Jump to content

      













BUILT
The Hudson Mews
Uses: rental, commercial
Address: 780 Fisgard Street
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Downtown Victoria
Storeys: 12
The Hudson Mews is a 12-storey rental tower with ground floor commercial space. Developed by Vancouver- and Ri... (view full profile)
Learn more about the Hudson Mews on Citified.ca
Photo

[Downtown Victoria] The Hudson Mews | Rentals | HBC redevelopment; Phase II | 12-storeys | Built - completed in 2014

Rental Commercial

  • Please log in to reply
530 replies to this topic

#21 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 10,492 posts

Posted 07 December 2009 - 07:58 PM

Spanky, 1701 Douglas is the entire block bounded by Douglas, Fisgard, Blanshard and Herald Streets. The $32.8 million is the cost to construct the Hudson Mews building. You are comparing apples to oranges in your statement.

Perhaps your motivation is influencing your conclusion?


My understanding is that the "entire block" as you put it has been divided into 3 parcels, one of which is the Hudson Mews. The BC and Victoria Governments have agreed to purchase 1 of the 3 parcels for $32.8M. The assessed value of all 3 parcels is $29.8M.

Now I understand that Townline has invested some money in the property but my point is that I don't see how this deal is a 20% discount to "market".

#22 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 07 December 2009 - 08:17 PM

If they had waited until Townline tanked then they could have got it for a lot less money!


My difficulty is that they did a $32M deal with one developer. Why not set out your proposal and guidelines, and ask for bids from all developers?

#23 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 10,492 posts

Posted 07 December 2009 - 09:10 PM

Ok the release has been updated since I first read it. The TC now states that the Government is buying the land at a discount to market and not the units themselves.

Don't know how that gets priced but my earlier comment is not accurate.

#24 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,471 posts

Posted 07 December 2009 - 09:27 PM

Someone has to build the building too.

#25 martini

martini
  • Member
  • 2,446 posts

Posted 11 December 2009 - 09:18 PM

Hudson deal should have had full disclosure
By Paul Willcocks, Times Colonist December 11, 2009
http://www.timescolo...8864/story.html

A neighbouring project ran into trouble and Townline bought that property as well. And now the provincial government has effectively taken over as developer of one of the three buildings on the Bay block.

It's a private-public partnership in reverse. The risk transfer is to taxpayers, not the private partner.

The provincial government will become the developer of the 13-storey tower. It will borrow $32 million and hire a company to do the construction. The news release said "TL Housing Solutions Ltd., an experienced developer of non-market housing, will develop the site."

But in the interests of openness, the news release might have noted that TL Housing is also a Ilich company, with Rick IIich's wife Lauren as the president.

But a better public process is needed for these kinds of projects. Ordinarily, a public project would go to tender so taxpayers would know they were getting the best value. This one was all arranged behind closed doors.

And by taking on the risk of selling condos to recover its money, the government is moving into an area where it has little expertise or experience. If they don't sell, or sell at a discount, taxpayers are on the hook.



#26 martini

martini
  • Member
  • 2,446 posts

Posted 11 December 2009 - 09:26 PM

Rich Coleman and Dean Fortin have an affordable housing announcement at the Hudson site this morning at 10:30.

Maybe I'm becoming more and more cynical, but I see this more as Rich and Dean shining lights on each other rather than this being affordable housing.

#27 martini

martini
  • Member
  • 2,446 posts

Posted 11 December 2009 - 09:35 PM

Creativity on the Hudson
Times Colonist December 10, 2009
http://www.timescolo...4550/story.html

The developer gets assurance that the site won't sit vacant for years, an issue in the current market. An associated company, TL Housing Solutions Ltd., will also profit from the construction of the 13-storey tower.

The province and the city will benefit from an increased supply of housing that is at least somewhat more affordable.

The developer benefits and the supply of rental accommodation -- even if it's only slightly more affordable -- will get a needed boost. It's a creative, low-cost approach.



#28 martini

martini
  • Member
  • 2,446 posts

Posted 11 December 2009 - 09:40 PM

Hudson $300 million luxury project to include non-profit housing
By Joanne Hatherly, Times Colonist December 8, 2009
http://www.timescolo...5557/story.html

A housing complex for low-income people will share the site of a $300-million luxury condominium project at the former Hudson Bay store site in downtown Victoria.

The provincial government announced yesterday a $32-million non-profit residential housing tower, called the Hudson Mews, will stand among the luxury condos at the development known as The Hudson.


How can low-income afford 90% of market value? Am I missing all the excitement here?

#29 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 10,492 posts

Posted 12 December 2009 - 11:54 AM

Hudson $300 million luxury project to include non-profit housing
By Joanne Hatherly, Times Colonist December 8, 2009
http://www.timescolo...5557/story.html


How can low-income afford 90% of market value? Am I missing all the excitement here?


They can't. I don't think that anyone believes that luxury condo buyers would line up to purchase units mixed in with low cost housing.

