Jump to content

      



























Photo

Richmond Court Apts. 1082 Richmond razed?


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#1 martini

martini
  • Member
  • 2,670 posts

Posted 21 June 2009 - 09:05 AM

http://www.timescolo...8442/story.html

Victoria's new planning and land use committee is recommending against a plan to bulldoze a 1800s-vintage Rockland rental apartment building to make way for new condos.

"I will not be supporting it when it comes to council," said Coun. Pam Madoff, who chairs the city's new planning committee.

"We've fought so hard to find mechanisms to preserve rental housing and discovered that the tools are just not available to us. So all I can do in terms of living with myself is not enable developments that take away rental housing," she said.

Although the proposal meets existing zoning requirements, Abstract Developments Inc. needs a development permit in order to demolish the five-suite Richmond Court Apartments at 1082 Richmond Ave. to make way for a 12-unit condo project. The company is seeking some minor variances in setbacks and site coverage.

City planning staff are recommending the development permit be issued. They note the variances are supportable as they are in keeping with nearby

properties, and while the building has heritage character, without designated status, the application should be considered on its merits.

The existing building, constructed in the late 1800s as the original St. Michaels University school, was converted into rental apartments in 1972. It is not on the city's list of heritage registry or heritage designated buildings.

"I think it's going to be a really sad day for Victoria when the only buildings with heritage value that are going to be preserved and recognized are ones that are on the registry or have heritage designation. This is an extremely rare building in this part of town. There are very few buildings from the 1800s," Madoff said.

"Although I cannot tell a property owner to keep it I would hope that our community values would recognize the landmark quality of that building on that corner."

Abstract president Mike Miller told the committee he did his due diligence when he bought the property 18 months ago and could find nothing regarding the building's history and legal impediment to the redevelopment plans. He said the economics do not justify remediating the existing building. The property could be redeveloped without the siting variances but would not be as well aligned with the neighbouring properties.

He said he understands the city's desire to save rental.

"I myself would be willing to forego the application as it is and walk away from the property, at the cost, if the city could figure out some way of saving that building and the apartment units for rental," Miller said.

In October last year, city council gave third reading to but did not adopt a housing emergency bylaw. The bylaw -- which would have a six month life -- would prevent the demolition of rental housing unless certain conditions were met such as the provision of non-profit rental housing.

Earlier this year the council directed staff to amend the city's official community plan to encourage the protection of rental housing. The development permit process, however, does not allow council to mandate rental housing.

bcleverley@tc.canwest.com
© Copyright © The Victoria Times Colonist

Mod, this is not a heritage building so please move if needed.

#2 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:04 AM

This building is pretty much on the same block as me and I really enjoy it. It's essentially a big house with 0 setbacks, pretty unique. They should just do an addition or some renovations on it and keep it rental. The other condos on that corner are butt-ugly stuff that would make the songhees blush.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#3 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 21 June 2009 - 11:31 AM

"I think it's going to be a really sad day for Victoria when the only buildings with heritage value that are going to be preserved and recognized are ones that are on the registry or have heritage designation..."

"Although I cannot tell a property owner to keep it I would hope that our community values would recognize the landmark quality of that building on that corner."


Indeed.

#4 Jill

Jill
  • Member
  • 1,039 posts

Posted 21 June 2009 - 12:02 PM

I really hope this building isn't torn down. To my mind, it would be a repeat of the dumb decision to allow that beautiful old apartment building at the corner of Fairfield and Linden to come down (1979?) so that a stucco box of condos could go up in its place.

#5 victorian fan

victorian fan
  • Member
  • 1,923 posts

Posted 21 June 2009 - 12:10 PM



Still looks lovely.

#6 yodsaker

yodsaker
  • Member
  • 1,280 posts

Posted 21 June 2009 - 01:37 PM

Nope. No tear down, its a nice old lady.
Has anyone noticed that Mike Miller's projects all seem to have the same dial-a-design look?

