Jump to content

      













PROPOSED
1120 Burdett Avenue
Use: rental
Address: 1120 Burdett Avenue
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Urban core
Storeys: 4
1120-1128 Burdett Avenue is a proposal to build a four-storey, 44-unit purpose-built rental building in the Ci... (view full profile)
Learn more about 1120 Burdett Avenue on Citified.ca
Photo

[Fairfield] 1120-1128 Burdett Avenue | Rentals | 4-storeys | Cancelled in 2018


  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

#81 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,211 posts

Posted 24 February 2018 - 01:15 PM

A new four-story building would not be out of place in that location as already commented. The anti-building crowd just baffles me, and the fact that the city seems to go out of its way to reject rental builds when there is an acknowledged housing crisis just blows me away.


Welcome to bizzaro world. You must be new here?

Blanket zoning now. No more of this spot zoning nonsense.
  • Nparker likes this

#82 Bob Fugger

Bob Fugger

    Chief Factor

  • Member
  • 3,176 posts
  • LocationSouth Central CSV

Posted 24 February 2018 - 01:47 PM

If Council does not approve this they are essentially saying they don't think there is a need for 44 more homes in the CoV and the so-called "housing crisis" is either resolved or a hoax.

 

Sadly, we all know that it's neither.  The same hypocrites who bey at the moon about housing affordability and availability don't believe in supply-side solutions, only demand-side.  "Look at all of the supply coming online and prices increase," they whine.  That's why they want a speculation TAX, vacancy TAX and why they cozy up to multinational corporations that underpay their staff and funnel profits out of Victoria by banning AirBnB.


  • jonny likes this

#83 grantpalin

grantpalin
  • Member
  • 527 posts

Posted 24 February 2018 - 04:03 PM

Welcome to bizzaro world. You must be new here?
 

Not at all. I really shouldn't be surprised, but still...


  • jonny likes this

#84 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 49,324 posts

Posted 25 February 2018 - 07:57 AM

The developer will likely come back with a proposal that fits within the site’s zoning. Three-storeys I think?

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


#85 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,291 posts

Posted 25 February 2018 - 08:04 AM

The developer will likely come back with a proposal that fits within the site’s zoning. Three-storeys I think?

Which makes total sense when the surrounding buildings are 4 storeys.  :whyme:



#86 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 49,324 posts

Posted 26 February 2018 - 06:50 AM

If we want to talk about affordability then we should also include a more diverse discussion about what constitutes affordability.  When I talk about affordability I really mean access to "live in the neighbourhood", not just "own", which would include those that chose to rent.  The existing houses contain 5 rental units and the developers proposal is to remove these rental units from the neighbourhood and replace them with 36 condo units for sale at market rates.  In my mind removing rental units from Fairfield decreases the affordability of the area rather than improves it.


Note that even though this project was transformed into 44 rentals, it was still opposed.


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


#87 tjv

tjv
  • Member
  • 2,403 posts

Posted 26 February 2018 - 04:02 PM

If I was the developer I would put up a massive billboard saying:

 

"Attention Victoria:  City of Victoria council does not believe in rental housing.  The following councilors voted against 44 units of new rental housing:   xxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

We are glad to hear that there is no rental crisis in Victoria, BC


  • jonny and thundergun like this

#88 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 2,207 posts

Posted 27 February 2018 - 07:02 AM

T-C article on the defeated proposal; Councillor Isitt recused himself from the vote to avoid possible conflict of interest.
http://www.timescolo...ield-1.23185744

#89 MarkoJ

MarkoJ
  • Member
  • 4,769 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 27 February 2018 - 08:02 AM

"Many pointed out that while rental, the units were to be market units rather than affordable units."

 

How do people not understand that if 44 units are built that means 44 people are vacating other units such as overpriced basement suites, for example. Therefore, this an affordability improvement down the chain.


  • Nparker, jonny and grantpalin like this

Marko Juras, REALTOR® & Associate Broker | Gold MLS® 2011-2018 | Fair Realty

www.MarkoJuras.com - MLS® from $899 and $1,000 cash back for buyers | www.834sales.com & www.promontoryforsale.com - Building(s) specialist 

Looking at Condo Pre-Sales in Victoria? Save Thousands!

