Jump to content

      



























BUILT
The Dalmatian
Uses: rental, civic
Address: 1025 Johnson Street
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Downtown Victoria
Storeys: 11
The Dalmatian is an 11-storey mixed-use affordable rental tower in the 1000-block of Johnson Street in downtow... (view full profile)
Learn more about the Dalmatian on Citified.ca
Photo

[Harris Green] The Dalmatian | Victoria No. 1 Firehall | Rentals, office space | Completed - Built in 2023


  • Please log in to reply
785 replies to this topic

#461 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 20,976 posts

Posted 22 October 2019 - 06:24 PM

Under-densifying a site like this in the heart of downtown will be seen as a huge mistake in the years to come.

 

The DRA proposing that the site be zoned exactly to what the OCP allows. I don't see how you can then call that under-densifying!

 

We have had a major construction boom downtown over the past few years. Have prices dropped? Have rents been lowered? The argument that we need to stuff every possible square inch downtown in order to increase affordability is fantasy. All that is happening with the Mayor and council allowing development with no meaningful contributions from developers is that we will continue to see 4%+ property tax increases every year as the costs of supporting the extra density far outweigh the incremental taxes and rents and housing will become more unaffordable.



#462 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 22 October 2019 - 06:27 PM

If you regard 989 Johnson, Legato, and the Manhattan as if they were a singular redevelopment on roughly the same footprint then that would seem to make for a decent comparison re: the scale of what we're talking about. I think the DRA's choice of words re: "this is a very aggressive project" is not inappropriate.

 

But now that I've made the comparison, I haven't dropped dead from the shock of it. On the contrary, I'm thinking I would love to have some more of that good stuff on another block in Harris Green. But since the Mazda block is further east and effectively riding the downtown border it would make sense to be scaling things down somewhat.

 

So I guess I'm officially on board the "it's a bit too big & a bit too dense" bus. But methinks it wouldn't take much to get it right where it should be.



#463 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,173 posts

Posted 22 October 2019 - 06:36 PM

The DRA proposing that the site be zoned exactly to what the OCP allows. I don't see how you can then call that under-densifying!


But what takes precedent? Zoning or OCP?

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


#464 baconnbits

baconnbits
  • Member
  • 235 posts

Posted 22 October 2019 - 07:08 PM

The argument is that the developer wants to transfer unused density from one property to an unrelated one. Allow it here then why not allow developers who own parking lots in Rock Bay to build 20 story buildings in Fairfield?!


How are they unrelated?
It is one big development assemblage. The density of
The whole site is in line with what is currently allowable. You can’t just look at the non Firehall area of the development. It’s all one master planned development.
This is where you lose me. It’s all one development and the density is within limits. You can’t pick and choose.

#465 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,404 posts

Posted 22 October 2019 - 07:08 PM

The DRA proposing that the site be zoned exactly to what the OCP allows. I don't see how you can then call that under-densifying!

It's quite simple really; the OCP itself doesn't go nearly far enough in terms of density in the downtown core. A generation from now this is going to be painfully obvious.



#466 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 22 October 2019 - 07:09 PM

The OCP is provincially mandated and zoning flows from it. Still the OCP is drastically under density.
  • Nparker likes this

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#467 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 20,976 posts

Posted 22 October 2019 - 07:12 PM

You know this for certain?

 

Well I didn't call that one correctly! (ie Collins losing)



#468 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 22 October 2019 - 07:12 PM

The DRA proposing that the site be zoned exactly to what the OCP allows. I don't see how you can then call that under-densifying!

We have had a major construction boom downtown over the past few years. Have prices dropped? Have rents been lowered? The argument that we need to stuff every possible square inch downtown in order to increase affordability is fantasy. All that is happening with the Mayor and council allowing development with no meaningful contributions from developers is that we will continue to see 4%+ property tax increases every year as the costs of supporting the extra density far outweigh the incremental taxes and rents and housing will become more unaffordable.


