Jump to content

      



























BUILT
Yello on Yates
Uses: rental, commercial
Address: 819 Yates Street
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Downtown Victoria
Storeys: 15
Yello on Yates is a mixed-use rental residential and ground floor commercial tower spanning the 800 blocks of ... (view full profile)
Learn more about Yello on Yates on Citified.ca
Photo

[Downtown Victoria] Yello on Yates | Rentals; commercial | 15-storeys | Built - completed in 2018

Condo Commercial

  • Please log in to reply
662 replies to this topic

#181 Mixed365

Mixed365
  • Member
  • 1,042 posts

Posted 16 June 2015 - 01:26 PM

My stat of 39% vacancy rate is for all commercial spaces (retail and office included).  I understand however real estate companies would try to keep the rate lower, as does Revenue Canada with the unemployment statistics. There are definetly a lot of empty retail and office spaces in the downtown area in any case.

 

Yeah, now I just think you're being a troll. 

Look at the reports (industrial, retail, office, retail) from the large brokerage firms, in aggregate, it will still be about 10%, unless your math works like...

10% - retail
8% - office 
7% - industrial

14% - restaurant
39%  :eek: 
 


  • Nparker likes this

“To understand cities, we have to deal outright with combinations or mixtures of uses, not separate uses, as the essential phenomena.”
- Jane Jacobs 


#182 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 12,701 posts

Posted 16 June 2015 - 07:29 PM

No, not at all. But old retail space has problems that tenants have to deal with. Unless you've leased an old retail or office space you may not be familiar with common problems. Low water pressure, poor electrical, drafty windows, squeaky floors, plumbing problems, etc. Upgrading that sort of stuff, to commercial code, mind you, costs a huge amount of money and most landlords don't care to be bothered to do it and expect their tenants to make the upgrades.

Wouldn't that mean that the landlords would have to drastically reduce their rates to get anybody to rent their space? Why are they still high if no one wants them?


Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#183 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 12,701 posts

Posted 16 June 2015 - 07:31 PM

Wendywelch, you can't go put out a stat that's nearly 300% off the mark and expect us to take the rest of your commentary seriously.

VHF questioning someone else's stats? Hello pot. :wave:


  • Nparker, Matt R. and lanforod like this
Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#184 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,173 posts

Posted 16 June 2015 - 07:39 PM

Wouldn't that mean that the landlords would have to drastically reduce their rates to get anybody to rent their space? Why are they still high if no one wants them?

 

And that's just the thing, as new stock comes online, landlords will be forced to either reduce rates or upgrade their spaces. When vacancy is low there's little impetus to change the status quo.

 

Tying this conversation back to 819 Yates the retail spaces here will no doubt be absorbed in due course. There's an appetite for centrally located, modern retail spaces as evidenced by the quick absorption at the Atrium across the street.


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


#185 lanforod

lanforod
  • Member
  • 11,238 posts
  • LocationSaanich

Posted 17 June 2015 - 07:23 AM

VHF questioning someone else's stats? Hello pot. :wave:

VHF's stats are usually somewhere close, at least. usually...


  • jonny likes this

#186 lanforod

lanforod
  • Member
  • 11,238 posts
  • LocationSaanich

Posted 17 June 2015 - 07:24 AM

Even if there were a 39% vacancy rate, if that were mostly class c stuff, I'd still encourage retail here. There isn't a better option, this is not ideal for residential.


  • Nparker likes this

#187 sdwright.vic

sdwright.vic

    Colwood

  • Member
  • 6,681 posts

Posted 17 June 2015 - 07:32 AM

ice 40 percent vacancy rate would make us Detroit.
Predictive text and a tiny keyboard are not my friends!

#188 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 17 June 2015 - 08:16 AM

The discussion of vacancy rate on commercial was deemed OT for all members. Please resume discussion of this proposal only.

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#189 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,173 posts

Posted 29 June 2015 - 03:39 PM

Excavation will be starting this summer with completion in the spring of 2018.

 

819-Yates-aerial-May-2015.jpg

 

Rental tower to replace Capital Six parking lot

By Mike Kozakowski, Citified.ca

http://victoria.citi...ix-parking-lot/

 

The parking lot behind the former Capital Six movie theatre on Blanshard Street will be transformed into a 15-storey mixed-use residential and ground floor commercial tower by Chard Development.

