False Creek North social housing

To help deliver more than 661 units of social housing on three sites in False Creek North, the Director of Planning has submitted an application to amend the False Creek North Official Development Plan and various related by-laws and design guidelines. Under a new housing delivery opportunity between the City, Concord Pacific, and the Province (BC Housing), the proposed amendments would enable an increase in social housing density across three sites within the False Creek North area, and provide public amenities including a new fire hall and childcare facility.

The proposed policy changes would allow:

A 28-storey social housing building with a height of 85.3 m (280 ft.), including a new fire hall and childcare facility at 990 Beatty Street
A 29-storey social housing building with a height of 88.1 m (289 ft.) at 1050 Expo Boulevard
A 7-storey social housing building with a height of 22.5 m (74 ft.) at 450 Pacific Street
Removal of the social housing obligation at 431 Beach Crescent, 1502 Granville Street, and 900 Pacific Boulevard

繁體中文

The proposed policy changes would allow:

A 28-storey social housing building with a height of 85.3 m (280 ft.), including a new fire hall and childcare facility at 990 Beatty Street
A 29-storey social housing building with a height of 88.1 m (289 ft.) at 1050 Expo Boulevard
A 7-storey social housing building with a height of 22.5 m (74 ft.) at 450 Pacific Street
Removal of the social housing obligation at 431 Beach Crescent, 1502 Granville Street, and 900 Pacific Boulevard

CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

Our team is happy to answer any questions you may have about process, timelines or engagement.

Please send us a question and we'll get back to you within two business days.

Please note that your username and question will be public. If you prefer to ask a question privately, you can send a question directly to a team member listed under "Contact Us".

Share I read the Q&A and understand that Concord is "contributing" $110 million to convert 3 of the 6 sites from non-market to marking housing. Based on the total floor area they could built under the current plan, it is like they are paying $347 per buildable square foot for the 3 sites. I googled land value in downtown Vancouver, since the City does not want to disclose appraised value for these land), land value was $450-$550 per buildable square foot BACK IN 2019. Also, in this deal, Concord will not be providing anymore affordable housing contribution, unlike other developers who purchased land at $550 per buildable square foot. My question is, who determined/recommend to Council that the $110M contribution is adequate for the land lift and the deal is beneficial to the City? and based on what? Also, based on other Q&A, it looks like Concord can make a rezoning application to increase the permitted building height and density for these sites in the future, which means the land cost to them would be even lower. Why can't we tie the development of the 6 sites together and confirm what can be built on each site and put a restriction on the 3 sites that Concord is getting that no additional density could ever be considered or 100% of the land lift must be contributed to the City? on Facebook Share I read the Q&A and understand that Concord is "contributing" $110 million to convert 3 of the 6 sites from non-market to marking housing. Based on the total floor area they could built under the current plan, it is like they are paying $347 per buildable square foot for the 3 sites. I googled land value in downtown Vancouver, since the City does not want to disclose appraised value for these land), land value was $450-$550 per buildable square foot BACK IN 2019. Also, in this deal, Concord will not be providing anymore affordable housing contribution, unlike other developers who purchased land at $550 per buildable square foot. My question is, who determined/recommend to Council that the $110M contribution is adequate for the land lift and the deal is beneficial to the City? and based on what? Also, based on other Q&A, it looks like Concord can make a rezoning application to increase the permitted building height and density for these sites in the future, which means the land cost to them would be even lower. Why can't we tie the development of the 6 sites together and confirm what can be built on each site and put a restriction on the 3 sites that Concord is getting that no additional density could ever be considered or 100% of the land lift must be contributed to the City? on Twitter Share I read the Q&A and understand that Concord is "contributing" $110 million to convert 3 of the 6 sites from non-market to marking housing. Based on the total floor area they could built under the current plan, it is like they are paying $347 per buildable square foot for the 3 sites. I googled land value in downtown Vancouver, since the City does not want to disclose appraised value for these land), land value was $450-$550 per buildable square foot BACK IN 2019. Also, in this deal, Concord will not be providing anymore affordable housing contribution, unlike other developers who purchased land at $550 per buildable square foot. My question is, who determined/recommend to Council that the $110M contribution is adequate for the land lift and the deal is beneficial to the City? and based on what? Also, based on other Q&A, it looks like Concord can make a rezoning application to increase the permitted building height and density for these sites in the future, which means the land cost to them would be even lower. Why can't we tie the development of the 6 sites together and confirm what can be built on each site and put a restriction on the 3 sites that Concord is getting that no additional density could ever be considered or 100% of the land lift must be contributed to the City? on Linkedin Email I read the Q&A and understand that Concord is "contributing" $110 million to convert 3 of the 6 sites from non-market to marking housing. Based on the total floor area they could built under the current plan, it is like they are paying $347 per buildable square foot for the 3 sites. I googled land value in downtown Vancouver, since the City does not want to disclose appraised value for these land), land value was $450-$550 per buildable square foot BACK IN 2019. Also, in this deal, Concord will not be providing anymore affordable housing contribution, unlike other developers who purchased land at $550 per buildable square foot. My question is, who determined/recommend to Council that the $110M contribution is adequate for the land lift and the deal is beneficial to the City? and based on what? Also, based on other Q&A, it looks like Concord can make a rezoning application to increase the permitted building height and density for these sites in the future, which means the land cost to them would be even lower. Why can't we tie the development of the 6 sites together and confirm what can be built on each site and put a restriction on the 3 sites that Concord is getting that no additional density could ever be considered or 100% of the land lift must be contributed to the City? link

