Jump to content

      



























Photo

[Downtown Victoria] The Cosmopolitan | Rental, commercial | 5-storeys | Canceled

Rental Commercial

  • Please log in to reply
168 replies to this topic

#81 Ms. B. Havin

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

Posted 30 March 2011 - 08:56 PM

I really like this. Hope it gets built the way it looks in the rendering.

About setbacks: you guys aren't suggesting sidewalk setbacks, I take it? (Horrors, we hate those!) Are you talking about a step-back on the east end, next to the Yarrow Bldg? But hopefully not setback at sidewalk level? [confused]
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#82 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 30 March 2011 - 09:39 PM

I'm talking about a setback on the top floor, like this one has:
http://www.6717000.c...images/6343.jpg

#83 Ms. B. Havin

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

Posted 30 March 2011 - 09:46 PM

^ ok, gotcha. (That's what I was calling a step-back.)
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#84 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,173 posts

Posted 03 May 2011 - 08:47 PM

The developer has forwarded the latest design for this project.

Mr. Weyland had the following to say:

The plans were resubmitted to the City of Victoria with some additional information, as required, and we revised the façade design again with wider columns and part of the windows with obscured glass to create a look more like the Yarrow building.



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


#85 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 03 May 2011 - 09:52 PM

I really preferred the previous design...
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#86 SP!RE

SP!RE
  • Member
  • 12 posts

Posted 07 May 2011 - 09:30 AM

Me too. By far.

Small details make a big difference in design/architecture and they've gone and spoilt it.

Thanks, city council, for micromanaging and ruining yet another design so that it "looks more like the building next door"... WTF?

#87 bicycles

bicycles
  • Member
  • 172 posts

Posted 07 May 2011 - 10:38 AM

this new design is very mid 80's "modern" office...

#88 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,173 posts

Posted 09 May 2011 - 08:38 AM

Yet another project to suffer at the hands of officialdom. But what should we expect if just the other day a councillor said empty lots are better for the city than development?

I think the design looks almost identical to the International House building built in the 1960's at Douglas and Courtney.

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


#89 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 3,539 posts

Posted 26 May 2011 - 02:46 PM

The city's planning staff is recommending against the rezoning & the issuance of a development permit for this project.

The reasons are outlined in a letter posted on the city's website:

http://victoria.civi... App _00308.pdf

(Mike: I'm not sure if this qualifies as an external news article as it is a letter to council in the public domain so I didn't follow the news-linking guidelines...)

This will be discussed further at the June 2 P&LU Committee meeting.

#90 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 26 May 2011 - 02:54 PM

I got about half way through the first paragraph and had to close it as I got so angry.

So a building of the same density and height as its neighbouring old-town building threatens the integrity old town. Words fail me how stupid this document is.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#91 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,402 posts

Posted 26 May 2011 - 03:12 PM

So despite the fact that this proposal will have no significant density impact on the majority of its neighbours (Yarrow Building, Bay Centre, The Sovereign), the city advises rejection for just that reason. Once again we will have to live with hoardings rather than housing. And we wonder why we have a homeless issue. :mad:

#92 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,173 posts

Posted 26 May 2011 - 03:33 PM

Lest we forget, our region has one of the country's tightest rental vacancy rates.

City Hall also disapproved of several rental towers proposed in the mid-2000's even though the buildings were similar in size/density to existing building and proposed atop unsightly surface parking lots.

(Mike: I'm not sure if this qualifies as an external news article as it is a letter to council in the public domain so I didn't follow the news-linking guidelines...)


You're all good there :)

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


#93 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 26 May 2011 - 08:07 PM

From page 7:

The height increase is comparable to the height of the adjacent Yarrow Building and The Bay Centre...

But then on page 17 there's a comparison that shows the proposed building is actually very close in height to the Bard & Banker's building (quite a bit shorter than The Bay Centre, in other words).

So is it like The Price Is Right? You want to be close without actually going over? Even a penny over would be no good?

A variety of heights is important, I'm not questioning that. But I don't understand why two metres suddenly becomes an immense difference when it's followed by the word "taller". If the proposed building would harm the old town's atmosphere because it would be two metres taller than the Bard & Banker then does that mean the Bard & Banker harms the old town's atmosphere because it's two metres taller than the Hamley Building? And if the proposed building were to be chopped back by two metres, would it then be a good fit for the old town, even though it would still be two metres taller than the Hamley Building?

