3804 replies to this topic

[Kapten Kapsell]

Here's a look at the cool new 4-storey rental building Aryze is planning for the Catherine/Langford corner in Vic West (31 units);

 

[Kapten Kapsell]

Another rendering:

 

[Mike K.]

Yup, that is awesome awesome awesome. Who is the architect on this one?

[Nparker]

Should make an interesting neighbour for the recently announced shelter across the street.

[Kapten Kapsell]

Yup, that is awesome awesome awesome. Who is the architect on this one?

The firm of record is 5468796 Architecture of Winnipeg, 

[Kapten Kapsell]

Should make an interesting neighbour for the recently announced shelter across the street.

I thought that BC Housing announcement was *not* for a shelter but supportive housing with screened tenants and wraparound supports?   I think of shelters as being more 'dorm like' with drop-in availability (like the Rock Bay Shelter).

[Nparker]

Shelter/supportive housing; a rose by any other name still doesn't class up the neighbourhood.

[Mike K.]

The firm of record is 5468796 Architecture of Winnipeg,

More from these guys, for sure!

[PPPdev]

We have two other projects with 546Arch in Victoria so stay tuned

[zoomer]

Hmm, looks like a bomb shelter that’s caved in after an attack. The ground floor is great and inviting, nice contrast of large windows to balance the heavy large panels, interesting lines and angles, looks good. I’d stop and take a picture of this, it encourages lingering and interaction, so I’m giving it an 8.5 out of 10 IF it lives it up to the rendering.

[Nparker]

Hmm, looks like a bomb shelter that’s caved in after an attack...

The "caved in" wall may present some decorating and furniture placement challenges for the future residents.

[zoomer]

Maybe that section can be designated for short people housing with smaller size furniture?

[Nparker]

Maybe that section can be designated for short people housing with smaller size furniture?

Furniture from the Randy Newman Collection?

[Jackerbie]

A couple of projects will go to public hearing on Thursday March 25:

 

• 5-storey condo proposed for 1114 Rockland
• Curate Developments' 34-unit Townhouse development  in the 3000 block of Washington Avenue (the largest townhouse development proposed in some time; Wilson Commons has 34 units but is sited on a smaller property and includes a mix of condominiums as well)

Note that Councilors Steven Andrew and Maryanne Alto will likely recuse themselves from the vote on the townhouse project as they own homes within 100-150 metres of the proposal (both recused from previous motions to move this forward).

 

Both applications were approved, FYI

[PPPdev]

Hmm, looks like a bomb shelter that’s caved in after an attack. 

 

[Jackerbie]

Press release from GMC Projects regarding The Charlesworth which was approved last month.

 

City of Victoria approves proposal by GMC Projects for mixed use commercial and rental apartment homes 

 

The development will be a transformation of the existing single-family home on-site into The Charlesworth – by the same developers behind the restoration of the historic Bell Apartments 

 

VICTORIA, B.C., August 5, 2020 - Spanning 7,200 sq. ft in size, the property is located at 1015 Cook Street in the Fairfield neighbourhood – along the east side of Cook Street, between Meares and Rockland Avenue.

 

The approval of the proposal paves way for the development of a five-storey building, with 28 secured market rental homes and three live/work spaces at the ground level – bringing together history, housing, and sustainability.

 

Operating on the principle of re-using and not discarding, GMC Projects will be conscientiously unbuilding the existing structure at 1015 Cook Street. Original materials will be re-used within The Charlesworth, including the stained-glass windows that will be backlit as a feature in the lobby.

 

“By re-using original materials, we will not only be preserving the environment by reducing landfill waste, but we will also be re-purposing a piece of history,” says Jordan Milne, president and CEO of GMC Projects.

 

Art and authenticity play a significant role in GMC Projects’ revitalization efforts. The developer has planned to create a mural on The Charlesworth to pay homage to a past resident of the Bell Apartments, Mr. Alick Thomas Bentall Charlesworth. Mr. Charlesworth served as a pilot in World War One and tragically lost his life in the war at the young age of 23. 

 

“The new mural will feature nods to Mr. Charlesworth’s past, such as the DH4 bomber - the plane he flew, and the number 88 – to reflect the 88th battalion with which he left Victoria and served,” says Milne.

