41 replies to this topic

[Galvanized]

Demo on the old CRD building has started. Can't wait for that 70's thing to be gone. Someone posted a rendering of some sorts on SSP a while back. I can't seem to find it. It would be interesting to see again.

[Scaper]

where is this?

[Holden West]

Former Capital Regional District Headquarters sells for $2.8 million

January 31st 2005: Colliers International is pleased to announce the completion of the sale of 524/530/534 Yates Street in Victoria BC, for $2,801,000. The property consists of three adjacent buildings which have housed the head offices of the Capital Regional District for a number of years. Both 524 and 534 Yate Street are distinguished by attractive heritage architecture characteristic of 1890's Victoria. The heritage buildings have a bright future, with potential redevelopment concepts, such as 'Academy Close,' promising an infusion of new life into the Lower Yates Street corridor. KEN CLOAK, ANDREW MACKINNON and TY WHITTAKER of COLLIERS, represented the Capital Regional District while MICHAEL MILLER of COLLIERS represented the purchaser in this transaction.



==========

Application for a Tax Incentive Grant – 524-534 Yates Street
Committee received a report dated May 24, 2006 from the Planning &
Development Department with respect to an Application for a Tax Incentive Grant
of Ray Hunt, Architect on behalf of 530 Yates Street Holdings Inc. This is an
application for a 10 year tax exemption under the City’s Tax Incentive Program to
assist with the conversion of the former CRD office buildings at 524-534 Yates
Street into 30 residential condominiums on the upper floors, with commercial
space on the ground floor. The cost of the project is estimated at $6,347,000.00,
of which the cost of seismic upgrading is estimated at $1,063,700.00.
The project is worthy of support as it contributes to the City’s strategic objectives
of strengthening the downtown with additional residential development, assisting
the preservation and rehabilitation of heritage buildings, and improving seismic
safety of hazardous buildings. The project will also contribute to the revitalization
of lower Yates Street.
Action:
Councillor Thornton-Joe moved that it be recommended to City
Council that the City Solicitor be instructed to prepare a Tax
Exemption Bylaw for 524 and 534 Yates Street for 10 years,
pursuant to Section 810 of the Local Government Act, with the
following conditions:
a) That a covenant identifying the tax exemption be registered on
Land Titles and any possible future strata titles.
b) Final costs of seismic upgrading be verified by the Victoria
Civic Heritage Trust.
CARRIED 06/375

===============

Page 3
CITY OF VICTORIA
HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MINUTES
November 8, 2005
3.
524-530-534 Yates Street (CRD buildings). Development Permit #000031
Heritage Alteration Permit # 00030. Application of Inside Out Planning and Architecture Inc. on
behalf of LeFevre and Company. Proposed exterior alterations to 2 Heritage Registry buildings.
Old Town Heritage Conservation Area/Development Permit Area #1. Zoned CA-3C Old Town
District. For recommendation to Council.
Steve Barber summarized his report as outlined in the agenda.
The application is to rehabilitate 2 Heritage Registry buildings (the former CRD office
headquarters) for 30 new residential units on the upper floors, new ground floor retail units, and
a new landscaped courtyard at the rear of the complex. The existing infill building from the
1970’s will be demolished and replaced with a new, one storey glazed retail unit. Whereas, the
application is within the Old Town Heritage Conservation Area, Council approval is required for
all exterior alterations and new additions.
The design of the infill addition has been referred to the joint Advisory Design Panel and
Heritage Advisory Committee for review and recommendations. It was recommended that the
Heritage Advisory Committee concentrate its review on the proposed alterations to the existing
Heritage buildings.
Ray Hunt, Architect, from Inside Out Planning and Architecture Inc. made the following
presentation:
• The infill building was reconstructed in the 1970’s.
• Proposed retail and condominiums
• 2 doorways maintained
• Original carriage way at the rear of 524 Yates Street opened up for a walkway.
• Gate for security
• Bridge link between the 2 buildings
• 1 elevator
• Minimum amount of stairs
• Changes to the heritage buildings are minimal
• Framless glass entry
• Restoring original frontage on 534 Yates Street
• Vertical sliding sash windows on front elevation, 534 Yates Street
• No air conditioning
• 1946 change of frontage
• Inner side courtyard – 3 windows on each side
• Doorway keep permanently open but have a grill
• Gate for night closure
• Colours from Vancouver palette
• The landscaping on the north east corner won’t connect with walkway off Johnson
because that section is of separate ownership.
Steve Barber asked Ray Hunt if the existing wood frame on the entrance at 524 Yates would be
retained, and he replied that it would require further discussion with the owner.
A committee member asked if there were plans to conserve the brickwork. Mr. Hunt advised at
the time when remedial work was done a long time ago, there wasn’t any evidence of water
stains on the inside. He did not know if it was ever treated on the outside. It is not a full
restoration project. He was willing to further investigate.
Mr. Hunt further advised on the use of planar glass system to give as much transparency as
possible, no filming or tinting. Anticipates using thermal windows, and not interfere with the
existing wood sash. It is a challenge, and do not want to create any discomfort level for the
residents. Forced into a design having lower height for the bathroom and higher height for
kitchen because of building code issues.
Steve Barber suggested a skylight on the 3
rd
floor to allow more light and improve the quality of
the residential units. Mr. Hunt would take this suggestion to his client.
Moved
Seconded

