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

#61 Citified.ca

Citified.ca
  • Administrator
  • 1,759 posts
  • LocationVictoria, BC

Posted 16 July 2019 - 12:10 PM

1010-Fort-Street-July-2019.jpg

An artist's rendering of 1010 Fort Street. The 12-storey, 55-unit rental complex was initially envisioned as a nine-storey low-rise constructed with a modular technique. Switching to a concrete design shaved significant height on each floor, and has allowed developer NVision Properties to deliver on-site parking, an uptick in units and a more refined look at a similar overall height.

 

Refinements to Fort Street rental proposal yield improved design, on-site parking and more units

https://victoria.cit...and-more-units/


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

#62 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 16 July 2019 - 12:23 PM

This now has the potential of being one of the nicest junior high-rises in downtown Victoria...until the DRA and assorted NIMBYs get their hands on it of course.



#63 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 2,795 posts

Posted 16 July 2019 - 12:42 PM

Thanks for the update Mike.

 

Regarding parking:  I wonder if Abstract could make arrangements with the owner of the lot at the SW corner of View and Vancouver Street if more parking is needed than the on-site units included in this most recent proposal?  This lot (not the Mosaic lot) recently started advertising daily parking at a reduced rate...



#64 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 16 July 2019 - 01:00 PM

...Regarding parking:  I wonder if Abstract could make arrangements with the owner of the lot at the SW corner of View and Vancouver Street if more parking is needed than the on-site units included in this most recent proposal? ...

That might work in the short term, but I can't imagine that lot's long term future will involve surface parking.



#65 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 58,102 posts

Posted 16 July 2019 - 01:43 PM

Technically, there is a zero parking requirement for as narrow of a property as 1010 Fort Street, so what they’d like to do is since they can now provide a few stalls, is ask the public what they think about a variety of potential uses.

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


#66 Rob Randall

Rob Randall

    C'mon man, cut out the malarkey

  • Member
  • 13,368 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 06:39 AM

The followup meeting with Downtown residents had some contentious moments. One man praised its modern non-blocky design others had issues with the height, particularly how much taller it was than anything else on Antique Row.

 

Abstract acknowledged that they are going above the height limit but justified it saying they are well behind the setback limits for all but the two top floors and that the OCP suggests taller buildings in this block. 


  • zoomer likes this

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

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#67 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 58,102 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 07:11 AM

They are not going above the height limit. The height limit according to the DCAP is 45 meters along that block and the new design is 39 meters tall. They are also within the density limit.

 

The height of the 9-storey design was 36 meters due to the pre-fab construction method they had originally intended to use.


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


#68 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 58,102 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 07:16 AM

Rising to 39 meters, 1010 Fort Street’s latest design falls six meters below the City of Victoria’s Downtown Core Area Plan’s (DCAP) 45 meter height limit, and the project’s density is also below the maximum permitted in Harris Green. Overall the changes, Cooper believes, represent a more refined product that reflects the future of the Fort Street corridor.

“We’ve put a lot of time and effort into sculpting the architectural features of the building to create visually appealing setbacks and terracing, a podium that is more consistent with the existing built environment, and all while working within the parameters as laid out in the DCAP. The new design lightens up the tower and makes it work so much better, we feel, on the narrow site we’re working with and in relation to its neighbours.” - https://victoria.cit...and-more-units/

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


#69 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 07:17 AM

...others had issues with the height, particularly how much taller it was than anything else on Antique Row...

Colour me shocked. :whyme:


  • jonny and DavidSchell like this

#70 zoomer

zoomer
  • Member
  • 1,690 posts
  • LocationVictoria - Downtown

Posted 17 July 2019 - 07:35 AM

Somehow within the city’s restrictive parameters they’ve managed to come up with a super interesting fresh design instead of the typical boring depressing Blah-k. It ticks every box, including rental so it should Proceed Directly to Go and Collect $200.

Anti-height villagers should rejoice - here’s proof that you can have interesting design in a non-high rise. Although anything over two storeys is likely to bring on seizures for the flat earthers.
  • Nparker and pentastich like this

#71 Rob Randall

Rob Randall

    C'mon man, cut out the malarkey

  • Member
  • 13,368 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 08:18 AM

They are not going above the height limit. The height limit according to the DCAP is 45 meters along that block and the new design is 39 meters tall. They are also within the density limit.

 

The height of the 9-storey design was 36 meters due to the pre-fab construction method they had originally intended to use.

 

Yes, that is correct.

 

I should have clarified that they are exceeding the height limit of the existing zoning which is around four storeys.

 

The OCP and DCAP state there is a strict height limit of 45 metres but Abstract admitted that is not an automatic given. 


  • Mike K. likes this

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

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#72 Rob Randall

Rob Randall

    C'mon man, cut out the malarkey

  • Member
  • 13,368 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 09:02 AM

There was a weird moment when the DRA asked about any supportive housing units and if these were a true amenity of 1010 Fort or merely an amenity transferred from their Truth Centre project in Fairfield. 

