662 replies to this topic

[Rob Randall]

I know that site has caused a lot of grief to so many developers and architects. For instance:

 

-alternating visions of market (Emaar's luxury vs. others' market rental)

-conflicting arguments on the need for a mid-block walkway or mall

-preserving views vs. breaking the height limit

-that site as "no-man's-land" between Harris Green and downtown--what's its identity? How to market it?

-how to deal with the massive Capitol 6 brick wall (courtyard? Above ground parkade? Twin towers?)

[jonny]

That implies a luxury tower and that would be a tough sell at that location.

 

I've lost track of the number of designs by numerous architects for this site.

 

I didn't mean to imply that 25 floors means this has to be a luxurious building.

 

Roberts House, Orchard House and View Towers are hardly luxurious. None of them are quite 25 floors, but really 4 or 5 floors is irrelevant.

 

The core of downtown needs taller buildings. This site is about as downtown as it gets in Victoria. This block in particular needs something to break things up height wise as the Wave, Metropolitan and Chelsea are far to similar in height.

 

By the time we realize 15 floors really isn't all that tall, all the prime sites downtown are going to be filled up with 10-15 floor junior highrises.

[Mike K.]

Chard had tried to amalgamate the Cap6 and 819 Yates properties, I think. I'm sure had the two properties been developed together we'd have seen something spectacular.

[jonny]

Chard had tried to amalgamate the Cap6 and 819 Yates properties, I think. I'm sure had the two properties been developed together we'd have seen something spectacular.

 

That whole block of Yates/View between Quadra and Blanshard is kind of a mess. It's too bad the Blanshard end isn't going to be consolidated into one spectacular project. The city deserves spectacular projects downtown.

[Nparker]

Nice scare tactic on the part of the T-C: http://www.timescolo...nixed-1.1936533

 

And at least one voice of reason on Council: "Coun. Margaret Lucas said the addition of 209 rental units with a 10-year covenant for rental is “far more powerful to our community” than $20,000 [towards a supportive housing fund]..."

Edited by Nparker, 15 May 2015 - 06:18 AM.

[Mike K.]

It's actually one building, isn't it?

Chard applied or this months ago. Five maybe?

[VicHockeyFan]

So Chard has a buyer for the end product, but he'll still be the developer, and as he always does, hire a builder?  That seems an odd arrangement.   Maybe he's just getting the right zoning and such then flipping it out. 

[Mike K.]

I believe they'll be building it then it'll be taken over by the new owner.

[jonny]

Isn't Lucas the only council person who has had a real job? Not surprising that the others want amenity after amenity. Was even a word spoken about the awful massing of this project?

[VicHockeyFan]

I believe they'll be building it then it'll be taken over by the new owner.

 

That's what they are suggesting.  But what is Chard's role in that, just a project manager?

[VicHockeyFan]

Isn't Lucas the only council person who has had a real job? Not surprising that the others want amenity after amenity. Was even a word spoken about the awful massing of this project?

 

Young has a real private-sector job.  Others have government jobs.

[Nparker]

...Was even a word spoken about the awful massing of this project?

Of course not. All development proposals that come before council only have to satisfy 2 requirements:

1) some sort of social housing aspect

2) be short

[jonny]

I always forget about Geoff Young...he's too quiet!

 

Coleman has lots of real world experience too.

Edited by jonny, 15 May 2015 - 07:36 AM.

[jonny]

Of course not. All development proposals that come before council only have to satisfy 2 requirements:

1) some sort of social housing aspect

2) be short

 

It's funny but it's true.

 

It sounds like last night's discussion around 960 Yates centered mostly around the usual canned (non) issues:

- Floor count

- Height

- The FSR

- Can't see the mountains from Yates & Johnson

- Obscured views & view corridors

- Traffic problems

 

But, some also discussed that it is a "high quality building" and that having more people downtown is good. I just wish council would demand excellent architecture rather than busy themselves with floor counts.

[Mike K.]

That's what they are suggesting. But what is Chard's role in that, just a project manager?

Right. The buyer may not be local, far easier to have a local developer handle the ins and outs. Lots of rental projects are built this way.

[VicHockeyFan]

Right. The buyer may not be local, far easier to have a local developer handle the ins and outs. Lots of rental projects are built this way.

 

Oh, I agree.  And presumably, by watching over it closely, Chard can maximize his profit on the sale.

 

What I don't get is why all these rentals are suddenly showing up now.   Is it only now that developers are thinking low interest is finally here to stay?

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

[Mike K.]

What's happened is investors are no longer making money at these rates and they're cash heavy, so they're willing to invest in rentals to secure a long term income source that is safe and stable.

Once rates rise that'll be it for rentals as condos will guarantee a quick profit with a meaningful rate.

[spanky123]

What's happened is investors are no longer making money at these rates and they're cash heavy, so they're willing to invest in rentals to secure a long term income source that is safe and stable.

Once rates rise that'll be it for rentals as condos will guarantee a quick profit with a meaningful rate.

 

10 year rental with an option to buy afterwards! This seems to be the standard approach with amenities these days. get zoning/development approval offering up a whack of goodies. Claim hardship afterwards and opt out of goodies.

 

My approach with Chard would be quite simple .. too bad you changed your mind. When council agrees to changes they should come with a caveat that zoning will revert back to its original state if substantial completion of the project is not done by a certain period of time. Would cut out all of the games and only allow legitimate projects to proceed.

[Greg]

My approach with Chard would be quite simple .. too bad you changed your mind. When council agrees to changes they should come with a caveat that zoning will revert back to its original state if substantial completion of the project is not done by a certain period of time. Would cut out all of the games and only allow legitimate projects to proceed.

I get where you're coming from, but my view is more along the lines that Council shouldn't go out of their way to make things difficult for one of the few developers who actually has the stomach for working with them on multiple projects.

[Mike K.]

10 year rental with an option to buy afterwards! This seems to be the standard approach with amenities these days. get zoning/development approval offering up a whack of goodies. Claim hardship afterwards and opt out of goodies.

 

My approach with Chard would be quite simple .. too bad you changed your mind. When council agrees to changes they should come with a caveat that zoning will revert back to its original state if substantial completion of the project is not done by a certain period of time. Would cut out all of the games and only allow legitimate projects to proceed.

 

Because Chard is an illegitimate developer?