This is not even close. Get back to me when we build enough units in one year to cover in-migration. It has never happened so we have never had a chance to allow supply to lower prices.
  • Nparker and DavidSchell like this

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#469 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher

    Old White Man On A Canadian Island

  • Member
  • 52,328 posts

Posted 23 October 2019 - 03:50 AM

the costs of supporting the extra density far outweigh the incremental taxes 

 

 

how do you figure that?



#470 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 23 October 2019 - 05:52 AM

Yeah that is a fair question. Are we saying that all development increases costs to the city more than they are taking in with property tax? Surely we would have gone broke long ago.
  • Nparker and Victoria Watcher like this

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#471 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher

    Old White Man On A Canadian Island

  • Member
  • 52,328 posts

Posted 23 October 2019 - 06:25 AM

Yeah that is a fair question. Are we saying that all development increases costs to the city more than they are taking in with property tax? Surely we would have gone broke long ago.

 

the "developments" that cost the most to the city are the low-barrier housing initiatives that have multiplied.  not other types of housing.

 

replacing a bridge cost us lots including increased property taxes.

 

bike lanes cost us lots including increased property taxes.

 

 

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 23 October 2019 - 06:29 AM.

  • Nparker likes this

#472 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,173 posts

Posted 23 October 2019 - 06:52 AM

Not only does taxation collected from these residences far outweighs the cost of services provided directly to those units, their taxation lowers the tax burden of other homeowners. And the City is not on the hook for the provision of a single municipal service other than allowing the building to tap into its water and sewer lines and the electrical grid. All of these costs are passed on to the future residents and leaseholders. Garbage and all maintenance services are also paid for by the residents, as are street-side improvements to the public realm.

A 150-unit condo will yield several hundred thousand dollars in annual tax revenue to the City but it’s impact on the operational budget of the city will be next to nil.
  • Nparker and GaryRanson like this

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


#473 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,173 posts

Posted 23 October 2019 - 08:56 AM

Whether you like it or not, the DRA is only very solid footing here in my opinion. There is recent legal precedent in Vancouver where the courts have overturned a rezoning decision based on facts very similar to this. You simply cannot ignore the OCP and residents association to push through whatever special deals you want.

 

Should be an interesting meeting. May come down to the Mayor casting the deciding vote even though she was the one who signed the contract with the developer. I would think that given this and the role the Jawl family took supporting her re-election campaign (hosting her campaign launch) she should recuse herself.

 

That's not quite right.

 

Jawl Residential is not affiliated with Jawl Properties, the owner and developer of 1515 Douglas Street. The two companies are related by name only, not unlike Bosa Properties and Bosa Development.

 

Furthermore, Helps rented the space at the Atrium, if I'm not mistaken.

 

I think it's time for the DRA to assign someone to this discussion as clearly they should be engaging individuals on this thread. There is nothing precluding Ian Sutherland or any other DRA members from being appointed as liaisons. There is a lot of healthy debate here, and their presence would be helpful.


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


#474 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 23 October 2019 - 09:04 AM

 

Are we saying that all development increases costs to the city more than they are taking in with property tax? Surely we would have gone broke long ago.

 

Victorians invented this premise very recently. And Victorians only accept this premise with regards to the CoV itself. Every Victorian knows that development booms anywhere else are a terrific boon, even in other municipalities in Victoria. Development booms pay dividends. Cities and municipalities live for them. But in Victoria city? A few new condo buildings are busting the city's infrastructure! It's more expensive to have development activity than to not have it!

 

Just consider how quickly we've flipped on this. Even as late as 2008-2009 there were plenty of Victorians who were still dismissing residential redevelopment in the downtown core. The trend had stalled, it was obviously never going to really catch on anyway, and the few buildings that had been built were mostly empty, blah blah blah blah. But just a few years later we were suddenly claiming that it had been a crippling avalanche of construction, overwhelming physical infrastructure and the city's administrative processes.

