Jump to content

      



























APPROVED
Cook & Pendergast
Uses: condo, commercial
Address: 324-328 Cook Street
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Urban core
Storeys: 4
Condo units: (1BR, 2BR, 3BR)
Sales status: in planning
Cook and Pendergast is a proposal at 324-328 Cook Street and 1044-1054 Pendergast Street for a four-storey res... (view full profile)
Learn more about Cook & Pendergast on Citified.ca
Photo

[Fairfield] Cook & Pendergast (Pic-A-Flic Video site) | Residential and commercial


  • Please log in to reply
205 replies to this topic

#141 Brantastic

Brantastic
  • Member
  • 924 posts

Posted 27 November 2020 - 06:21 PM

Supply and demand is a part of housing affordability but is not the whole picture. We've had years where the rental vacancy rate increased and rental prices still increased year-over-year. The trickle-down economics of "just keep building more high-end housing and eventually everything else will be affordable to low-income people" is honestly comical to me at this point. I think that claiming this project will benefit affordability in the community is delusional.

 

That being said, as the mayor pointed out in the council meeting, there are far more affordable housing projects in the works around the city right now than there have been in decades (Firehall, Crosstown, Vic High development, Burnside School, 210 Gorge Rd, Yates and Meares supportive housing projects, etc.). That's the kind of stuff that is ultimately going to be the greatest net benefit to housing affordability in the CoV. She made the point that we can make room for higher end developments like this one as long as we continue to see momentum in building affordable housing alongside it. I'd agree with her on that point. Most that were in opposition (Isitt, Loveday, Dubow, Potts) argued that the affordable housing that is being built is not equitable between neighborhoods and affordable housing is rapidly diminishing in neighborhoods like Fairfield. I'd agree with them on that too, but I don't think it's enough for me to give it a "no" if I was in their position, given the benefits that I think the development would bring in terms of public realm improvements and the creation of walkable/bikeable neighborhoods.


Edited by Brantastic, 27 November 2020 - 06:21 PM.


#142 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 27 November 2020 - 09:05 PM

Nothing ever gets cheaper, so there's really no sense in wishing for that. I'm reminded of those people who are always wishing for a 40% drop in real estate prices. They aren't wishing for a correction or an adjustment; they're wishing for a time machine.

 

So many of the old apartment buildings today that we regard as ordinary or affordable (or crappy) were regarded as expensive and inaccessible when they were new. When those apartments were new our champions would have heroically opposed them, but now that those apartments are old our champions are heroically wishing we had more of them.

 

 

Daily Colonist
September 7, 1969

"There's No Place to Go in City"

 

Rent increases, apathy, shortage of housing hit pensioners, Indians, people with children

"Landlords are becoming extortionists, helped by the housing crisis, the tearing down of older houses..."

The bitter comment came Saturday from a 70-year-old pensioner who can either leave his housekeeping room or pay a $5 a month rent increase.

"Please don't use my name, or I shall get an eviction notice, and there's just no place to go in the city," he added.

The pensioner was just one more victim of a housing crisis which hit Victoria about three years ago...

...there's a need for about 1,200 housing units in Victoria, and today's bleak picture is unlikely to change at least during the next two years.

Other families, unable to pay high rents or unacceptable to landlords because they have children or pets, are doubling up in substandard accommodation.

...rent for apartments, duplexes, houses and housekeeping rooms is being increased two or three times a year, while older houses are being torn down to make way for expensive apartment blocks.

"I don't quite know who they're going to put into the new apartment blocks,"

"The pensioners can't afford to go in, and people with children wouldn't be allowed, even if they could pay the rent."

The destruction of older houses that have been used as suites for families and housekeeping rooms for pensioners distresses both the elderly and those who work in housing.

"There just aren't enough houses now, and these people who are moved out to make way for apartments have no place to go,"

"So many places that are for rent are only temporary because they are to be pulled down for apartments,"


Edited by aastra, 27 November 2020 - 09:06 PM.

  • Mike K., Nparker and TwilightZoneVictoria like this

#143 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,390 posts

Posted 27 November 2020 - 10:10 PM

 

I think that claiming this project will benefit affordability in the community is delusional.

But not building 48 additional homes will create affordability. 



