Jump to content

      













BUILT
Hudson Walk Two
Uses: rental, commercial
Address: 755 Caledonia Ave
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Downtown Victoria
Storeys: 15
Hudson Walk Two is a 15-storey, 106-unit mixed-use rental tower with a commercial ground floor. The building i... (view full profile)
Learn more about Hudson Walk Two on Citified.ca
Photo

[Downtown Victoria] Hudson Walk | Rentals; commercial | Phase 1: 16-storeys | Built - completed in 2016 | Phase 2: 15-storeys | Built - completed in 2017

Office Commercial Rental

  • Please log in to reply
1260 replies to this topic

#21 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 49,944 posts

Posted 24 August 2008 - 06:50 PM

For the sake of convenience it would be nice, but the cost of building a parking facility that would only be used during events at the arena would be too much of a burden on tax payers. Radius' excavation cost somewhere around $4 million (can anyone correct me here?) and construction of the parking facility hadn't even begun.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#22 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 24 August 2008 - 06:56 PM

Well, yes thats exactly it...if you want to walk 4 blocks...which don't get me wrong I've got no problem doing that, doesn't bother me, it just strikes me as it would have been prudent planning on the part of the City of Victoria to incorporate a parking garage under the arena or a parking structure somewhere on the property...


People will not pay much over $6 to park. Building a facility would call for parking fees in the $15-$18 range. It would not work.

#23 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 49,944 posts

Posted 24 August 2008 - 06:59 PM

$20, or thereabouts, to park at GM Place.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#24 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,499 posts

Posted 24 August 2008 - 07:25 PM

People will not pay much over $6 to park. Building a facility would call for parking fees in the $15-$18 range. It would not work.


Build the cost of parking into the price of event tickets at the venue. The facility should be paid for by users, not the city of Victoria taxpayers. If you aren't parking there, well too bad. As a user of the SOFMC you should be paying for the full operating costs of its existence including any and all parking-related costs. If you don't like the cost, don't go.

#25 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 49,944 posts

Posted 24 August 2008 - 07:56 PM

Tack an additional $20 parking fee onto a $10 hockey ticket? I'm not so sure that would go over well.

But getting back to the point, parking is not a problem. People may be doing silly things when they park in areas they should not be parking in, but that's an issue of enforcement and the practice would occur even if a parkade had been built at the arena (in fact, given the cost to park at such a facility, it would happen just as often).

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#26 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,499 posts

Posted 24 August 2008 - 07:59 PM

Tack an additional $20 parking fee onto a $10 hockey ticket? I'm not so sure that would go over well.


Too bad, so sad. $30 is the true cost of attending an event then.

#27 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 9,989 posts

Posted 24 August 2008 - 09:04 PM

We encouraged all developers in the area to include extra public parking so that the construction of a stand-alone parkade could be avoided.

"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#28 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 24 August 2008 - 09:19 PM

$20, or thereabouts, to park at GM Place.


That's right, and a Canucks ticket is $75-125. Salmon Kings are $21.

#29 Zimquats

Zimquats
  • Member
  • 299 posts

Posted 24 August 2008 - 10:01 PM

I understand that the City planned on having the parking onus passed on to nearby developers, but, at a pricetag of almost $20k per underground parking stall, it's not as insignificant as it sounds.

It's this mentality of having developers pay extreme amounts for 'ammenity' packages that is leaving us with giant holes in the ground and run down, boarded up hotels. That's not even getting into the real costs we'll soon be facing if (when!) the construction market dries up here. It's backwards thinking and it's going to cause a lot of problems. Soon.

#30 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,499 posts

Posted 24 August 2008 - 10:19 PM

We encouraged all developers in the area to include extra public parking so that the construction of a stand-alone parkade could be avoided.


Yikes! I am normally a huge supporter of the foresight of the DRA, but IMO this was/is a bad policy. I agree with Zimquats, that forcing developers to pick up the high cost of public parking (and other such ammenties), while the city makes them beg for even the slightest of variances, is bad for business, and does not bode well in a softening market.

#31 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,499 posts

Posted 24 August 2008 - 10:22 PM

That's right, and a Canucks ticket is $75-125. Salmon Kings are $21.


So a $40 charge for SK tickets would not be unreasonable. The additional $19/ticket could then be used to fund much needed parking on the SOFMC site.

#32 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 25 August 2008 - 06:32 AM

Selling parking near the arena should be a opportunity, not a mandate. If neighbouring projects think they can make an extra buck selling parking to people let them, but if they don't want to sell their spots or build a certain amount it seems crazy to force them. Let the invisible hand of parking take care of things and stop this parking marxism. If demand is there, supply will be there. It's a silly luxury, not something government should be forcing.

Maybe when gateway green goes up they can get the city to force future projects to provide their parking. "This office building and the jobs it creates benefits the whole community, to lower the rental rates we're making its neighbours build the parking for it."

It seems a ridiculous burden to place on an area we should be encouraging development in this tight market.

#33 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 11,555 posts

Posted 25 August 2008 - 07:36 AM

It's this mentality of having developers pay extreme amounts for 'ammenity' packages that is leaving us with giant holes in the ground and run down, boarded up hotels.


If having a piece of property re-zoned adds millions to its value then I think that the taxpayer has every right to ask for a good chunk of the upside. The property owner always has the option of leaving the property the way it is.

