97 replies to this topic

[VicHockeyFan]

[m0nkyman]

Mixed use depends on zoning. I can't think of a zone that would allow it, except as a grandfathered use.

[G-Man]

I am trying to think. Do we have any mixed use buildings besides 910 Government? By mixed use I mean office residential.

You are excluding The Vogue and Monaco?

Chatham Street.. The Traditional Chinese Medical School with residential over... Some of the Herald Street LeFeueve rentals..

Not residential over commercial space I am talking about buildings that are a combination of residential and office.

[G-Man]

That second to last point on page 137 is noteworthy. So much for fixing up heritage buildings for office use.

[Caramia]

I'm not a fan of commerical only areas either, I'd like to see office/condo mixes. But I understand why that is in the report, learning from Vancouver's situation where the "bussel" of downtown is threatened by residential overload as jobs move out of downtown, in search of affordable space. IMO the reason living downtown rules, is because you can be close to work, services and shopping, if those three start to move out you are cannibalising your host.

I like Coriolis though. Here is a PDF of "Taking Stock in Downtown" the report he wrote for the City in Fall 2004..
http://www.victoria.ca/cityhall/pdfs/departments_plnpln_tkngst.pdf

[Mike K.]

It's too bad the Mozart tower, approved for the 700-block on Yates where the swamp is now, was never built. It would have been the first true mixed-use tower in Victoria: first floor retail; 2nd to 7th floor office and 8th to 12th floor residential.

[zoomer]

Does anyone think that perhaps the 2017 or 2023 scenario is not realistic?!

The projections for required office space seem on the high side to me, but then again, I'm no expert. I'm sure those opposed to density and height increases all suspect that this report, the hiring of a new city planner and manager, and the conference on the borders of downtown are all part of a hidden agenda to bring more highrises to the city of Victoria.

Don't we all love a good conspiracy theory!?

[renthefinn]

They should limit the percentage of residential FSR per site to 60% with FSR transfer to up to 75% that can be added to other buldings downtown, with no downtown projects allowed under 25% office/comercial FSR. With Heritage density transfer, this could work, and we'd get a skyline, keeping downtown workers downtown, and brining people downtown too. Residential density can be transfered to adjacent neighbourhoods. Emphasis for height should be placed downtown, through a UDP process, and real estate arm should be set-up by the city to reap the development rewards and dole out amenities. It's all so simple in my head right now!

[G-Man]

Land crunch could halt downtown development
New commercial space will be especially challenging, consultant's report warns

Carolyn Heiman, Times Colonist
Published: Friday, January 19, 2007
Downtown will be out of room for development as early as 2016, says a consultant's report.

Opportunities for commercial development will be challenging as residential developers can pay more for the land based on the return they get for selling condominiums, Jay Wollenberg warned Victoria city council yesterday.

Wollenberg, a principal with Vancouver's Coriolis Consulting Corp., estimates council has perhaps a decade left where development will happen comfortably. After that, it will be increasingly hard to accommodate floor space demands unless policies are changed.

"If the city is concerned about this [which we think it should be], it will need to identify policies that allow additional density in downtown or in the areas immediately adjacent to downtown," the Coriolis report said, adding the issue should be addressed within five years.

The report urged the city to consider four ways to increase development capacity:

- Increase density and height in the downtown planning area.

- Designate downtown areas for commercial use to ease competition office developers get from residential developers for properties.

- Increase density in multi-family areas adjacent to downtown.

- Designate a portion of Rock Bay south of Bay Street for higher residential and commercial use. "Its location adjacent to the north end of downtown makes it a logical extension of the downtown urban area," the report said.

Wollenberg said forecasting demand "is as much art as it is science," but later added that 25 per cent of the development forecasted in the report is "already on the books." If development and demand slows, it may take until 2026 for downtown to run out of room.

New development is a key source of revenue for the city. In 2006, new development generated $1.5 million in new tax revenue, Mike McCliggott, finance director said.

Outside the meeting, Wollenberg said he's aware that Victoria will have challenges in dealing with the shortage of development land.

"I have the impression that there are people who don't think downtown should expand. People in Victoria are very sensitive about building height and density -- and perhaps with good reasons. But there are ways to develop and still protect the character of Victoria."

Without new development, land values will continue to soar, Wollenberg said.

One neighbourhood spokesman -- James Bay's Tim Van Alstine -- said there's significant opposition to extending downtown boundaries into James Bay and, he expects, many other adjacent neighbourhoods would share that opposition.