I read the Q&A and understand that Concord is "contributing" $110 million to convert 3 of the 6 sites from non-market to marking housing. Based on the total floor area they could built under the current plan, it is like they are paying $347 per buildable square foot for the 3 sites. I googled land value in downtown Vancouver, since the City does not want to disclose appraised value for these land), land value was $450-$550 per buildable square foot BACK IN 2019. Also, in this deal, Concord will not be providing anymore affordable housing contribution, unlike other developers who purchased land at $550 per buildable square foot. My question is, who determined/recommend to Council that the $110M contribution is adequate for the land lift and the deal is beneficial to the City? and based on what? Also, based on other Q&A, it looks like Concord can make a rezoning application to increase the permitted building height and density for these sites in the future, which means the land cost to them would be even lower. Why can't we tie the development of the 6 sites together and confirm what can be built on each site and put a restriction on the 3 sites that Concord is getting that no additional density could ever be considered or 100% of the land lift must be contributed to the City?

c19524 asked about 1 year ago

Real Estate Department finalised the deal and presented recommendations to Council for approval. Pursuant to the Vancouver Charter, the City has statutory authority to enter into real estate transactions.

In 2022 Council approved the terms of an agreement with Concord Pacific that, subject to Council approval of the regulatory amendments being proposed currently, would include:
•   Concord retaining three sites for the development of market housing at the same density permitted under the current ODP;
•   The City receiving three sites for the development of new non-market housing (Concord waives the purchase price for the City to exercise its option on these sites, valued at $11m);
•   Development of new public amenities including fire hall and childcare facility; and,
•   Concord providing a $110M cash contribution that could be used for a new street network planned for Northeast False Creek.