 

The Charlesworth will also feature a rooftop space – complete with a full outdoor kitchen with two gas BBQs, an eat-in bar, a formal dining space, an artificial turf games space, a chaise lounge and sectional seating areas. The space is designed to fuel social interaction and will be shared with residents of the adjacent Bell Apartments.

 

To support a more sustainable transportation model within the community, The Charlesworth will have a multi-modal transportation model that prioritizes healthy forms of transportation, in biking and walking, given the 92-walk score and 100 bike score, while providing space for three Modo car share vehicles. Each resident of The Charlesworth will receive a free Modo membership - and $100 in usage credits.

 

“We believe in prioritizing people, over cars, and creating places and spaces that encourage a healthy lifestyle – which cannot ignore how people get around,” says Milne. “Beyond the health benefits to the individuals living at The Charlesworth – the reduced emissions will help our City, Province and Country meet our climate action targets.”

 

Construction is set to begin in January 2021.

 

Building Permit was issued this week, along with a Blasting Permit through to April 23, 2021. There's just a single underground level for storage lockers.

[zoomer]

Picture of The Charlesworth excavation taken today.

Attached Images

• 

[Kapten Kapsell]

The proposal for 515 Rithet has been revised down to 26 units (previously 27) and the developer is now proposing one- and two-bedroom units (bachelor suites have been removed). The overall design/look of this rental building has changed substantially as well:

[Victoria Watcher]

Friends of 902 Foul Bay response

 

Wow. This article is so full of inaccuracies and omissions we can only cover a few examples in the word limit placed on this letter.

 

This heavily biased article leaves the false impression that most neighbours opposing the developer’s 18-unit proposal are not in favour of densifying this former single-family lot with a multi-family project. The reporter failed to point out the glaringly obvious: nearly all of the 29 trees slated for the axe are growing near the perimeter of the lot, leaving a large space in the middle that 10-12 units could be built on with minimal loss of big trees. We see this as a “no-brainer” and made this clear to your reporter in our interview.

 

The article parroted several dubious claims by the developer without critical examination. For example, there’s the myth that these “affordable” townhouses would be sold for $700,000 (an estimated $200,000 discount from their market value). In reality, under the Affordable Home Ownership Program, buyers would have to pay the full price of $900,000 plus $45,000 in GST, and more if the market value increases. This important information was provided to your reporter but was apparently ignored, like so many other inconvenient facts.

 

Your article unfairly paints neighbours opposing Aryze’s proposal and tactics as villainous NIMBYs while casting the developer and project supporters as clear-eyed heroes. Accusations were repeated about one neighbour in particular without adequate investigation into the accuracy of those accusations or the behaviour and motives of those making the accusations.

 

This seems like a breach of journalistic ethics and your refusal to rectify it reflects your bias.

 

Regarding the developer’s legal action to remove the restrictive covenant on the property, most of the 1100+ words on this subject were spent on the question of whether this and similar covenants are “vestiges of old privilege”. It’s a fair question, but nowhere did the reporter mention the well-known merits of covenants in conserving natural assets like green spaces and trees, despite the clear mention of this to her in our interview and in the authoritative report from the B.C. Law Institute we supplied her on this subject. It was bizarre to exclude this well-founded perspective given that so many folks supporting the legal defence of the covenant cite the loss of big trees as a main concern.

 

In all the talk about divisiveness, your article failed to mention what so many people agree on: we want to welcome more people to our neighbourhood and see it thrive, while doing our best to hold on to the things we love about this place. That includes big old trees and their benefits to our neighbourhood’s ecology and quality of life. We hope our city council sees this letter and helps our neighbourhood arrive at a win-win solution that promotes density and an urban forest at the same time.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to reply.

 

Sincerely,

 

Aaron Hill, Monique Genton and Lynn Phillips on behalf of Friends of 902 Foul Bay

 

https://www.capitald...etters-april-11

 

 

 

902 site needs creativity and goodwill

 

I just wanted to share my disappointment with your unbalanced and inaccurate reporting on the proposed development at 902 Foul Bay.

