3804 replies to this topic

[Brantastic]

I live in the 1600 block of Amphion and I haven't heard anything. This sounds doubtful, both in terms of the single-lot (~120-130ft) depth of the fronting lots there and no evidence of a lot consolidation from the real estate activity. I would have heard about it if they were acquiring Amphion lots. There is the townhouse proposal behind OBB south towards the OB/FB intersection, not sure if that's getting mixed in with the rumours. There are some houses along there that could potentially be suitable for redevelopment but 'larger' complex? I think describing something as larger would imply more than a single lot depth development over 3-4 lots. I think the CoV is requiring 'transitional' parking requirement in urban villages which would, I think, necessitate UG parking. It's tough to make parking work in that tight of a space.

I think this is likely to be a mistake.
 

What does Amphion have to do with this? Isn't the 1600 Block of Fort around where Urban Grocer is?

[punk cannonballer]

Hi Punk- the info I posted came from the official newsletter here: https://www.southjub...ers/2021-06.pdf

I think you’re confusing this with the Fort St application. There’s no mention of 1600 block of Foul Bay.

[punk cannonballer]

It's very doable. Abstract has a couple six storey proposals on Shelbourne where lot depth is only 100 ft.

Oh it’s doable but it’s not ideal. I just can’t see it there given everything.

[Kapten Kapsell]

I think you’re confusing this with the Fort St application. There’s no mention of 1600 block of Foul Bay.

Take another look at the second page of the Newsletter under the heading “Possible Future Project” (just before the Country Comforts-related obituary):

LUC received a letter from a developer stating that they have identified the 1600 and 1700 blocks of the west side of Foul Bay Ave as potential sites for an apartment complex. No details or plans were supplied but it appears they are looking at a larger complex with underground parking, interior hallways etc. We will keep you informed.. ~Gail Anthony ,co-chair ,Land Use Committee

[punk cannonballer]

Sorry missed that. I dunno, that newsletter is sketchy. I haven’t heard anything. I do know we’re reaching the stage in Victoria where land assemblies are increasingly being aggressively created by throwing money at property owners. We’ll see.

[Victoria Watcher]

What does Amphion have to do with this? Isn't the 1600 Block of Fort around where Urban Grocer is?

That’s a safeway now. Or a post office.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 02 June 2021 - 04:25 AM.

[Jackerbie]

There is a new proposal on Dev Tracker to replace the end of life apartment building at 1475 Fort Street with a new 4-storey structure containing 32 rental apartments (4 of which will be affordable).

The developer is Lantern Properties and the architect is Cascadia. The property is called Hadera Apartments. Some renderings:

06E04016-3E35-4478-A922-38BD5AD19E22.jpeg

5C6FAB83-E107-451B-A94A-D3989237C322.jpeg

Defeated last night on a 5-4 vote. Absolutely shameful that a design review process was hijacked by affordability and NIMBY concerns.

Edited by Jackerbie, 11 June 2021 - 01:42 PM.

[Mike K.]

That’s nuts.

[DavidSchell]

Defeated last night on a 5-4 vote. Absolutely shameful that a design review process was hijacked by affordability and NIMBY concerns.

 

Last time I put an ad to rent my unit I got 5 requests, this time around I got 75.

 

Victoria counsel does not understand we have a housing crises and they are not going to resolve the affordability part of it until they resolve the need for housing that people can afford.

 

disgraceful!

[Mike K.]

It’s a bit of a blinders-on situation. The building currently on the property is reaching its end of life, and council just kicked the can down the road. That’s all they did. It accomplishes nothing more than a costlier project eventually down the road.

[punk cannonballer]

It's troubling when you hear residents, especially of the downtown core, speak of new building development as requiring an 'established relationship' with the developer and the city and the neighbourhood associations. I heard this from someone talking about the Harris Green proposal. This has to stop if we're going to build reasonable density at a cost effective and reasonably quick manner. Having NAs grind down height and density over an extended period of time is not good for anyone.

I would suspect that we won't see any grand gestures in blanket rezoning until after elections next year. I would be interested in how long it would take before we see something like what happened in California where the state stepped in to increase density after local political gridlock. I suspect it would take a while as, in my experience, the province is loathe to step into municipal affairs and, if anything, has been downloading responsibilities to local governments recently.

[Mike K.]

Are they referring to wanting these established relationships, or taking issue with established relationships?

 

Regarding the province, I suspect they understand that forcing the hand of municipal governments regarding density is some what of a game when the CRD's urban footprint is so tiny.

 

From Westhills in Langford straight west you have 50km of 100% undeveloped wilderness. Not low density, not farms, not vacation properties, just uninhabited wilderness comprised of third generation forest (logged, then re-logged, and waiting to be logged again).

 

A straight shot to Port Renfrew from Westhills is 65km of the above.

 

To put that into perspective, 50km is twice the urban distance of Manhattan from the very tip of the island northwest into the countryside, and the urban area of manhattan is arguably huge. So when someone tells you we're running out of land take a gander at the map.

 

[punk cannonballer]

Are they referring to wanting these established relationships, or taking issue with established relationships?

