Jump to content

      












UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Oaks at Bellewood Park
Use: condo
Address: 1201 Fort Street
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Urban core
Storeys: 6
Condo units: 51 (sub-penthouse, penthouse, 1BR + den, 2BR + den, junior 2BR)
Sales status: pre-sales
Bellewood Park offers a unique opportunity to experience nature – a place from which one can engage with the... (view full profile)
Learn more about Oaks at Bellewood Park on Citified.ca      Official website: https://goo.gl/ZzVyg4
Photo

[Rockland] Oaks, Cypress and Townhomes at Bellewood Park | Condos, townhomes | 6 and 4-storeys | Under construction


  • Please log in to reply
425 replies to this topic

#301 Glen

Glen
  • Member
  • 247 posts

Posted 09 June 2019 - 04:26 PM

How are sales progressing?  Much over 50%



#302 newbie_01

newbie_01
  • Member
  • 33 posts

Posted 11 June 2019 - 11:08 PM

ha ha look at these guys guess they'll be going at some point  <_< 

ylolwQdh.jpg


Edited by newbie_01, 11 June 2019 - 11:10 PM.


#303 Torrontes

Torrontes
  • Member
  • 291 posts

Posted 12 June 2019 - 06:56 AM

Their removal was indicated on the site plan shown on dev tracker. Parkade entrance is farther west and public path (with rock wall feature) is farther east, making them redundant.


  • newbie_01 likes this

#304 Glen

Glen
  • Member
  • 247 posts

Posted 04 July 2019 - 12:45 PM

With city council just passing a 20% affordability mandate for new construction (projects having more than 60+ suites) how may this affect future builds and even current builds?

 

Current builds:

Would current higher end builds like Bellewoods be more attractive at this time where investors are concerned about future property values and exclusivity where forced affordability is mandated?

 

Future builds;

Would the new mandate make it more difficult to sell high end suites where investors/purchasers will be concerned how this would affect a high value investment? 

Example, Customs House.  If this project would have had an affordability mandate would they have been able to attract the same buyers spending millions for their suites?

 

Why would the city not have looked at making some separation or distinction based upon the type of development proposed?  Why force the developers to a one size fits all?  Could the city not have allowed high end development with the need for a developer to pay a special assessment fee to be used for affordable market value units to be used in other projects.  There is a need for all types of projects at all price points.  Victoria and Vancouver have always been desirable to investors why turn this tax base off?



#305 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 26,755 posts

Posted 04 July 2019 - 01:02 PM

...Why would the city not have looked at making some separation or distinction based upon the type of development proposed?  Why force the developers to a one size fits all?...

Because that's not how socialism works.



#306 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 16,262 posts

Posted 04 July 2019 - 02:14 PM

 

Why would the city not have looked at making some separation or distinction based upon the type of development proposed?  Why force the developers to a one size fits all?  Could the city not have allowed high end development with the need for a developer to pay a special assessment fee to be used for affordable market value units to be used in other projects.  There is a need for all types of projects at all price points.  Victoria and Vancouver have always been desirable to investors why turn this tax base off?

 

Isn't the answer contained in the following?

 

 

“I strongly want to shift projects from strata to purpose-built rental until we have the housing crisis under control. I realize that may have the effect of ‘killing some projects.’ That’s an impact I’m prepared to see in order to have low-income people housed,”

 

To paraphrase, in order to address the housing crisis you first need to be willing to exacerbate the housing crisis. You know, like bombing people to save them. War to end war.

 

 

Could the city not have allowed high end development with the need for a developer to pay a special assessment fee to be used for affordable market value units to be used in other projects. There is a need for all types of projects at all price points.

 

For sure, but win-win scenarios = irresponsible governance. The authorities prefer to balance every ostensibly positive measure with an offsetting & inevitable negative consequence.

 

Hey, didn't a letter to the TC in another thread note how fast the CoV's population is growing? So exactly where are people supposed to live if we start killing projects as a matter of policy? Maybe you economists could answer this question: if the population continues to grow but new homes become increasingly scarce, what effect would that have on the cost of housing?