Meanwhile, Victoria city council agreed to fast-track some parts of its downtown plan in an effort to deal with the onslaught of development applications coming its way.

A new draft plan won't be ready for approval until the fall but council wants interim policies on building height, bonus density and amenity provisions, planning area and building relationships done earlier. Building relationships refers to the proximity of buildings to each other and possible privacy issues.
The current downtown plan was passed in 1990 and allows council to offer bonus density to developers constructing residential units in the core.

While the pace of development might suggest population records are being set, city planner Lindsay Chase said approximately 1,200 people live downtown, roughly the number that did in the 1970s before population in the area took a dip.

The Coriolis report also projects that between 2006 and 2026 demand will increase as follows:

- Seven to nine million square feet of residential space which translates into 7,000 to 9,000 units, or 350 to 450 units per year;

- One to two million square feet of office development. While difficult to illustrate, a typical 10-storey office building in Victoria might have 150,000 square feet;

- Less than 1 million square feet of retail space but most of it would be in other buildings and not use up additional land;

- Less than 1 million square feet of hotel space which translates into two to four hotels over the next 20 years.

Mohan Jawl, one of the city's leading developers who has invested in commercial real estate, concurred with the report's findings that the economics of commercial development are tough.

His company, Jawl Development Corp., is weighing options for the recently acquired land from Telus at Johnson, Blanshard and Yates streets. "We will face a real challenge in putting together a viable project on that site that is limited to office development," he said, adding his preference is to do that.

"We are caught on the cost side. Office rents have not gone up at the same rate as residential prices."

© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2007

[Rob Randall]

I have the full report with me now that has the tables, charts and other data that backs up the findings.

This report says what was also suggested in the [url=http://www.victoria.ca/cityhall/departments_plnpub.shtml:51a77]Spaxman report[/url:51a77] (available on the City Planning website) that buildout would occur within 20 years if no changes were made to zoning rules.

It's important to remember that the Coriolis report is just a draft, and hasn't been finalized so some details may be refigured later on.

[aastra]

So how soon will they able to ignore everything in this report and commission another one?

[G-Man]

^ They are commissioning a strategy to begin the planning to develop a report based on exactly what you are speaking about.

[Baro]

Correction, the last public meeting was about planing the way to handle imput on how to plan the plan to move ahead on a process of deciding the process to begin planning how to move forward thinking about the plan.

[m0nkyman]

Correction, the last public meeting was about planing the way to handle imput on how to plan the plan to move ahead on a process of deciding the process to begin planning how to move forward thinking about the plan.

That meeting was in camera, not public.

Geez. You'd think the guy had never been not allowed to attend a council meeting before.

[G-Man]

This is funny yet at the same time kind of sad because its true...

CBC had some quotes from Geoff Young this morning asking the planning department to stop coming up with more convoluted ways of expressing stakeholder input into the downtown planning process and give them a concrete plan so they can use it with proposals that are coming forward now.

[Holden West]

^I heard that. He was essentially saying there's so much vague, touchy-feely stuff in the report (sustainability, fostering vibrancy etc.) that when a big over-dense proposal hits public hearing, everyone's freaking out because the plan avoids tackling the controversial issues people are concerned about, like how high a building should be and where should it go.

In an attempt to get the maximum amount of "stakeholder buy-in" the Plan ends up being all things to all people.

I have to agree.

[G-Man]

Yup lets just piss off the Nimbys and be done with it. I mean it.

[Scaper]

It's too bad the Mozart tower, approved for the 700-block on Yates where the swamp is now, was never built. It would have been the first true mixed-use tower in Victoria: first floor retail; 2nd to 7th floor office and 8th to 12th floor residential.

Yeah but the reason it didn't get built was because it was unviable. Word from Several Developers is that the building had to be almost twice the height for the project to be profitable.

How many units were in the building anyways, 20 or something like that I think.

[Mike K.]

Very, very true. It's as though our downtown plan deals with concepts and emotions instead of concrete goals and regulations.

However, the introverted attitude of some planners in this city makes you wonder just how much abuse and pressure they must endure. Word on the street is planners receive their fair share of verbal abuse from some members of the public and at least one or two councillors who object to certain proposals and/or plans. If the stories are true, the planning staff have a tremendously difficult time dealing with the special interest groups regularly pounding on their doors.

[G-Man]

But with office lease rates pushing 30 bucks a sqft it just may be doable