Jump to content

      










UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Shire on Inverness, building A
Use: condo
Address: 3300-block of Quadra Street
Municipality: Saanich
Region: Urban Core
Storeys: 5
Condo units: 25 (1BR, 2BR)
Sales status: now selling
The Shire on Inverness, building A, consists of 25 condos in a five storey building located along the 3300-blo... (view full profile)
Learn more about Shire on Inverness, building A on Citified.ca
Photo

[Saanich] The Shire | 6-, 5- & 5-storey condos | Under construction


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#1 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 36,304 posts

Posted 27 April 2012 - 07:46 AM

As mentioned by David Bratzer in another thread:

Saanich just held a public hearing for three buildings (two five storey and a six storey) at Quadra and Inverness. I think the project is called The Shire. They will be wood frame. Council voted unanimously to move the proposal and it will now proceed to final approval. These will be condos (with a prohibition on the owners renting them out). Nine of the units will dedicated to housing for low income seniors.


Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#2 Bob Fugger

Bob Fugger

    Chief Factor

  • Banned
  • 2,395 posts
  • LocationSouth Central CSV

Posted 27 April 2012 - 08:13 AM

Saanich just held a public hearing for three buildings (two five storey and a six storey) at Quadra and Inverness. I think the project is called The Shire. They will be wood frame. Council voted unanimously to move the proposal and it will now proceed to final approval. These will be condos (with a prohibition on the owners renting them out). Nine of the units will dedicated to housing for low income seniors.



Did someone reach into The Wayback Machine and pull these myopic strata rules out of the 1980s? There can't be many buildings built from the 1990s (and certainly since the 2000s) onward that have rental restrictions.

What potential owners don't see today are severely hampered resale values tomorrow, as they will be competing on the market with rentable units.

#3 David Bratzer

David Bratzer
  • Member
  • 335 posts

Posted 27 April 2012 - 08:29 AM

I got the rental part wrong. I just read the covenant recommendations from Saanich planning again. They recommend a "prohibition on the banning of rental units"

Sorry about that...

#4 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 36,304 posts

Posted 27 April 2012 - 08:40 AM

All cleared then :) Thanks, David.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#5 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 14,803 posts

Posted 27 April 2012 - 10:14 AM

Any renderings or website for this project yet?

#6 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 11,676 posts

Posted 29 April 2012 - 08:47 PM

Hmm couldn't find anything on the Saanich site... I suspect that it will be less than great. Would have been nice to get a little more commercial along that stretch but assuming that is not happening.

My latest post is up. This time on the Bricks of Government Street.  http://www.sidewalki...ent-street.html

 


#7 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 36,304 posts

Posted 29 April 2012 - 09:14 PM

Saanich's website is starting to slip. It used to be a great source for relatively timely updates on development projects throughout Saanich.

Langford's new site is also missing updated development info that it had prior to the redesign.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#8 Bernard

Bernard
  • Member
  • 3,936 posts
  • LocationVictoria BC

Posted 30 April 2012 - 06:24 PM

Beyond the problems at Saanich not keeping pace with information, I find the name hideous

#9 phx

phx
  • Member
  • 1,367 posts

Posted 02 May 2012 - 08:04 PM

Beyond the problems at Saanich not keeping pace with information, I find the name hideous


Ha! But aren't almost all building names pretentious?

Really, how many buildings in town are worthy of being known by name?

#10 Bernard

Bernard
  • Member
  • 3,936 posts
  • LocationVictoria BC

Posted 03 May 2012 - 11:28 AM

Ha! But aren't almost all building names pretentious?

Really, how many buildings in town are worthy of being known by name?


Most are just stupid and pretentious, but the Shire is way beyond that
  • Mixed365 likes this

#11 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 14,803 posts

Posted 03 May 2012 - 11:38 AM

Ha! But aren't almost all building names pretentious?Really, how many buildings in town are worthy of being known by name?


