Jump to content

      












PROPOSED
1010 Fort Street
Uses: rental, commercial
Address: 1010 Fort Street
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Downtown Victoria
Storeys: 12
1010 Fort Street is a proposal for a 12-storey purpose-built rental complex with ground floor retail space alo... (view full profile)
Learn more about 1010 Fort Street on Citified.ca
Photo

[Harris Green] 1010 Fort Street | Rentals, commercial | 12-storeys | Proposed


  • Please log in to reply
185 replies to this topic

#21 tjv

tjv
  • Member
  • 2,403 posts

Posted 24 May 2018 - 06:55 AM

can someone please clarify is there is an official definition of "affordable"?  Is it that a 1 bedroom 1 bath is supposed to cost or rent for no more than X or can a developer just slap on the name "affordable" like the word "luxury" these days no one cares after it starts construction



#22 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 59,352 posts

Posted 24 May 2018 - 07:13 AM

Other projects have independently assessed current market conditions and priced their units x% below that. The assessment is conducted by a third party.

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


#23 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,416 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 24 May 2018 - 07:18 AM

can someone please clarify is there is an official definition of "affordable"?  Is it that a 1 bedroom 1 bath is supposed to cost or rent for no more than X or can a developer just slap on the name "affordable" like the word "luxury" these days no one cares after it starts construction

 

CoV official definition of "affordable housing" is housing that costs less than 30% of gross household income. 

 

The 10 "affordable rental units" will be subject to a housing agreement, which will set the maximum rental price. The agreement may also include language to restrict these units to certain income bands. The housing agreement is typically in the form of a legal agreement and a bylaw, and Council generally asks for the agreement to be for 20 years.



#24 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,416 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 24 May 2018 - 07:21 AM

^ For example, Richmond has a comprehensive Affordable Housing Strategy that sets the following minimum requirements for 1BR units secured through a housing agreement: unit size min. 50 sq. m, rent max. $975/mo, income max. $38,250 (full info sheet here: https://www.richmond...fo_2120497.pdf)


Edited by Jackerbie, 24 May 2018 - 07:21 AM.


#25 tjv

tjv
  • Member
  • 2,403 posts

Posted 24 May 2018 - 07:32 AM

Other projects have independently assessed current market conditions and priced their units x% below that. The assessment is conducted by a third party.

Were there other projects besides Chard's on Yates that did this?  I think that's the only one

 

CoV official definition of "affordable housing" is housing that costs less than 30% of gross household income. 

 

The 10 "affordable rental units" will be subject to a housing agreement, which will set the maximum rental price. The agreement may also include language to restrict these units to certain income bands. The housing agreement is typically in the form of a legal agreement and a bylaw, and Council generally asks for the agreement to be for 20 years.

do we have recent projects say in the last 2 years where the max rental price was set and if so what was it.  I am curious

 

I believe the "affordable" units in the new building across from Save on Foods arena (sorry I can't remember the names let alone spell them) were starting at 1300 or 1400 a month?



#26 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,416 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 24 May 2018 - 07:39 AM

Were there other projects besides Chard's on Yates that did this?  I think that's the only one

 

do we have recent projects say in the last 2 years where the max rental price was set and if so what was it.  I am curious

 

I believe the "affordable" units in the new building across from Save on Foods arena (sorry I can't remember the names let alone spell them) were starting at 1300 or 1400 a month?

 

There are a bunch of housing agreements with a variety of purposes. I don't know of one off-hand that sets rates the same way Richmond does, but here's what a quick Google search turned up:

 

Cook and Oliphant has a housing agreement, with 9 units set at 10% below market rate http://www.victoria....g Agreement.pdf

 

701 Belleville has a housing agreement, which limits the units to seniors' renal housing only http://www.victoria.... Belleville.pdf

 

990 Heywood has a housing agreement, which prevents the strata council from passing bylaws to restrict rental of units http://www.victoria....986 Heywood.pdf


Edited by Jackerbie, 24 May 2018 - 07:40 AM.


#27 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 27,397 posts

Posted 24 May 2018 - 07:55 AM

...701 Belleville has a housing agreement, which limits the units to seniors' renal housing only...

So if I am a senior and I don't have kidney problems I can't live here?  ;)



#28 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,416 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 24 May 2018 - 07:56 AM

So if I am a senior and I don't have kidney problems I can't live here?  ;)

 

No, only your kidneys can live there. You have to find other accommodations for the rest of you.


