I guess he was hoping he’d be two times lucky! Anyways, my main point is that even priests have been regular visitors to the whorehouse of Vancouver RE speculation . Greed and naivete – it can happen to the very smartest and best of us … Ha ha…!