Yes, where the building is the premises of a hotel that is actually trading. Real property acquired as part of a real and operating commercial enterprise is qualifying capital; real property bought to hold, let or await appreciation is passive investment and is not, whatever the amount involved.
The question is what the property is being used for, not what it is
Nothing in the treaty investor framework prefers equipment to buildings. A hotel is premises plus staff plus trade, and the premises are not severable from the undertaking. Two cautions follow for Anselm.
The first is documentary: the purchase agreement should allocate the price across land and building, furnishings, kitchen equipment, the licence and goodwill, each line supported by a valuation somebody can defend, because an unexplained allocation invites the reading he wants to avoid. The second is operational: the enterprise must be more than a name over a door at the moment of the application, so the lodge should be trading through the transition rather than closed for a season of renovation. Substantiality is then assessed in proportion to what a hotel of this size costs to acquire, and where he is buying the whole thing that proportion approaches everything.