---------

This says 534 Yates but it must be wrong!



That's now the Jamaican restaurant--used to be Pizza Hut--beside Commercial Alley. Periklis restaurant is now on the right at 531.

???

[Amanday]

any word on how this is progressing? I saw some signage awhile ago talking about 'heritage lofts' or something.

[G-Man]

There is quite the destruction derby going on there. I walk by on my lunches somethimes. They have the whole ground floor of the actual Leiser building cleared out. I am hoping it gets some cool retail as it would be neat to have some vitality brought down part of Waddington Alley. Perhaps this will lead to the redevelopment of that old building next to Il Terrazo.

[Gregory Hartnell]

+++

The proposed ten year tax exemptions for Mr. Lefevre on these Yates Street properties should not be passed by Victoria City Council. These tax exemptions make for an uneven playing field for developers, a sort of two-class system, one for the regular property taxpayers, and another for the special class of those privileged few who qualify for the exemptions. It doesn't look good, as there is a perception of favouritism. Therefor, I advocate, and have done for a number of years, including in my recent run for Victoria mayor last year, that these 10 year tax exemptions be abolished, and that those who currently enjoy such privileged status be taxed in the normal fashion.

+++

[Holden West]

Welcome to the forum!

I believe the purpose of the tax holiday is to ensure the economic attractiveness and viability of expensive heritage rehabilitations by spurring development of difficult or long vacant structures. Yes, it singles out a "special class" but these heritage structures are indeed special.

I'm sorry, I'm not following your argument. Are you suggesting heritage renovations would occur with or without the tax holiday and that it is superfluous? Please clarify.

[Gregory Hartnell]

+++

While I certainly welcome the sensitive restoration of significant heritage structures, I am sure that developers like Mr. Lefevre with his new properties on lower Yates Street and Mr. Sipos with his recent Government Street project (the fromer liquor store) have no difficulty whatsoever securing lines of credit for their developments. Therefor, they need no help from the City of Victoria in terms of tax exemptions.
It is a loss to the City treasury that is significant, and one can't help thinking that these lost revenues could be directed to the building of subsidized housing for the poorest of the poor, the addicted homeless that are littering our streets.
A very bad precedent was set when former Victoria City Councillor Laura Acton, after leaving her job at City Hall, went to work for the Znaimer group of TV stations, and apparently helped that group secure a ten-year tax exemption for the old Macdonald's Furniture store (presently the A Channel). The bylaw was originally intended to stimulate restoration of derelict old buildings, to provide for badly needed housing in the Old Town. In the case of the of the tv station, the original intention of the bylaw was perverted.

