Jump to content

      













BUILT
200 Douglas
Use: condo
Address: 200 Douglas Street
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Urban core
Storeys: 6
Condo units: 38 (1BR, 2BR, penthouse)
Sales status: now selling
200 Douglas is a 38 unit luxury condo situated across the street from Victoria's Beacon Hill Park.

Initiall... (view full profile)
Learn more about 200 Douglas on Citified.ca
Photo

[James Bay] 200 Douglas | Condos | 6-storeys | Built - completed in 2014

Condo

  • Please log in to reply
251 replies to this topic

#1 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 02 August 2007 - 02:26 PM

Monday Magazine
Russ Francis

What a great idea! Instead of building more rental housing units, tear existing ones down!

That’s the brilliant notion many developers have these days. By constructing new buildings and selling them as condos, developers can make wads of loot. And because they don’t want any riff-raff hanging around, they can make sure there’s a “no rentals” clause in the strata agreements.

[...]


"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#2 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 02 August 2007 - 02:35 PM

James Bay Beacon
May 2007

Upcoming

Preliminary discussions have been held with local developer Dennis Nyron and architect Frank D’Ambrosio regarding a redevelopment at 200 Douglas Street at Toronto. Details will be reported as they become available.
=======
[sic: it's Nyren] Nyren and D'Ambrosio also did the Parry St. seniors home recently.

This is strange as D'Ambrosio is strictly low-rise, especially in the 'burbs and this project was rumoured to be in the 12 storey range.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#3 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,879 posts

Posted 02 August 2007 - 02:37 PM

While I have sympathy for keeping this building and I think that there is a good case for it. Does Russ francis actually think that writing in fashion serves his cause?

Not only do most new buildings not have a no rentals allowed policy. The Hudson project has rentals allowed enshrined in the building bylaws and this cannot be changed by subsequent home owners. Speak the truth people will be more apt to believe you, speak hogwash and people stop listening.

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#4 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 50,514 posts

Posted 02 August 2007 - 03:32 PM

So Victoria's vacancy rate is fourth lowest in the country. Are the three cities with an even lower vacancy rate "not" building any market housing? Is Victoria bucking a trend or something?

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


#5 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 02 August 2007 - 05:22 PM

If Van Alstine is so concerned with keeping housing affordable, why does he represent an association that fervently oppose density and height? If he's so in tune with the correlation with low rental vacancy rate and lack of affordable housing, why can't he see the lack of supply for buyers as an affordability issue as well???
Developments such as the Breakwater, that is two stories high is going for a minimum of $800,000 each - with no rental component whatsoever - was applauded by the JBNEA simply because of it's lack of height.
I'm having a really, really hard time seeing this Van Alstine as the modern day Robin Hood he wishes others would see him. :-x

#6 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 02 August 2007 - 06:26 PM

James Bay is cool, it has culture, a really neat village core, with a market, and a community garden. It is close to Downtown and to amenities like the park, the beach and Fisherman's Wharf means a passport to car-lessness. I'd love to live there.

Gentrification renews the housing stock, but people do get displaced. The City benefits from added density close to downtown, but people who are displaced don't benefit directly, being evicted is no joke. I don't blame anyone for getting pissed off.

The Residential Tenancy act does demand compensation for being evicted so that the landlord can use, renovate or demolish the building; one month's rent. Also, if, 6 months after the notice, the landlord still hasn't done anything with the unit, there can be a further compensation of two months rent. It is a three month notice, and the tenant can move out early with 10 days notice to the landlord. That is the bare minimum landlords have to do under law. Some might throw in something to sweeten it further - free dump runs, cash, or in big evictions (like 26 families) maybe some relocation assistance would be in order.

I have a question: Does anyone know what condos downtown(ish) that sold at the low end of the condo market in the last few years are charging for rent these days?
Nowadays most people die of a sort of creeping common sense, and discover when it is too late that the only things one never regrets are one's mistakes.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891

#7 D.L.

D.L.
  • Member
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 02 August 2007 - 06:51 PM

I don't think it's right to stop a developer from tearing down an apartment building to build condos just because there is a lack of rental housing. It's his private property, and I don't feel that municipal interests have that much say in such a situation to prevent him from doing what he wants with the building.

#8 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 02 August 2007 - 07:53 PM

I have a question: Does anyone know what condos downtown(ish) that sold at the low end of the condo market in the last few years are charging for rent these days?


I think a two-bedroom in my place (1996 built) and about 800 sq. ft. with ensuite laundry goes for just under $1000.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#9 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,879 posts

Posted 02 August 2007 - 08:13 PM

The three bds in my place (1994) are about 1200.