 

 


#90 tjv

tjv
  • Member
  • 2,403 posts

Posted 27 February 2018 - 09:05 AM

Developers are not going to build "affordable" rental housing, they want to return the best value to themselves while making a profit

 

you want affordable - move to Sooke or Cobble Hill, but don't forget to add in the cost of a car, gas, insurance.  Probably for the same price you could forgo a car and live here as Helps said in the article.



#91 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,701 posts

Posted 27 February 2018 - 09:38 AM

 

How do people not understand that if 44 units are built that means 44 people are vacating other units such as overpriced basement suites, for example. Therefore, this an affordability improvement down the chain.

 

When people were crying for rental projects instead of condo projects they didn't actually want rental projects, they just wanted a reason to criticize & oppose condo projects. We saw the exact same thing re: height restrictions. Tall buildings were bad for ages, and what the city really needed were short buildings... and then along came proposals for short buildings (Northern Junk, Wharf & Government, bus station, Ironworks, etc.) and suddenly short buildings were bad, too.

 

These are those faux principles that I'm talking about. Your kid wants a cat, so you tell her she can't have a cat because you really, really, really want a dog. You've always wanted a dog. Dogs are the best. So then your kid eventually takes a liking to dogs. One day she says she wants a dog, and so you tell her she can't have a dog, either. Not because dogs aren't great. Dogs are awesome. But she wants the wrong kind of dog. The wrong dog in the wrong location.

 

Come on, can we seriously not see how manipulative and insincere this stuff is?


  • Mike K., Nparker, jonny and 3 others like this

#92 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,291 posts

Posted 27 February 2018 - 09:51 AM

The most insincere phrase that gets bandied about in regards to virtually every local development proposal: "I am not against development, but I don't think this is the right development for this location". Translation: I don't like development. Period.


  • grantpalin likes this

#93 J_Loveday

J_Loveday
  • Member
  • 65 posts

Posted 27 February 2018 - 09:55 AM

I voted in favour of this project. My prediction: this comes back as 3 stories of expensive condos and we lose the rental stock. 


  • MarkoJ, jonny and grantpalin like this

#94 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 49,324 posts

Posted 27 February 2018 - 10:09 AM

That is absolutely what will happen. Three-storeys and ~28-units


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


#95 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,291 posts

Posted 27 February 2018 - 10:26 AM

...My prediction: this comes back as 3 stories of expensive condos and we lose the rental stock. 

Unless you can convince your fellow Council members to reconsider their decision.



#96 Bob Fugger

Bob Fugger

    Chief Factor

  • Member
  • 3,176 posts
  • LocationSouth Central CSV

Posted 27 February 2018 - 12:54 PM

I voted in favour of this project. My prediction: this comes back as 3 stories of expensive condos and we lose the rental stock. 

 

Council will have to collectively reap what it has sown on this one at election time.


  • Nparker and jonny like this

#97 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,291 posts

Posted 27 February 2018 - 01:14 PM

Council will have to collectively reap what it has sown on this one at election time.

For this and SO many other reasons.



#98 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,701 posts

Posted 27 February 2018 - 03:12 PM

Give Lisa Helps some points for this:

 

 

Helps said many of the people who spoke against it are living in buildings that probably needed even more variances when they were permitted by a past council.

“When their homes were built, there were probably people who came and spoke at city council and said: ‘Don’t do this.’ The council of the day made a decision to do it and now they have nice homes in a nice neighbourhood,” Helps said.

 

from the Times-Colonist...


  • VicHockeyFan, pseudotsuga, MarkoJ and 5 others like this

#99 pseudotsuga

pseudotsuga
  • Member
  • 287 posts

Posted 28 February 2018 - 04:01 PM

Interesting. I suppose going for rezoning is always a gamble.

 

I do wonder - what exactly were the councillors' reasons for voting against?

Coleman's quote in the article is a bit lacking in specifics: 'good, substantive arguments on both sides'



#100 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,291 posts

Posted 28 February 2018 - 04:09 PM

...Coleman's quote in the article is a bit lacking in specifics: 'good, substantive arguments on both sides'

Someone's been reading too many Trump tweets.



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