Jump to content

      













APPROVED
Tresuh
Use: condo
Address: 607 Speed Avenue
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Urban core
Storeys: 14
Condo units: 245 (studio/bachelor, 1BR, 2BR)
Sales status: in planning
Tresuh 14 and six-storey, 245-unit condominium complex between the 600-blocks of Speed and Frances avenues in ... (view full profile)
Learn more about Tresuh on Citified.ca
Photo

[Burnside-Gorge] Tresuh (Speed Avenue) | Condos | 14 & 6-storeys | Approved


  • Please log in to reply
120 replies to this topic

#21 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher
  • Member
  • 6,918 posts

Posted 13 March 2019 - 03:11 AM

A Ridiculous project. Greedy. The builder is looking to get a big profit only. No consideration for the local community.
I live on Speed Avenue so these buildings would be right on my face.
Speed Avenue is a VERY SMALL street; you cannot build such buildings on such a small street. The parking is already ridiculous as of NOW. If the building is burning down, a fire truck cannot come to our building because of the parking issues, because cars are parked on both sides of Speed Avenue so a firetruck DOES not fit. The garbage company could not collect the garbage for like a week because they were not able to drive the truck on our street. HUGE parking problem. You want to build another 12 stores buildings? 2 of them? RIDICULOUS.UNSAFE.
Does anyone at City of Victoria is actually listening to what local residents on Speed Avenue have to say?? Why do you approve such unrealistic projects??
Affordable housing is something that the builder wants to 'sell' us. Young people cannot afford to live in Victoria. Unless you have rich parents. To try to 'sell" affordable housing in Mayfair area means simply lying to your face.
This location needs LESS density not more density. Build a park instead.


speed is an odd street. when did you move there? did you suspect it would remain a tiny residential street for decades to come despite the surrroundings?
  • sebberry, jonny and sdwright.vic like this

#22 aet25

aet25
  • Member
  • 2 posts

Posted 13 March 2019 - 05:10 AM

speed is an odd street. when did you move there? did you suspect it would remain a tiny residential street for decades to come despite the surroundings

 

Do you actually live on Speed Avenue? It is easy to have opinions when an issue is not affecting you. Would you feel safe if the firetruck cannot even drive to your street?

Do you understand there is a HUGE parking problem already and that is putting the resident's safety at risk if service trucks cannot drive on this street? Do you think another 2 12 stores building would improve parking availability? Every condo here has 1 parking spot (most people have 2 cars; I have 1 only "lucky me") and there are 2 visitors spots only. Far from sufficient. There are also cars  that it feels like they "live" on the street.

I am not against development, but the proposed development is unrealistic, greedy and not not take at all into consideration the current local issues.


Edited by aet25, 13 March 2019 - 05:12 AM.


#23 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher
  • Member
  • 6,918 posts

Posted 13 March 2019 - 05:13 AM

don’t you have a driveway to park your car in?

make a call to the fire people. they will come have a look. they might remove street parking though.

how long have you lived / owned there?

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 13 March 2019 - 05:14 AM.

  • jonny likes this

#24 Robb

Robb
  • Member
  • 188 posts

Posted 13 March 2019 - 05:23 AM

speed is an odd street. when did you move there? did you suspect it would remain a tiny residential street for decades to come despite the surrroundings?

 

Not OP, but I moved here in 2007.  I expected the street to continue to be developed to condo buildings similar to Mayfair Walk and Brizo 19.  More of the same or moderate growth, isn't that reasonable?


  • jonny and Victoria Watcher like this

#25 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,999 posts

Posted 13 March 2019 - 05:51 AM

...I am not against development, but the proposed development is unrealistic, greedy and [does] not take at all into consideration the current local issues...

I believe the above phrase is embossed on the cover of the NIMBY 101 text book.



#26 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 51,437 posts

Posted 13 March 2019 - 06:56 AM

Just to confirm, the two 12-storey towers are already approved. It looks like now the new plan is to consolidate most of the density into a single taller tower.

There’s a BC Housing component to this, isn’t there?

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


#27 Mattjvd

Mattjvd
  • Member
  • 901 posts

Posted 13 March 2019 - 07:18 AM

Seems to me it does a great job of taking local issues into account. Mainly the issue that we have a supply gap and the Douglas street corridor needs more density.
  • Nparker, jonny and Brantastic like this

#28 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 51,437 posts

Posted 13 March 2019 - 07:27 AM

Here's what was approved by the City in June of 2016.

 

And back in the fall of 2017 soil conditions were presenting an issue for this project.

 

"A pre-construction soil analysis of the building site – situated between Speed Street and Frances Avenue off Douglas Street – has uncovered issues described by geotechnical engineers as “some of the worst in the city” in reference to 'dewatering' of the land and the impact a deep excavation could have on neighbouring properties.

 

In order to proceed with construction of the 12-storey towers, the developer has requested permission to amend the underground parking component approved by the City of Victoria that was to have accommodated 200 vehicles in a two level design."

 

 

So this explains why the latest rendition has cut back the parking supply.