Do two metres really matter that much?

I'd say the style issue is much more significant than the height issue in this case.



#94 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,402 posts

Posted 26 May 2011 - 08:44 PM

Keep in mind that the already approved Sovereign directly to the South of this property is going to be considerably taller. Perhaps the Cosmopolitan needs to be re-designed to be only 2 metres shorter (or taller) than the Sovereign in order to maintain "the integrity of old town". ;)

#95 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 3,539 posts

Posted 26 May 2011 - 08:59 PM

If today`s height restrictions had been in place prior to the first World War some of the great Old Town landmarks- like the Yarrow Building- would never have been built.

Pam Madoff attended the open house for the Metropolitan and called the circumstances that permitted the construction of the Sovereign a `tragedy`. In my opinion, failing to build significant residential density in Old Town would be a bigger tragedy: the city needs to increase housing options in mixed-use areas that are within walking distance of planned transit stations as part of its strategy to fight climate change.

I hope that the committee ignores the recommendation of the Planning department and proceeds to send this to a public hearing. It would be great to have the original design resuscitated prior to being approved.

#96 Bernard

Bernard
  • Member
  • 5,056 posts
  • LocationVictoria BC

Posted 27 May 2011 - 07:58 AM

Given the comping property tax hikes, building any rental in the City of Victoria may not be a financially smart idea.

The City needs to deal with a long term infrastructure deficit.

There is the coming sewage treatment plant

There seems to be the coming LRT as well


All three of those will add something on the order of $1000 to $1500 a year in property taxes per unit. This will boost the rent on a one bedroom unit by about $100 to $125 a month. These are very rough numbers and I only raise them to show the sort of problem that is coming for rental units.

#97 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 27 May 2011 - 08:35 AM

^ It should not be up to the city to concern itself with impact of property taxes on a private business. If they want to build something and it meets zoning and is a needed commodity (rentals) then that is the end of it. They can charge 10k a month if they want to. They won't rent but that is not the city's concern.

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#98 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,173 posts

Posted 27 May 2011 - 11:09 AM

I recall from way back when (actually the mid-2000's) that city councillors balked at several proposals to build rental towers in James Bay on surface parking lots because they would provide housing for the rich. In other words, councillors were partially opposed to the projects because they were deemed to be upper scale rentals and therefore unnecessary.

As for higher rents, one day renters will wake up to significantly higher rents as a direct result of their voting habits. A bridge replacement, sewage treatment plants, LRT and backing councillors who are fiscally irresponsible will catch up with renters soon who have thus far not felt the full brunt of their political decisions. Landlord's can no longer carry the tax increases and deal with skyrocketing management costs while rents are protected from increases above 2.3% annually. Expect a lot of leases to be terminated and rents increased substantially upon renewal.

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


#99 Bernard

Bernard
  • Member
  • 5,056 posts
  • LocationVictoria BC

Posted 27 May 2011 - 11:43 AM

^ It should not be up to the city to concern itself with impact of property taxes on a private business. If they want to build something and it meets zoning and is a needed commodity (rentals) then that is the end of it. They can charge 10k a month if they want to. They won't rent but that is not the city's concern.


Seriously?

Commercial business rates are high enough now to make running a small business in the City if Victoria a losing proposition. Industrial rates are way too high.

If we have no businesses how do you expect the city to function? If you do not think that is likely, one only need to look at North Cowichan and the devastation they caused to the industrial sector.

Businesses are expected to pay the taxes but do not get a vote. Local council puts the burden of costs of the City on the non voters.

High property taxes for rentals will only encourage construction of more condos and no new rentals. It will also lead to more buildings being changed to condos from rentals. This means the cost of living in Victoria will continue to rise and more people will simply not be able to find a place to live that they can afford.

#100 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 27 May 2011 - 11:48 AM

If I own a piece of land and want to build rentals instead of condos the city should have no say in whether my business plan is viable so long as I meet their other requirements. Whether or not the rental building is full does not impact the amount of tax brought in by the city.

I don't get what you are arguing here. I didn't say that the city should raise or lower taxes just that owners should have the latitude to do what they want if they follow design and zoning guidelines.

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


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