61 replies to this topic

[Kapten Kapsell]

TL Housing Solutions (part of Townline) is partnering with Victoria Cool Aid Society on a proposal to replace the (temporary) shelter in the former Tally Ho site on Douglas and Burnside.

 

Details:

• 6 storeys
• 153 affordable rental units
• 2 storeys of underground parking
• Daycare on site
• 32,000 square feet of commercial space
• Low Hammond Rowe is the architectural firm

 

The project would be constructed in two phases with the Burnside phase going first in order to leave the Tally Ho temporary facility intact longer.  All of the above features are in the Burnside phase.  The *second phase* of the project, which will front Douglas, is a 6-storey commercial building .

Edited by Kapten Kapsell, 30 November 2018 - 08:35 PM.

[Kapten Kapsell]

Plans are up on dev tracker now.

A rendering:

[Nparker]

It's rather institutional looking (hospital chic), but I suppose it's an improvement on the Tally Ho.

Is the building in the background the "phase 2" project that will front along Douglas Street or still part of phase 1?

 

Edit: Having now checked out the plans on Development Tracker I believe all the buildings in the above rendering are part of phase 1

Edited by Nparker, 06 December 2018 - 12:40 PM.

[Kapten Kapsell]

Here are some additional renderings of this project:

 

 

 

[tjv]

TL Housing Solutions (part of Townline) is partnering with Victoria Cool Aid Society

yah "partnering" sure.  Where is the public tender for this, its public funds it should go to public tender.  Hmmm, maybe my firm should "partner" with the CoV for the next phase of bike lanes.  This is a prime example of government waste and zero accountability to the taxpayer!

[sdwright.vic]

I get what your saying, but Cool Aid is developing this, not the city, which means, through a loop hole, no answering to the taxpayers.

Every project the city does from this point forward will most likely be this way.

[G-Man]

This building is way too small for the area. Not sure why they aren't tripling the height and density and turning some of it over to market rentals or condos to recoup the cost?

[Nparker]

...Not sure why they aren't tripling the height and density..

'Cuz Victoria??

[Jackerbie]

This building is way too small for the area. Not sure why they aren't tripling the height and density and turning some of it over to market rentals or condos to recoup the cost?

 

They're proposing the max. allowable residential FSR under the OCP. They have an additional 0.49 commercial FSR to play with if they want to. Of course that doesn't address why the OCP is written the way it, but this development is consistent with current policy.

[Daveyboy]

^^

The OCP was written in part to ensure that there was a limit to the amount of shelters and supportive housing in the Burnside-Gorge area.   Although the neighbourhood contains just 7% of the city's population, it holds 77% of shelter units and 36% of supportive housing found in the city of Victoria.  The outcry against the warehousing of homeless in that area played a role in those limits placed in the OCP.

 

https://www.timescol...ents-1.23063545

[G-Man]

But the city should be using its head here. I mean they can have the same amount of affordable units in one 12 storey building and then build a second 12 storey building at market value and some of the costs would be covered. That this is the density and height limit on this lot is ridiculous.

[Baro]

I'm the surface parking lot labeled "community space"

[Jackerbie]

But the city should be using its head here. I mean they can have the same amount of affordable units in one 12 storey building and then build a second 12 storey building at market value and some of the costs would be covered. That this is the density and height limit on this lot is ridiculous.

 

It's not about supported or shelter units. The property designation is employment with limited residential. All residential uses, whether market condo, rental, co-op housing, affordable, etc., are limited to 1.5 FSR. The Burnside Gorge plan was adopted, what, a year ago? Amending it this early it would be a tough sell, especially given the parties involved.

 

I'm the surface parking lot labeled "community space"

 

The way some people talk about parking, a surface lot could definitely be considered a community space.

 

It looks like the south side is a single row of parking, with the real community space behind bollards, though.

[Mattjvd]

It's not about supported or shelter units. The property designation is employment with limited residential. All residential uses, whether market condo, rental, co-op housing, affordable, etc., are limited to 1.5 FSR. The Burnside Gorge plan was adopted, what, a year ago? Amending it this early it would be a tough sell, especially given the parties involved.

 

 

The way some people talk about parking, a surface lot could definitely be considered a community space.

 

It looks like the south side is a single row of parking, with the real community space behind bollards, though.

Who/what are the parties involved? Can't council just put forward a motion to rezone the property to 3.0 FSR (for example), have a vote, then turn it over to staff to rubber stamp?

[Jackerbie]

Who/what are the parties involved? Can't council just put forward a motion to rezone the property to 3.0 FSR (for example), have a vote, then turn it over to staff to rubber stamp?

 

Cool Aid. I have my doubts that the Burnside community would be chomping at the bit to increase the allowable residential density of a supportive housing development, even if the additional density was for market rentals exclusively.

 

Council could instruct staff to prepare an amendment to the Official Community Plan, which would trigger a Public Hearing on the amendment bylaw. Both the OCP amendment bylaw and the rezoning bylaw could be read at the same Public Hearing. Council would vote on adopting both bylaws only after the Public Hearing is closed.

[G-Man]

Sure but at the end of the day all the public consultations are redundant. The council can change it and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Having land along Douglas Street at anything less than 6:1 FSR should be illegal. I thought this is a housing “crisis”. A crisis calls for extraordinary measures.

[Casual Kev]

Sure but at the end of the day all the public consultations are redundant. The council can change it and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Having land along Douglas Street at anything less than 6:1 FSR should be illegal. I thought this is a housing “crisis”. A crisis calls for extraordinary measures.

 

of course everyone wants to solve the housing crisis, they just don't want to be inconvenienced while doing it.

[threePs]

Cool Aid. I have my doubts that the Burnside community would be chomping at the bit to increase the allowable residential density of a supportive housing development, even if the additional density was for market rentals exclusively.

 

See recently denied proposal from Kool Aid on Gorge Rd just a couple weeks before the election. Was all due to community outcry for this exact reason, they don't want to be carrying the load for the city for supportive/affordable housing.

[Nparker]

...they don't want to be carrying the load for the city for supportive/affordable housing.

Funny, I am almost certain 844 Johnson and Our Place are in the heart of downtown.

[G-Man]

The issue is that Burnside-Gorge isn't a real neighbourhood. It is about three mushed together. Those that live at Burnside and Finlayson can point to the Rock Bay Shelter and say it's too much but they are completely different places.