[Central Saanich] 6719 West Saanich Road (Sassy's Family Restaurant) | Rental; commercial; tourism; 3-storeys | Proposed

Citified profile: https://victoria.cit...t-saanich-road/

 

 

Sassy's restaurant property in Central Saanich slated for redevelopment into mixed-use residential, commercial spaces

https://victoria.cit...mercial-spaces/

The look of this will fit in nicely with the townhouse complex next door and the fire station across the street. A lot of locals will miss Sassy's... I can't say I was a fan of the place, but it did serve a niche

Sassy's last day will be August 21st.

 

 

https://www.facebook...nrsrtSozfxd7YNl

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 16 August 2022 - 05:54 AM.

43 years in business under three names, Porter House, Smitty’s, then Sassy’s.

Man that sounds exhausting! 43 years!

Updated plans have emerged for this proposal, which now includes 12 short-term rental units in addition to 20 studio-to-2BR residences. An additional building is also conceived, so now there are two three-storey buildings and a two-storey building, designed under a new architectural firm.

 

A massing diagram depicts the east and west elevations of the largest of three buildings proposed for 6719 West Saanich Road, the former home of Sassy's Restaurant in Central Saanich. Updated plans for the project include two three-storey buildings, and a two-storey building.

 

Apartments, short-term rentals and retail spaces envisioned in new plans for Sassy’s Restaurant site in Central Saanich

https://victoria.cit...entral-saanich/

Perhaps it’s just me, but does anyone else find it exasperating that almost 40% of the units in this development are specifically slated to be short-term rentals and that according to the article, the square footage of the short term rentals will be significantly larger than the long-term rentals? Why is it that we live in a time when local residents are given expensive ‘market’ housing scraps while visitors are given the prime spaces and prioritized?

Of course I already know the answer - money - but still, this type of greed will only lead to a lower quality of life for residents and lead to more inequality and poverty as people are forced into smaller spaces, paying exorbitant amounts of their income towards rent to compete with the profit returns that investors can get in the short term rental market. Frankly, it’s disgusting.

What if just another Super 8 Hotel was proposed?

It seems unlikely anyone will be forced to live in this development against their will.

What if just another Super 8 Hotel was proposed?

If it was a hotel proposal, it would be required to be zoned as a commercial hotel property and would be taxed as a commercially operated hotel with all associated taxes, insurance, and permits (and stable full time jobs). As short-term rental units, they can skirt these more stringent requirements and operate as if they were residential units. STRs are a scourge on society.

STRs are a scourge on society.

 

Aren't they good for tourism though, supporting other businesses in the economy?

It seems unlikely anyone will be forced to live in this development against their will.

Your sarcasm is noted. It is not, however, helpful in discussing the fact that STRs are resulting in the displacement of long term housing, as can be seen in the fact it makes up 37.5% of the units in this build and almost certainly a larger proportion of square footage. Is no one else worried about the housing supply shortage facing our region? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!

Your sarcasm is noted. It is not, however, helpful in discussing the fact that STRs are resulting in the displacement of long term housing, as can be seen in the fact it makes up 37.5% of the units in this build and almost certainly a larger proportion of square footage. Is no one else worried about the housing supply shortage facing our region? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!

 

Isn't it very possible that without the 37.5% of the units here renting for more per night/week/month/year, the other 62.5% would not be feasible, or would be smaller, or would be more numerous (higher density) or would be more expensive etc. etc.?  Everything is a trade-off.

 

If there were zero STRs in this area, some tourists simply would not visit here, as some people will stay in nothing but STRs.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 14 September 2022 - 03:51 AM.

Aren't they good for tourism though, supporting other businesses in the economy?

Short term rentals are an example of how a small cottage industry can, with the right marketing and platform (Airbnb), become a hugely disruptive force. They are a contributing factor to why rents increased so dramatically over the last few years around the world (although they’re certainly not exclusively the issue). STRs require the same initial investment as a LTR property, but offer significantly higher monthly returns on investment due to the fact you can charge a much higher fee per unit of time. This in turn helped put further upward momentum on home prices (along with several other vectors such as millenial homebuyers, foreign investors, domestic investors, REITs, etc). This has, however, caused a really massive shift in the expectations that ALL landlords have in the returns on their investment properties, from single unit landlords up to REITs. It literally called the Airbnb effect and is well researched and documented in many cities and shows that there is a statistically significant increase in average rents in cities that have a large number of Airbnbs.

