1225 replies to this topic

[Torrontes]

This isn't a surprise. Bob Fugger confirmed back in March that they were going rental. Presumably it is investment driven, i.e. a better return from rentals, and enables a creative financing arrangement, including tapping into the CMHC program.

 

Pretty attractive loan arrangements (from CMHC website):

 

The loan offers:

• a 10-year term (closed to pre-payment) and a fixed interest rate locked in at first advance for certainty during the most risky periods of development
• up to a 50-year amortization period
• CMHC mortgage loan insurance that is effective from first draw and for the duration of the amortization period to simplify loan renewal. The borrower does not pay the premium, only the PST if applicable
• up to 100% loan to cost for residential space and up to 75% loan to cost for non-residential space (depending on the strength of the application)
• interest only payments financed by the loan during construction through to occupancy permit
• principal and interest payments are due after 12 months of stabilized effective gross income

https://www.cmhc-sch...cing-initiative

[Mike K.]

So now the question is, is The Row on Johnson Street now in the early stages of construction also a rental in the same way 200 Cook became a rental? It too was approved with a mix of condos and rentals, 38 and 10: https://victoria.cit...condos/the-row/

We knew right from the get-go Lenny Cole had converted the project to a rental but what we didn’t know was whether the whole building had been bought out by investors or whether it had become some kind of a government-sponsored development. Even guys close to the developer who had intended on buying units weren’t sure what was going on but they knew they couldn’t buy into the project.

[Freedom57]

If a project requires special zoning/permit approvals, which then go through the  usual lengthy approval (and back to the drawing board for revisions in many cases) process, you would think that if the scope of the project changes, that change would also have to go back for approval or require the developer to stick to the original approved plans.

 

With the current situation, it defeats the point of the original approval as far as public input/consultation is concerned.

[Mike K.]

Well, they certainly made it tougher on themselves with all the rhetoric they had to contend with regarding “condos for rich.” They took the hardest way to get here but the change to an all rental building with subsidized units should be an opportunity for their detractors to celebrate.

[Nparker]

...the change to an all rental building with subsidized units should be an opportunity for their detractors to celebrate.

This project's detractors never cared if it was a condo or a rental building...it was a change in their neighbourhood and that was all the reason they needed to hate it. Look at the fuss the North Park NIMBYs made over the 200 rental units (5% below market rates) at the St. Andrew's site.

[aastra]

When condos are built we complain that they're the wrong kind because they're catering to wealthy offshore buyers. So when rentals are built I guess we complain that they're the wrong kind because they're catering to wealthy offshore renters?

[aastra]

 

I also wonder if the exterior of the building will be completed to the original designs/materials or whether it will become a watered down version now that it is slated for rentals.

 

This should be the major concern here, methinks.

[Freedom57]

It's not about complaining about the type of building, but rather the approval process.    What is approved is what should be built.  Not a last minute change (after receiving approval) that allows the developer to build something else that can proceed without further review.

[Victoria Watcher]

It's not about complaining about the type of building, but rather the approval process.    What is approved is what should be built.  Not a last minute change (after receiving approval) that allows the developer to build something else that can proceed without further review.

 

apart from the internal economics that are the business of the developer and lender what's the difference between a renter and owner unit/building especially since the law in the cov says every condo must be permitted as a rental anyway?  you are right the city would never let it go from rental to condo but in today's social climate owner to rental is just fine.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 19 September 2018 - 08:59 AM.

[Mike K.]

The way it works is if a project is being proposed as a rental, the City will try to fast-track the proposal. If it's being proposed as a condo, the City will accommodate it as it would any other proposal, albeit housing in general might make its way through the process faster.

 

But once approved as a condo, so long as nothing materially changes from the approved concept there is nothing the City can do, as there is no requirement to not allow condos to be used as rentals unless a future strata council decides to bar them.

[aastra]

Maybe it's the new Victoria. Relaxed and loose. Back in the day the city would have pedantically obliged a condo strata to meticulously recreate the same malformed mosaic 12+ years after the fact. That sort of thing is long behind us now.

[aastra]

So have we actually ever seen the "final" design of this one?

[Nparker]

...Back in the day the city would have pedantically obliged a condo strata to meticulously recreate the same malformed mosaic 12+ years after the fact...

Do you remember the fuss the CoV made when the residents of Denby Place on Cormorant wanted to stucco over the exterior brick as part of a remediation project?

It was a protracted battle for months.

[Jackerbie]

If a project requires special zoning/permit approvals, which then go through the  usual lengthy approval (and back to the drawing board for revisions in many cases) process, you would think that if the scope of the project changes, that change would also have to go back for approval or require the developer to stick to the original approved plans.

 

With the current situation, it defeats the point of the original approval as far as public input/consultation is concerned.

 

The scope of the project changed, but what was approved did not. The approvals were for a residential building, and the zoning bylaw does not get in to the particulars of rental versus condo units. Even after it's built, there's no municipal process* to switch over from a condo building to a rental building, as they are ultimately the same use: residential.

 

*Other than winding down the strata, which is a Land Title and/or Supreme Court process

 

apart from the internal economics that are the business of the developer and lender what's the difference between a renter and owner unit/building especially since the law in the cov says every condo must be permitted as a rental anyway?  you are right the city would never let it go from rental to condo but in today's social climate owner to rental is just fine.

 

If Victoria has the same process as other municipalities, any new rentals would be secured through a restrictive covenant or Housing Agreement, which would give them a legal leg to stand on. Now with the new rental zoning allowances, municipal governments will be able to restrict properties to rental only through the zoning bylaw.

 

EDIT: The Local Government Act also gives Council discretion to approve or deny an application to strata tile existing buildings that have been occupied, I believe.

Edited by Jackerbie, 19 September 2018 - 10:40 AM.

[Jackerbie]

It's not about complaining about the type of building, but rather the approval process.    What is approved is what should be built.  Not a last minute change (after receiving approval) that allows the developer to build something else that can proceed without further review.

 

The developer is obligated to comply with whatever plans are registered on Title in the Development Permit. Changes to those plans would require amendments to the legal docs, which requires City approval.

[MarkoJ]

Are people serious complaining or even commenting that a condo building has been switched over to apartments? If anything, this move needs to be applauded given the current political environment. 

Edited by MarkoJ, 19 September 2018 - 12:50 PM.

[Torrontes]

Are people serious complaining or even commenting that a condo building has been switched over to apartments? If anything, this move needs to be applauded given the current political environment. 

 

I understand the concern is that developers might take a different (cheaper) approach to finishing a rental building rather than a condo building, whether as to the nature of the finishes or the quality of the materials or equipment. Municipalities go a lot further than they might otherwise lawfully impose in regulating those areas via the approval process. They really should assume that all condos are potentially rental units, given their over-reaching restriction on strata corps that they cannot prevent rentals. I am still waiting for that condition to be properly challenged.

[Mike K.]

Are strata corporations not allowed to restrict rentals any longer?

[Torrontes]

That's a policy decision that has been imposed the way I understand it.

[Jackerbie]

Are strata corporations not allowed to restrict rentals any longer?

 

CoV has placed legal covenants or Housing Agreements on many of the condo projects going through rezoning which prevent the strata from adopting bylaws that would restrict rentals. If this agreement isn't on title, then there's no restriction. This is what happened with that one on Fort (I think?) where staff didn't ask for this agreement, but then Council did right at the end of the process.