 

Abstract said there are no supportive housing units at 1010 Fort at all, and that none were promised.

 

The DRA responded saying yes, this was discussed and they have a recording. 

 

Abstract said they'll have to agree to disagree on that. The Abstract rep was visibly upset at the accusation that they had pulled an amenity.

 

Which is odd because the TC reported last year that Abstract was committed to providing 1010 Fort with 10 below-market suites as part of their Truth Centre amenity package.

 

I assume Abstract since pulled that off the table without clarifying it at a follow-up meeting. 


Edited by Rob Randall, 17 July 2019 - 09:03 AM.

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

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#73 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 58,102 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 09:06 AM

Abstract had initially aired the option of providing ten units of below-market housing as part of this project, but they may now opt to do a cash payout to the City in lieu of those units at 1010 Fort and focus their below-market efforts elsewhere.

 

In other words, there was no set-in-stone requirement to have those units within this project, but it was aired as a workable option at the time.


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


#74 Rob Randall

Rob Randall

    C'mon man, cut out the malarkey

  • Member
  • 13,368 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 09:06 AM

I direct your attention to this notification signed last month by the applicant and the promised subsidized housing transfer from the Truth Centre project:

 

post-26-0-03487100-1562638098.jpg


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

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#75 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 58,102 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 09:08 AM

Yeah, they should not have said "will," but it sounds like they'll pay into the City's housing reserve fund instead. Either way, the contribution will be there.


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


#76 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 09:11 AM

There was a weird moment when the DRA asked about any supportive housing units and if these were a true amenity of 1010 Fort... the TC reported last year that Abstract was committed to providing 1010 Fort with 10 below-market suites as part of their Truth Centre amenity package...

Perhaps Abstract has a different definition of "supportive housing". I am not sure subsidized housing is synonymous with supportive housing.

This is the BC Housing's definition:

Supportive housing provides a range of on-site, non-clinical supports, such as life-skills training, and connections to primary health care, mental health or substance use services.

 


  • pentastich likes this

#77 Rob Randall

Rob Randall

    C'mon man, cut out the malarkey

  • Member
  • 13,368 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 09:14 AM

Sorry, I shouldn't have said "supportive" as you point out that has a specific health support meaning. I meant supportive as in someone else is topping up the market rent. I don't like using "affordable housing" as that may or may not be subsidized. A cheap little basement suite can be affordable.


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

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#78 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 58,102 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 09:20 AM

Supportive/subsidized/affordable are three distinct meanings in the housing world.

 

Supportive housing tends to be allocated to individuals with disabilities or in need of a support structure/social service of some kind. These units also tend to be subsidized.

 

Subsidized housing is housing where the government actively pads monthly rents or absorbs the difference between what the tenant pays and what the actual carrying cost/financial obligation of providing that unit of housing may be. In some cases, other tenants, not the government or the landlord, subsidize individuals within subsidized units.

 

Affordable is a government-backed or organization-backed project (such as religious developments like Baptist Housing projects) that includes efficiencies/cost cutting opportunities that are not available or not practical in the open market, and therefore their monthly carrying cost is below that of a market unit, which makes it below-market/affordable when those efficiencies are priced into the rent. Government projects benefit from lower interest rates, access to government monies, grants, taxation benefits, faster development approvals, DCC reductions or outright cancellation, etc.

 

Affordable, however, does not equate with 'attainable.' Attainable housing is unique to an individual and while a $1,650/month two-bedroom affordable unit is affordable to one tenant as the market option is $1,950/month, it may not be attainable to someone who can only afford a basement suite.


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


#79 Rob Randall

Rob Randall

    C'mon man, cut out the malarkey

  • Member
  • 13,368 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 09:32 AM

Yeah, they should not have said "will," 

 

No kidding.

 

What isn't clear is 1010 Fort's amenity. This supposed cash payout is still a legacy from Truth Centre.

 

McColl and Charity were there. McColl said this project adds nothing in terms of amenities, not even adequate ground floor setbacks. He said his Jukebox project was successful while giving huge ground floor setbacks and keeping to only nine storeys.


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

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#80 zoomer

zoomer
  • Member
  • 1,690 posts
  • LocationVictoria - Downtown

Posted 17 July 2019 - 09:41 AM

No kidding.
 
What isn't clear is 1010 Fort's amenity. This supposed cash payout is still a legacy from Truth Centre.
 
McColl and Charity were there. McColl said this project adds nothing in terms of amenities, not even adequate ground floor setbacks. He said his Jukebox project was successful while giving huge ground floor setbacks and keeping to only nine storeys.


Huge ground floor setbacks?

Just what the city needs, developers biting each other’s ankles. I walked by Jukebox yesterday and the finishing is a bit shoddy and the metal balcony screens already look like crap and won’t age well.
  • Nparker likes this

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