#144 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 27 November 2020 - 11:44 PM

Where's the sense in putting so much burden on any one project? Especially such a small project as this one? One small apartment building surely can't save a city. One small apartment building surely can't ruin a city.

 

Have we lost all perspective? If we're really concerned about larger impacts (both positive and negative) then we need to be considering what effect dozens of small apartment buildings might have. Meanwhile, individual small projects are still getting dragged out into multi-year debacles.


Edited by aastra, 27 November 2020 - 11:44 PM.


#145 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,390 posts

Posted 28 November 2020 - 08:32 AM

...Have we lost all perspective?...

If by "we" you mean CoV council then yes. They are trapped by ideology that hinders more than it helps.



#146 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 30 November 2020 - 02:34 PM

Supply and demand is a part of housing affordability but is not the whole picture. We've had years where the rental vacancy rate increased and rental prices still increased year-over-year. The trickle-down economics of "just keep building more high-end housing and eventually everything else will be affordable to low-income people" is honestly comical to me at this point. I think that claiming this project will benefit affordability in the community is delusional.

 

That being said, as the mayor pointed out in the council meeting, there are far more affordable housing projects in the works around the city right now than there have been in decades (Firehall, Crosstown, Vic High development, Burnside School, 210 Gorge Rd, Yates and Meares supportive housing projects, etc.). That's the kind of stuff that is ultimately going to be the greatest net benefit to housing affordability in the CoV. She made the point that we can make room for higher end developments like this one as long as we continue to see momentum in building affordable housing alongside it. I'd agree with her on that point. Most that were in opposition (Isitt, Loveday, Dubow, Potts) argued that the affordable housing that is being built is not equitable between neighborhoods and affordable housing is rapidly diminishing in neighborhoods like Fairfield. I'd agree with them on that too, but I don't think it's enough for me to give it a "no" if I was in their position, given the benefits that I think the development would bring in terms of public realm improvements and the creation of walkable/bikeable neighborhoods.

 

It isn't actually comical at all. The fact is that we have yet to build the same amount of units as the amount of people that move in every year. For the supply to begin to decrease in price there has to be a lessoning of demand but if you only build a 1000 units and 5000 people move in, prices continue to go up as they have. You can't just say "But we built a thousand units! That should have been enough to impact price!" 


  • TwilightZoneVictoria likes this

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#147 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher

    Old White Man On A Canadian Island

  • Member
  • 52,293 posts

Posted 30 November 2020 - 02:37 PM

true. but lower prices will also induce demand.

you can bet if we had lots of $100,000 condos available tens of thousands of them would be bought by people as a second or third or vacation homes.

or people would move here that otherwise would not “need” to move here to retire etc.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 30 November 2020 - 02:53 PM.

  • TwilightZoneVictoria likes this

#148 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,155 posts

Posted 30 November 2020 - 02:51 PM

The government is both creating the problem, and working to solve the problem.

A huge portion of your purchase price is municipal costs, taxes on construction materials, development cost charges, amenity contributions, permitting, and finally, the public planning aspect that can take years for a 40-50 unit project.
  • G-Man, Nparker and TwilightZoneVictoria like this

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


#149 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 30 November 2020 - 04:12 PM

true. but lower prices will also induce demand.

you can bet if we had lots of $100,000 condos available tens of thousands of them would be bought by people as a second or third or vacation homes.

or people would move here that otherwise would not “need” to move here to retire etc.

Possibly, but I don't think that prices would go down that significantly because there is an inherent cost to develop that is external to Victoria like the cost of steel and cement.  Still when we restrict supply we do know for sure that prices will not fall especially as demand through in-migration increases. The TV slate is acting like deBeers with diamonds yet trying to get the opposite outcome. 


  • Mike K. and Nparker like this

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#150 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher

    Old White Man On A Canadian Island

  • Member
  • 52,293 posts

Posted 09 December 2020 - 06:11 AM

Our proposed building in the Cook Street Village was rejected recently by council in a 4-4 tie at a public hearing. The building, designed by local architect Cascadia Architecture, would have added 48 beautiful new family-size units comprised of 55 per cent two- and 25 per cent three-bedroom homes, and a new commercial space along Cook Street.

 

During the development of the proposal, we had extensive engagement with the community that resulted in an improved design concept and led to some great ideas.