 

Nobody detects an inconsistency there? For a few years we were all sneering because downtown living would surely never catch on and all of the new buildings were empty, but now we're saying downtown living is a sweeping scourge and the hordes of new residents are breaking the CoV's back?

 

And keep in mind, this is all happening within the confines of the CoV's strict height and development restrictions. A massive wave of overwhelming residential construction... but generally limited to 14 or 15 stories, and generally delayed and dragged out for years. Wow, Victorians sure are lucky their city doesn't allow 30-story buildings to get approved quickly like every other city does, large or small. You wouldn't be able to turn on a light or flush a toilet and the CoV would be dead broke.

 

Meanwhile, there are still dozens and dozens of parking lots, empty lots, and severely underdeveloped sites throughout the extended downtown area. What we've seen so far has really been the tip of the tip of the iceberg. What we've seen so far compares to what we saw decades ago, when Victoria was half the size it is today. Suffice it to say, if anybody actually believes that new construction is a net loss for the city then your very first mission should be to launch a massive investigation against the CoV re: fundamental negligence and dereliction of duty, because the development potential that still remains is immense. It might finally be time to get that 1860s infrastructure up to par.



#475 Jackerbie

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

Posted 23 October 2019 - 09:09 AM

Whether you like it or not, the DRA is only very solid footing here in my opinion. There is recent legal precedent in Vancouver where the courts have overturned a rezoning decision based on facts very similar to this. You simply cannot ignore the OCP and residents association to push through whatever special deals you want.

 

If you're referring to the affordable housing deal in Yaletown, the decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal. That project has been built and opened in 2017



#476 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 23 October 2019 - 09:18 AM

 

We have had a major construction boom downtown over the past few years. Have prices dropped? Have rents been lowered? The argument that we need to stuff every possible square inch downtown in order to increase affordability is fantasy.

 

The development boom has been incredibly massive and sweeping and comprehensive but it hasn't seemed to help much... so therefore we should preserve all of the car dealerships, parking lots, and empty lots that still remain in Harris frickin' Green alone?

 

If we're still fighting to defend numerous car dealerships, parking lots, and empty lots then how can we possibly claim we've been stuffing every square inch of downtown with homes? The premise doesn't jibe with reality. If the development boom had been so incredibly massive and sweeping as you say then all of those car dealerships, parking lots, and empty lots wouldn't still exist and we wouldn't still be talking about maybe possibly redeveloping them someday.

 

Over the decades Victorians have demonstrated their willingness to try anything to address the housing crisis... except building a lot of new homes. That's just too radical, and it probably wouldn't work anyway.


  • Nparker, DavidSchell and cathawk like this

#477 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 23 October 2019 - 06:18 PM

 

The argument that we need to stuff every possible square inch downtown in order to increase affordability is fantasy.

 

Meanwhile, the new construction for the Wade at Cook and Johnson is four stories. Can we really claim that we've pulled out all the stops and that we're stuffing homes into every possible square inch of downtown if we're building a neighbourhood-sized lowrise apartment block on such a prominent corner?

 

The_Wade-pic_by_shoeflack.jpeg


  • Nparker likes this

#478 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 23 October 2019 - 06:36 PM

(FYI: Although it seems a bit short to me, I don't have a huge problem with the height of the Wade. I appreciate variation in building heights and massing.)



#479 baconnbits

baconnbits
  • Member
  • 235 posts

Posted 24 October 2019 - 09:44 PM

A lot of support for the project from speakers. A few of the public non supports were a little difficult to understand.
Majority was for. Council seems to be going that way and recognizing the value of the affordable housing.

#480 baconnbits

baconnbits
  • Member
  • 235 posts

Posted 24 October 2019 - 09:44 PM

And I mean their disapproval was hard to comprehend. Didn’t seem thought out

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