Vision Vancouver’s STIR rental program legacy: Luxury condo towers in Marpole, great deals for developers, bad deals for communities?

Posted on by

Civic watchers raised their eyebrows at a web post 15-Feb-2012 on a website popular among aficionados of skyscrapers regarding a development approved under the STIR program for Westbank Projects Corp and Henriquez Partners Architects in 2011 and now going full steam ahead selling luxury condo units. Here is the advertising website for the development with nice pictures: www.westbankcorp.com/granville-70th. The City’s website provides details of the rezoning here.

The 8495 Granville Street project (Safeway store site) is for buildings 16 storeys, 14 storeys, and 9-storeys in height. There are to be 326 condo units and 31 STIR rental units. It was at Public Hearing on April 21 and May 3, 2011, and was approved by Council at a Regular Council Meeting on May 17, 2011. A UBC researcher wrote concluded that the public consulation process was flawed (article by Stanley Tromp in Vancouver Courier) and others have lamented the dramatic changes the project will bring to Marpole and failure to consider local community wishes.

The comment on the Skyscraperpage Forum, by “dangerdoughnut” mentions that a billboard at the site is advertising condos for sale, and that construction starts in March 2012, then goes on to describe a visit (by appointment only) to the sales centre, operated by New Asia Group out of Bentall 4 on the 34th floor.

  • The commenter felt that marketing is “targeting mainly Asian buyers as the sales staff are all Asian (Mandarin speaking) and the brochures all have simplified Chinese.”
  • Comments go on to suggest that “pricing is extremely high, around 750-950 a square foot,” with a unit facing west on the 19th floor going for $1,046 sq ft or $989,000.
  • And mentions that the salesman said “they’ve written 184 contracts in 1 month and will halt sale at 250, with the remaining 100-150 units being put out at a higher price down the line.”
  • “They’re definitely emphasizing the luxury aspect of a Westbank building with multiple references to Shangri-la and Fairmont Pacific Rim.”

If all this is true, it makes one ask who has really benefited from the beleaguered Short Term Incentives for Rentals program, which was promoted by the recently-fired planning director Brent Toderian and strongly supported by Vision Vancouver. It was adopted in 2009 with virtually no public input, purportedly to create “affordable” rental housing and as a stimulus package for the construction industry after the 2008 economic crisis. The program was allowed to expire quietly on December 15, 2011, after West End Neighbourhods pointed out that the program was legally flawed. The status of projects in the pipeline is available here.
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/developmentservices/stir/pdf/11dec15status.pdf.

Several of the STIR projects have caused a lot of trouble for communities and some are still up for rezoning hearings. For example:

  • 1215 Bidwell (Maxines, soon to be the Alexandra at 21 storeys, by Millennium, with architect Henriquez, site currently being excavated) was subject of what has been called a billion-dollar boondoggle for a $1 billion dollar mortgage to Millennium, released by city manager Penny Ballem with what still appears to be an incomplete explanation. CityHallWatch articles here and here.  To our knowledge, only the Vancouver Courier covered this story.
  • 1401 Comox (Westbank Projects Corp and Peterson Investment Group, with Henriquez Partners Architects, proposed 22 storeys, public hearing date note announced):
  • Beach Towers (tower, townhouses, infill on a heritage site) in the West End, public hearing not yet announced. Visit www.beachtowers.ca.
  • More to be listed.

In some cases, project proponents are well-known political campaign contributors to Vision Vancouver in the 2011 election, which gave Vision eight of eleven seats on Council. Will our elected officials review the performance of already approved STIR projects and really listen to communities for the up-coming decisions? Can regulators of land use really make balanced decisions when they are put into power funded by the very industry they are supposed to regulate?

Leave a comment