The proposed amendments are in keeping with all previous Council decisions made over the years regarding the delivery of the remaining non-market housing units in the FCN ODP area.
Share Can you enlighten us what was the original plan 540 units + distribution in the respective 6 Non-marketing housing projects located in the FCN? Please let us know the number of storeys and number of units planned on these sites namely 431 Beach Cresc., 1502 Granville Street, 900 Pacific Blvd., 450 Pacific Street, 990 Beatty Street and 1050 Expo Blvd. on Facebook Share Can you enlighten us what was the original plan 540 units + distribution in the respective 6 Non-marketing housing projects located in the FCN? Please let us know the number of storeys and number of units planned on these sites namely 431 Beach Cresc., 1502 Granville Street, 900 Pacific Blvd., 450 Pacific Street, 990 Beatty Street and 1050 Expo Blvd. on Twitter Share Can you enlighten us what was the original plan 540 units + distribution in the respective 6 Non-marketing housing projects located in the FCN? Please let us know the number of storeys and number of units planned on these sites namely 431 Beach Cresc., 1502 Granville Street, 900 Pacific Blvd., 450 Pacific Street, 990 Beatty Street and 1050 Expo Blvd. on Linkedin Email Can you enlighten us what was the original plan 540 units + distribution in the respective 6 Non-marketing housing projects located in the FCN? Please let us know the number of storeys and number of units planned on these sites namely 431 Beach Cresc., 1502 Granville Street, 900 Pacific Blvd., 450 Pacific Street, 990 Beatty Street and 1050 Expo Blvd. link

Can you enlighten us what was the original plan 540 units + distribution in the respective 6 Non-marketing housing projects located in the FCN? Please let us know the number of storeys and number of units planned on these sites namely 431 Beach Cresc., 1502 Granville Street, 900 Pacific Blvd., 450 Pacific Street, 990 Beatty Street and 1050 Expo Blvd.

P K L asked about 1 year ago

The six non-market housing sites already constructed include:
238 Davie St (Bridgeview Place) – 72 units
183 Drake St (Sydney Manor) - 74 units (senior’s)
1267 Marinaside Cres. (Roundhouse Co-op) – 137 Units
201 Alvin Narod Mews (Yaletown Mews) – 60 units
1010 Pacific Blvd (Quayside) – 93 units.
525 Abbott Street - 108 units

The original anticipated # of units and # of storeys for each of the sites below are as follows:
Address:   Non-market housing units, Number of Storeys
1502 Granville:   90 units, up to 8 storeys
431 Beach      110 units, 12 storeys
450 Pacific   80 units, up to 8 storeys
1050 Expo   100 units, up to 8 storeys
990 Beatty   104 units, up to 15 storeys
900 Pacific Blvd   114 units, 15 storeys
TOTAL:   598 units
Share following up on a question of mine. city staff told me that urban design studies had been done and determined that 990 Beatty and 1050 Expo could accommodate more density than planned, so these sites are chosen for non-market housing because the City needs to put all the outstanding non-market density in the NEFC into 3 sites to free up another 3 sites for Concord's development. I asked why 1052 Granville cannot accommodate additional density but staff advised this site is not within the scope of the application. Why is it not? Are we talking about the 6 sites all together and want to determine the 3 sites that staff/Concord proposed are most appropriate for non-market housing? Knowing that a 60 storey building is proposed in the area of 1502 Granville and reading about Concord is planning another very tall building at 431 Beach Avenue, I wonder why 1052 Granville is not a good location for a tower for non-market housing. Please kindly explain. on Facebook Share following up on a question of mine. city staff told me that urban design studies had been done and determined that 990 Beatty and 1050 Expo could accommodate more density than planned, so these sites are chosen for non-market housing because the City needs to put all the outstanding non-market density in the NEFC into 3 sites to free up another 3 sites for Concord's development. I asked why 1052 Granville cannot accommodate additional density but staff advised this site is not within the scope of the application. Why is it not? Are we talking about the 6 sites all together and want to determine the 3 sites that staff/Concord proposed are most appropriate for non-market housing? Knowing that a 60 storey building is proposed in the area of 1502 Granville and reading about Concord is planning another very tall building at 431 Beach Avenue, I wonder why 1052 Granville is not a good location for a tower for non-market housing. Please kindly explain. on Twitter Share following up on a question of mine. city staff told me that urban design studies had been done and determined that 990 Beatty and 1050 Expo could accommodate more density than planned, so these sites are chosen for non-market housing because the City needs to put all the outstanding non-market density in the NEFC into 3 sites to free up another 3 sites for Concord's development. I asked why 1052 Granville cannot accommodate additional density but staff advised this site is not within the scope of the application. Why is it not? Are we talking about the 6 sites all together and want to determine the 3 sites that staff/Concord proposed are most appropriate for non-market housing? Knowing that a 60 storey building is proposed in the area of 1502 Granville and reading about Concord is planning another very tall building at 431 Beach Avenue, I wonder why 1052 Granville is not a good location for a tower for non-market housing. Please kindly explain. on Linkedin Email following up on a question of mine. city staff told me that urban design studies had been done and determined that 990 Beatty and 1050 Expo could accommodate more density than planned, so these sites are chosen for non-market housing because the City needs to put all the outstanding non-market density in the NEFC into 3 sites to free up another 3 sites for Concord's development. I asked why 1052 Granville cannot accommodate additional density but staff advised this site is not within the scope of the application. Why is it not? Are we talking about the 6 sites all together and want to determine the 3 sites that staff/Concord proposed are most appropriate for non-market housing? Knowing that a 60 storey building is proposed in the area of 1502 Granville and reading about Concord is planning another very tall building at 431 Beach Avenue, I wonder why 1052 Granville is not a good location for a tower for non-market housing. Please kindly explain. link