 

https://www.timescol...sing-1.24252350



#151 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,155 posts

Posted 09 December 2020 - 06:49 AM

Meanwhile, this developer’s project is selling exceptionally well over in Esquimalt (https://victoria.cit...ndominium-west/), where they have another project coming down the pipes (https://victoria.citified.ca/condos/oakwoods-building-a/) and other interests in both Saanich and Sooke.

The message Victoria’s current council has sent is if you can afford to buy a home in Victoria, we’re going to make it even harder for you to do so, and the message came under the guise of housing affordability.
  • Matt R. likes this

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


#152 mbjj

mbjj
  • Member
  • 2,342 posts

Posted 09 December 2020 - 08:01 AM

I was reading this article and I'm a bit confused. It seems to indicate that the wellness centre would have gone into the existing senior's building next door? Am I reading this correctly or would it have been part of the proposed development?

 

https://www.vicnews...._medium=twitter



#153 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,390 posts

Posted 09 December 2020 - 08:04 AM

...The message Victoria’s current council has sent is if you can afford to buy a home in Victoria, we’re going to make it even harder for you to do so, and the message came under the guise of housing affordability.

Let's face it, the current CoV council is dominated by socialists and at least one communist. They simply do not believe in private property ownership and will do everything in their power to make it difficult for individuals to purchase their own dwellings, even if this doesn't result in housing affordability.



#154 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,776 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 09 December 2020 - 08:57 AM

I was reading this article and I'm a bit confused. It seems to indicate that the wellness centre would have gone into the existing senior's building next door? Am I reading this correctly or would it have been part of the proposed development?

 

https://www.vicnews...._medium=twitter

 

Yes, you're reading it right. Aragon (the developer) owns a strata retail unit in the building, and was offering it to the City at a discount. The unit is beside the existing Cook Street Village Activity Centre, so the two units could be combined into a larger space.

 

Council authorized the future purchase of the strata unit in October, but that's moot if the rezoning isn't approved.


  • mbjj likes this

#155 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,155 posts

Posted 09 December 2020 - 09:02 AM

Let's face it, the current CoV council is dominated by socialists and at least one communist. They simply do not believe in private property ownership and will do everything in their power to make it difficult for individuals to purchase their own dwellings, even if this doesn't result in housing affordability.


Which is odd, because both Isitt and Loveday own their homes. I don’t understand why they would want to prevent others from aspiring to/having the opportunities to do the same.

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


#156 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,390 posts

Posted 09 December 2020 - 09:20 AM

Which is odd, because both Isitt and Loveday own their homes. I don’t understand why they would want to prevent others from aspiring to/having the opportunities to do the same.

For the same reason they believe they are entitled to high salaries and taxpayer funded lunches. No one said socialist ideals need to apply to its leaders.

To quote George Orwell: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."


  • A Girl is No one and TwilightZoneVictoria like this

#157 JohnsonStBridge

JohnsonStBridge
  • Member
  • 342 posts
  • LocationInner Harbour

Posted 11 December 2020 - 10:47 AM

The proposal may have life yet. Mayor Helps exercised her power to request that council reconsider the decision under the position that a significant development should not be defeated by a tie vote while council is not operating with a full bench. The decision was rescinded in a 6-2 vote (Isitt and Dubow opposed) sending the proposal back to a 2nd public hearing and likely meaning that whoever wins the byelection tomorrow will hold the balance of power in deciding this issue.


  • Mike K., Kapten Kapsell, Nparker and 2 others like this

#158 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,155 posts

Posted 11 December 2020 - 11:16 AM

Good news.

 

Thank you for the update. This was the right move, and I am glad to see that the City realized that it is not fair to a proponent who has followed the process for several years to have their project's fate decided in this way.


  • Kapten Kapsell likes this

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


#159 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,390 posts

Posted 11 December 2020 - 11:21 AM

 

...council is not operating with a full bench...

Or a full deck most of the time.


  • mbjj likes this

#160 E2V

E2V
  • Member
  • 163 posts

Posted 13 December 2020 - 12:07 PM

While I’m not a fan of Lisa Helps she deserves credit in giving the developer a second chance given the situation on council. I’d be interested to know which two councillors thought the original process was fair and voted against her motion.


  • JohnsonStBridge likes this

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