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


#29 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,999 posts

Posted 13 March 2019 - 07:43 AM

One wonders if the developer ever considered an above ground parking component with the residential tower rising above this?



#30 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 51,437 posts

Posted 13 March 2019 - 07:47 AM

That adds height, and when you just fought the law for years and finally won, the last thing you want to do is substitute above-ground residential height for parking. 


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


#31 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,999 posts

Posted 13 March 2019 - 07:57 AM

That adds height, and when you just fought the law for years and finally won, the last thing you want to do is substitute above-ground residential height for parking. 

I realize this would add height, but I wonder if getting the NIMBYs to agree to extra height would be an easier battle than fighting them on reduced parking.



#32 PPPdev

PPPdev
  • Member
  • 213 posts

Posted 13 March 2019 - 08:02 AM

oooookkkk sorry for the delay, below are some renderings for review!

 

Project details:

- Building 1: 12 storey, 179 homes, ground floor double height work/live townhouses and yes, this building will be constructed in mass timber, likely a CLT or GLT product. It'll be one of the largest of its kind in North America, very cool for Victoria!

- Building 2: 6 storey LWF, 66 homes, ground floor townhouses on Speed. We are proposing half this building under the BC Housing Affordable Homeownership program.

 

Parking...ahh the kiss of death...we are decoupling parking for every unit and offering as a separate sale item. Two & one bed homes get a right of first refusal with the remaining studios able to purchase thereafter. There is a single storey underground parkade with 127 stalls and a surface level of dispersed mews parking with 54 stalls. We will be providing two on-site Modo cars with free memberships to the homes without parking.

 

To alleviate some of the aforementioned issues, we are proposing an SRW across the entire site for the residents of Speed to be able to access Frances as an alternative way out which currently does not exist. It's unfortunate that one of the VV members feels it doesn't fit but the fact is this project is approved for two 12 storey very tired buildings. We have tried to re-envision the site in a more contemporary manner in terms of architecture, construction technology, and parking ratios that reflect consumer choice and reality.

 

Hope you folks like it!

 

Architect is D'Ambrosio urbanism + architecture
 

 

Attached Images

  • SF-PER-01A.jpg
  • SF-PER-02A.jpg
  • SF-PER-10C.jpg
  • SF-PER-16C.jpg

  • jonny, thundergun and Mattjvd like this

#33 PPPdev

PPPdev
  • Member
  • 213 posts

Posted 13 March 2019 - 08:03 AM

Two more nuggets

 

Regarding height, no can do, the OCP says max 12 storey and the revised BCBC 2020 allowing mass timber only allows 12 storey so any height increases trigger OCP amendment and no mass timber.

Attached Images

  • SF-PER-SOUTHWEST-18D.jpg
  • test-09G.jpg

  • jonny, RFS and Jackerbie like this

#34 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,999 posts

Posted 13 March 2019 - 08:12 AM

Oh dear, it's a widescraper.  :(



#35 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher
  • Member
  • 6,918 posts

Posted 13 March 2019 - 08:14 AM

Parking...ahh the kiss of death...we are decoupling parking for every unit and offering as a separate sale item. Two & one bed homes get a right of first refusal with the remaining studios able to purchase thereafter. There is a single storey underground parkade with 127 stalls and a surface level of dispersed mews parking with 54 stalls. We will be providing two on-site Modo cars with free memberships to the homes without parking.

 

 

so would this make a studio (that wants parking) very difficult to sell until all the other unit types are sold?



#36 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher
  • Member
  • 6,918 posts

Posted 13 March 2019 - 08:17 AM

Oh dear, it's a widescraper.  :(

 

the view from the roof of mayfair makes it looks objectionable to some.  the one from sleep country is not bad.


Edited by Victoria Watcher, 13 March 2019 - 08:20 AM.


#37 RFS

RFS
  • Member
  • 3,641 posts

Posted 13 March 2019 - 08:17 AM

I like it



#38 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,999 posts

Posted 13 March 2019 - 08:19 AM

the view from the roof of mayfair makes it looks bad.  the one from sleep country is not bad.

Unfortunately, all I see is a slighter shorter, 21st century version of View Towers.


  • Robb likes this

#39 RFS

RFS
  • Member
  • 3,641 posts

Posted 13 March 2019 - 08:24 AM

Unfortunately, all I see is a slighter shorter, 21st century version of View Towers.

I think you are blinded by your hatred of VT



#40 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 15,157 posts

Posted 13 March 2019 - 08:31 AM

I'd say it's more of a 21st-century version of the Princess Patricia apartments. It's pretty wide and it's pretty repetitive, too. But the overall esthetic is much better than I expected. I like the ground level, I like the interrupting level halfway up, and I like the stuff on the roof. Methinks anyone who has no problem with Yello on Yates should have no problem with this place. Actually, this design would probably age better.

 

Slim it down by two units and I'd be cheering for it. As it is, I'd say it sets a pretty good tone for residential development around Mayfair going forward. It looks clean and modern. There's nothing lame or cheap about it.



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.
 



1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users