73 replies to this topic

[Nparker]

...There are some great Tudor Revival buildings in Victoria...

None of which are in the 1000 block of Fort Street.

[Mike K.]

^Which one? The bike and shoe stores are really good, I like it. Tudor influenced by the Arts and Crafts style.

https://victoriaheri...n/Fort1023.html

https://archives.vic...5-fort-street-2

Any of it.

My money is on some dudes in the 60s saying, “let’s do Tudor today! And then tomorrow let’s do some hacienda stuff on a wood-framed four-storey apartment and call it Casa Lance!”

[Rob Randall]

Well, like I say, there's good and bad; and Tudor Revival is a pretty broad term. The English Inn on Lampson is probably as authentic as any reproduction. I mean, if you want the most authentic Tudor there won't be toilets.

[Mike K.]

Now that’s an example of Tudor Revival, for sure. It’s worth preserving and that’s what Aragon’s doing in partnership Merrick.

To PPP’s point, the 1000-block of Fort is cute. It works, and has a funky uniqueness perhaps in all of BC. But I think we all know eventually these kids will flee the coop.

[yellow_baron]

I'm as density bro as they come but I do find myself struggling with this one. Jawl's are exceptional developers, Cascadia are talented designers...but I love these buildings haha! I find their scale, detail, and materiality border on cartoonish but overall these things work together for a fantastic composition of human friendly retail design. The redevelopment will alter that forever and that's part of what makes a city...a city. it's unrealistic that they will remain like this forever but I think its still ok to mourn their "loss".

 

I feel the same way. I love that neighbourhood and walking the street, and this proposal seems very jarring. We're all for new and shiny these days and as much as I appreciate the Bear and Joeys of the world, there's something precious about walking into Sally Bun and that little stretch of bright colours and small stores. 

[Nparker]

There's no reason why the ground floor of the new building can't be made to be quirky and welcoming. The neighbourhood just needs to make this desire known.

[zoomer]

For starters, and this may be a terrible idea, but let’s give this a shot - for all of Fort street, let’s encourage narrow lot, 4 to 12 storey developments (maybe a bit higher depending on location and with setbacks). Avoid big developments, focus on the funky missing middle, upper middle?

The key is.. no residential parking allowed.

Thus a continuous streetscape with no parking entrances. Lots of other locations throughout downtown it’s fine to have underground parking, but this would allow Fort to be a real shopping draw. We need bold ideas to draw shoppers, diners and residents downtown. Funky and original designs would be encouraged, and likely due to the no parking most new housing would then be rental or ‘affordable’ condos.

Also, let’s get on with it and put something in that dang empty lot in front of View Towers. On the Quadra and View street sides, tear down the silly cinder block wall, and redevelop that into storefronts. If View Towers still needs that much parking then it can be underground on the Fort street side, but accessed through the current View street location.

[Victoria Watcher]

shopping for what? retail is dead.

[Mike K.]

Parking reduction or nixing doesn’t impact affordability in a meaningful way, I’m afraid. It just creates problems down the line.

[Victoria Watcher]

not at all sure what you mean by “meaningful”. it affects affordability directly. a comparable unit WITH PARKING sells or rents for more. that’s easy to see.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 17 August 2021 - 06:19 AM.

[Mike K.]

90% of the time the landlord will untether the parking from the unit if a tenant doesn’t need it, and charge someone else for it, so the renter isn’t paying for what they don’t need. On the flip side condo rental tenants rent out their stall if it comes with the unit.

On the resale side, it doesn’t make a difference over the long term, because “no” units of a certain size include parking any more, or very limited amounts of units do, making them unicorns and outliers.

Consider that you could have purchased a studio without parking for an affordable $250k in 2016. That unit sells for just under $400k today, and the new/future buyer has to figure out where to park their vehicle.

[Victoria Watcher]

90% of the time the landlord will untether the parking from the unit if a tenant doesn’t need it, and charge someone else for it, so the renter isn’t paying for what they don’t need. On the flip side condo rental tenants rent out their stall if it comes with the unit.

 

both these examples are excellent demonstrations of how the unit becomes more affordable for the person that does not need the stall.  isn't that was the comment was about, the owner or buyer paying less total or less per month to live?

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 17 August 2021 - 06:29 AM.

[Victoria Watcher]

On the resale side, it doesn’t make a difference over the long term, because “no” units of a certain size include parking any more, or very limited amounts of units do, making them unicorns and outliers.

Consider that you could have purchased a studio without parking for an affordable $250k in 2016. That unit sells for just under $400k today, and the new/future buyer has to figure out where to park their vehicle.

 

look at resale units in the metropolitan (1 or 0 stalls) or songhees (1 or 2 stalls) and see the disparity in pricing.  it's a huge factor in pricing the unit.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 17 August 2021 - 06:31 AM.

[Mike K.]

both these examples are excellent demonstrations of how the unit becomes more affordable for the person that does not need the stall. isn't that was the comment was about, the owner or buyer paying less total or less per month to live?

It’s a wash. The stall does not impact affordability because either it’s untethered (no cost) or rented by the tenant (cost recovery).

Regarding the Metropolitan, the units tend to be much larger, too. But the parking makes them affordable for a buyer with a car, as the monthly mortgage cost is much lower servicing the parking premium than paying for parking in a public or private garage. A buyer without a car can rent out their stall (cost recovery and actually a profit relative to the mortgage cost).

[Victoria Watcher]

i'm not sure if follow.  

 

Metrolpolitan unit with parking purchase price - $600,000

Metropolitan unit with parking purchase price - $670,000

 

immediate saving - $70,000 if you buy the no-stall unit.

 

if you buy the more expensive one, and do not use the stall, you earn $100/mo. renting the stall

 

monthly saving/revenue - $100/mo.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 17 August 2021 - 06:54 AM.

[Mike K.]

I’m seeing a unit with parking for $398k (a studio without parking in a new building is the same price).

Unless you can link the two units ($600k vs $670k) we don’t know what we’re actually comparing. And how does a $600k unit not include parking? Something’s amiss.

[Victoria Watcher]

I am just making up numbers. inventory is way too low right now to find ideal comparisons. but if you have access to sales history you’d see it.

[Mike K.]

That’s what I’m saying, it’s not an affordability measure when we stretch out the timelines.

Studio condos without parking at new-build condo projects are re-selling on the open market for the same price as older 1BR units (150 sq ft larger) with parking. In fact the better deal dollar for dollar foot for foot looks like the unit with parking.

It all washes out over the long term.

[Kapten Kapsell]

One thing to keep in mind- and I imagine this is going to come up at the CALUC meeting- is the fact that the existing retail building- as cool as it is- may actually be structurally unsound as a result of the soil conditions at the site.  This was certainly the case, I think, at the former Da Tandoor location that Abstract tried to redevelop recently.

[Rob Randall]

Moderate liquefaction hazard. High amplification hazard:

 

http://cmscontent.nr...S_GM2000-01.pdf