3804 replies to this topic

[IPH]

While I agree the Bank street school is a heritage gem that should be preserved, I'm struggling to understand why there is so much support to do that on this forum, and yet other heritage preservation calls are ignored or openly opposed? 

 

When I posted the restoration, preservation, rear addition and conversion to multi family happening at 1139 Burdett Street on this forum I don't think there was a single comment posted in response. 

 https://tender.victo...Number=REZ00690

 

similarly when someone posted the new 5 story 40+ unit development at 1120-28 Burdett that will require the destruction of 3 homes, 2 of which are quite nice 1920 heritage homes the only comments were, cant happen fast enough, and the proposed building isn't big enough or tall enough?  

https://tender.victo...Number=REZ00734

 

The two 1920 heritage homes on this lot could easy be raised, preserved and reconfigured into multi family buildings and combined with a new structure on the lot with the 1950 home.  This could easily support 15 to 20 much needed new homes and still provide a respectful transition to the more single family character of the remainder of the street.

 

Someone mentioned that heritage preservation should extend to more than old town.  Does this only include 4 story or larger masonry buildings, or buildings that are more than 100 years old or some other key criteria?  Or should it include larger wood frame structures, buildings by significant architects, central character buildings in neighborhoods, etc,

 

I know that like the Fairfield united Church building, there are developers that would love to get their hands on the bank street school that would be willing to restore, preserve and convert the building to multi family use.  This could provide much needed funding to the school district to build a new school on the remaining land.  Sadly that doesn't seem to be on the table. 

 

Its a complex topic and I agree that a lot of us say we want to preserve our heritage buildings, but when the rubber hits the road, most of us don't do anything to support the preservation of these structures while also improving our City.      

[Mike K.]

Is the Bank Street school registered or designated heritage?

IPH, can’t the houses be moved elsewhere if they’re in good condition? That’s what was done at the Capital Park development in James Bay.

[aastra]

 

IPH, can’t the houses be moved elsewhere if they’re in good condition?

 

Dude, that's my line. I'm supposed to say it and you're supposed to argue that it's too difficult and too expensive.

Edited by aastra, 16 October 2020 - 08:21 AM.

[Mike K.]

The trick is to get you to actually do the moving as I inconveniently double book myself.

[IPH]

Moved to where?  Most of the houses moved these days are shipped to some island or Washington State.  How does that preserve "Victoria's" Heritage buildings?

 

Three of the capital park houses were just shuffled on the same property, and two were moved within the same James Bay neighbourhood.  Why cant the developer do the same thing  at 1120-28 Burdett?  Two of the buildings could be shuffled and reconfigured on the existing lot and the third moved elsewhere in the same neighborhood to make way for some new gentle density building on the west end of the lot.

[Jackerbie]

Is the Bank Street school registered or designated heritage?

IPH, can’t the houses be moved elsewhere if they’re in good condition? That’s what was done at the Capital Park development in James Bay.

 

It's "on the inventory" but is not registered, i.e. it is not legally protected by a heritage designation bylaw.

 

Part of the issue is that Council is considering protecting it against the will of the School District. Legal precedent says they can do this but would need to compensate the District for the lost development potential, which staff peg at around $3 million but could be more or less once qualified appraisers get involved.

[Mike K.]

Presumably they can’t do it on Burdett because the costs to do so would make the project unviable. You need a certain ratio of land and height to make it all work.

Regardless, if there’s a buyer interested in the homes, they’ll be moved. It there isn’t, they’ll be razed. Owners of older homes who wish to register them as heritage assets have every opportunity to do so.

[Nparker]

...Part of the issue is that Council is considering protecting it against the will of the School District. Legal precedent says they can do this but would need to compensate the District for the lost development potential, which staff peg at around $3 million but could be more or less once qualified appraisers get involved.

Glad my wallet is open to help out.

[aastra]

 

Most of the houses moved these days are shipped to some island or Washington State.  How does that preserve "Victoria's" Heritage buildings?

 

I've made that joke before. Victoria's preservationists are doing a great job, if you overlook the fact that you now need to take a ferry somewhere else to see Victoria's heritage.

[IPH]

According to BC Assessment, the owner of 1139 Burdett Ave paid almost double what the developer paid for each of the 3 lots at 1120-28 Burdett and he is able to preserve the existing building and convert it into 7 much need housing units and presumable make money doing so.     

 

So why can't the developer of 1120-28 do the same thing with 14-21 units on that property?  

 

Why aren't there any "real" subsidies or tax holidays available for heritage preservation and gentle densification in the the single family neighbourhoods like there is in the old town or the downtown core?

[aastra]

 

Why aren't there any "real" subsidies or tax holidays available for heritage preservation and gentle densification in the the single family neighbourhoods like there is in the old town or the downtown core?

 

For a city that supposedly obsesses about "heritage preservation" it does seem a bit contradictory, doesn't it?

 

Heck, we've been asking these sorts of questions for so long now, the questions themselves are due for some type of heritage designation.

[Mike K.]

On the one hand you’re calling for gentle densification, on the other you’re saying housing is much needed. Heritage home conversions are also not adequate for a broad spectrum of the population. Older individuals or individuals with mobility issues have trouble navigating stairs. Conversions also tend to yield small units, which do not cater to many groups.