 

Currently known as 819 Yates, the project is comprised of 209 rental apartments in one and two bedroom configurations between 508 and 1,052 square feet. Approximately 6,600 square feet of ground floor commercial space will front onto Yates Street. [Read more]


  • Baro, Nparker and Mr Cook Street like this

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


#190 wendywelch

wendywelch
  • Member
  • 12 posts

Posted 01 July 2015 - 09:00 PM

I originally posted on this site to express my opinion that I thought the proposed building for the 819 Yates is too big for the site. My thoughts were that it wasn’t designed with the site or surrounding area in mind. This is an opinion. It is not right, nor is it wrong. I have been studying urban design and architecture informally for over 20 years, so at the very least my opinion is informed and based on my experiences of other cities and other examples of architecture. I mentioned other concerns such as the viability of more retail space in an area that already has many empty spaces and the idea of rentals being turned into condos after ten years. These were just minor considerations brought up for the point of discussion.

 

Every point I brought up with dismissed with sanctimonious, condescending and on occasion, rude responses. I couldn’t figure out if I had entered a shark tank, a dragon’s den, or the mean girls' table in a high school cafeteria. When I mentioned ‘set-backs’, the immediate response was “I hate set-backs”. When I mentioned I liked the idea of one part of the building being much lower and the other part being taller, the response I got was “that will never happen”. When I incorrectly sited stats based on what a reputable business owner told me, I was called a “troll”.

 

Oddly enough when I expressed my concerns about the building with David Chard, the developer, he invited me out for coffee to discuss my ideas. I would like to suggest to all the people that found it necessary to immediately put down my opinions that there is no need to be so defensive about your stance. I understand that you are pro-development, pro-density, pro-high rise. Ironically your side does not need to be defended. You are on the side of money, and money usually wins in the end. I only expressed my opinion to give voice to aesthetic side of things. Ironically David was much more open to hearing my ideas than the people I encountered on this site.

 

I am currently in Chicago and I notice that most the high rise residency buildings in the downtown area have a lot of space between them and the next building. I also noticed this was the case in Seattle. High rise office towers are built close together, but high rise residencies are given space. And yes, even “views” are given consideration and are not dismissed as being irrelevant. My original opinion with regards to 819 Yates development is that it needs a little space around it or beside it based on the size and scale of other buildings in the area. Again this is my opinion. It is not wrong, nor is it right.

 

I realize some of you are probably already formulating mean things to say to me. But perhaps instead of lashing out, you could provide me with some reasons why you hate set-backs, why you think buildings should have no spaces between them, why density at all costs is worthwhile. Then we would have a conversation. And that would be a nice thing.


  • Marilyn and Mr Cook Street like this

#191 Coreyburger

Coreyburger
  • Member
  • 2,864 posts

Posted 01 July 2015 - 09:34 PM

Every point I brought up with dismissed with sanctimonious, condescending and on occasion, rude responses. I couldn’t figure out if I had entered a shark tank, a dragon’s den, or the mean girls' table in a high school cafeteria.

 

This is Vibrant Victoria's problem in a nutshell. Some days I don't know why I keep posting here...


  • Matt R. likes this

#192 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,173 posts

Posted 01 July 2015 - 09:42 PM

Every point I brought up with dismissed with sanctimonious, condescending and on occasion, rude responses. I couldn’t figure out if I had entered a shark tank, a dragon’s den, or the mean girls' table in a high school cafeteria. When I mentioned ‘set-backs’, the immediate response was “I hate set-backs”. When I mentioned I liked the idea of one part of the building being much lower and the other part being taller, the response I got was “that will never happen”. When I incorrectly sited stats based on what a reputable business owner told me, I was called a “troll”.

 
Hi Wendy, if you can point me in the direction of these sanctimonious, condescending and rude responses I would be happy to review.
 
I do think that your assumptions and incorrect figures pertaining to retail and office vacancy rates caused a stir. Making assumptions, stating opinions that are not shared by others or reporting incorrect facts will result in challenges here and on any discussion forum. We all get challenged, whether we've been here for years or days, or whether we're moderators or casual participants. That's simply what happens when opinions clash.
 
It's great to hear that Dave Chard has offered to meet with you to discuss his project. He's a stand-up developer.
 

I realize some of you are probably already formulating mean things to say to me. But perhaps instead of lashing out, you could provide me with some reasons why you hate set-backs, why you think buildings should have no spaces between them, why density at all costs is worthwhile. Then we would have a conversation. And that would be a nice thing.


Looking through the posts, I can't find any instance of someone "hating" setbacks (other than ground floor setbacks, of course, which can be disastrous for urban streetscapes and luckily we're reverting away from them)  or "advocating" for there to not be any spaces between buildings, or why density "at all costs" is worthwhile. What are you seeing that I am not seeing?


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


#193 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,173 posts

Posted 01 July 2015 - 09:59 PM

This is Vibrant Victoria's problem in a nutshell. Some days I don't know why I keep posting here...

 

No, this is not VibrantVictoria's problem. This forum is a place for airing differences of opinion. Share an opinion and it will be debated if it's not popular. This is how the world operates, from your living room to the upper echelons of political assemblies.