  • Nparker likes this

#29 Torrontes

Torrontes
  • Member
  • 294 posts

Posted 24 May 2018 - 10:08 AM

The proposed Housing Agreement in respect of this project is for 5 Low Income Units and 5 Moderate Income Units. Monthly rents for Low Income Units cannot exceed 30% of the Housing Income Limits (set by BC Housing) that apply to the type of unit. Monthly rents for the Moderate Income Units cannot exceed the lesser of: Market Rent ; and 30% of Moderate Household Income (Statscan figure for Victoria) divided by 12. It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it.


  • Mike K. and Jackerbie like this

#30 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 2,874 posts

Posted 28 September 2018 - 03:47 PM

This is going to CoTW Thursday Oct 4; staff are recommending that Council “send this back” for design revisions.

#31 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 27,397 posts

Posted 28 September 2018 - 04:12 PM

In this case I agree with the city. It just needs "something more". I am just not sure what that is.



#32 Torrontes

Torrontes
  • Member
  • 294 posts

Posted 09 October 2018 - 10:09 AM

Council agreed with City staff and sent it back for revisions. 

 

Council encourages affordable rental units, but they are not so progressive as to be accepting of a building with no parking! Obviously a step too far for them to consider pre-election.



#33 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 27,397 posts

Posted 09 October 2018 - 10:16 AM

...Council encourages affordable rental units, but they are not so progressive as to be accepting of a building with no parking...

How does council rationalize this within their concept of biketopia?



#34 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,416 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 09 October 2018 - 10:21 AM

Council agreed with City staff and sent it back for revisions. 

 

Council encourages affordable rental units, but they are not so progressive as to be accepting of a building with no parking! Obviously a step too far for them to consider pre-election.

 

This development is going to be a tricky one because the developer is asking for the moon and offering next to nothing. They're asking for a parking variance from 45 to 0, and the "Transportation Demand Measure" they are proposing is 10 extra bike stalls. That's it.

 

The affordable housing contribution is a roll-over from a different project, so cannot be counted as part of any community amenity contribution for this development. 

 

There is a long list of requested variances, and at the end of the day the proposal is inconsistent with the OCP and the Downtown Area Plan.



#35 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 59,352 posts

Posted 09 October 2018 - 10:23 AM

Azzurro has 65-units and two levels of office/commercial space. Only two visitor parking stalls are on-site: https://victoria.cit...entals/azzurro/


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


#36 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,416 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 09 October 2018 - 10:51 AM

Azzurro has 65-units and two levels of office/commercial space. Only two visitor parking stalls are on-site: https://victoria.cit...entals/azzurro/

 

Azzurro also provided 2 car share vehicles and spaces, car share memberships for residential and commercial tenants, 1 year transit passes for each residential unit, and set aside a $20,000 transportation fund. A little more than 10 bicycle spaces.


Edited by Jackerbie, 09 October 2018 - 10:51 AM.


#37 Rob Randall

Rob Randall

    C'mon man, cut out the malarkey

  • Member
  • 14,109 posts

Posted 09 October 2018 - 10:56 AM

This development is going to be a tricky one because the developer is asking for the moon and offering next to nothing. They're asking for a parking variance from 45 to 0, and the "Transportation Demand Measure" they are proposing is 10 extra bike stalls. That's it.

 

The affordable housing contribution is a roll-over from a different project, so cannot be counted as part of any community amenity contribution for this development. 

 

There is a long list of requested variances, and at the end of the day the proposal is inconsistent with the OCP and the Downtown Area Plan.

 

But it sounds like staff merely wanted a second look at the design. They wouldn't have let it get this far if staff had strong views that this was the a bad interpretation of the city plan by being way too tall or dense.


Edited by Rob Randall, 09 October 2018 - 10:57 AM.

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

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#38 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,416 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 09 October 2018 - 11:05 AM

But it sounds like staff merely wanted a second look at the design. They wouldn't have let it get this far if staff had strong views that this was the a bad interpretation of the city plan by being way too tall or dense.

 

Staff are asking for Council backing on their interpretation and application of the OCP design guidelines. When an applicant wants to push forward against the wishes of staff, you let them push forward with a recommendation that Council deny the application and send it back. They're asking for a redo on the design work to comply with the OCP and a Transportation Management Plan to address the requested parking variance.



#39 Rob Randall

Rob Randall

    C'mon man, cut out the malarkey

  • Member
  • 14,109 posts

Posted 08 July 2019 - 06:06 PM

1010B.jpg

 

1010.jpg


Edited by Rob Randall, 08 July 2019 - 06:08 PM.

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

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#40 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 16,743 posts

Posted 08 July 2019 - 06:33 PM

They want to go taller than the original concept on the previous page of this thread? I liked that one as it was. Small footprint, not too tall, but still having clearly defined ground, podium, "tower", and topmost levels. I also liked the grid windows (what do you call those?) and the rooftop patios on top of the sections.



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