Short term rentals are an example of how a small cottage industry can, with the right marketing and platform (Airbnb), become a hugely disruptive force. They are a contributing factor to why rents increased so dramatically over the last few years around the world (although they’re certainly not exclusively the issue). STRs require the same initial investment as a LTR property, but offer significantly higher monthly returns on investment due to the fact you can charge a much higher fee per unit of time. This in turn helped put further upward momentum on home prices (along with several other vectors such as millenial homebuyers, foreign investors, domestic investors, REITs, etc). This has, however, caused a really massive shift in the expectations that ALL landlords have in the returns on their investment properties, from single unit landlords up to REITs. It literally called the Airbnb effect and is well researched and documented in many cities and shows that there is a statistically significant increase in average rents in cities that have a large number of Airbnbs.

 

Some of this might be true.  

 

What also might be true is that:

 

A.  the increase in STRs have put downward pressure on traditional hotel room rates.  Lower hotel room rates make tourist travel more attractive, and is very useful for attracting revenue-generating conventions etc. 

B.  the ability to optionally use housing units for STR (whether or not it is used for such upon completion) has increased demand, and thus supply, of all types of housing.  It has created a thriving construction industry, along with high-paying jobs, primarily among men with lesser education levels than their college-educated counterparts.

C.  platforms like Air BnB have made it possible for homeowners of all types to earn supplemental income to offset increasing costs of living, save for retirement, or purchase needed repairs and upgrades etc.

D. STRs have brought good tourist dollars to areas long underserved by traditional hotel units.  

 

The many cases researched and documented you mention usually have a slant, an angle, are looking at one side of the equation and not others.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 14 September 2022 - 04:05 AM.

Isn't it very possible that without the 37.5% of the units here renting for more per night/week/month/year, the other 62.5% would not be feasible, or would be smaller, or would be more numerous (higher density) or would be more expensive etc. etc.? Everything is a trade-off.

If there were zero STRs in this area, some tourists simply would not visit here, as some people will stay in nothing but STRs.

If builders start claiming that STRs are being used to subsidize ‘market’ rental housing, then you know you have reached social bankruptcy. STRs, in my opinion, should be completely banned. Full stop. Tourism was chugging along just fine before STRs proliferated, and it would be fine again if they were to stop existing. Communities should not and cannot be designed for tourists first. You cannot have a sustainable and viable tourism industry without service workers to support it, and service workers ain’t gonna show up to the party if you don’t provide housing that attainable within their income levels. Surely you’ve seen the numerous articles about how there’s not enough staff for retail and service jobs? Heck, even doctors are leaving because of affordability. If you give developers and investors the chance to make more money off the residential sector, then of course they’re going to take it.

If builders start claiming that STRs are being used to subsidize ‘market’ rental housing, then you know you have reached social bankruptcy. STRs, in my opinion, should be completely banned. 

 

Builders currently are forced to use higher priced units in order to fulfill increasingly onerous local government demands for a percentage of "affordable" housing units.

You cannot have a sustainable and viable tourism industry without service workers to support it, and service workers ain’t gonna show up to the party if you don’t provide housing that attainable within their income levels. Surely you’ve seen the numerous articles about how there’s not enough staff for retail and service jobs? 

 

I have seen those articles.  But I've not heard of many places permanently closing solely due to staff shortages.  I've yet to hear of any tourism mecca - worldwide - that simply collapsed due to labour shortages.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 14 September 2022 - 04:11 AM.

If you give developers and investors the chance to make more money off the residential sector, then of course they’re going to take it.

 

That's how every company works.  Developers are not evil, they build only what consumers want.

In this instance, no housing is being taken away. I would also assume that the developer will have to seek municipal permission to operate the STRs, or it may already be a use under the current zoning.

The original housing stock of this project (under the prior proposal) was the same, prior to adding the STRs. The district might actually welcome the transient units in addition to the full time rentals. Local businesses definitely will.