In my opinion this is nothing more than a $32M bailout of Townline using taxpayer money.

#30 Szeven

Szeven
  • Member
  • 812 posts

Posted 12 December 2009 - 12:54 PM

They can't. I don't think that anyone believes that luxury condo buyers would line up to purchase units mixed in with low cost housing.

In my opinion this is nothing more than a $32M bailout of Townline using taxpayer money.


This is on top of last years Wing building they 'bought' and are building with 800k in grants and a provincial gov't mortgage no?

#31 martini

martini
  • Member
  • 2,446 posts

Posted 12 December 2009 - 06:56 PM

^ Yup, with the same players involved.

#32 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 8,980 posts

Posted 12 December 2009 - 07:07 PM

I am told that with the rental portion of the building, as the years go by the rents will go gradually be lowered.

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

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#33 martini

martini
  • Member
  • 2,446 posts

Posted 12 December 2009 - 07:48 PM

I am told that with the rental portion of the building, as the years go by the rents will go gradually be lowered.

Then that's not affordable housing as the 'announcement' was supposed to be about.
It's simply dressing up bailout with Fortin trying to make it look good.

#34 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 8,980 posts

Posted 12 December 2009 - 07:59 PM

I should clarify. The rents will already be below market value. Which is quite a deal considering it's a new quality building. Then, as the loan is paid down, rent prices gradually come down too.

I know there is controversy regarding subsidized housing with some saying it even hurts affordability by driving up the cost of market housing somewhat.

Some say that the best thing is to have subsidized housing mixed in with luxury housing to create a more mixed community like in some Vancouver developments. Others say you get more bang for your buck per unit with cheaper subsidized buildings on the edge of town or further out.

I don't know what the solution is. But this offers something different and that is good.

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

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#35 martini

martini
  • Member
  • 2,446 posts

Posted 12 December 2009 - 08:11 PM

I should clarify. The rents will already be below market value. Which is quite a deal considering it's a new quality building. Then, as the loan is paid down, rent prices gradually come down too.

I know there is controversy regarding subsidized housing with some saying it even hurts affordability by driving up the cost of market housing somewhat.

Some say that the best thing is to have subsidized housing mixed in with luxury housing to create a more mixed community like in some Vancouver developments. Others say you get more bang for your buck per unit with cheaper subsidized buildings on the edge of town or further out.

I don't know what the solution is. But this offers something different and that is good.


I do hear what you are saying. But to say these are already below market value...10%?
That's not much. Certainly no where near what we need to really accommodate anyone who's low income. Or what you can rightfully call 'affordable' housing.
You don't have to go to Vancouver to find blended housing.
The Selkirk waterfront is mixed. Family and senior CRD subsidized housing.
Those units are based on 30% of your income. Plus the high end condos and commercial. Seems to be a successful model.

#36 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 12 December 2009 - 10:58 PM

When I was a property manager my experience was that whenever new housing came on the market at reasonable prices, I lost a few tenants. I even lost some tenants when non-luxury condos came on - like the Vogue & Juliet. The properties I managed were at the low end of the spectrum - rents as low as $650 downtown. But during the worst seasons of the rental housing shortage, there were always people who took the apartment even though they could afford a bit more, simply because it was available. Of course, as a company representative, I picked the cream of the crop - best credit ratings and jobs. When space became available, my tenants trickled up to the next bracket of housing. The lower third of the rental housing market has been squeezed so tight, that if you add stock anywhere within that bracket, it is going to have an impact all the way down to the bottom.
Nowadays most people die of a sort of creeping common sense, and discover when it is too late that the only things one never regrets are one's mistakes.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891

#37 Layne French

Layne French
  • Member
  • 355 posts

Posted 12 December 2009 - 11:55 PM

This works essentially in the form of a somewhat public housing version of what is known as Housing Filtering. Essentially as with other aspects of trickle down economics, the idea is by supply the highest bracket of individual requiring social housing you create a pattern of vacancy chains that reach down to the bottom rung of the socioeconomic hierarchy.

Unlike in normal housing filtering, the public entity is in place to prevent the trickling down of housing from becoming a upwards movement of capital, as often is the case in a normal market conditions.

#38 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,471 posts

Posted 13 December 2009 - 07:04 AM

They can't. I don't think that anyone believes that luxury condo buyers would line up to purchase units mixed in with low cost housing.

In my opinion this is nothing more than a $32M bailout of Townline using taxpayer money.


That false creek development by Concert Properties with mixed different income levels was a total failure. It practically killed Yaletown.

#39 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,313 posts

Posted 13 December 2009 - 10:22 AM

I really wish council and the public would understand cara's example. The "trickle down" effect actually DOES work when it comes to housing.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#40 concorde

concorde
  • Banned
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 17 December 2009 - 05:29 PM

They had better not be starting work on the Hudson Mews without a public tender.

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.
 



1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users


To advertise on VibrantVictoria, call us at 250-884-0589.