+++

[Mike K.]

On the one side, developers are bad for receiving tax benefits to help fund restorations of heritage (older) buildings.

On the other side, developers are bad for pricing their homes at rates that reflect the costs associated with said restorations of said buildings even with the tax exemptions.

So unless developers secure private funds to build housing for our vulnerable populations at below-market rates or for the purposes of homeless shelters, they're scamming the City and society at-large?

[Holden West]

Developers applying for the tax holiday must prove it's necessary for financial success. Simply extending the borrower's line of credit is not a fiscally wise method of financing a project. The program was started because too many downtown properties were sitting vacant for decades, simply because they were too expensive to renovate and seismically upgrade.

If this program were halted, we could see a similar halt in the much needed rehabilitation of Victoria's priceless heritage. It is up to the Planning Department to ensure tax holidays, grants and other incentives are given only to those that can demonstrate its necessity.

[m0nkyman]

No, what we'd see is the much more lucrative path of just ripping the old buildings down and a new building thrown up as cheaply as possible.

What the hell is wrong with developers making a profit? The tax credit is there to encourage the preservation of older buildings, which benefits all of us merchants and property owners downtown, and I for one don't have a problem with it.

I do have a problem with the molly coddling of the criminal class of drug users downtown that Mr. Hartnell seems to be suggesting we should be subsidizing with my tax dollars to live in my neighbourhood. That would piss me off.

[Holden West]

True, without that tax credit, it's unlikely we'd be enjoying the reborn exterior of the Vogue. It would have either remained as it was or been replaced by a taller structure. Would that have been an improvement, Mr. Harnell? If I am incorrect in my analysis, please inform me.

BTW, lumping everyone together under the term "criminal class" is hardly constructive.
=================

Project stalled over parking proposal

By Brennan Clarke
Victoria News
Nov 08 2006

Plans to redevelop two Yates Street heritage buildings, including the former Capital Regional District headquarters, have hit a snag over proposed changes to a heritage alteration permit issued last December.

The building's owner, Victoria developer Chris LeFevre, initially proposed a one-storey retail outlet for the empty lot between the two buildings with a courtyard at the rear of the middle property.

The revised plans call for a parking area between the two buildings, changing the seismic bracing between them from concrete to steel, and moving the CRD building's elevator shaft to the exterior of the building.

"I'm distrustful of the use of a courtyard between buildings if it's used to park cars," said Coun. Chris Coleman.

According to a staff report, LeFevre claims the changes are needed to "address feasibility challenges."

Some councillors proposed allowing the developer to speak to the economic rationale behind the proposed changes, but acting mayor Coun. Dean Fortin refused to hear from leFevre.

"It's difficult," Fortin said. "He can say 'here's my economic numbers,' but we don't have any economic analysis of it and it is a determining factor."

LeFevre called council's refusal to hear from him "absurd."

"I'm frankly insulted by the fact that the applicant was sitting there and wasn't allowed to speak to his project," LeFevre said. "The parking is so people living in residential units downtown don't have to load their furniture off Yates Street."

Council tabled the proposal and asked staff to work with the applicant on further design refinements.

© Copyright 2006 Victoria News

[Mike K.]

Heaven forbid Lefevre makes a buck from his career of revamping historic buildings.

Here we are on the verge of a fantastic investment for buildings in need of seismic and aesthetic upgrades and our council is stalling progress.

Or is that really the deal? This article was written by Brennan Clarke so there is most ikely more to this story than readers are lead to believe. This article is most-likely worded so as to make Lefevre seems as though he is requesting the moon and Councillor Fortin as the sleepless gatekeeper keeping Lefevre grounded for the benefit of society.

[aastra]

Can somebody please explain to me why some people are so obsessed with what goes on between/behind these residential projects??

