Jump to content

      













PROPOSED
953 Balmoral Road
Use: rental
Address: 953 Balmoral Road
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Urban core
Storeys: 4
953 Balmoral Road is proposed as a four-storey rental complex in the City of Victoria's North Park neighbourho... (view full profile)
Learn more about 953 Balmoral Road on Citified.ca
Photo

[North Park] 953 Balmoral | Rentals | 4-storeys | Proposed


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#41 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 24,012 posts

Posted 11 December 2017 - 03:20 PM

Quite frankly, after the city and the NPNA (et al) killed the original brownstone proposal, I don't much care if this latest version ever gets built. It's absurd that it has taken more than 5 years to get something this insignificant (11 units) to a place where it might actually pass all the local hurdles. But the city's #1 concern is "affordable housing". LOL!



#42 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,959 posts

Posted 14 December 2017 - 09:49 PM

I really loved the six storey version.

http://victoria.citi...for-north-park/

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#43 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 2,381 posts

Posted 09 March 2018 - 05:19 PM

This is going to CotW this Thursday, March 15.  City staff recommend that council decline this application:

 

"The proposal to construct a four—storey multi-unit building consisting of 11 rental units is consistent with the OCP and DCAP with respect to the proposed land use and density. The subject property is suitable for some additional higher density residential development, although, preferably through a land assembly with adjacent properties to enable the best realization of development potential."



#44 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 24,012 posts

Posted 09 March 2018 - 05:45 PM

I agree with city staff. This proposal is a poor use of the land. Assemble a larger collection of properties and come back with a higher density project.



#45 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,160 posts

Posted 09 March 2018 - 07:07 PM

I don't agree and I don't understand why they're suddenly criticizing these smaller neighbourhood projects for being too small. They said the same thing about the Hive. Consolidate properties and build larger. Why?

 

I thought smaller was supposed to be better in officialdom's eyes? You know, that tireless refrain that we've heard constantly for the last 40+ years? But now we're saying low-profile infill projects on the side streets should be bigger? Since when? And why?

 

Crikey, larger/taller projects are discouraged on prime high-profile sites where larger/taller projects are a natural fit, and smaller/shorter projects are discouraged on the periphery where smaller/shorter projects are a natural fit. I really don't get it at all.

 

I love it that North Park does stuff like this. When you think about it, is there any other neighbourhood in Victoria that could really pull this sort of thing off?

 

Smaller infill projects should be fine in North Park, as long as you allow (encourage?) them to happen in abundance. Pack stuff in. Let things be quirky and unique. Celebrate the distinctive built form of the neighbourhood instead of overturning the distinctive built form of the neighbourhood.


  • newbie_01 likes this

#46 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 09 March 2018 - 07:12 PM

The big Blue Sky project had opposition. So ya why not smaller. Dunno.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#47 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 4,878 posts

Posted 09 March 2018 - 07:28 PM

this

1028-natoma-stanley-saitowitz-natoma-arc
http://www.saitowitz...-natoma-street/

or this

1234-howard-street-by-stanley-saitowitz-
http://www.saitowitz...-howard-street/

or this

folsom-by-stanley-saitowitz-natoma-archi
http://www.saitowitz...-folsom-street/

or this. it actually kind of reminds me of the design that got turned down. it's one of a few branches of a bank in tokyo:

2_emmanuelle_moureaux_sugamo_shinkin_ban
http://www.emmanuell...n-bank-shimura/

2_emmanuelle_moureaux_sugamo_shinkin_ban
http://www.emmanuell...bank-tokiwadai/

1_emmanuelle_moureaux_sugamo_shinkin_ban
http://www.emmanuell...-bank-nakaaoki/

Edited by amor de cosmos, 09 March 2018 - 07:47 PM.


#48 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 4,878 posts

Posted 10 March 2018 - 05:39 PM

what about this sort of look

stringio.jpg?1413939763
https://www.archdail...-vo-trong-nghia

#49 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,959 posts

Posted 10 March 2018 - 06:50 PM

That is more like the original proposal that I thought was pretty awesome. 


Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#50 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 24,012 posts

Posted 10 March 2018 - 07:20 PM

That is more like the original proposal that I thought was pretty awesome. 

The original proposal was much better than this 4-floor box. I'd rather not see anymore low-rise, cheap-looking crap in my hood. This abomination (which, believe me, looks way better in this photo than in "real life") should not be the standard.

Capture.JPG

If the only way to get a project approved in the 900 block of Balmoral is for it to be short, how about some 3-storey "brownstone-style" townhouses that span the centre of the block where the current collection of presumably rental properties exist.

balmoral.JPG



#51 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 2,672 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 12 March 2018 - 07:49 AM

I don't agree and I don't understand why they're suddenly criticizing these smaller neighbourhood projects for being too small. They said the same thing about the Hive. Consolidate properties and build larger. Why?