#7 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 21 June 2009 - 02:51 PM

Abstract always seems to get a rough ride at City Hall. Remember the Chester St. ordeal and the Fifth St. project and the 1000 block Richardson. I think he must be a masochist.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#8 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 21 June 2009 - 04:22 PM

This is the proposal:

http://www.abstractd...s/village_walk/

#9 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 21 June 2009 - 06:47 PM

That's ghastly, no thanks. I hope the city and RNA go full out banana on it.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#10 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 21 June 2009 - 09:02 PM

Yeah it's hideous.

#11 yodsaker

yodsaker
  • Member
  • 1,280 posts

Posted 21 June 2009 - 09:52 PM

No redeeming design qualities whatsoever, far inferior to what he wants to raze.
He's also trying to market it as OB Village, as an OB resident Mike Miller knows its a healthy walk from the corner of Richmond to the village.
Bad design+marketing lies = NO!

#12 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 22 June 2009 - 07:59 AM

They could do a similar sort of project to Bossi House. Keep the old and add a new wing to the rear.

I have no issue with the conversion to market condo's though.

#13 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,390 posts

Posted 22 June 2009 - 08:41 AM

I have no issue with the conversion to market condo's though.


Especially since there is a good chance that at least half the condos would become rental properties anyway.

#14 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 22 June 2009 - 09:03 AM

What's up with the Saanich esthetic in a lot of Victoria/Oak Bay projects, anyway? I find it really jarring.

Even Saanich itself is doing more interesting stuff these days.

Edit: and so is this particular developer. So what gives?

#15 Jill

Jill
  • Member
  • 1,039 posts

Posted 24 June 2009 - 09:38 AM

My guess with this development is that Abstract is playing it safe, coming up with a quasi-Tudor design in an effort to blend -- or should that be bland -- in with the uninteresting buildings on the other three corners at that intersection. After all, to sell in "Oak Bay Village" (ha!), you'd better go Tudor.

Mike Miller has published a letter to editor in today's TC about this project.

#16 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 24 June 2009 - 11:22 AM

I will lose my faith in humanity if this one passes.

#17 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 24 June 2009 - 11:25 AM

Yeah this one is a real waste of time.

#18 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 24 June 2009 - 01:12 PM

Mike Miller has published a letter to editor in today's TC about this project.


Here it is (I bolded the bit where he's hitting back at Counc. Madoff; interesting, that he refers to her "personal" beliefs):

City should not stop legitimate development

Times ColonistJune 24, 2009

Re: "Developer wants to raze rental building from 1800s," June 21.

This property at 1082 Richmond Ave. was specifically rezoned in the mid-1980s -- long before I purchased it -- to encourage redevelopment. Today, my plans for a 12-unit condominium are supported by neighbours, city staff and the city's advisory design panel.

One councillor, though, has expressed opposition, citing her personal belief in its heritage value and her concerns about the loss of rental housing.
The city maintains a registry of heritage buildings, the point of which is to protect those buildings that are considered to have value to the city as a whole. As someone who has built a career not just on building new homes but on restoring existing ones, I recognize the value of heritage properties and of the heritage registry.

The building in question, however, is not on the city's heritage list and is not identified in any of its documents or plans. Nevertheless, if council were to decide that the property has been overlooked and does indeed belong on the registry, I have offered to sell it to the city at fair market value.

In regard to the loss of rental housing, my company owns and manages a number of rental units and I sit on the regional housing affordability task force.

I recognize the need for affordable rental housing, and I offered several strategies to address the loss of housing for the existing tenants.

Stopping legitimate developments as a way of protecting affordable housing will not help to build partnerships with the development community or to provide solutions.

Mike Miller

president

Abstract Developments

Victoria


When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#19 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 24 June 2009 - 01:13 PM

PS: I agree with those of you who have suggested putting an addition at the back of the existing building instead. The proposed replacement is pretty ugly.
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#20 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 24 June 2009 - 02:00 PM

Apart from getting rid of the old house I agree with everything Mike Miller says.

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