#34 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 11,555 posts

Posted 25 August 2008 - 07:38 AM

Selling parking near the arena should be a opportunity, not a mandate.


As part of the original deal with RG, RG was to provide 270 onsite parking spaces at the arena.

#35 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 49,944 posts

Posted 25 August 2008 - 07:44 AM

The rear portion of the arena property is dedicated to parking. 270 spaces sounds about right, but I don't know the exact number. VHF?

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#36 Guest_Marcat_*

Guest_Marcat_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 August 2008 - 08:13 AM

If having a piece of property re-zoned adds millions to its value then I think that the taxpayer has every right to ask for a good chunk of the upside. The property owner always has the option of leaving the property the way it is.


No offense mate...but with that logic, Victoria's "skyline" would be littered with View Tower's like low and mid-rises because the developers would not feel compelled to spend the extra money on the exterior finishing and would be able to turn a buck making cheaper looking buildings. Developers are businessmen like the rest, they are in the business to make money and should not be forced (especially on residential and office projects) to provide any form of public parking. I'd say downtown Victoria looks a lot better now that the Y Lot has been completed and various other surface parking lots have been dug out to make way for tasteful and completing buildings that add to Victoria's "character" Developers aren't the big "evil" monoliths some people like to make them out to be, they are no different than any other business when it comes down to it, they are just bigger and front and centre because they are changing the way our city looks and creating an updated modern atmosphere, which like any change creates a negative image at times. Stop making developers pay for our own governments inability to provide infrastructure that as a city we need. Instead of wasting money on debacles like the recently closed Police Board shin dig, stop wasting money on lazy and over paid employees ( i.e. streamline the parks and city works department so when I drive down Douglas I don't see 8 city trucks and 12 guys, doing the work that in the private sector 6 guys could do in half the time and at a fraction of the cost) If we started running SOME sectors of our municipality like that of a business, we'd have more money for infrastructure such as improved and more city owned parkades (thus also providing income to the city coffers), public ashtrays :P, etc etc...

#37 Zimquats

Zimquats
  • Member
  • 299 posts

Posted 25 August 2008 - 08:19 AM

If having a piece of property re-zoned adds millions to its value then I think that the taxpayer has every right to ask for a good chunk of the upside. The property owner always has the option of leaving the property the way it is.


Obviously, these "millions" of pure profit the developers are seeing still isn't enough to make viable projects. 270 parking spots is what radias was asked to include...and at about $20k a piece this is a $5.4M package, just on parking alone. Now add in street, utility, and cash upgrades. How much do you think developers make?

And yea, they could leave it like it is. We could also live in 1800's gold rush towns without proper sanitary and drinking water too. Worked back then...why change?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about ammenity packages, but they (obviously) need to be kept within reason.

#38 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 11,555 posts

Posted 25 August 2008 - 09:03 AM

There are two different components to development as far as I am concerned. There is the raw value of the land and then there are the improvements placed upon the land.

I think that whatever improvements a developer makes is their money. If they spend $200 a sq ft and then sell it for $300 then good for them.

I look at the raw value of the land and the increase in that value that the taxpayer provides the developer by re-zoning the land or allowing a variance. I don't think that a 1/4 or 1/3 share in the lift in the land value is unreasonable. After all, without the taxpayer making the concession then the developer would get nothing.

I haven't seen any lift in property taxes or benefits to the community as a whole with recent development over the past few years. The tax base has increased but largely on the backs off 4% and 5% annual property tax increases to existing home and business owners. I think then that the claim that devlopment benefits us all from a financial perspective is pipe dream.

#39 Guest_Marcat_*

Guest_Marcat_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 August 2008 - 09:15 AM

There are two different components to development as far as I am concerned. There is the raw value of the land and then there are the improvements placed upon the land.

I think that whatever improvements a developer makes is their money. If they spend $200 a sq ft and then sell it for $300 then good for them.

I look at the raw value of the land and the increase in that value that the taxpayer provides the developer by re-zoning the land or allowing a variance. I don't think that a 1/4 or 1/3 share in the lift in the land value is unreasonable. After all, without the taxpayer making the concession then the developer would get nothing.

I haven't seen any lift in property taxes or benefits to the community as a whole with recent development over the past few years. The tax base has increased but largely on the backs off 4% and 5% annual property tax increases to existing home and business owners. I think then that the claim that devlopment benefits us all from a financial perspective is pipe dream.


The developer will still get his just, because he will go to a city willing to give him what he wants and make go of a similar development in another city so instead of us getting a world class project, we lose out because the "costs" of developing are too high.

You haven't seen any benefits to the recent spate of development in the downtown core?...well I don't know about you, but I'm not a big fan of gravel parking lots, abandoned former Restaurants, or empty industrial lands so I'd say between Dockside, Railyards, Bayview, Juliet, Marriott, Astoria, Belvedere, Aria, Parkside Cherry Bank and The Falls, we've had a HUGE benefit because now our downtown and tourist core doesn't look like a rundown crap hole, but rather a far more vibrant core. As far as property tax increases...there are how many units that have been built in the Humboldt Valley, Selkirk, Vic West and mid-town regions in the last 5 years? and how much does each condo unit pay in property taxes? I'm pretty sure its a helluva lot more than a parking lot does, or barren industrial land...

#40 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,789 posts

Posted 25 August 2008 - 09:42 AM

^ very true the increase in property taxes to the city has been large.

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

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