[Downtown Victoria] The Cosmopolitan | Rental, commercial | 5-storeys | Canceled
#81
Posted 30 March 2011 - 08:56 PM
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]
#82
Posted 30 March 2011 - 09:39 PM
http://www.6717000.c...images/6343.jpg
#83
Posted 30 March 2011 - 09:46 PM
#84
Posted 03 May 2011 - 08:47 PM
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
Posted 03 May 2011 - 09:52 PM
#86
Posted 07 May 2011 - 09:30 AM
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
Posted 07 May 2011 - 10:38 AM
#88
Posted 09 May 2011 - 08:38 AM
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
Posted 26 May 2011 - 02:46 PM
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
Posted 26 May 2011 - 02:54 PM
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.
#91
Posted 26 May 2011 - 03:12 PM
#92
Posted 26 May 2011 - 03:33 PM
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
Posted 26 May 2011 - 08:07 PM
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).The height increase is comparable to the height of the adjacent Yarrow Building and The Bay Centre...
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
Posted 26 May 2011 - 08:44 PM
#95
Posted 26 May 2011 - 08:59 PM
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
Posted 27 May 2011 - 07:58 AM
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
Posted 27 May 2011 - 08:35 AM
#98
Posted 27 May 2011 - 11:09 AM
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
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
Posted 27 May 2011 - 11:48 AM
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.
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