662 replies to this topic

[wendywelch]

I disagree that the city should have no say in where commercial goes.  They are in the business of zoning, after all, and what is good for an individual developer is not necessarily good for the city as a whole.  

 

I also think this fat scraper does not belong here.  This block and the one to the south are already packed with buildings.  Having a big building almost up to the lot lines in all directions is not good city planning particularly here.  What will go into the Capitol 6 lot?  I hope this proposal has no windows on the west side.  Or do we think that tall buildings separated by the minimum setback is OK?  

Thank you for your comments. I totally agee. The building seems too cramped in this space. The building would make way more sense if the Capitol 6 lot was part of the plan.

[wendywelch]

No no your opinion is very valid here.   The author of the post just does not think that the city or politicians ought to be swayed in their decision-making by their opinion on markets.

Thanks for your comment. I think even the most informed person in the world cannot predict the market. Decision making should take many things into consideration. I'm not saying to not have retail space. That was just one component of my concern. I live in the area and see many vacant spaces, but I also see retail spaces that have had the same tenants for years.

[Mike K.]

The 39% vacancy stat comes from the owner of Price's Alarms and they make a concerted effort to keep track of these stats as their business depends on the amount of businesses that are in operation in Victoria. I've heard that stat from several other businesses. You are dreaming if you think its 10%. Have you been downtown lately?

We've just shown it's 10.2%.

39% would be catastrophic. I don't know how Prices got 39% but that's a grossly exaggerated figure.

[VicHockeyFan]

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.

[Rob Randall]

I'm curious why nobody is talking about the fact the building is only designated "rental" for ten years. That to me is one of the biggest problems with the project.

 

Hi Wendy. I'm not sure if tenants would be forced out (lease not renewed) or if renters would be grandfathered. Anyway, as we've seen with View Towers it's pretty easy for tenants to be kicked out--just claim major renovations are needed.

 

That aside, all previous proposals for this property were condos, not rentals, so the fact that this is exclusively a rental for 10 years would be an improvement, wouldn't it? Even if it is full condo, many of them will be rented in my experience.

 

Thank you for your comments. I totally agee. The building seems too cramped in this space. The building would make way more sense if the Capitol 6 lot was part of the plan.

 

Agree. As we saw with the Jukebox on View, not having those lots consolidated makes the project very hard to work with.

 

We've just shown it's 10.2%.

39% would be catastrophic. I don't know how Prices got 39% but that's a grossly exaggerated figure.

 

39% is like downtown Detroit during the worst of the recession, back when they were seriously planning to demolish entire city blocks to revert to farmland. I suspect he's cherry-picking several of the worst areas of downtown Victoria or maybe he meant tenant turnover, for instance the property across the street from London Drugs is a pot dispensary, a few months ago it was Shatterbox coffee (relocated now) and before that it was a series of auto brokers etc. If you took a tally of the amount of tenant turnover downtown you'd probably be around the 40% mark and that's not necessarily a sign of an unhealthy downtown.

 

I've been watching this property for years, back when Fraser McColl tried to make a go of it, through to Emaar and their slick Dubai-style marketing plans for a high end condo development. I was even inspired to do a sketch for the site that included wildly-improbable oval towers that surely would have bankrupted my imaginary investors.

[Mike K.]

The ten year stipulation is nothing new. In fact many rental buildings include that stipulation.

 

Markets change. If in the future there's a glut of rental apartments but condos are selling, why shouldn't the owner be able to revert the building to condos? This is a free market, after all.

[Nparker]

... I was even inspired to do a sketch for the site that included wildly-improbable oval towers...

Those would have been cool!

[lanforod]

I've been watching this property for years, back when Fraser McColl tried to make a go of it, through to Emaar and their slick Dubai-style marketing plans for a high end condo development. I was even inspired to do a sketch for the site that included wildly-improbable oval towers that surely would have bankrupted my imaginary investors.

Forget oval. Egg shaped - like London's https://farm2.static...78f022a17_b.jpg

[jklymak]

 

Agree. As we saw with the Jukebox on View, not having those lots consolidated makes the project very hard to work with.

 

Right.  I don't understand why the City doesn't get this.  I suspect because none of the city council care about the experience of living downtown.  I say forget about height limits but set FSRs to something relatively low (4:1?), except for the first two floors.  If you want 300 units, you are going to have to buy a chunk of land or build really tall and slender.  You probably want a height minimum if you go above two storeys as well.