This inner space sounds like an ideal spot to put parking for residents of the upgraded heritage buildings. What on earth is the problem?

[G-Man]

I don't know I might side with the city on this one. I do not want to see suface parking between the two buildings. If that is his plan than I would rather wait till someone else comes along. Surface parking should be the last thing the developer is proposing. Perhaps as someone suggested have it on the interior but not instead of the retail stores.

[aastra]

I'm misunderstanding this. I thought the developer does want the parking on the inside but they're saying he was supposed to put an inner courtyard there? What's the deal?

[Gregory Hartnell]

+++

I am enjoying this forum immensely, and appreciate the welcome I received yesterday from one of the moderators.
Lest my postition is misunderstood, I will emphasize that, of course, I have no objection to developers making a profit. My wife and I own two pieces of property in Victoria; one is our residence, and the other is a revenue-generating house in Fernwood. Both are appreciating in value during this extraordinary historically unprecedented real estate market. We made considerable improvements on the latter last year, and are constantly upgrading our own residence, so in our own small way, we are part of this development market. We are certainly not indifferent to making a profit.
When I talk about the City losing money by not taxing all downtown commercial property owners in an even-handed manner, I am expressing the typical concern of a fiscal conservative who abhors waste, and wants to keep taxes down for both residential and business property owners in Victoria.
If anyone is being molly-coddled here, it is that elite group of Victoria developers and/or landlords who are taking full advantage of this foolish bylaw while it is still on the books. As for the addicted homeless, I see no practical use in castigating them as a 'criminal underclass' or whatever.
What they need, I believe, is strict abstinence-based addiction recovery treatment programmes provided for them in safe social housing, and certainly not more needle exchange programs or so-called 'safe-injection sites.' My position has nothing to do with the legality or illegality of the substances they are abusing, but rather is based on a common sense approach that recognizes that they are sick, and that the City has been paying lip-service to their needs for years, blaming its inertia on lack of funds from higher levels of government. This is a disgraceful cop-out.
I reject the either/or false dichtomy which suggests that the Vogue and the Macdonald's Furniture sites (to cite just two examples) would still be derelict had they not received the 10 year tax holiday, or that they would have been replaced by taller structures. The Vogue was pitched to council as a significant heritage structure, although there was very little evidence of that in its former condition, nor is there evidence of heritage values in its new form. The Macdonald's Furniture building is, I believe, a designated heritage structure, so it was protected by that status from demolition, in any case. Taller buildings on those sites would not have been appropriate in those Old Town locations.
As for the buildings in question on lower Yates, I believe that most of them are significant designated heritage structures, so they can't be torn down without a lot of difficulty. Nor should they be.

+++

[G-Man]

I'm misunderstanding this. I thought the developer does want the parking on the inside but they're saying he was supposed to put an inner courtyard there? What's the deal?

No the developer tore down a building and was going to replace it with a single storey of shops but has now changed his mind and wants to just put surface parking there. Nothing in front of of it just parking though with presumably a gate.

He did the exact same thing on the one on Herald. Of course that is different as it is not in the heart of downtown, this is. Sorry but surface parking is just unacceptable. Back to drawing board Chris!

[aastra]

If that's the plan then I concur with you.

[m0nkyman]

BTW, lumping everyone together under the term "criminal class" is hardly constructive.

I was responding to this statement.

one can't help thinking that these lost revenues could be directed to the building of subsidized housing for the poorest of the poor, the addicted homeless that are littering our streets.

Sorry, but if they are addicts and they are living on the street, they are feeding their addiction through crime. Calling that a criminal class is a fair statement, and one I stand by.

I'm not saying that all homeless people are criminals. There are many people on the street due to mental illness, and even a few that have had a few bad breaks. I'm saying that if you're going to specifically point out the addicted homeless as a group to spend money on, I'm not going to exactly be polite in my disagreement.