Oaks at Bellewood Park
Address: 1201 Fort Street
Region: Urban core
Condo units: 51 (sub-penthouse, penthouse, 1BR + den, 2BR + den, junior 2BR)
Sales status: pre-sales
[Rockland] Oaks, Cypress and Townhomes at Bellewood Park | Condos, townhomes | 6 and 4-storeys | Approved
Posted 01 February 2017 - 10:02 AM
Posted 06 April 2017 - 11:09 AM
The was also at COW today. It took some serious heat and is going back to staff before coming back to COW, and then they'll decide if it's worthy of a public hearing. So this one looks like it's still quite a ways away.
Lots of concerns with massing, lots of concern with zoning, lots of concern with design, some concern with height. Helps was the only level head that rightfully pointed out that the overall density being proposed is only a fractional increase over the existing zoning over the entire land area (basically there is some land zoned for SFH, and other land for higher density).
I gotta say. Watching COW today...Helps is definitely a pro-development Mayor.
Posted 06 April 2017 - 11:16 AM
...I gotta say. Watching COW today...Helps is definitely a pro-development Mayor.
If she just weren't otherwise such a flake.
- shoeflack likes this
Posted 12 April 2017 - 08:46 AM
Rockland residents fight ‘too much’ development
- Matt R. likes this
Posted 12 April 2017 - 08:53 AM
Those signs are only $10 each I may pick some up at that bargain price.
- VicHockeyFan and Nparker like this
Posted 12 April 2017 - 09:39 AM
Someone with decent Photoshop skills should be able to substitute a pitchfork and/or a torch for that sign.
Posted 12 April 2017 - 09:51 AM
Middle of a housing crisis and people still have the audacity to complain about height. If they want the convenience of living this close to downtown, they should be prepared for development as the city grows.
Edited by Samuel, 12 April 2017 - 09:52 AM.
- Nparker, rjag and grantpalin like this
Posted 12 April 2017 - 09:56 AM
They do look lovely however.
- Nparker likes this
Posted 12 April 2017 - 10:02 AM
^It was lifted circa 2008 I think.
"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"
-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail
Posted 12 April 2017 - 10:14 AM
Development tracker says this is going to Council tomorrow, CotW recommendation was to refer the application back to staff for further work on height, massing, etc.
Posted 12 April 2017 - 10:22 AM
Don Cal is a stamp collector:
Posted 12 April 2017 - 10:28 AM
So am I. Now I'm totally buying some signs to fund his philatelic pursuits.
- VicHockeyFan likes this
Posted 12 April 2017 - 10:36 AM
Keep it clean, folks. This is supposed to be a family board.
Posted 12 April 2017 - 11:27 AM
It wasn't too much development when their house was built/expanded, that was just the right amount of development. It's only too much development when it's to house other people. FYGM at its finest.
- Nparker and jonny like this
Posted 12 April 2017 - 12:24 PM
Except this development seems to be trying to leverage the fact that it's a huge lot, with frontages on both Pentrelew Place AND Fort Street.
If the lot fronted only onto Fort ... folks would be saying "go ahead and do what you will within the zoning".
BUT ... the lot also fronts onto Pentrelew, which isn't a street that has this kind of massing on it, nor would such massing ever even be considered unless said lot had the two frontages (which it does), the single family dwelling oriented Pentrelew frontage basically trying to cash in density and massing wise on the fact that the lot is "joined" to the high density Fort Street frontage.
REALITY CHECK: Pentrelew is a street of single family homes, and as much as I'm for devleopment, even Mike Miller, with all the good work Abstract has done around town, can't really expect to waltz onto Pentrelew Place and build a project totally out of scale and sensitivity to the houses owned by long time residents?
Just like we don't need to turn every piece of ALR property into a subdivision, we really don't need to start breaking up old neighborhoods in order to make more $850,000.00 condos.
Posted 12 April 2017 - 12:57 PM
Ahhh, but that's up on Moss Street, and is a definite improvement on the glass, brick and steel that's already there now ... as well, you can still see the Spencer Mansion on Pentrelew still part of the "new" Art Gallery ... so the Pentrelew "view" won't change much, if at all.
BUT more importantly, I'll be long dead by the time they manage to raise 21 million dollars! And being at the "drawing stage" (as they are now), you can pretty much dream up anything your architect is capable of drawing (and theirs is obviously darn good with the pen and ink).
The zoning for that project will be long and difficult, if it succeeds at all.
it's interesting though, that a major component of the "new" Art Gallery proposal is that they have a formal agreement with the Truth Center to use their parking lot ... errrrr, guess that's got to be re-evaluated!
Posted 12 April 2017 - 01:26 PM
This project includes townhomes along Pentrelew, which are no larger than the existing SFD's on that street. http://victoria.citi...entrelew-place/
- Nparker likes this
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
Posted 12 April 2017 - 03:58 PM
Although I rarely agree with anything he says or does, I think the point Mr. Loveday was trying to make was that the townhouses massing is essentially replacing what is currently empty space, and so 10 townhouses in a row where there is now nothing but trees and air should be anticipated to upset the neighbors.
I tend to agree with him in this specific case, as SFD's are broken up by substantial spaces between each house, whereas "townhouse" is really just a marketing term in Victoria, and really means a wall of condo's - each with their own front door onto the street.
I'm not against the development at all, and don't expect the property to remain primarily grass and trees ... it won't.
But I think that, of all developers in Victoria, Mr. Miller can, (and likely will) come up with something far more sympathetic to the Pentrelew frontage, while maintaining his density on the Fort frontage.
Underlying all of this though, is my personal belief that Rockland is a worthwhile neighborhood to preserve, and should remain generally as it is. I don't believe that, simply because it's on the edge of the City it should be slowly chopped away at from the edges inwards, such that it no longer maintains what is (IMO) somewhat of a unique character so close to town, but with SFD's and leafy streets that could be anywhere.
- VicHockeyFan likes this
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