 

It always comes down to this: if you truly and sincerely want affordable rental projects then why not incentivize/encourage/fast-track affordable rental projects? Why is this never even on the table? You could pose yourself as the flakiest against-the-grain politician in the history of the city of Victoria... but you still wouldn't dare to raise that crazy idea, not in a million years.

 

The unspoken rule seems to be this: no strategy will be entertained if it might enable the creation of a bunch of new affordable rentals in a hurry. I suppose nobody wants to put a damper on the big 100th anniversary of the housing crisis in the year 2050.

 

Also, isn't it funny how the following point has been a major tenet of the housing crisis narrative pretty much from day one?

"The day may soon come when ordinary people won't be able to own homes" (oft-repeated since the early 1960s right through 2019)

 

And yet in 2019 we're valiantly proclaiming the following:
"We strongly want to shift projects from strata to purpose-built rental" ("Victoria mandates 20% affordable rentals in residential projects", Times-Colonist - June 29, 2019)

 

So on the one hand we continue to call it a tragedy if ordinary working people don't own their own homes, but on the other hand we intend to shift the focus away from home ownership.

 

(I should say, I have no problem with a focus on rentals over condos. Modern Victoria has always been heavily weighted toward rentals as compared to most other Canadian cities. It's a big part of the city's culture. I'm merely observing the contradiction.)


Edited by aastra, 04 July 2019 - 02:24 PM.


#307 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 57,768 posts

Posted 04 July 2019 - 02:59 PM

High-end rental projects create affordable rental projects.

Isitt knows that building 5,000-units of high-end rentals will trickle down to free up 5,000-units at the lowest end of the spectrum, the affordable end, but there’s no ribbon cutting for that and he can’t take ownership of market economics. So alas, we have a class war that pits those who can afford market-leading rental costs and those who can’t.

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


#308 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 16,262 posts

Posted 04 July 2019 - 03:26 PM

 

For sure, but win-win scenarios = irresponsible governance. The authorities prefer to balance every ostensibly positive measure with an offsetting & inevitable negative consequence.

 

 

So alas, we have a class war that pits those who can afford market-leading rental costs and those who can’t.

 

Good point. That's another big piece of it. People are locked into their political delusions, and the us-versus-them tensions that are the bread and butter of politics are always needing to be stoked (lest they die down, thus putting all politicians out of work).


  • Nparker likes this

#309 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 16,262 posts

Posted 04 July 2019 - 03:42 PM

 

High-end rental projects create affordable rental projects.

 

But why tie them together at all? Why not make it quicker and easier to build affordable rental units even while you continue to bog down the higher-end projects in red tape, fees, delays, etc.?

 

Do people really want uniformity? I sure don't. Give me a good mix any day of the week. The ideal situation would be one developer taking advantage of an affordable rentals fast-track option on one site while another developer builds something else (pricier rentals, condos, retirement residences, offices, etc.) on the site right next door.

 

Seriously, when condos are being built we claim there's a crisis because they aren't rentals. When rentals are being built we claim there's a crisis because they aren't affordable rentals. Let's not forget the whole "nobody's building office buildings" crisis. During that supposed crisis we've had what... at least three large office projects go up in downtown/James Bay? Plus a decent-sized one on Hillside?

 

In the CoV a decent mix seems to happen rather effortlessly. I have no problem with the authorities encouraging this or that, but I'm really not thrilled at the prospect of them blundering in blindly and trying to change the natural course in a major way. Let's just say they don't have a great track record in that regard.



#310 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 57,768 posts

Posted 04 July 2019 - 03:49 PM

Absolutely.

All housing matters, and all housing plays an important role. Where we worsen the situation is by trying to suggest that luxury rentals only benefit the wealthy. That’s a lie, and I suspect officialdom knows it.

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


#311 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,259 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 05 July 2019 - 07:44 AM

Victoria isn't entering completely uncharted territory, though. The staff recommendation was basically identical to what Richmond adopted in 2007. CoV Council went more aggressive at 20%, but CoR established a 5% rate in 2007 and bumped it to 10% in 2017. Still lots of luxury here!



#312 RFS

RFS
  • Member
  • 4,953 posts

Posted 05 July 2019 - 07:55 AM

Victoria isn't entering completely uncharted territory, though. The staff recommendation was basically identical to what Richmond adopted in 2007. CoV Council went more aggressive at 20%, but CoR established a 5% rate in 2007 and bumped it to 10% in 2017. Still lots of luxury here!