 

I feel this way about the proposal in the 900-block Yates too.  Its foolish, and unfair to adjacent land owners, that we are cramming in big developments almost to the lot line.  

 

Anyway. my proposal above is not likely the right way to accomplish a decent spacing of towers, but I'm sure other cities have handled it better, because I don't see other cities making these packed in residential towers.

[Mixed365]

The 39% vacancy stat comes from the owner of Price's Alarms and they make a concerted effort to keep track of these stats as their business depends on the amount of businesses that are in operation in Victoria. I've heard that stat from several other businesses. You are dreaming if you think its 10%. Have you been downtown lately?

Any ways I don't think we should forego all new retail spaces. I was interested in the other post that mentions that there is a need for new retail spaces because people don't want to rent old ones. Maybe this is true. I just put the stat out there as one of my critiques of the project.

I'm curious why nobody is talking about the fact the building is only designated "rental" for ten years. That to me is one of the biggest problems with the project.

I'm not sure about Price's Alarms, but all brokerage firms (Cushman & Wakefield, CBRE, Colliers, DTZ etc.) pay market research analysts to track and semi-predict market trends. 

I suggest you take a look at some of their reports to educate yourself, instead of basing your opinions off of here-say. 

Agreed with Rob, you could be meaning business turnover. It is very high in Victoria, especially for restaurants, many cannot secure financing fro the bank because of this. 

Here are some snapshots from Colliers (Office market), Cushman and Wakefield (Retail) for Q4. 



 

Attached Images

• 
• 

Edited by Mixed365, 16 June 2015 - 08:12 AM.

[Mike K.]

So right downtown it's between 10.2% and 13.6% according to Colliers. That's pretty bad despite being only a quarter of Price's estimate (I do hope they get some better analysts if they're saying it's nearly 40%).

That being said, retailers are tired of old, expensive retail space. We need more modern space and Old Town in particular is going to hurt as buildings continue to age while rates remain high.

 

And I'm confident whatever retail space is available at this project will be absorbed.

[nagel]

So right downtown it's between 10.2% and 13.6% according to Colliers. That's pretty bad despite being only a quarter of Price's estimate (I do hope they get some better analysts if they're saying it's nearly 40%).

That being said, retailers are tired of old, expensive retail space. We need more modern space and Old Town in particular is going to hurt as buildings continue to age while rates remain high.

What do you mean by "old"? I'd much rather shop in a place like Sitka than a boring boxed building like the Saanich La-z-boy.

[Mike K.]

And I love visiting castles but that doesn't mean I'd want to pay for electrical, plumbing, flooring, heating cooling (and the biggest problem) structural upgrades.

Old retail spaces can be very restrictive and eventually require substantial upgrades. The space beside Ferris' on Johnson was to have opened nearly two years ago but appears mired in restoration problems and remains shuttered.

[Rob Randall]

These were some of my rough concepts. I was thinking of ways to have density in an attractive tower that would preserve as many views as possible from the neighbouring towers.

 

 

Edited by Rob Randall, 16 June 2015 - 09:07 AM.

[nagel]

And I love visiting castles but that doesn't mean I'd want to pay for electrical, plumbing, flooring, heating cooling (and the biggest problem) structural upgrades.

Old retail spaces can be very restrictive and eventually require substantial upgrades. The space beside Ferris' on Johnson was to have opened nearly two years ago but appears mired in restoration problems and remains shuttered.

I don't understand what you're suggesting?  Knock down older buildings?  There's already a fair number of new buildings with retail that is not filled up.  If the vacancy rate is over 13%, surely there is a decent amount of choice for potential commercial tenants.

[Mike K.]

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.

[amor de cosmos]

Forget oval. Egg shaped - like London's https://farm2.static...78f022a17_b.jpg

not egg, gherkin

[aastra]

Sometimes I think you guys are just gherkin my chain.

[wendywelch]

So right downtown it's between 10.2% and 13.6% according to Colliers. That's pretty bad despite being only a quarter of Price's estimate (I do hope they get some better analysts if they're saying it's nearly 40%).

That being said, retailers are tired of old, expensive retail space. We need more modern space and Old Town in particular is going to hurt as buildings continue to age while rates remain high.

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.

[Mike K.]

If retail vacancy is ~10% and you're now saying together with office vacancy the rate is 40%, we'd need to have about 50-60% vacancy for office alone to bring the average down to ~40%.

 

WendyWelch, your source is very, very inaccurate and I think we should move on considering this discussion is now off topic.