Conversions are also very risky, as you just don’t know what you’re getting into until you get into it. In other words, heritage preservation is either a labour of love, contingent on appropriate density bankrolling the effort, or straight forward enough to not require a complicated near rebuild.

[aastra]

Methinks your cautions and caveats don't make sense within the framework of a city that's supposed to be so invested re: heritage preservation.

 

Victorians and their local authorities claim to be so invested in heritage preservation but then make the same excuses that you'd hear in a place that makes no such pretenses.

[IPH]

Development is risky.  And while I agree preservation and conversion of older buildings to multi family adds some risk that doesn't mean it cant be done or isn't profitable.  The City doesn't have to hand developers cart blanch to tear heritage buildings (registered or not) down just because they don't have the skills to make money preserving and converting them.   

 

Lots of developers are able to make significant profit restoring and preserving heritage while converting it to multi family.  Chis Lefevre has made a career of it in Old Town, Reliance properties has done it all over Vancouver and Victoria, the owners of 1004, 1016, 1022 and 1026 Pemberton have done it, the developer of 1139 Burdett is doing it right now.   This is what's called Win Win, Win.  The developer, the new home owners or tenant, and the existing community that worked hard to preserve there neighbourhood and made it such and attractive area that more people want to live there, everyone benefits.  

 

We should hold developers to a higher standard.  I am not arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to make a profit.  But it should be about more than Maximum housing and Maximum profits.

Edited by IPH, 16 October 2020 - 09:41 AM.

[Mike K.]

aastra, because it doesn’t have to do with heritage as much as density opposition masquerading as heritage preservation when convenient.

[Mike K.]

Development is risky. And while I agree preservation and conversion of older buildings to multi family adds some risk that doesn't mean it cant be done or isn't profitable. The City doesn't have to hand developers cart blanch to tear heritage buildings (registered or not) down just because they don't have the skills to make money preserving and converting them.

Lots of developers are able to make significant profit restoring and preserving heritage while converting it to multi family. Chis Lefevre has made a career of it in Old Town, Reliance properties has done it all over Vancouver and Victoria, the owners of 1004, 1016, 1022 and 1026 Pemberton have done it, the developer of 1139 Burdett is doing it right now. This is what's called Win Win, Win. The developer, the new home owners or tenant, and the existing community that worked hard to preserve there neighbourhood and made it such and attractive area that more people want to live there, everyone benefits.

We should hold developers to a higher standard. I am not arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to make a profit. But it should be about more than Maximum housing and Maximum profits.

How many single family homes has Le Fevre converted?

Conversions are expensive and complicated. It’s not so much the skill as the market reality that drives these efforts. And not all conversions are made equal.

[IPH]

I wasn't saying Lefevre's conversions were all single family homes before.  I was speaking in generalities with relation to the Bank Street School, Fairfield United Church as well as larger older single family homes in similar neighbourhoods, so provided a mix of examples.  Having said that I don't believe conversions can only be done profitably on larger non residential buildings.   The 4 buildings on Pemberton I listed as well as 1139 Burdett are significant examples that this can work, and there are a ton of other examples. 

 

Drive through Fairfield, James Bay, Fernwood, North Park, Rockland, etc., and look at the number of mail boxes in front of a large portion of the homes that on first glance appear to be older single family heritage homes. These are all examples of successful conversions.   Abstract converted 710 and 720 to multi family, Stacy Dewhurst converted 1145 Mcclure and is in the process of trying to rezone and convert the property at the corner of Brighton and Foul Bay, 727 Linden, 580, 584 & 588 Michigan, etc etc.  All examples of recent successful conversion.

 

Not all old buildings should be preserved, just for the sake of preserving them, or to block change or densification.  But not all old buildings should be torn down to make way for new development just because it makes it easier to fit more housing there, or because the economic outcome for the developer is better.

[Nparker]

 

Drive through Fairfield, James Bay, Fernwood, North Park, Rockland, etc., and look at the number of mail boxes in front of a large portion of the homes that on first glance appear to be older single family heritage homes. These are all examples of successful conversions...

Many are probably illegal suites.

[Mike K.]

Built without permitting, some of them, and at a time when material costs, labour and building code requirements were much, much lower.

And it’s not about an economic outcome, it’s about something that is viable and something that is not viable.

IPH, when you go to work you expect to get paid. When a developer goes to work, they too expect to get paid. You won’t work where you don’t get paid, and developers are no different. But what you’re saying to developers is you don’t care if they get paid as long as you get what you think is best for you. If your boss told you that, you’d be gone from your job and looking for better work elsewhere, wouldn’t you?

Conversions don’t happen like you are saying they should happen because they’re fraught with difficulty, serious risk and impediments to viability. And because of that lenders are not keen to lend money for those projects unless there is other collateral to make the whole thing viable. And if it were so easy, as you might assume, everyone would be converting their Fairfield homes and making out like bandits.

Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to come across as rude, but everyone thinks they’re an expert development risk assessor when it’s not their money on the table.

[Mike K.]

As an aside, I’m estimating an addition to my place as we speak. The costs are stratospheric and it’s as straight forward a job as one could imagine.

I don’t even want to think what a re-wiring of a 90-year-old home would cost, re-plumbing, foundation improvements, adjusting load bearing walls, converting windows to efficient panes, running gas throughout, bathroom and kitchen venting, etc. It’s all monstrously complicated and expensive.