Jump to content

      














PROPOSED
1124 Vancouver Street / 941-953 View Street
Use: rental
Address: 941-953 View Street
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Downtown Victoria
Storeys: 6
1124 Vancouver Street / 941-953 View Street is a proposal for a six-storey purpose-built rental complex along ... (view full profile)
Learn more about 1124 Vancouver Street / 941-953 View Street on Citified.ca
Photo

[Downtown] 1124 Vancouver Street / 941-953 View Street | Rentals | 6-storeys | Proposed


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#21 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher
  • Member
  • 12,451 posts

Posted 14 November 2019 - 05:47 AM

Plans show space for 171 bicycles, including 124 in a secure pavilion, in an outdoor courtyard, that would include bike repair space.

 

A key issue is that the site comes with what Mancini describes as significant geological challenges because it is close to the Juan De Fuca fault line.

 

That’s why the plan is to build a partially sunken concrete parkade and a wood-framed building above, resulting in a relatively light-weight construction, he said.

 

 

https://www.timescol...site-1.24007296

 

 

oh ya that does sound challenging for sure.  too bad that fault line runs right under view street there near vancouver.  good thing the jukebox was built on the other side of vancouver street well away from that fault line.  does anyone know if london drugs is on that fault line?  or that pizza hut and bin 4?  i might stop shopping there if that's the case.

 

oh hold on he says it's "close" to the fault line.  maybe the fault line is in the middle of vancouver street?  it's very confusing.  the city needs to mark this fault line so nobody walks on it.


Edited by Victoria Watcher, 14 November 2019 - 05:53 AM.


#22 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 55,333 posts

Posted 14 November 2019 - 07:53 AM

And the TC just ran with the oddity, never questioning what was actually meant as the fault line affects hundreds of square kilometres, not just that intersection.
  • Kapten Kapsell and Victoria Watcher like this

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


#23 shoeflack

shoeflack
  • Member
  • 2,677 posts

Posted 14 November 2019 - 09:05 AM

Jukebox was also challenged by this area. They had to spend months driving piles to support the concrete structure, and they only ended up doing one level of underground parking. There's actually two levels of above ground parking at the Jukebox.

 

There area is definitely a challenge for all of the projects in the vicinity that have been proposed. The reality though is that every corner of Vancouver Island is "close to" a fault line...heck, most of BC is. But the added challenge of the soil/clay in this area makes digging down and laying a foundation particularly challenging/costly, so I can appreciate their desire to go wood instead of concrete here.



#24 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher
  • Member
  • 12,451 posts

Posted 14 November 2019 - 09:42 AM

i think we know what they meant with the soil conditions and peat and some kind of former/underground creek/aquifer there.  it was just an odd way of the tc phrasing it.


Edited by Victoria Watcher, 14 November 2019 - 09:46 AM.


#25 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 55,333 posts

Posted 14 November 2019 - 10:10 AM

The TC phrased it that way because the letter from the architect phrased it that way, and the article uses quotes from the letter.


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


#26 IPH

IPH
  • Member
  • 103 posts

Posted 14 November 2019 - 11:45 AM

it will be interesting to see what happens to the City's repairs to this intersection as more buildings with underground parking are constructed around it.  Even with only one level of underground there will be some dewatering occur as a result of perimeter drains around their foundations.  highly saturated peat will compress under load as it is dewatered so there could be some settlement depending on how deep the city went with their remedial measures.  Jukebox is on piles so it shouldn't impact that building but any that are built on shallow raft slabs, older buildings on standard spread footings, as well as the road sidewalk etc. near this intersection may see some settlement.    



#27 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,075 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 28 January 2020 - 11:00 AM

Victoria DRA CALUC doesn't seem happy with this one. They've had two meetings and have requested a third. Via: https://victoriadra....LUC-Letters.pdf

 

Affordability comes up a lot, and I really wonder whether people have grasped that Council adopted an Affordable Housing Policy in June that exempts rental projects from the required housing contributions. If it's 100% rentals, then there's no obligation to have 20% secured affordable housing. If you want the 20% secured affordable housing, then the project very likely flips to condos for the remaining 80%.