 

As I greet my compassionate and thoughtful neighbours outside their modest bungalows during my daily dog walks, I have yet to encounter any of the 'raging', 'most affluent', 'classist' 'nimbys' suggested by your article.

 

At 902 Foul Bay, the developer has submitted a high-density proposal designed to maximize profit (just do the math based on average building and selling costs per square foot). There would be nothing wrong with that, except that that profit is coming at the expense of the trees, the environment and the neighbourhood. So it's no surprise that so many in the neighbourhood have taken exception.

 

Hopefully common sense prevails and Victoria Council challenges the developer to submit a more modest proposal that better balances all values and interests. Personally, I think that the large site provides plenty of opportunity—all that is needed is some creativity and good will. As far as I can tell, the developer has shown neither and remains committed to ramming through the proposal as is.  

 

I think the story is really that simple. It certainly isn't about 'houses built on sacred Songhees burial grounds' or 'International Women's Day' (both extremely important issues but, wow, where did those come from?).

 

Peter Nagati

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A test for public engagement

 

902 Foul Bay is another test for Victoria’s public engagement. Capital Daily missed a great opportunity to help restore objectivity rather than amplifying discord and confusion.

 

Serious public engagement provides community members meaningful opportunities to participate in decision-making. Victoria’s process has become little more than a device used by the city and proponents to foist their views on the public.

 

Local media often fail to scrutinize proposals wrapped in a cloak of altruism, offered to rescue us from selfish NIMBYs and our housing crisis. Let’s question who profits from these developments and who pays for them, economically, socially and environmentally. We need an honest debate about the costs of hyper-development for us, future generations and the environment that supports us.

 

Too often lost from the discussion is that our housing crisis is national, fuelled by widespread speculation, ridiculously low interest rates and economic goals prioritizing short-term profit over building community. Much of the demand for growth is artificially created. The situation is worsened by the lack of a national housing strategy and too few regulations on buyers, Canadian and international, that exploit housing. We need homes for people not profit.

 

No mention either about what the development boom means for our already struggling services- culture, health, education, transportation etc.…. Is it the community’s responsibility to make room for everyone that wants to move here? The relentless pursuit of growth for profit has not well-served us as a society or a community and it’s a terrible housing strategy.

 

It was disingenuous to disparage million-dollar homeowners for objecting to 902 Foul Bay. My million-dollar home is about 1350 sq feet—hardly a mansion. The rise in price between 25 years ago and today doesn’t mean a thing unless I move to Moose Jaw.

 

Portraying the conflict as inter-generational is another subterfuge.  During the 1990‘s my family joined a generational transition in our neighbourhood, reoccurring now with the arrival of many young families. They enjoy historically low interest rates and soon Boomers will make the greatest ever transfer of wealth from one generation to their children and grandchildren, enabling many others to do the same.

 

Conversely, historically low rates, rampant speculation, inter-generational wealth transfer and off-shore capital are creating an unstoppable whirlwind in the housing market.  Your article unfairly made it seem as though selfish neighbourhood homeowners are the cause of rising prices and housing shortages.

 

So please, let’s be thankful when a group of concerned citizens care enough to raise concerns about a development, they believe is incompatible with their neighbourhood, and undermines the city’s commitments on water, urban forests and climate. Whose interests does it serve to question their motives and discourage public participation?  Without public participation our democratic decision-making process will fail and we must not let that happen!

 

Sound decisions requires the City to take seriously its responsibility for an honest, transparent public engagement process and for all of us to listen with respect to people rooted in the community, motivated by our long-term best interests.

 

Michael Bloomfield

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 12 April 2021 - 05:30 AM.

[PPPdev]

"...nowhere did the reporter mention the well-known merits of covenants in conserving natural assets like green spaces and trees, despite the clear mention of this to her in our interview and in the authoritative report from the B.C. Law Institute we supplied her on this subject. It was bizarre to exclude this well-founded perspective given that so many folks supporting the legal defence of the covenant cite the loss of big trees as a main concern."

 

 

I find this so interesting that they are doubling down on the tree preservation angle while at the same time are trying to enforce a private covenant that would allow four single family homes to be built which could cut down more trees than the townhouse project. The private covenant has nothing to do with trees, it has to do with preserving the area for expensive homes.