 

Nobody learns from those they share the same point of view with. We can either walk away disappointed with our tails between our legs or we can accept that our opinions are not always the correct or popular ones and take that as an opportunity to learn something.


  • sebberry likes this

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


#194 Greg

Greg
  • Member
  • 3,362 posts

Posted 01 July 2015 - 10:34 PM

I understand that you are pro-development, pro-density, pro-high rise. Ironically your side does not need to be defended. You are on the side of money, and money usually wins in the end. 

If this part was true I think there would be a lot more density in downtown, and a lot more interesting architecture. The pro-development view doesn't have an easy ride in Victoria IMHO. :)

 

Nice of Chard to meet with you, doesn't surprise me. He's a class act.



#195 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 01 July 2015 - 10:39 PM

Retail/commercial vs. ground floor residential is a tough problem for developers and City Hall. Recent buildings that have struggled with that question are Corazon, Cherry Bank and 1030 Yates.

As for 819 Yates, my feeling is that it should be retail, a use that has high engagement with pedestrian. The View St. side can be live/work and I think that was the plan with one of the previous designs. Ground floor residential can work in an urban setting but it can come off as being a bit of a dead zone from a vibrancy standpoint. Going downtown is about window shopping, seeing interesting things on display. It's a drag looking through a window and oops, there's a family eating spaghetti at the dinner table.

As for setbacks, you have to be extremely careful as Victoria has had some disastrous examples of introducing setbacks in an urban setting. Well-meaning planners thought they would offer relief from the old-fashioned pre-war streetscapes but instead the setbacks disturbed the intimacy between pedestrian and storefront. I'm badly paraphrasing Jane Jacobs et al.

As for the massing and design I think I liked previous versions better.

As for the rental agreement only being ten years, none of the several previous proposals for this site had anything other than condos and no-one cared at that time so having guaranteed rentals for ten years seems an improvement. Of course, condos are often rented out in any case. It wasn't too long ago there was a desperate shortage of condos. It's funny how these things flip flop.
  • jklymak, sebberry, jonny and 1 other like this

#196 Marilyn

Marilyn
  • Member
  • 374 posts

Posted 01 July 2015 - 11:08 PM

Excavation will be starting this summer with completion in the spring of 2018.

This image doesn't show the shadow line. The Wave and 860 View Street would be darkened by this huge block of a building. That is, it would block the western light. While almost anything would be an improvement over the parking lot, I don't see this building as improving the area. It's too tall and too massive.



#197 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,173 posts

Posted 01 July 2015 - 11:25 PM

Perhaps it would be appropriate to state how this building will detract from the area?

I personally wish the building was taller and slimmer, resembling what was originally approved, but I guess Chard Development found a two tower design with taller and slimmer buildings was cost prohibitive. We're going to see multiple 15-17 storey towers rise in that immediate vicinity and that's not smart urban planning, IMO. Variety in heights is key.
  • Nparker and jonny like this

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


#198 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,211 posts

Posted 02 July 2015 - 07:58 AM

Wendy and Marilyn - I think if you go back through this thread you will see a lot of people (even a lot of the pro development regulars here who want to see lots and lots more height in this city) have a lot of the same issues with this proposal as you do (too close to neighbors, too many buildings the same height, etc.). In my opinion, one tall, slim tower on this site would alleviate many of those issues, but of course we in Victoria are allergic to anything higher than 50 meters.

 

Regarding setbacks, well we have seen our share of disasters in Victoria. Setback higher floors can be alright, but our downtown buildings should start right at the lot lines in most cases, IMO.

 

FWIW, this is probably the tamest forum I have ever been a part of. Check out sports forums if you really want to see sanctimonious and condescending....


Edited by jonny, 02 July 2015 - 08:16 AM.

  • Nparker and sebberry like this

#199 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 02 July 2015 - 08:19 AM

I suspect Wendy doesn't spend much time on a forum. It would be easy to interpret the experience as an "us vs them" where you as an individual is facing a tight knit group of people all on in agreement with one another. I may agree with a point Jonny made but he doesn't represent me, and simply because I disagree with nparker doesn't mean he is an enemy off mine. A forum is a list of endless, evolving debates where no one, NO ONE gets the final word on anything.
Most important point to remember is that if someone is challenging your point they are challenging your point, not you.

Edited by gumgum, 02 July 2015 - 08:20 AM.

  • Mike K., sebberry and jonny like this

#200 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,404 posts

Posted 02 July 2015 - 08:21 AM

....and simply because I disagree with nparker doesn't mean he is an enemy off mine....

This, of course, is entirely theoretical since I am sure no one ever disagrees with me  :P


  • jonny and lanforod like this

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