785 replies to this topic

[baconnbits]

I read it like it’s the Mazda land that doesn’t include the fire hall and it’s land. I think the city owns that building at completion?

Edited by baconnbits, 25 December 2022 - 11:11 AM.

[baconnbits]

Seperate

[spanky123]

Seperate

 

Interesting. IIRC, they were given some special concessions from the City regarding bonus density on the phase 2 and 3 parcels because of affordable housing commitments on all 3 phases. Wonder if there is a bigger story here.

[Mike K.]

Initial density approved for the remaining land portion is around 400-units.

Which is in line with what Starline is proposing across the street, with 500-units on a parcel that’s 68k sq ft versus the 51k at the Mazda site.

[spanky123]

Initial density approved for the remaining land portion is around 400-units.

Which is in line with what Starline is proposing across the street, with 500-units on a parcel that’s 68k sq ft versus the 51k at the Mazda site.

 

True but if you recall, the original site was zoned for a parking lot and the City allowed it to be rezoned to a much higher density. Again IIRC, that was in return for commitment's to affordable housing.

 

I wonder why the Jawls sold the property at this stage though. I don't think the Chard's would have been in any better position to develop the site or to pay a premium for it.

Edited by spanky123, 25 December 2022 - 01:11 PM.

[baconnbits]

The Firehall included affordable tho doesn’t it? I assume that would qualify as it’s part of the same approval?

[spanky123]

The Firehall included affordable tho doesn’t it? I assume that would qualify as it’s part of the same approval?

 

I think that the firehall housing was sold to BC Housing as part of the original deal. 

[baconnbits]

Right. But I’d guess that is the affordable housing requirement. It’s over 100 units I think so
If the rest of this site is 400
Units that would be about the 20% the city has been pushing for.

[spanky123]

Right. But I’d guess that is the affordable housing requirement. It’s over 100 units I think so
If the rest of this site is 400
Units that would be about the 20% the city has been pushing for.

 

I think the 20% was beyond what they sold. The developer isn't really contributing anything by selling to BC Housing, they likely got paid about 3x what the property was worth!

[Citified.ca]

A new thread has been created for the subsequent phases of this project here: https://vibrantvicto...-to-17-storeys/

 

Details of the transaction are available here: https://victoria.cit...ic-mazda-lands/

 

Thank you for the heads-up, Vicbroker22, and thank you for the confirmation, tiger11!

[tiger11]

I believe the high density on the site was primarily achieved due to part of the site having R48 zoning (prior to rezoning) not necessarily the affordable component (but that undoubtedly helped for council to stomach this proposal). Developer was able to play off the fact that almost a 10 FSR can be possible under this bylaw for that part of the site. The remainder of the site was viewed under the OCP which permits a density in the 5.5 range I think roughly. 

 

Then the total density was spread over the entire project site. The first phase was not as dense; therefore, this left greater density on the remaining parts. 

 

 

Interesting. IIRC, they were given some special concessions from the City regarding bonus density on the phase 2 and 3 parcels because of affordable housing commitments on all 3 phases. Wonder if there is a bigger story here.

[spanky123]

^ In either event this looks like a great flip for the Jawl and Pollen families. Perhaps this will put an end to the claim that increasing density doesn't increase prices and thus allow us to start collecting bonus density fees on future rezonings!

[Mike K.]

I think we all realize more density means more land value. It’s only missing middle proponents who argue funky science that postulates if you can’t afford to buy a Phantom, you should by-right get the state to ensure buy an Escalade, in the name of equity.

What stumps me, is despite all of this new density, property taxes keep outpacing inflation. So what happens if we stop building new homes?

[Nparker]

I think we all realize more density means more land value..

You'd be surprised how many people do not understand this basic concept.

[spanky123]

I think we all realize more density means more land value. It’s only missing middle proponents who argue funky science that postulates if you can’t afford to buy a Phantom, you should by-right get the state to ensure buy an Escalade, in the name of equity.

What stumps me, is despite all of this new density, property taxes keep outpacing inflation. So what happens if we stop building new homes?

 

I point it out because there is a provision that an increase in land value due to an upzoning of property requires a contribution of 75% of the land lift to the City. I am not saying that is the right number but that is what is currently on the books. As a result, every developer argues that rezoning doesn't change the value, council buys it and the City gets nothing in almost every case.

 

What the City should be doing is coming to a reasonable compromise and then enforcing it. This (and the property tax exemptions the City often grants to new developments) is why costs are increasing faster than tax revenue even though we have had a building boom in the past few years. 

Edited by spanky123, 28 December 2022 - 01:52 PM.

[Nparker]

I point it out because there is a provision that an increase in land value due to an upzoning of property requires a contribution of 75% of the land lift to the City...

Who pays for the land lift contribution as a result of blanket MMI upzoning?

[spanky123]

Who pays for the land lift contribution as a result of blanket MMI upzoning?

 

Nobody is going to pay as rezoning doesn't change land values!

 

I would have though that our socialist councilors would have been all over this as a revenue generation opportunity that punishes wealthy elitist property owners. Even better, just add the amount to their taxes year one and the City will bring in hundreds of millions it can spend on more bike lanes, thought exercises, no show jobs for buddies, and patios! 

 

Problem is that if they admit that rezoning changes the land value then the developers that own them might have to pay up on their projects and that isn't going to happen!

Edited by spanky123, 28 December 2022 - 02:02 PM.

[Ismo07]

I think we all realize more density means more land value. It’s only missing middle proponents who argue funky science that postulates if you can’t afford to buy a Phantom, you should by-right get the state to ensure buy an Escalade, in the name of equity.

What stumps me, is despite all of this new density, property taxes keep outpacing inflation. So what happens if we stop building new homes?

 

Property taxes have nothing really to do with density..  Density will never really increase enough in an established City to make up for the increases in the City budget, so typically it will go up.  Taxes might go up 4-7% let's say.  Total assessed value added from new buildings will a miniscule increase to what is already there.

[Mike K.]

^hmmm, that’s not what we’re told. We’re told density and more economic activity makes the local economy stronger and leads to a healthier municipal enterprise. That’s code for more money than the status quo. As in, there is more tax revenue from 150 condos than a ground level gym in a single storey building, or from a surface parking lot. The tax revenues increases six-fold, or something like that.

During rezonings, the land value is already baked in by virtue of the OCP and precedent.

Where the city does generate that 75% uplift is when you subdivide, generally. Or rezone a property well outside of the OCP and precedent.

[Mike K.]

Pacifica has begun accepting applications for this building, which is called The Dalmatian.

There are three tiers of housing. Subsidized, below market, and market.

The income breakdowns are as follows:

Subsidized: BC resident for one year, incomes at or below

- $50,000 for a studio or 1-bedroom suite
- $65,000 for a 2-bedroom suite
- $82,000 for a 3-bedroom suite

Below-market: Total annual household income must fall within the following income figures, as determined by BC Housing:
• $50,001 to $82,310 for a studio or 1-bedroom suite
• $65,001 to $128,810 for a 2-bedroom suite
• $82,001 to $128,810 for a 3-bedroom suite

Market: no details provided, only this snippet: “Pacifica Housing will own and operate the purpose-built subsidized, low-end-market, and market units.”

- https://pacificahous...e-dalmatian.php