following up on a question of mine. city staff told me that urban design studies had been done and determined that 990 Beatty and 1050 Expo could accommodate more density than planned, so these sites are chosen for non-market housing because the City needs to put all the outstanding non-market density in the NEFC into 3 sites to free up another 3 sites for Concord's development. I asked why 1052 Granville cannot accommodate additional density but staff advised this site is not within the scope of the application. Why is it not? Are we talking about the 6 sites all together and want to determine the 3 sites that staff/Concord proposed are most appropriate for non-market housing? Knowing that a 60 storey building is proposed in the area of 1502 Granville and reading about Concord is planning another very tall building at 431 Beach Avenue, I wonder why 1052 Granville is not a good location for a tower for non-market housing. Please kindly explain.

c19524 asked about 1 year ago

In order to land all of the non-market housing requirement on 3 sites, the sites had to be able to take extra density. An urban design analysis was undertaken and it was determined that the two sites at 1050 Expo and 990 Beatty could accommodate the most additional density, considering tower separation, bridge separation, etc. To achieve the minimum 661 units, one of the existing smaller sites was selected – 450 Pacific St.

Under the FCN ODP, the site at 1502 Granville Street anticipates a building up to 8-storeys given the urban design requirement to maintain a minimum 25 m separation from adjacent towers for building mass above 70 feet. In addition, adequate distance from the Granville Street Bridge is required for maintenance. Due to these site constraints, it was determined that 1502 Granville Street may be more challenging to design and construct an efficient tower for non-market housing.
Share How much will this cost the City? Surely there will be some involvement from the City during the construction, so what is the estimated cost the City? Social housing often attracts families, is this area especially by the casino and BC Place an appropriate area? Will the increased congestion on the roads be addressed? How do you expect EMS crews to navigate an already congested area (due to concerts/games) in the event of an emergency? How will the area accommodate the additional population with excessively limited parking availability? on Facebook Share How much will this cost the City? Surely there will be some involvement from the City during the construction, so what is the estimated cost the City? Social housing often attracts families, is this area especially by the casino and BC Place an appropriate area? Will the increased congestion on the roads be addressed? How do you expect EMS crews to navigate an already congested area (due to concerts/games) in the event of an emergency? How will the area accommodate the additional population with excessively limited parking availability? on Twitter Share How much will this cost the City? Surely there will be some involvement from the City during the construction, so what is the estimated cost the City? Social housing often attracts families, is this area especially by the casino and BC Place an appropriate area? Will the increased congestion on the roads be addressed? How do you expect EMS crews to navigate an already congested area (due to concerts/games) in the event of an emergency? How will the area accommodate the additional population with excessively limited parking availability? on Linkedin Email How much will this cost the City? Surely there will be some involvement from the City during the construction, so what is the estimated cost the City? Social housing often attracts families, is this area especially by the casino and BC Place an appropriate area? Will the increased congestion on the roads be addressed? How do you expect EMS crews to navigate an already congested area (due to concerts/games) in the event of an emergency? How will the area accommodate the additional population with excessively limited parking availability? link