 

They're wanting to establish relationships. When you have a certain amount of the population that equates 'consultation' with 'doing what we asked for' there's a basic disconnect. When the Phase 6 people are screaming that Phase 7 is destroying the environment (yes this happens) you gotta wonder. Yeah there's plenty of space between us and Jordan River but good luck getting that urban containment boundary expanded. This is part of that problem. We have enough of an issue trying to get density approved inside it, let alone further afield. The fact of the matter is that we will nickel and dime ourselves inside it and then be forced to expand outwards down the road when the continuing milquetoast development environment forces the sprawl. 

[Mike K.]

We have enough of an issue trying to get density approved inside it, let alone further afield. The fact of the matter is that we will nickel and dime ourselves inside it and then be forced to expand outwards down the road when the continuing milquetoast development environment forces the sprawl. 

 

For the dang win, punk. That's exactly right.

 

And subdivisions are already underway or in planning in Renfrew and JR that have gone unnoticed. People want single family dwellings, and they will pay for the privilege while the city strangles itself by not building sufficient density all the while pretending the density it does build is keeping sprawl from happening (blinders: On!).

 

You know what the province thinks of all this? They think cellphone services need to be expanded 70km beyond Sooke to Port Renfrew, Pacific Marine Road needed to be black-topped a decade ago, and Highway 14 needs a four-lane section east of Sooke with an 11km-long highway widening between Otter Point Road and French Beach west of Sooke.

[punk cannonballer]

Victoria will succumb to the same issue Vancouver had 20 years ago. When they started building condos in real earnest in the early 2000s in Vancouver did that cause prices to come down? Hell no. In this part of the world demand is not a variable; it's a constant. Building supply will not bring down prices; it just makes more unsatisfied people in condos wanting to move up to a house. This jacks land prices. If you want affordable housing you can't just build and hope; you have to cap rents. So now you have a situation where you're asking for density AND a poorly understood below-market requirement for buildings thrown into the public consultation mix. We will never have balance here. And yes, this highway out west with better cell service will have predictable results.

[Mike K.]

The CRD projected a 1% population growth rate through 2030. Our annual growth rate is 30% above that.

 

You can't even plan for a 30% deviation no matter how hard you try, and the initial estimate is already difficult to supply with housing. And on top of it all, the CRD won't allow you to build single-family homes past Sooke on reasonable parcels as properties require minimums starting from 2 acres going all the way up to 10 acres (a few clicks east and you can build on 3,000 square feet). That style of development makes sense if you're trying to artificially suppress water demand in a rainforest by requiring properties to be water self-sufficient in lieu of running pipe. Meanwhile Port Renfrew now has a water treatment plant. Any gamblers wanting to bet on Renfrew's future population? It will be higher by 2030 than the present day 300, I promise you that.

 

And demand for the south Island is rising, as we see with much higher population growth than estimated. We didn't project so many monied people moving here so fast (some propelled to do so when the spec tax emerged, which I think might have been the province's plan all along) who sell homes somewhere else and take up inventory here. People also like the island thing, it turns out, because it's safer during times of COVID/etc. And as far as properties are concerned, some of the most popular emerging themes among the 30-50 demographic is 'going back to the land' and telecommuting from semi rural or rural properties. The tech industry is especially into this sort of thing and I'm seeing -a lot- of interest from techies searching for acreages past Sooke.

[punk cannonballer]

It's a perfect storm right now: nice place to live, relatively COVID free, cheaper than Vancouver, almost zero effective regional planning and no local political will to make significant changes to land use patterns. 5 years from now the benchmark SFH is gonna be $2m. 

[Casual Kev]

I find the anti-development streak absolutely nuts given this is the provincial capital. Right now taxpayers from Kitmat to Surrey to Port Hardy are not only massively subsidizing jobs for Victorians but pumping up their equity, all while it's harder than ever for ordinary British Columbians to get a slice of the pie they pay into. It should be a CRD mandate to ensure sufficient housing supply, instead of letting each municipality run public-funded fiefdoms. 

 

Public wealth massively concentrating in a faraway capital is usually a feature of 3rd world countries, and here we are willing ourselves into doing the same. 

 

/e And I can't forget to mention my bitter disappointment in Stephen Andrew providing the tie-breaking vote to kill the 1475 Fort project. There's no hope municipalities will ass themselves to do anything if both ends of the aisle keeps pandering to NIMBYs and expecting every new project to solve all of society's ills.

Edited by Casual Kev, 15 June 2021 - 11:42 AM.

[Mike K.]

You’d be surprised at just how many provincial workers do not work in Victoria. I’m dealing with a project ATM and the provincial people I’m liaising with are in Nanaimo and Port Alberni despite the project being in the CRD.

[Casual Kev]

You’d be surprised at just how many provincial workers do not work in Victoria. I’m dealing with a project ATM and the provincial people I’m liaising with are in Nanaimo and Port Alberni despite the project being in the CRD.

 

I'm in Health IT and that's the case for quite a few people I work with. But among public servants themselves, if their office is in Victoria they almost always live in the CRD.