Jump to content

      



























Photo

[Fairfield - Victoria] 451 Chester | 6 townhomes | Approved


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,173 posts

Posted 21 January 2007 - 11:42 AM

Ms. B Havin brings this to our attention...

I just need to make one comment about this statement:
Victoria Coun. Pam Madoff called the offer for a rental building “tantalizing” but she questioned whether the developer had worked out the economics of that type of project.

Great idea -- higher density might make more economic sense to build rental housing! So why all the opposition to previous high density rental proposals? :roll:


Developer’s apartment offer tantalizing, but council says no
Eight variances were sought for proposed 11-unit building on site suitable for a duplex


BY CAROLYN HEIMAN Times Colonist staff
There has been little to no construction of rental buildings in Victoria in recent years, exacerbating a growing housing crisis in the region.

So when a developer offered to turn a proposed condominium into a rental apartment building for 10 years, it was like waving freshly baked bread under the nose of a starving man.

[...]

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


#2 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 21 January 2007 - 11:45 AM

This is right next to the old shabby Boy Scout hall. This project would have fit nicely on a consolidated lot but the Scouts won't sell for some reason.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#3 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 21 January 2007 - 11:51 AM

Thanks for posting the article, Derf. I like Mike Miller's projects. I heard him speak in opposition to a proposal in my neighbourhood once, too (he said it was too massive/ too much). He knows what he's doing -- it's strange to read that an experienced developer like this was being second-guessed by councillors who aren't in the business.
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#4 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,173 posts

Posted 21 January 2007 - 11:53 AM

I'm surprised councillors didn't ask Miller to open up his books ;)

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


#5 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 21 January 2007 - 12:03 PM

I think the rental proposal was probably a last minute hail mary attempt.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#6 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 21 January 2007 - 12:09 PM

It was a nice looking project too. I agree that it would be better to consolidate with the scout hall property.

Yeah that quote from Madoff pisses me off. I mean is she saying that it is not profitable to build rental housing anymore at all so we shouldn't try. What is her point? How did she become an expert in this over the people putting the project forward.

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#7 D.L.

D.L.
  • Member
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 21 January 2007 - 12:36 PM

This is one of the problems with development in victoria. So what if the lot is only big enough for a duplex. As cities get bigger, larger buildings start moving into smaller peices of land. Neighborhoods and the people living in them change. City council is restricting the city from growing in a natural way.

#8 D.L.

D.L.
  • Member
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 21 January 2007 - 01:09 PM

I beleive a building like the Normandy at Cook & Balmoral would be entirely appropriate on any single family dwelling lot in the city. The Normandy covers virtually all of the lot it stands on, is 3.5 floors tall, and has an attractive and imposing presence upon the street scape.

This is how cities used to develop until such liberating ideas as height limits, 50 foot setbacks from the sidewalk, and other zoning rules which give bureaucrats something to do so that they don't get lonely. This is the Paris model - buildings right on the street packed in side by side. Pamela should love this.

A building like the Normandy would look great squeezed into an inner city residential lot like 451 Chester.




If we kept building Normandys everywhere we'd start looking like Paris with all it's lowrise density.



#9 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 21 January 2007 - 01:31 PM

I know that area well, I used to go to that scout hall! That building could easily fit.

City, make up your mind. Towers set back on podiums, or total-lot euro-style buildings. If you want density you need to pick one or both of these. You can't decry thin towers for being too tall, while at the same time demanding massive useless street-destroying setbacks.

Buildings in victoria must be set back and only take up a bit of the lot, but they can't be tall. They say we need more density, but will refuse and fight any buildings denser than 3:1 downtown, or any more dense than a single family house anywhere else.

Do... do they want us to build underground? I'm sure if an underground development was to somehow go forward at 100x the cost per square meter as normal construction, they'd demand public housing and balk at any developers who told them it was financialy imposible.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#10 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 21 January 2007 - 01:36 PM

Good example on the Normandie, Dylan!

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#11 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 21 January 2007 - 01:50 PM

...she questioned whether the developer had worked out the economics of that type of project.


So we're questioning the developers of the Hudson because we're concerned they've worked out the economics of their project too well, and now we're questioning this little rental proposal because we're concerned they haven't worked out the economics of their project quite well enough.

As Derf said, many dozens of new rental units have been proposed in recent years. It's a myth that they haven't. However, the rental units in question were proposed for the wrong part of town (James Bay) and were -- at least in the eyes of critics -- the wrong type of rental units (aimed at rich renters, rather than poor renters).

Nothing is ever the right project for Victoria, it seems.

#12 FunkyMunky

FunkyMunky
  • Member
  • 416 posts

Posted 21 January 2007 - 03:20 PM

Victoria Coun. Pam Madoff called the offer for a rental building “tantalizing” but she questioned whether the developer had worked out the economics of that type of project.