How much will this cost the City? Surely there will be some involvement from the City during the construction, so what is the estimated cost the City? Social housing often attracts families, is this area especially by the casino and BC Place an appropriate area? Will the increased congestion on the roads be addressed? How do you expect EMS crews to navigate an already congested area (due to concerts/games) in the event of an emergency? How will the area accommodate the additional population with excessively limited parking availability?

KR1234 asked about 1 year ago

For the housing component of the project, the City is incurring costs related to due diligence and design work prior to construction commencing. All of those costs will be reimbursed to the City through the housing project’s funding to be provided by BC Housing. The City has no responsibility for construction costs associated with the housing project as these are the responsibility of BC Housing and the Not for Profit housing partner.

The proposed projects are well-sited for families due to their proximity to shops and services, schools, employment, transit and will encourage reduced vehicle trip demand. The site is in excellent proximity to transit and cycling infrastructure, and is required to meet the minimum vehicle requirements of the parking bylaw, which includes provisions for accessible and visitor parking, loading, and bike spaces to be provided on-site.

The proposed developments are also being evaluated to understand their transportation impacts on the surrounding area and to encourage the use of active and sustainable transportation (walking/cycling) and transit, and reduce the need for personal vehicles. As part of the application process, Engineering staff review the application and studies with respect to transportation impacts and, if identified, may include development conditions for off-site requirements to improve mobility and safety for pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, and emergency services adjacent to the site, such as traffic signal and public realm improvements.
Share what would be the building footprint of the future 29 storey tower at 1050 Expo? How would that impact the neighbours? What would be the minimum setback to the bridge and to the roads? Would Expo Blvd be narrowed? would Pacific Blvd be widen? what would be the building separations to the existing surrounding buildings? would balconies be proposed and would they project into the setbacks? Would there be townhouse on the ground level similar to the other buildings in the area? on Facebook Share what would be the building footprint of the future 29 storey tower at 1050 Expo? How would that impact the neighbours? What would be the minimum setback to the bridge and to the roads? Would Expo Blvd be narrowed? would Pacific Blvd be widen? what would be the building separations to the existing surrounding buildings? would balconies be proposed and would they project into the setbacks? Would there be townhouse on the ground level similar to the other buildings in the area? on Twitter Share what would be the building footprint of the future 29 storey tower at 1050 Expo? How would that impact the neighbours? What would be the minimum setback to the bridge and to the roads? Would Expo Blvd be narrowed? would Pacific Blvd be widen? what would be the building separations to the existing surrounding buildings? would balconies be proposed and would they project into the setbacks? Would there be townhouse on the ground level similar to the other buildings in the area? on Linkedin Email what would be the building footprint of the future 29 storey tower at 1050 Expo? How would that impact the neighbours? What would be the minimum setback to the bridge and to the roads? Would Expo Blvd be narrowed? would Pacific Blvd be widen? what would be the building separations to the existing surrounding buildings? would balconies be proposed and would they project into the setbacks? Would there be townhouse on the ground level similar to the other buildings in the area? link

what would be the building footprint of the future 29 storey tower at 1050 Expo? How would that impact the neighbours? What would be the minimum setback to the bridge and to the roads? Would Expo Blvd be narrowed? would Pacific Blvd be widen? what would be the building separations to the existing surrounding buildings? would balconies be proposed and would they project into the setbacks? Would there be townhouse on the ground level similar to the other buildings in the area?

I.Lam asked about 1 year ago

What would be the building footprint of the future 29 storey tower at 1050 Expo?
The average floor plate is approximately 850 m².

