It seems that as I get older I get crankier. Perhaps this is why I became quite upset when I read that Vancouver's Chief Building Official (CBO) was recommending that the owner of 500 Dunsmuir be required to demolish the building for safety reasons. While I have not had any involvement with this property in the past, I am interested in the city's heritage, and knew that this was one of the few significant heritage buildings in the downtown. I also knew that the owner, Holborn Properties had no interest whatsoever, in heritage, or good urban planning for that matter.
If the owner's name sounds familiar, this is the company that
- took far too many years to develop what was supposed to be a Ritz Carlton, then the Trump Tower property;
- then allowed the Little Mountain property to remain vacant for more than a decade without paying any Empty Home Taxes, (and eventually getting concessions from the city on the timing of the replacement social housing); and
- finally let this heritage building remain vacant and rot so that it could be demolished, rather than be incorporated into the company's future redevelopment of this and nearby lands.
Sadly, the owner put council in a very difficult position with what they thought was little choice but to listen to its CBO and approve the demolition.
In fact, there was another option. They could have required the owner to prop up the walls as occurs with heritage properties around the world that are undergoing redevelopment.
While I rarely write to Council, I did so this time, after reading a note from former councillor Jean Swanson who questioned why the city's SRO policy requiring a $300,000 fee PER UNIT, when an SRO unit is allowed to deteriorate to the point that it has to be demolished, did not apply to this property. Had it applied to this building, the fee would have been $50.1 million, for a property assessed at $8.1 million, which is another matter!
While there are various opinions on whether the fee should apply, councillors did take notice and eventually approved the motions set out below.
I will offer just one final comment. Reference is made to the future rezoning. I would question why the owner should be allowed to rezone this property, after demolition. It is zoned Downtown District C2. This allows commercial development at a 7 FSR.
This zoning was put in place a decade or two ago when the city was concerned there wasn't adequate capacity for office buildings in the CBD. (Ironically, Chuck Brook and I spoke to Council at the time opposing this zoning change since we thought mixed use was preferable from an urban planning perspective.)
That said,Holborn Properties cleverly avoided having to pay the Empty Home Tax and the SRO demolition fee since residential uses are not an outright use. So I say, once the building is demolished, tell them they can build as per the existing zoning. Don't allow a rezoning. And talk to former City Planner Michael Gordon who wrote on X that the conservation of this heritage building in any future redevelopment was a requirement if the owner wanted residential uses on the Bay Parkade property, another of their downtown holdings.
Property assessment. One other thing. I have become fascinated by property assessments in my old age. I have even successfully appealed a few. That's why I was surprised to see the assessment for this 12,000 sq.ft. property in the CBD was assessed at only $8.1 million. The land was assessed at only $6,345,000 but the building improvements, that are so deteriorated and unsafe the building must be demolished, were assessed at $1,757,000.
Meanwhile, a vacant lot next door half the size, (that may also be owned by Holborn), is assessed at over $10 million.
Finally, a special thank you to councillors Rebecca Bligh and Sarah Kirby-Young who took a particular interest in this unfortunate matter, and are trying to see if there's some way to punish Holborn for what was described as a 'despicable act'. Agreed.