 

What about the 'rental zoning in perpetuity' thing?



#313 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,259 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 05 July 2019 - 08:16 AM

What about the 'rental zoning in perpetuity' thing?

 

New West did it first. Staff in Richmond had an amendment bylaw doing the same thing ready to go, but Council opted to refer it back for additional consultation. It'll be going forward for a second time in the fall. The bylaw amendment in Richmond just formalizes a policy in the OCP which already requires the redevelopment if rental properties to rebuild rentals at a 1:1 ratio (i.e. if you demolish 20 rental apartments, you rebuilt at least 20 rental apartments but the rest of the building can be rental, strata, whatever).



#314 Torrontes

Torrontes
  • Member
  • 291 posts

Posted 05 July 2019 - 11:13 AM

Can someone summarize the mechanics of how this works? How is the inclusionary qualification applied as between owned versus rental strata units.

 

Are the sale prices of the designated units discounted and only available to buyers with income restrictions, or does the CoV acquire these units using CAC funds and then rents them out at reduced rates?

 

In any event, the strata owner is still subject to paying the allocated strata fees, which are determined by the majority of owners.



#315 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,259 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 05 July 2019 - 11:34 AM

This is my understanding of the draft policy, which is here: https://pub-victoria...ocumentId=42119

 

For "Inclusionary Housing (Ownership)" option, the developer partners with a non-profit or government agency to sell units at a below-market cost. Buyers must meet an income threshold, and there are legal agreements requiring the unit to be owner occupied. There would also be restrictions on resale, for example limiting the ability of the owner to buy at below market and sell at market value.

 

For "Inclusionary Housing (Rental)" option, the developer is encouraged to partner with a non-profit or government agency but this is not required. Maximum rent and income thresholds are secured through a Housing Agreement registered on Title. The maximum rent includes utilities and strata fees.

 

If they are doing things the same way Richmond already does, then the rental units cannot be held as individual strata units. They may be held as a separate airspace parcel outside of the strata, or as a single strata lot. 



#316 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 26,755 posts

Posted 05 July 2019 - 11:39 AM

...They may be held...as a single strata lot. 

Would this give the "owner" more than 1 vote on strata decisions?



#317 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,259 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 05 July 2019 - 11:42 AM

^ I have very little familiarity with the BC Strata Act so I have no idea



#318 Glen

Glen
  • Member
  • 247 posts

Posted 25 July 2019 - 02:33 PM

Follow up to an earlier post asking about EV charging in new builds.

 

Has or will Victoria be passing any sort of requirement for EV charging stations alike to what has been adopted in Port Moody, Port Coquitlam where rough-ins are required on at least one parking level.  The cost to upgrade later can be considerable and manufacturers are quickly moving to electric.  All of Volvo by 2020 and other racing to catch up.

 

For a city so determined to lessen their carbon footprint shouldn't this be a city priority?



#319 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,259 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 25 July 2019 - 03:14 PM

Follow up to an earlier post asking about EV charging in new builds.

 

Has or will Victoria be passing any sort of requirement for EV charging stations alike to what has been adopted in Port Moody, Port Coquitlam where rough-ins are required on at least one parking level.  The cost to upgrade later can be considerable and manufacturers are quickly moving to electric.  All of Volvo by 2020 and other racing to catch up.

 

For a city so determined to lessen their carbon footprint shouldn't this be a city priority?

 

The following appears under "Initiate Action by 2020" in the Climate Leadership Plan:

"Design and implement an EV ecosystem strategy, including design guidelines for new development projects, to promote and support the adoption of electrified personal, public, and commercial vehicles."  via https://www.victoria...dershipPlan.pdf

 

The Strategic Plan Progress Report received by Council in May this year lists the EV Strategic Plan as a Q4 activity. via https://pub-victoria...ocumentId=38001

 

So... they're still getting there.



#320 Glen

Glen
  • Member
  • 247 posts

Posted 28 July 2019 - 01:39 PM

Thanks,

 

A good step forward



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.
 



1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users