How would that impact the neighbours?
The Guidelines ensure the 25 m (80 ft.) tower separations above 21.0 m (70 ft.) to maintain the privacy, and to minimise shadowing, widened spacing between buildings, create a sense of openness and optimize views for residents.

What would be the minimum setback to the bridge and to the roads?
The building is setback is approximately 10 m from the Cambie Bridge.

Would Expo Blvd be narrowed?
Expo Boulevard is proposed to be widened to accommodate wider sidewalks.

Would Pacific Blvd be widen?
Pacific Boulevard is proposed to be widened to accommodate wider sidewalks and a bike lane.

What would be the building separations to the existing surrounding buildings?
At the smallest pinch points, building separation is between 33 m from 1009 Expo Boulevard and 38 m from 1033 Marinaside Crescent. As per previous response, the minimum tower separation requirement is 25 m.

Would balconies be proposed and would they project into the setbacks?
All 1-3 bedroom units have their own balconies, studio units are offered a communal balcony space. The balconies are not projecting from the building faces, although the building is proposing minor encroachments into setbacks.

Would there be townhouse on the ground level similar to the other buildings in the area?
There are no townhouses proposed on the ground level. It is currently identified as amenity space for residents.
Share What is the distance from the northern wall of the proposed building at 990 Beatty St, at ground level, to the base of the 939 Expo Blvd building (south side) where the lofts are? From the application documents it seems that the residents at ground level at 939 Expo blvd are going to be a LOT closer than the minimum distance of 25m. on Facebook Share What is the distance from the northern wall of the proposed building at 990 Beatty St, at ground level, to the base of the 939 Expo Blvd building (south side) where the lofts are? From the application documents it seems that the residents at ground level at 939 Expo blvd are going to be a LOT closer than the minimum distance of 25m. on Twitter Share What is the distance from the northern wall of the proposed building at 990 Beatty St, at ground level, to the base of the 939 Expo Blvd building (south side) where the lofts are? From the application documents it seems that the residents at ground level at 939 Expo blvd are going to be a LOT closer than the minimum distance of 25m. on Linkedin Email What is the distance from the northern wall of the proposed building at 990 Beatty St, at ground level, to the base of the 939 Expo Blvd building (south side) where the lofts are? From the application documents it seems that the residents at ground level at 939 Expo blvd are going to be a LOT closer than the minimum distance of 25m. link

What is the distance from the northern wall of the proposed building at 990 Beatty St, at ground level, to the base of the 939 Expo Blvd building (south side) where the lofts are? From the application documents it seems that the residents at ground level at 939 Expo blvd are going to be a LOT closer than the minimum distance of 25m.

Greg_C asked about 1 year ago

HI Greg,

The distance from the northern wall of 990 Beatty to the 939 Expo townhomes on the ground level is roughly 21.3m. The proposed building at 990 Beatty is 12.4m away from the property line, the 939 Expo townhomes are roughly 8.9m away from the property line. The 25 m tower separation is for building mass above 70 feet, there is no regulated building separation for mass below 70 feet.

There is no interior side yard setback anticipated under the Quayside Neighbourhood Guidelines. The guidelines outline that interior sidewalls should incorporate materials, colours, textures, articulation, and/or landscaping to enhance their visual appeal to neighbouring developments and passersby. Landscape should also be a major factor in creating a livable, healthy and environmentally responsive community through extensive use of soft landscape materials, particularly trees, and this proposal will be expected to incorporate these urban design performance measures.
Share Was the fair market value of the three properties Concord will get as part of this proposal ever discussed during conversations between the City and Concord during the negotiations of this agreement? on Facebook Share Was the fair market value of the three properties Concord will get as part of this proposal ever discussed during conversations between the City and Concord during the negotiations of this agreement? on Twitter Share Was the fair market value of the three properties Concord will get as part of this proposal ever discussed during conversations between the City and Concord during the negotiations of this agreement? on Linkedin Email Was the fair market value of the three properties Concord will get as part of this proposal ever discussed during conversations between the City and Concord during the negotiations of this agreement? link

Was the fair market value of the three properties Concord will get as part of this proposal ever discussed during conversations between the City and Concord during the negotiations of this agreement?

