Jump to content

      













PROPOSED
1301 Hillside Avenue
Uses: condo, commercial
Address: 1301 Hillside Avenue
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Urban core
Storeys: 6
Condo units: 50 (studio/bachelor, 1BR, 2BR, live-work)
Sales status: in planning
1301 Hillside Avenue is a proposal to build a six-storey, 50-unit condominium complex at the intersection of H... (view full profile)
Learn more about 1301 Hillside Avenue on Citified.ca
Photo

[Oaklands] 1301 Hillside Avenue | Condos | 6-storeys | Proposed


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#21 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 2,381 posts

Posted 26 March 2019 - 05:19 PM

Mods:  This project has been substantially revised.  This project is no longer a rental, it is a condo development with a large affordable ownership component. 

 

From the Oaklands CALUC (meeting was held Monday March 25):

  • Initial application submitted was submitted as a rental building, now converted to a market condo
  • Initial scheme was 46 units – current scheme is 50 units (including 16 affordable ownership units)
  • FSR was 2.41 or 32,235sf, now FSR is 2.46 or 32,886 sf
  • Both schemes have 24 parking spaces
  • Both schemes have 65 bike parking spaces
  • Current scheme has 2 live /work units – initial scheme had no commercial spaces.
  • Initial scheme was 5 floors of residential over parking – current scheme is the same.
  • The proponent notes that the project will now incorporate an “affordable ownership” housing component. With 16 of 50 units being defined as affordable – representing 32% of the project. The proponent is working with BC Housing to determine how the project will fit into their affordable housing program


#22 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 51,495 posts

Posted 26 March 2019 - 05:24 PM

Excellent. Thank you for the heads-up.
  • Kapten Kapsell likes this

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


#23 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 24,012 posts

Posted 26 March 2019 - 05:32 PM

Will the switch from all rentals cause any approval issues with CoV council?



#24 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 2,381 posts

Posted 26 March 2019 - 05:35 PM

Will the switch from all rentals cause any approval issues with CoV council?

 

I imagine that the affordable ownership component will likely assuage council's concerns.  They are also likely to place a covenant mandating that the strata council cannot restrict rentals in the non-ownership units.

 

I'm also guessing that this will become an Abstract (rather than NVision) project.



#25 Citified.ca

Citified.ca
  • Administrator
  • 1,632 posts
  • LocationVictoria, BC

Posted 27 March 2019 - 06:42 AM

^fantastic, thanks for that!

Rental proposal at Cook and Hillside switches gears to BC Housing-backed condo project
https://victoria.cit...-condo-project/
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.

#26 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,959 posts

Posted 27 March 2019 - 02:28 PM

Looks like ground floor parking. Commercial would have been better...

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#27 KMadvisor

KMadvisor
  • Member
  • 4 posts

Posted 01 April 2019 - 08:09 AM

Appreciate the discussion--while needing to point out that there are several problems with the design of this project on a very challenging lot. 
  • For some reason, the bus stop is moved to a location adjacent to the building and that was cited at the CALUC as the reason why access to the building was shifted to Cook Street in the revised plan.
  • Access to the building is an issue that has an effect on cut-through traffic and parking on streets near the development as well as quite far--service and personal vehicles will need to navigate through currently low traffic, low speed residential streets to navigate access from Cook Street. 
  • There is a community initiative in the area proceeding for two years now to create a woonerf adaptation in which the already designated People Priority Greenway on Kings Road sees LESS not more traffic and that traffic is to be local in favour of retaining the current 22.7 median speed--not cut-through or non-local where higher speeds are predictable.
  • It looks (from the first set of plans) as if two parking spaces would be lost in order to provide the preferred access from both Hillside Ave and Cook Street. Leaving the bus stop where it is now about 2-3 bus lengths along Hillside is preferred. That seems a good trade-off, but does not address the fact that parking is provided for less than half the residents and only one space is available for service vehicles. It is a very short stroll through the Cridge Centre parking lot to Kings Road which can anticipate unwanted vehicles driving and parking there. Again, a community initiative is working to create a people-first place--not a traffic corridor or parking lot.
Some comments suggest that the neighbourhood is against density. That is not true. 
 
In fact, the creation of a green space promenade through Oaklands is intended to provide respite for residents and those who come to the area to stroll under a canopy of Garry Oaks in an increasingly dense community. 
 