#28 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 25,484 posts

Posted 28 January 2020 - 11:14 AM

Does no one realize it's difficult to build affordable housing on the most expensive land in the CoV?


  • DavidSchell and Victoria Watcher like this

#29 threePs

threePs
  • Member
  • 62 posts

Posted 28 January 2020 - 12:17 PM

CALUC's have far too much impact on the ability to advance a project, even the mayor knows this. We need to leave it up to the educated and trained staff to assess the merits of CALUC's questions/concerns/suggestions and then cross reference against policy and bylaws to assess how supportable a project may be. CALUC's should not be able to withhold an application being signed off simply because a few people dont like a perceived lack of amenities or whatever theyre concerned about at that given time.


  • Nparker and DavidSchell like this

#30 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 13,296 posts

Posted 28 January 2020 - 01:11 PM

CALUC's have far too much impact on the ability to advance a project, even the mayor knows this. We need to leave it up to the educated and trained staff to assess the merits of CALUC's questions/concerns/suggestions and then cross reference against policy and bylaws to assess how supportable a project may be. CALUC's should not be able to withhold an application being signed off simply because a few people dont like a perceived lack of amenities or whatever theyre concerned about at that given time.

 

I think that the DRA request is very reasonable. The City's affordable housing guidelines are confusing with rents based on salaries up to $110K for a family being considered "affordable".  



#31 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 55,333 posts

Posted 28 January 2020 - 02:16 PM

With a $110k income does the City's calculation equate to $36,600 as a suitable payment for rent for the year, or $3,050 per month? Or does their calculation allow for more than roughly 1/3 of your income going to rent, or less?


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


#32 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,075 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 28 January 2020 - 02:26 PM

The City's definition of "affordable" is no more than 1/3rd of income going to rent.

 

The City's defined "affordable rental units," which are secured through legal agreements under the Inclusionary Housing and Community Amenity Policy, target low to moderate incomes using the following table:

Capture.PNG

 

Note that "rent" is typically understood to include strata fees where rental units are located in a strata-titled building


  • Mike K. and Kapten Kapsell like this

#33 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 25,484 posts

Posted 28 January 2020 - 02:55 PM

Based on the above figures the CoV should be subsidizing some of my monthly housing costs; instead they increase my property taxes.



#34 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 13,296 posts

Posted 28 January 2020 - 03:23 PM

^ Correct. Near-market housing assumes income up to $110K.



#35 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,075 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 28 January 2020 - 04:25 PM

^ Correct. Near-market housing assumes income up to $110K.

 

I believe that's the Capital Region Housing Corporation eligibility threshold, not City of Victoria

Capture.PNG

 

Victoria's rent/income/unit matrix is below, and applies to those units secured through legal agreements (via https://www.victoria...o_FINAL Web.pdf)

Capture.PNG

 

Lots of different numbers, organizations, and definitions being thrown around. It's hard to keep track!



#36 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 13,296 posts

Posted 28 January 2020 - 05:16 PM

^ And that was my point about it being confusing. If the neighbourhood is expecting apartments at $1,000 a month and the developer $2,000 then that will be a source of contention.



#37 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 2,658 posts

Posted 16 February 2020 - 07:41 PM

Here’s the DRA’s letter to the city re: this proposal: https://victoriadra....LUC-Letters.pdf

#38 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 25,484 posts

Posted 16 February 2020 - 08:06 PM

I think this helps to explain why it takes so long to get projects from concept to completion in the CoV

...The need for a third CALUC meeting was raised...the DRA LUC will postpone any additional CALUC meetings for this project until after the applicant takes the proposal to the Advisory Design Panel meeting and revised plans are submitted to the City for consideration...

It's been said before but community associations have far too much sway in the development process. They continually delay and derail projects (Northern Junk anyone?) ultimately increasing costs to everyone involved.


  • DavidSchell likes this

#39 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,101 posts

Posted 16 February 2020 - 09:42 PM

It might be one of the first times I have agreed with the DRA in years. This building is terrible as is.


Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#40 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 25,484 posts

Posted 16 February 2020 - 09:45 PM

I don't disagree that the design for this building is pretty uninspiring, but I have no reason to believe that multiple rounds with the DRA is going to bring about improvements.



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