Monday Magazine
Russ Francis
What a great idea! Instead of building more rental housing units, tear existing ones down!
That’s the brilliant notion many developers have these days. By constructing new buildings and selling them as condos, developers can make wads of loot. And because they don’t want any riff-raff hanging around, they can make sure there’s a “no rentals” clause in the strata agreements.
[...]
BUILT 200 Douglas Use: condo Address: 200 Douglas Street Municipality: Victoria Region: Urban core Storeys: 6 Condo units: (1BR, 2BR, penthouse) Sales status: now selling |
Initiall... (view full profile)
Learn more about 200 Douglas on Citified.ca
[James Bay] 200 Douglas | Condos | 6-storeys | Built - completed in 2014
#1
Posted 02 August 2007 - 02:26 PM
-City of Victoria website, 2009
#2
Posted 02 August 2007 - 02:35 PM
May 2007
Upcoming
Preliminary discussions have been held with local developer Dennis Nyron and architect Frank D’Ambrosio regarding a redevelopment at 200 Douglas Street at Toronto. Details will be reported as they become available.
=======
[sic: it's Nyren] Nyren and D'Ambrosio also did the Parry St. seniors home recently.
This is strange as D'Ambrosio is strictly low-rise, especially in the 'burbs and this project was rumoured to be in the 12 storey range.
-City of Victoria website, 2009
#3
Posted 02 August 2007 - 02:37 PM
Not only do most new buildings not have a no rentals allowed policy. The Hudson project has rentals allowed enshrined in the building bylaws and this cannot be changed by subsequent home owners. Speak the truth people will be more apt to believe you, speak hogwash and people stop listening.
#4
Posted 02 August 2007 - 03:32 PM
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#5
Posted 02 August 2007 - 05:22 PM
Developments such as the Breakwater, that is two stories high is going for a minimum of $800,000 each - with no rental component whatsoever - was applauded by the JBNEA simply because of it's lack of height.
I'm having a really, really hard time seeing this Van Alstine as the modern day Robin Hood he wishes others would see him. :-x
#6
Posted 02 August 2007 - 06:26 PM
Gentrification renews the housing stock, but people do get displaced. The City benefits from added density close to downtown, but people who are displaced don't benefit directly, being evicted is no joke. I don't blame anyone for getting pissed off.
The Residential Tenancy act does demand compensation for being evicted so that the landlord can use, renovate or demolish the building; one month's rent. Also, if, 6 months after the notice, the landlord still hasn't done anything with the unit, there can be a further compensation of two months rent. It is a three month notice, and the tenant can move out early with 10 days notice to the landlord. That is the bare minimum landlords have to do under law. Some might throw in something to sweeten it further - free dump runs, cash, or in big evictions (like 26 families) maybe some relocation assistance would be in order.
I have a question: Does anyone know what condos downtown(ish) that sold at the low end of the condo market in the last few years are charging for rent these days?
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891
#7
Posted 02 August 2007 - 06:51 PM
#8
Posted 02 August 2007 - 07:53 PM
I have a question: Does anyone know what condos downtown(ish) that sold at the low end of the condo market in the last few years are charging for rent these days?
I think a two-bedroom in my place (1996 built) and about 800 sq. ft. with ensuite laundry goes for just under $1000.
#9
Posted 02 August 2007 - 08:13 PM
I completely agree about keeping good housing stock my worry is that if the city adopts a city wide ban on the demolition of rentals it will mean that there will be little or no investment in it and we will have some truly sad buildings not too long from now. In addition most of our core rental buildings are almost 50 years old and are not looking so great also they tend to be low density with lots of wasteful surface parking.
My idea, which I of course like, is that rather than a ban we should quantify the total rental units and the median cost of each building. That way if you want to build a nice new condo building in JB you would have to create an equal number of units at the same median cost either in that project or somewhere else. Of course if we were to do this we should have to give developers higher densities to work with so that they could afford to do both. Also they would be required to provide the rental building before the condo building if they were not on the same site and that could be done by adding it as a condition of receiving the building permit.
That way we are not stuck with degrading rental stock or eyesores and we also are not losing rental accomodations.
#10
Posted 02 August 2007 - 10:47 PM
I trust Russ Francis will set the record straight in his next piece. He wouldn't let Victorians down on a matter as important as this one.
#11
Posted 02 August 2007 - 10:51 PM
The city planning department said this fell way short of the $3-million cash benefit required under the city's "density bonus" policy.
If only they had thrown a bit more cash the city's way... These greedy developers make me sick.
#12
Posted 02 August 2007 - 11:13 PM
To summarize, a proposal to build 220 rental units was rejected for being "too big and too dense", but a proposal to demolish 30 rental units is a catastrophe in the making.
I trust Russ Francis will set the record straight in his next piece. He wouldn't let Victorians down on a matter as important as this one.
Good stuff, Astra. I thought the same thing as I read that, but you did the legwork to find the info.
#13
Posted 11 September 2007 - 09:58 PM
I spoke to the developer and I think he's dreading the hearing from all the NIMBYS, so people with an open mind might be welcome
I'll be there but I've lent my camera to someone who's in Vancouver....will post about if for y'all.
Public Hearing WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 12TH, 7PM, JAMES BAY NEW HORIZONS CENTER (which is I think 234 Menzies, but it's late and the notice is at work).
#14
Posted 12 September 2007 - 12:08 AM
I think the developer should prepare to hear an earful from the JBNA. They'll come down on this project like the plague.
Is there a website, perhaps?
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#15
Posted 12 September 2007 - 06:25 AM
#16
Posted 12 September 2007 - 06:29 AM
#17
Posted 12 September 2007 - 07:38 AM
Funny thing about their [url=http://www.jbnea.org/index.html:8605e]title page[/url:8605e]. It's a collage of various buildings, and a shot of one of the parking lots they would hope to preserve, I would assume.
I'm going to take development pics in the next couple of days, so I'll see if I can take some of this site.
#18
Posted 12 September 2007 - 08:33 AM
#19
Posted 12 September 2007 - 10:29 AM
To the south are a 7 and 8 storey residential buildings, and to the north are two 4 storey, an 8 storey and a 14 storey residential buildings.What's now on the sites of this proposal's immediate neighbours (in terms of height/ massing, etc.)?
#20
Posted 12 September 2007 - 03:28 PM
Company name on the hearing notice is Dallas Point Developments.
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