How condecending! Where does she get off asking that kind of question? It's not like the guy doesn't have a successful track record in this town. It reminds me of the stupid things Oak Bay councillors asked of Kevin Walker regarding the Oak Bay Beach Hotel proposal.

#13 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 21 January 2007 - 04:29 PM

No, I have to defend Pam and the other skeptical councillors by saying that from what I've heard I don't think the developer himself knows the economics--that it was an attempt at trying to rescue a dying proposal by dramatically upping the ante.

There's a big difference between the returns on rental and condo properties and it's hard to make it up simply by swapping out appliances and exchanging the granite countertops with laminate.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#14 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 21 January 2007 - 09:35 PM

@ Holden: so, is there some sort of "deeper" backstory here, which the article didn't bring to the fore? I get the impression (mainly from your comments) that it's this: developer-person wants many more variances than are "regular" to develop a property, and, knowing for certain at the last minute that it won't fly, comes up with a wildly different scenario ("I'll build rental units for you!!") as a way to snatch the prize from the jaws of council, er, I mean "Defeat," in a metaphorical manner of speaking, of course...!

Is that what happened? Was the original proposal for condos?, for 11 units?

But then the Q is: is that so wildly different from all the six-plexes that have been going up all over the place in Fairfield, courtesy of lifting & renovating formerly 2500sq.ft. SFH into condos into (added basement, er, "garden suites") 3500sq.ft. sixplexes (at between $350K-450K each)? Six on one lot -- how much different would 11 have been, in a purpose-built structure? (I'm just asking, 'cause I wasn't at the meetings, and really don't know...)
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#15 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 22 January 2007 - 07:26 AM

Perhaps he should have added a peaked roof with dormers and called it heritage style.

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#16 FunkyMunky

FunkyMunky
  • Member
  • 416 posts

Posted 11 February 2007 - 03:17 PM

No, I have to defend Pam and the other skeptical councillors by saying that from what I've heard I don't think the developer himself knows the economics--that it was an attempt at trying to rescue a dying proposal by dramatically upping the ante.

I take it this project is still chugging forward. In the [url=http://www.victoria.ca/contentmanager/minutes/min070125_cnc.pdf:31e43]minutes[/url:31e43] [PDF] from the January 25th 2007 council meeting, Mr Miller addressed council:

Mike Miller – Abstract Developments Inc. – re: 451 Chester Avenue
He appreciates the opportunity to speak to Council and the points raised at the Committee of the Whole and from Fairfield Community Association. The financial viability for such a project was raised by Committee. He has since researched and investigated the financial aspects and it is very much doable. There have been no new private initiated rental market suites completed in October 2005. His proposal mirrors the Capital Region Housing Corporation proposal of providing units at a low end market rent. He would be providing eleven two bedroom units under market; rent that would not exceed 30% of the renter’s income. Proposal does not exceed density which is allowed in the zone. He has received support from three of the adjacent neighbours. This proposal would be a benefit to the community with quality rental homes and a long-term commitment.

Councillor Hughes said that she hopes that this will go forward as there is a large number of people who have a need for something like this. We should pursue this and ask staff to meet with the applicant and bring back a report on the feasibility of this project.



#17 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 12 February 2007 - 07:55 AM

I wouldn't mind finding out more about this guy Mike Miller. He sounds like a really interesting developer, out of the norm. I hope the City gives him a chance to see what he can do.
Nowadays most people die of a sort of creeping common sense, and discover when it is too late that the only things one never regrets are one's mistakes.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891

#18 Icebergalley

Icebergalley
  • Member
  • 596 posts

Posted 12 February 2007 - 10:13 AM

http://www.abstractd....com/index.html


Abstract is certainly getting awards from the industry....


Industry UpdatesLarge Volume Home Builder of the Year Abstract Developments ... #1 – 3690 Carey Road, Victoria, BC Phone: 250.383-5044 Fax: 250.383.9423 email: ...
http://www.chbavicto...ws ... r 15.htm - 45k - Cached - Similar pages

James Bay ActionHELD AT: JAMES BAY NEW HORIZONS - 234 MENZIES ST. ... Mike Miller, Abstract Developments - reported on the Development Variance application. ...
http://www.jbnea.org/July2006.html - 22k - Cached - Similar pages

2006 CARE Awards Silver FinalistsBC Housing Rose Manor, Knappett Projects Inc. James Bay Lodge. The Interior Design Group ... Abstract Developments Inc. Terra Rose, Coastal Construction ...
http://www.careaward.../newhomes5.html - 16k - Cached - Similar pages

#19 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 12 February 2007 - 10:07 PM

Wow, some really beautiful homes there. I am impressed!
Nowadays most people die of a sort of creeping common sense, and discover when it is too late that the only things one never regrets are one's mistakes.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891

#20 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 12 February 2007 - 11:16 PM

Have we ever talked about this one (Liberty Parc) before? I had no idea where it even was. I had to look it up:



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