Greg_C asked about 1 year ago

The City is unable to share projected land values on privately held land. If you would like more information, please contact Concord Pacific.
Share the proposed fire hall will be replacing the one at Hamilton, which catchment area is the current Fire Hall #8 serving and would that change when the new one at Beatty is built? I noted in the previous Q&A the new fire hall would also serve the new developments in the area, what new development specifically? Would this new fire hall also serve the new Plaza of Nation development and all the new Concord developments east of that? Have they City try to find a location in those area if the new firehall is going to service those area too? on Facebook Share the proposed fire hall will be replacing the one at Hamilton, which catchment area is the current Fire Hall #8 serving and would that change when the new one at Beatty is built? I noted in the previous Q&A the new fire hall would also serve the new developments in the area, what new development specifically? Would this new fire hall also serve the new Plaza of Nation development and all the new Concord developments east of that? Have they City try to find a location in those area if the new firehall is going to service those area too? on Twitter Share the proposed fire hall will be replacing the one at Hamilton, which catchment area is the current Fire Hall #8 serving and would that change when the new one at Beatty is built? I noted in the previous Q&A the new fire hall would also serve the new developments in the area, what new development specifically? Would this new fire hall also serve the new Plaza of Nation development and all the new Concord developments east of that? Have they City try to find a location in those area if the new firehall is going to service those area too? on Linkedin Email the proposed fire hall will be replacing the one at Hamilton, which catchment area is the current Fire Hall #8 serving and would that change when the new one at Beatty is built? I noted in the previous Q&A the new fire hall would also serve the new developments in the area, what new development specifically? Would this new fire hall also serve the new Plaza of Nation development and all the new Concord developments east of that? Have they City try to find a location in those area if the new firehall is going to service those area too? link

the proposed fire hall will be replacing the one at Hamilton, which catchment area is the current Fire Hall #8 serving and would that change when the new one at Beatty is built? I noted in the previous Q&A the new fire hall would also serve the new developments in the area, what new development specifically? Would this new fire hall also serve the new Plaza of Nation development and all the new Concord developments east of that? Have they City try to find a location in those area if the new firehall is going to service those area too?

I.Lam asked about 1 year ago

The catchment area would not change as the location of the new fire hall is relatively close to the current one at 895 Hamilton, and this was/is certainly a key consideration in selecting new Fire Hall sites when replacing an existing one. The Fire Halls are spaced apart geographically in as optimal locations as they can be, and work together as a network.

Projected population growth was taken account in the development of the City’s Long term Strategic Station Plan. There are also different service level delivery metrics that are considered. There is Initial Response – the VFRS target is four firefighters arriving on scene within 4 minutes of travel time, but there is also Depth of Response, and the number of firefighters that are assigned to respond are based on the level of present risk. It is likely that more than one hall would respond to an incident. For Moderate risk incidents – 21 firefighters arrive on scene within 8 minutes of travel time and for High Risk incidents 31 firefighters arrive on scene within 8 minutes of travel time. The vast majority of high hazard structures are in the Downtown Core which accounts for more than half of all incident in the City.
Share For your statement that The overall proportion of non-market housing is currently below the originally intended 20%, currently sitting at around 11%, I wonder how much the incorporation of super high rise building such as Vancouver House and other attribute to the low percentage of 11% of NM Housing in FCN? on Facebook Share For your statement that The overall proportion of non-market housing is currently below the originally intended 20%, currently sitting at around 11%, I wonder how much the incorporation of super high rise building such as Vancouver House and other attribute to the low percentage of 11% of NM Housing in FCN? on Twitter Share For your statement that The overall proportion of non-market housing is currently below the originally intended 20%, currently sitting at around 11%, I wonder how much the incorporation of super high rise building such as Vancouver House and other attribute to the low percentage of 11% of NM Housing in FCN? on Linkedin Email For your statement that The overall proportion of non-market housing is currently below the originally intended 20%, currently sitting at around 11%, I wonder how much the incorporation of super high rise building such as Vancouver House and other attribute to the low percentage of 11% of NM Housing in FCN? link

For your statement that The overall proportion of non-market housing is currently below the originally intended 20%, currently sitting at around 11%, I wonder how much the incorporation of super high rise building such as Vancouver House and other attribute to the low percentage of 11% of NM Housing in FCN?

