There’s been much buzz in the development world about the news that Peter and Shahram Malek recently bought the property at 1550 East Hastings for almost $5 million, with what would appear to be a plan to develop it for condos.
As my Globe story notes, this is just a little more than a year after their Olympic Village development was placed in receivership and less than a year after the city took all their known commercial assets, 32 properties in five municipalities with a net value of $45 million.
(It’s also after they had their interests in the Evelyn Drive property in West Vancouver and the Alexandra development on Bidwell taken over by others.)
Some see it as a sign of resilience in a long-standing company that has produced good work. Others are somewhat startled.
18 responses so far ↓
1 Joe Just Joe // Jan 20, 2012 at 2:07 pm
I’m not surprised to see them back in the game so quickly, but I am a little surprised that their next project would be in Vancouver and not one of the neighbouring cities.
Glad to see change coming to that part of town and I’ll leave it at that.
In your article you missed another upcoming project just up the road, Boffo is planing a redevelopment at Commercial and Venables.
2 gmgw // Jan 20, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Commercial and Venables?? The final end of the Drive has begun.
gmgw
3 Morry // Jan 20, 2012 at 4:00 pm
“Some see it as a sign of resilience in a long-standing company that has produced good work. Others are somewhat startled.”
😉
4 Jake // Jan 20, 2012 at 6:17 pm
Nothing like a rousing public excoriation by a half- or ill-informed “rabble” with limited grasp of the realities of business, risk mitigation and real estate development to discourage faith in one’s fellow man…apparently I need to get over my naive expectation that commenters on Globe & Mail articles will measure up to a higher standard.
5 Brenton // Jan 21, 2012 at 12:29 am
FYI, the “Ask a question box” pushes into the text of the posts when using Google Chrome.
6 pacpost // Jan 21, 2012 at 10:12 am
Following up on Brenton’s comment, the same thing happens with Firefox.
7 Bill McCreery // Jan 21, 2012 at 12:32 pm
@ 5 & 6. ‘? box’ overlap was happening for me using just plain old Google / Safari, but not for the past few days.
8 Higgins // Jan 21, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Who cares? The Malek brothers have others sources of income and financing avenues. What, is Vision’s buddies from Westbank trying to bid on the property? Is Ballem & comp. not sure that the city and their hired Jackalls skinned them enough? They delivered you a project (olympic Village) that you —> Vision, managed to f$%k up! Period.
9 Max // Jan 21, 2012 at 1:27 pm
This is a side note on the Oly Village – social housing units.
It was reported by the CoV that all social housing units were occupied. Residents living there say otherwise. One stated that they figure only 40 – 50 of the 160 units are occupied.
If these units aren’t occupied, that is monthly losses in the 10’s of thousands of dollars to the taxpayer.
10 Bill McCreery // Jan 21, 2012 at 2:57 pm
And keeping that in perspective Max, if the Vision Vancouver Council had had their act together, 100% of those units would have been occupied 1 month after the Olympics were over. It’s called ‘critical path planning’.
And if they had the interests of Vancouver taxpayers and those who need social housing, they would have put those units on the market, sold them and their replacements on more affordable land would already be under construction.
11 Sean Nelson // Jan 21, 2012 at 5:46 pm
@Bill McCreery #10
I don’t see how it would have been possible to filled those units so quickly given that you can’t sell them without showing them and you couldn’t have shown them until the Olympics are over. It’s called a “dependency tree”.
12 Bill McCreery // Jan 21, 2012 at 11:15 pm
Not correct SN, assume you speak of selling condo’s, not renting social housing and units to 1st responders. It was a nice idea at taxpayer’s expense, but, sorry, 1st responders weren’t interested (I have that directly from one of the 1st responder unions) – rents were to expensive. Vision Vancouver might have done a bit of market response work before announcing a politically motivated nonstarter.
And perhaps you’re not aware of the idea of ‘pre-selling’ units. It’s a procedure that’s been essential since lenders became skittish in the early 90’s (unfortunately that’s cut out smaller developers, and smaller projects, from participating in new housing creation). In addition, it is normal to include pre-selling and post-construction selling periods and the necessary financing in development proformas. Those costs are, therefore, taken into account to ensure the development is profitable.
I’m surprised you’re not also aware of ‘show suites’ often built off-site to assist in the ‘pre-selling’.
13 sv // Jan 22, 2012 at 2:09 am
Bill- in surprised you weren’t elected.
14 rmac // Jan 23, 2012 at 2:29 pm
It’s easy enough to be snarky about who should have done what, but the fact is the “social housing” units are nasty, dark little tunnels with no special amenities – not even a dishwasher or built in microwave to save space. People just don’t want to live in them – the stove and fridge are also smaller than normal, less than one would consider to be apartment-sized.
15 Max // Jan 25, 2012 at 8:07 am
@rmac #14:
So, you are saying that people that were previously homeless, people sitting on the BC Housing list, wouldn’t be interested in having one of the units because there is not a ‘built in’ microwave or ‘amenities’?
And even given that – there is the question of why the City is putting out misinformation (again) about the numbers.
16 paul // Jan 25, 2012 at 12:07 pm
@rmac
you should see my basment suite …
17 Lewis N. Villegas // Jan 25, 2012 at 6:32 pm
We’ve been keeping a close eye on E Hastings during the VHQ process. This site is a very good example of the advantages of a co-ordinated approach to redevelopment, where public sector monies are used to shape private sector investment.
It doesn’t reduce the risks to the developers, but it does give the neighbourhood a heads up.
We are proposing LRT on Hastings. Imagine that, then think about what a site between Clark and Commercial might become.
Or, do the other side of the math, and ask just what can become of a project here given the existing conditions of some 55,000 ADTs (average daily traffic). A primer on livable streets here:
http://wp.me/p1mj4z-rW
If it is going to be condos, then they will have to be turning a back on a street that no one is really thinking about anyhow.
18 evilfred // Jan 26, 2012 at 7:35 pm
I hope they get started soon. Perfect timing for them to get screwed by the real estate bubble pop.