Jump to content

      












APPROVED
496-498 Cecelia Road - Burnside School Housing
Uses: rental, civic
Address: 496-498 Cecelia Road
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Urban core
Storeys: 5
A redevelopment of excess lands at the former Burnside Elementary School campus along Jutland Road will incorp... (view full profile)
Learn more about 496-498 Cecelia Road - Burnside School Housing on Citified.ca
Photo

[Burnside-Gorge] Burnside School Housing | Rentals, daycare and civic space | 5 and 4-storeys | Proposed


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#21 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 01 March 2018 - 08:44 PM

I can't begin to imagine the furor that would erupt in my hood if something like the Press Building project was proposed!!!! :eek: Gentrification is a 4-letter word in North Park.


Only among the 8 people that go to the NPNA meetings. I’ve been to the AGMs too, and at best they get 25 people. They really have more political power than they should have.
  • Nparker 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>

#22 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 63,886 posts

Posted 01 March 2018 - 09:10 PM

Note how affordable housing projects almost always contain an equal ratio of parking spaces to residences. This one contains 92 spaces for 88-units.

Market projects, on the other hand, almost always contain significantly less parking than unit density. One reason is the City doesn’t require the capacity, and the other is if a developer can avoid building capacity the less costlier the overall project is, as are the units. But with taxpayers footing the bill for such a large portion of social housing projects the desire/motivation to reduce parking isn’t there.

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


#23 thundergun

thundergun
  • Member
  • 1,172 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 02 March 2018 - 09:42 AM

No drawings of the proposed project yet?



#24 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 3,107 posts

Posted 29 June 2018 - 07:23 PM

No drawings of the proposed project yet?

Here are some initial renderings from the training application that has just been filed with the city:
F3AAA483-F6F6-4245-87CF-5661C955A91D.jpeg
AE436673-57E9-4E37-B2AE-6DD6F752693A.jpeg
224492B4-015A-406C-B7FF-3C9F54057F4B.jpeg

#25 sdwright.vic

sdwright.vic

    Burnside-Gorge

  • Member
  • 6,550 posts

Posted 29 June 2018 - 07:54 PM

Looks like modern day welfare housing... awesome.
  • Nparker and SgtNeonPanda like this
Predictive text and a tiny keyboard are not my friends!

#26 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 29,186 posts

Posted 29 June 2018 - 09:40 PM

Ouch! That is frighteningly ugly. It couldn't look more institutional if it tried.



#27 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 63,886 posts

Posted 30 June 2018 - 06:56 AM

There’s a new building code taking effect that has drastically reduced the window size in these buildings.

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


#28 Citified.ca

Citified.ca
  • Administrator
  • 1,912 posts
  • LocationVictoria, BC

Posted 02 July 2018 - 08:21 AM

Thanks for the heads-up, Kapten!

 

88-units-of-affordable-housing,-daycare-and-flex-spaces-pitched-for-Burnside-School-lands.jpg

An artist's rendering of 496-498 Cecelia Road, a proposal to building 88-units of affordable housing within two buildings on lands adjacent to the Burnside-Gorge neighbourhood's Burnside School on Jutland Road. The project will also incorporate a daycare facility and a community flex space. 

 

88-units of affordable housing, daycare and flex spaces pitched for Burnside School lands

https://vibrantvicto...oreys-proposed/

 

Details pertaining to a social housing project and the development of a community hub in the City of Victoria's Burnside-Gorge neighbourhood are now public.

 
Developer TL Housing Solutions in partnership with Victoria-based social housing provider Pacifica Housing are proposing to build 88-units of affordable rental residences at 496 and 498 Cecelia Road behind the historic Burnside School on Jutland Road.
 
Home layouts will span between bachelor, one, two and three-bedroom suites in two buildings rising to five and four-storeys.
 
The taller building will also house a daycare facility with capacity for approximately 60 children and a flex space allotted to the Burnside-Gorge Community Association for neighbourhood events on evenings and weekends.
 
Parking for the complex will be in the form of a 99-stall underground parkade with 82 stalls allocated to residents, nine to visitors, five for childcare services and three to Burnside School. [Full article]

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

#29 AllseeingEye

AllseeingEye

    AllSeeingEye

  • Member
  • 4,964 posts
  • LocationGorge-Selkirk

Posted 02 July 2018 - 09:48 AM

Looks like a jail.....


  • Nparker likes this

#30 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 29,186 posts

Posted 02 July 2018 - 10:24 AM

Looks like a jail.....