 

I thought smaller was supposed to be better in officialdom's eyes? You know, that tireless refrain that we've heard constantly for the last 40+ years? But now we're saying low-profile infill projects on the side streets should be bigger? Since when? And why?

 

Crikey, larger/taller projects are discouraged on prime high-profile sites where larger/taller projects are a natural fit, and smaller/shorter projects are discouraged on the periphery where smaller/shorter projects are a natural fit. I really don't get it at all.

 

I love it that North Park does stuff like this. When you think about it, is there any other neighbourhood in Victoria that could really pull this sort of thing off?

 

Smaller infill projects should be fine in North Park, as long as you allow (encourage?) them to happen in abundance. Pack stuff in. Let things be quirky and unique. Celebrate the distinctive built form of the neighbourhood instead of overturning the distinctive built form of the neighbourhood.

 

The utter irony (in many cities, not just Victoria) is that lot consolidation is encourage and even required through the zoning bylaw, but then the development permit guidelines stress articulation of facades and imitating the fine grain of small lot development. It's absolutely crazy.


  • newbie_01 likes this

#52 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 12 March 2018 - 08:02 AM

Again, I'll say this... what's the freaking difference what they build, within reason?

 

If you accept the fact that the City might get at least 5% or 10% of their political land-use decisions wrong, can anyone point out the hundreds of buildings that were wrongly approved and how bad they are?  Songhees and that hotel on the harbour with exteriors lights and stairwells, are the only examples.


Edited by VicHockeyFan, 12 March 2018 - 08:02 AM.

  • aastra likes this
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#53 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 51,495 posts

Posted 12 March 2018 - 02:53 PM

Dockside Green in its original form, for sure.

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


#54 LsRo

LsRo
  • Member
  • 1 posts

Posted 20 May 2018 - 06:27 AM

I am curious as to why there is no mention of the first metropolitan church redevelopment plans across the street of a 6 storey wood frame building to have affordable housing where the current fellowship building is.

From their website they have tentative planning of 18-24 months preplanning and then 18-24 months of development

Being in the neighbourhood, I have only learned about their redevelopment plans through their website.

So why is the 953 balmoral rd project not a 6 storey?

#55 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 2,672 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 22 May 2018 - 09:01 AM

I am curious as to why there is no mention of the first metropolitan church redevelopment plans across the street of a 6 storey wood frame building to have affordable housing where the current fellowship building is.

From their website they have tentative planning of 18-24 months preplanning and then 18-24 months of development

Being in the neighbourhood, I have only learned about their redevelopment plans through their website.

So why is the 953 balmoral rd project not a 6 storey?

 

If the church is working within the expectations of the official community plan and not a pie in the sky proposal, the height different is probably related to the density ratio. I think that the downtown local area plan sets a maximum FSR of 2:1 for both properties. They may also be hoping for a density bonus given the affordable housing component, even though this is not identified as a density bonus area.

 

To my knowledge the first time this development came up was June last year. I don't think there's been any further murmurs since then.



#56 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 24,012 posts

Posted 14 June 2018 - 11:06 AM

The following is on tonight's Council agenda:

Rezoning Application No. 000598 and Development Permit with Variance Application No. 000506 (North Park). To rezone the property to a new zone to allow for the construction of a four storey, multi-unit building


That Council postpone consideration of the following motion for 2 months and request the applicant to meet with the adjoining neighbours to explore possible consolidation of the adjoining lots:
That Council decline Rezoning Application No. 00598 and Development Permit with Variance Application No. 00506 for the property located at 953 Balmoral Road.

https://pub-victoria...ocumentId=16147

I have to agree with the City on this. The NPNA has whittled down this proposal into something that isn't worth approving.



#57 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,160 posts

Posted 14 June 2018 - 11:34 AM

We've talked about it before but I just don't understand the logic here. A property owner wants to build a small project on a small lot on a side street and the authorities tell him he should pursue a partnership with his neighbours? It seems like a non-sequitur.

 

Can we think of any other times in Victoria when "too small" was the city's main complaint about a project? Can we think of any other times when "too small" was a complaint at all? The original Northern Junk concepts were very small, but the city said they were too big! Crikey, the city itself wanted to build a comically small pavilion on top of their Wharf Street landscaping project. In the renderings it looked like a doghouse compared to every other building in the vicinity.

 

I just don't get it.



#58 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,160 posts

Posted 14 June 2018 - 11:35 AM

You know I'm in a stew when I say "crikey" twice in two different posts on the same page.

 

Edit: in this case I said it three times.


Edited by aastra, 14 June 2018 - 11:36 AM.


#59 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 2,381 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 03:06 PM

This is going to CoTW on Thursday July 18. Staff are recommending that the city decline the application to build 11 units of workforce housing.

A recent rendering:

2703C50A-3C92-44CE-9CAE-256F98767523.jpeg

#60 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 51,495 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 03:13 PM

This property is jinxed. The first post regarding redeveloping this property is from the summer of 2016.

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


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