P K L asked about 1 year ago

Hi again,
This is more of a statement than a question, please clarify the question. Vancouver House is not in the FCN ODP area so does not affect the NMH % in the ODP.
Share From your previous answers, it appears that the $110 million from Concord will not be going towards building on the three sites. How then will construction of the new social housing be funded? Looking at 990 Beatty as an example, if in 30 years or whatever it is, there has never been the funding to build a 15 storey apartment building, how is there now funding to build a 28 storey building (and a fire hall)? Wouldn't a 15 storey building be more achievable? How much would a 28 storey building even cost? on Facebook Share From your previous answers, it appears that the $110 million from Concord will not be going towards building on the three sites. How then will construction of the new social housing be funded? Looking at 990 Beatty as an example, if in 30 years or whatever it is, there has never been the funding to build a 15 storey apartment building, how is there now funding to build a 28 storey building (and a fire hall)? Wouldn't a 15 storey building be more achievable? How much would a 28 storey building even cost? on Twitter Share From your previous answers, it appears that the $110 million from Concord will not be going towards building on the three sites. How then will construction of the new social housing be funded? Looking at 990 Beatty as an example, if in 30 years or whatever it is, there has never been the funding to build a 15 storey apartment building, how is there now funding to build a 28 storey building (and a fire hall)? Wouldn't a 15 storey building be more achievable? How much would a 28 storey building even cost? on Linkedin Email From your previous answers, it appears that the $110 million from Concord will not be going towards building on the three sites. How then will construction of the new social housing be funded? Looking at 990 Beatty as an example, if in 30 years or whatever it is, there has never been the funding to build a 15 storey apartment building, how is there now funding to build a 28 storey building (and a fire hall)? Wouldn't a 15 storey building be more achievable? How much would a 28 storey building even cost? link

From your previous answers, it appears that the $110 million from Concord will not be going towards building on the three sites. How then will construction of the new social housing be funded? Looking at 990 Beatty as an example, if in 30 years or whatever it is, there has never been the funding to build a 15 storey apartment building, how is there now funding to build a 28 storey building (and a fire hall)? Wouldn't a 15 storey building be more achievable? How much would a 28 storey building even cost?

A.K.S. asked about 1 year ago

The $110M cash contribution will be used to fund infrastructure requirements to support the non-market housing as well as a portion of the street network and utility changes contemplated through the NEFC plan.

The proposed non-market housing buildings will be funded by BC Housing and the City. Since the approval of the FCN ODP in 1990, these sites have remained empty lots as the funding model originally identified to deliver these units on six sites was no longer achievable. The new funding model transfers ownership of three sites to the City to develop in partnership with BC Housing, independent of relying on other parties. The City, working with BC Housing and Concord Pacific, determined that the new model proposed was the most effective way to realize delivery of the 661 or more units, on undeveloped sites under the City’s ownership, while also receiving over $110M for use to deliver the new NEFC street network.

All three non-market housing projects are subject to financing approval from BC Housing.

Page last updated: 20 Jul 2023, 04:34 PM

False Creek North social housing

Was the fair market value of the three properties Concord will get as part of this proposal ever discussed during conversations between the City and Concord during the negotiations of this agreement?

Sign up for updates on the Northeast False Creek (NEFC) area

Project timeline

Review of application and proposed amendments

Public engagement

Application approved by Council

Key dates

Documents

Contact us