Plan specific observations:

  • The revised plan does include stepped back upper floors in consideration of the effect of light blocking--a very good thing.
  • The site does not permit the kind of set-backs seen along Hillside avenue which mitigate higher density with green plantings and, in at least two places, provide opportunity for placemaking. It seems very difficult to establish a gateway to Oaklands that reflects the mixed residential use character as distinct from the disappointing Hillside Ave aspect from Blanshard to Cook. 
  • Plans show an abundance of trees which are not actually on the site, but influence consideration and are not as placed in reality.
  • The new plan to eliminate what was to be rental housing and provide condos for purchase is predicated on acceptance of the "affordable housing" component, i.e. 15 very small units.  No new build can provide "affordable" accommodation in the current economic climate. As briefly commented upon by the developer at the March 25 CALUC, the cost of these units is born by purchasers of the other units. This clearly increases those costs and contributes to Victoria's already high cost of living.
  • A quality of life consideration is that the touted "public space" is limited to residents of the new build :  a rather small entertainment area which, in the initial plan, is immediately outside of two bedrooms. Not smart. Design is everything. Still, I appreciate that this is an extremely challenging site.
Official Community Plan considerations:
  • The City is in the process of updating plans for neighbourhoods and Oaklands' is upcoming. The community has interests beyond 100m from any site as currently provided for in relation to developments.
  • My own interest in this is to ensure that Oaklands accommodates a multi-generational, diverse people-first ethic with a far higher standard of consideration of infrastructure projects—public and private—than historically seen. If we get the plan right, we should not need to entertain the kind and volume of variances often seen. This will aid developers as well as the community.
  • The City currently favours large developers over small, and large owners over small. World-wide there is growing understanding of the economic and social value of engaging small, local owners who use property assets as a means to increase housing in the spirit of community with the economic benefit of a) starting out with a mortgage helper b) aging in place (hugely significant as many people lack the pensions granted to decision makers and functionaries) and c) retaining renovation and ongoing, directly local expenditures as opposed to feeding remote investors. 
  • If we want residents to be a part of evolving Victoria, rather than resisting that, we need a more honest and transparent engagement, one that is consistent and sincerely applied. That is too often not the case and it is hard to blame Victorian’s for getting in the way under such circumstances. 
My two (+) cents.

  • Mr Cook Street likes this

#28 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 2,672 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 22 July 2019 - 01:51 PM

Revised drawings and letter to Council are posted on the Dev Tracker: https://tender.victo...Number=REZ00636

 

The revised proposal is for 49 condo units, including 14 affordable ownership units through the previously revealed BC Housing partnership.


  • Kapten Kapsell likes this

#29 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 2,381 posts

Posted 22 July 2019 - 03:39 PM

This definitely seems to have a better design...

#30 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 2,672 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 22 July 2019 - 03:51 PM

The design is the same was what already appears as the header image, but has not been posted in the body of the tread yet. Here's a look:

Capture.PNG

 

Capture2.PNG

 

Capture3.PNG


  • Nparker likes this

#31 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,959 posts

Posted 23 July 2019 - 02:17 PM

Is that commercial to the east of the live work units or a bike locker?

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#32 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 2,672 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 23 July 2019 - 02:19 PM

Is that commercial to the east of the live work units or a bike locker?

 

Bike room. There is no commercial component, aside from the live/work units



#33 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,959 posts

Posted 23 July 2019 - 02:20 PM

Fail.

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#34 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 10,607 posts

Posted 23 July 2019 - 02:40 PM

I don't think the ground floor looks residential enough. It looks more like uninviting commercial. They need micro-patios or some sort of buffer like this one on Meares.


  • Nparker likes this

"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#35 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,959 posts

Posted 23 July 2019 - 02:46 PM

A location like that should not have ground floor residential. It would be terrible and area could use more commercial options. Fully recognising my bias because I live nearby.

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#36 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 10,607 posts

Posted 23 July 2019 - 03:06 PM

I think commercial is a bad idea because (a) parking access is bad, and (b) no other commercial is adjacent. There are commercial corners nearby at HIllside/Quadra and HIllside/Cedar Hill.


"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#37 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 2,672 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 23 July 2019 - 03:11 PM

I don't think the ground floor looks residential enough. It looks more like uninviting commercial. They need micro-patios or some sort of buffer like this one on Meares.

 

A location like that should not have ground floor residential. It would be terrible and area could use more commercial options. Fully recognising my bias because I live nearby.

 

It's a prime location for "4 floors and corner stores" (or 6 floors in this case), but I imagine their design was limited by how narrow the site is. Once you get that double-loaded parking aisle in, there's only ~7 m (23 ft) to work with between the parking and the sidewalk.

 

Keep in mind that excavation is off the table, so they can't move the parking underground either.


  • Nparker likes this

#38 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 10,607 posts

Posted 23 July 2019 - 03:18 PM

The lot sits at the intersection of four mega-blocks. There are no handy side streets to park on. Commercial is a non-starter. There's no street parking on Hillside and none on Cook during business hours. Even residential visitors and delivery trucks will have a hard time. 

 

You don't want to pull commercial business away from your existing village centres. 


"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#39 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 24,012 posts

Posted 23 July 2019 - 03:19 PM

...You don't want to pull commercial business away from your existing village centres. 

Or really need to. Sorry G-Man.  :(



#40 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,959 posts

Posted 24 July 2019 - 05:16 AM

This is a dense community with a seniors home, school, lots of apartment buildings, a very busy bus stop and you do have Monarch all within block or two away.The other two commercial centres are a significant walk and beyond what the walk score would say is adjacent.

This should have been at the very least a cornerstore in it. Parking shouldn't be a prerequisite for commercial any more anyways. I wasn't thinking destination store, more nearby services.

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


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