My building is named "Park Place". Since we are located approximately 2 blocks from Royal Athletic Park and 3 blocks from Central Park, I think the name is suitable. In addition, our development is built around a fairly large (for a downtown building) central courtyard that is quite park-like in its ambience. So as far as MY residence is concerned, I think there is nothing pretentious about its name at all. I agree though that many buidings have the most innappropriate monikers. :squint:

#12 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Member
  • 45,522 posts

Posted 03 May 2012 - 12:04 PM

My building is named "Park Place". Since we are located approximately 2 blocks from Royal Athletic Park and 3 blocks from Central Park, I think the name is suitable. In addition, our development is built around a fairly large (for a downtown building) central courtyard that is quite park-like in its ambience. So as far as MY residence is concerned, I think there is nothing pretentious about its name at all. I agree though that many buidings have the most innappropriate monikers. :squint:


Hmmm, well I have a bit of news for you. The developer of your building also went on to build The Boardwalk (North Park St.) and St. James Place (Wark St.). He was just going for a Monopoly theme. That might be considered pretentious.



Your property used to be the Palm Dairies site.

http://www.victoriah...arkhistory.html
  • Mixed365 likes this

#13 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 14,803 posts

Posted 03 May 2012 - 03:43 PM

Hmmm, well I have a bit of news for you. The developer of your building also went on to build The Boardwalk (North Park St.) and St. James Place (Wark St.). He was just going for a Monopoly theme. That might be considered pretentious. Your property used to be the Palm Dairies site.


I am fully aware of the subsequent Monopoly-themed developments that followed Park Place. Be that as they may, I stand by my assertion that the name of my building entirely suits its locale and design.
:judge:

Thanks for the Palm Dairies pic though, I have wanted to see a good shot of 930 North Park's former structure for some time now.

#14 phx

phx
  • Member
  • 1,367 posts

Posted 03 May 2012 - 05:54 PM

Hmmm, well I have a bit of news for you. The developer of your building also went on to build The Boardwalk (North Park St.) and St. James Place (Wark St.). He was just going for a Monopoly theme. That might be considered pretentious.


Bwahahaha!! pwned!

The Monopoly theme is absolutely pretentious!

#15 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 36,304 posts

Posted 03 May 2012 - 08:37 PM

Would you guys stop it already?

Thank you :)

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#16 Urbanistco

Urbanistco
  • Member
  • 172 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 08:06 AM

Last night saw a spirited public hearing where the developer, Jim Mclaren was under fire for the community amenity contribution. Originally proposed in June 2011, the contribution was 9 seniors subsidized rental units "in perpetuity". Apparently, the developer was unable to secure financing for the project with this covenant on title so they triggered a public hearing by requesting the rental units be under covenant for 10 years afterwhich they could be sold. The developer's project planner tried to sell this as a minor change which it is indeed not. When a developer builds a community centre, small park, or environmental restoration, are they allowed to recover their contribution after 10 years? After some negotiations they developer and council came to the agreement that any tenants still in place at 9 years 11 months would not be removed from the rental units until they did so voluntarily or deceased. After this the developer would then be able to assume control of the unit and place it for sale or re-rent at FMV instead of subsidized. Council passed it with only 1, Councillor Derman in opposition.
  • Mixed365 likes this

#17 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 36,304 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 08:08 AM

Thanks for the update, Urbanistco. Is there a name or a website associated with this project?

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#18 Urbanistco

Urbanistco
  • Member
  • 172 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 08:19 AM

Not yet, some basic renderings and permitting documents can be found here:

http://www.saanich.c...pment/core.html

#19 D.L.

D.L.
  • Member
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 06:50 PM

http://theshirecondos.ca/

Misra Architects

Five and six story residential buildings are becoming common :)





#20 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 11,676 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 07:40 PM

Wow those look way better than I thought they would!

My latest post is up. This time on the Bricks of Government Street.  http://www.sidewalki...ent-street.html

 


You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users