This prison in Austria looks way better than the Burnside proposal.

prison.JPG


  • aastra likes this

#31 Mattjvd

Mattjvd
  • Member
  • 989 posts

Posted 02 July 2018 - 10:50 AM

Looks like any of the 60s/70s box apartment buildings built all over town. In a funny way it kinda fits in. I'm not overly concerned about it being ugly, if it's being constructed with tax dollars, make it cheap, to code, and functional.
  • LJ likes this

#32 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,755 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 03 July 2018 - 07:51 AM

There’s a new building code taking effect that has drastically reduced the window size in these buildings.

 

Has Victoria adopted Step Code yet? Would be interested to know which step Victoria would be applying to this project.



#33 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 63,886 posts

Posted 03 July 2018 - 10:40 AM

I’m not entirely sure either. I am seeing this transition now across the region.

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


#34 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,755 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 03 July 2018 - 10:47 AM

I’m not entirely sure either. I am seeing this transition now across the region.

 

The letter on the Dev Tracker says that the CoV requirement is Step 1, but BC Housing is requiring Step 3. FWIW, Richmond will be requiring Step 3 in all new multifamily construction as of September 1st.



#35 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 63,886 posts

Posted 03 July 2018 - 11:01 AM

Ah, gotcha.

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


#36 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 17,175 posts

Posted 03 July 2018 - 11:34 AM

 

...trade-offs of projects built to the Upper Steps include: Increased construction costs

from https://energystepco...fits-tradeoffs/

 

Buildings that have tiny windows and balconies are going to be more expensive, but they will make our lives better. And -- in theory, at least -- it's still possible to build an attractive home or building. I'm eager to see the first successful proof. Architects around the world are giving it their best effort as we speak, no doubt:

 

 

While it is possible to build beautiful homes and high-rise buildings to meet the Upper Steps, designers must pay special attention to the amount and location of window glazing and the design of balconies, to mitigate heat loss as much as possible. The added costs associated with implementing these changes may, in practice, result in fewer balconies or less glazing in some buildings.

from https://energystepco...fits-tradeoffs/

 

The loving & merciful state just wants to lower your energy bill, don't ya know. And manage your access to fresh air (by taking away your ability to easily & effectively manage your own access to fresh air). And windowless bunkers are very durable, too. Up until now, buildings haven't been durable enough:

 

 

Occupants often prefer these buildings as they:

  • Improve comfort, by better managing temperature
  • Improve health, by better managing fresh air throughout the building
  • Reduce noise, through better insulation and airtightness
  • Require less energy, helping occupants lower their energy bills
  • Are more durable

from https://energystepco...fits-tradeoffs/

 

Occupants often prefer no sunlight and no view. Houseplants are a nuisance.

 

I'm wondering if there's an objective here to throw some water on the "appealing densification" trend, by making new apartments very dreary and depressing? Crikey, every positive urban improvement seems to be countered by some arbitrary initiative to make things a little more miserable, a little more controversial or contentious, etc. As if the authorities believe that our cities must be miserable to some degree. Cities that are too pleasant or too appealing just aren't the sort of cities that the government wants.

 

If people are still drawn to urban areas even after this then what would the next step be? No windows or balconies at all? No elevators? No bathrooms?


Edited by aastra, 03 July 2018 - 11:37 AM.

  • Nparker likes this

#37 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,755 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 03 July 2018 - 12:04 PM

BC Energy Step Code basically just provides a building energy efficiency target, and the architect can choose whatever measures they want to meet that target. This architect has chosen to reduce the glazing.

 

The highest step is Step 5. Here's an example of a Step 5 project in North Park. Not exactly the end of the world, eh?

exterior_1.jpg

 

IMGP3679_web.jpg



#38 RFS

RFS
  • Member
  • 5,444 posts

Posted 03 July 2018 - 12:10 PM

^no, not the end of the world, but shows that the powers that be don't give a shit about affordability

#39 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 17,175 posts

Posted 03 July 2018 - 12:16 PM

I get too philosophical sometimes. You're right, all of these sorts of measures are really just ever more creative ways to ding people.



#40 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 29,186 posts

Posted 03 July 2018 - 12:56 PM

...The highest step is Step 5. Here's an example of a Step 5 project in North Park...

 

That appears to be fine on a relatively small scale, house-like project, but what would Step 5 look like on a 25-storey, reinforced concrete, residential building in the heart of an urban setting?



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