I completely agree about keeping good housing stock my worry is that if the city adopts a city wide ban on the demolition of rentals it will mean that there will be little or no investment in it and we will have some truly sad buildings not too long from now. In addition most of our core rental buildings are almost 50 years old and are not looking so great also they tend to be low density with lots of wasteful surface parking.

My idea, which I of course like, is that rather than a ban we should quantify the total rental units and the median cost of each building. That way if you want to build a nice new condo building in JB you would have to create an equal number of units at the same median cost either in that project or somewhere else. Of course if we were to do this we should have to give developers higher densities to work with so that they could afford to do both. Also they would be required to provide the rental building before the condo building if they were not on the same site and that could be done by adding it as a condition of receiving the building permit.

That way we are not stuck with degrading rental stock or eyesores and we also are not losing rental accomodations.

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#10 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,948 posts

Posted 02 August 2007 - 10:47 PM

To summarize, a proposal to build 220 rental units was rejected for being "too big and too dense", but a proposal to demolish 30 rental units is a catastrophe in the making.

I trust Russ Francis will set the record straight in his next piece. He wouldn't let Victorians down on a matter as important as this one.

#11 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,948 posts

Posted 02 August 2007 - 10:51 PM

The city planning department said this fell way short of the $3-million cash benefit required under the city's "density bonus" policy.


If only they had thrown a bit more cash the city's way... These greedy developers make me sick.

#12 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 02 August 2007 - 11:13 PM

To summarize, a proposal to build 220 rental units was rejected for being "too big and too dense", but a proposal to demolish 30 rental units is a catastrophe in the making.

I trust Russ Francis will set the record straight in his next piece. He wouldn't let Victorians down on a matter as important as this one.


Good stuff, Astra. I thought the same thing as I read that, but you did the legwork to find the info.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#13 cluseau

cluseau
  • Member
  • 24 posts

Posted 11 September 2007 - 09:58 PM

Hi all; long time lurker, first time poster. I live near this place and received the notice in the mail for the public meeting, but the date crept up on me and I forgot to post here about it. This is the lot on the north corner of Douglas and Simcoe. It's currently got a 3 storey apartment building. Proposal is to build 12 storeys but push the building back to the corner from the street and make it skinnier. Zoning amendment required for density change.

I spoke to the developer and I think he's dreading the hearing from all the NIMBYS, so people with an open mind might be welcome ;)

I'll be there but I've lent my camera to someone who's in Vancouver....will post about if for y'all.

Public Hearing WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 12TH, 7PM, JAMES BAY NEW HORIZONS CENTER (which is I think 234 Menzies, but it's late and the notice is at work).

#14 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 50,514 posts

Posted 12 September 2007 - 12:08 AM

Welcome to the forum!

I think the developer should prepare to hear an earful from the JBNA. They'll come down on this project like the plague.

Is there a website, perhaps?

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


#15 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,879 posts

Posted 12 September 2007 - 06:25 AM

They are going to be torn apart. I think that the only way the developer would be able to swing it is if they were going to offer an equivalent amount of rental units at the same cost as today.

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#16 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 12 September 2007 - 06:29 AM

What's now on the sites of this proposal's immediate neighbours (in terms of height/ massing, etc.)?
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#17 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 12 September 2007 - 07:38 AM

Just checked out the JBNEA site and nothing about it there.
Funny thing about their [url=http://www.jbnea.org/index.html:8605e]title page[/url:8605e]. It's a collage of various buildings, and a shot of one of the parking lots they would hope to preserve, I would assume. :rolleyes:
I'm going to take development pics in the next couple of days, so I'll see if I can take some of this site.

#18 Galvanized

Galvanized
  • Member
  • 1,196 posts

Posted 12 September 2007 - 08:33 AM

^Haha, that's gold! I was wondering what "environment" they were protecting.
Past President of Victoria's Flâneur Union Local 1862

#19 D.L.

D.L.
  • Member
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 12 September 2007 - 10:29 AM

What's now on the sites of this proposal's immediate neighbours (in terms of height/ massing, etc.)?

To the south are a 7 and 8 storey residential buildings, and to the north are two 4 storey, an 8 storey and a 14 storey residential buildings.

#20 cluseau

cluseau
  • Member
  • 24 posts

Posted 12 September 2007 - 03:28 PM

As for the developer, he doesn't seem to have a website (yet). Maybe he's trying to keep it quiet? Talking to him it seems like he knows he's in for an earful.

Company name on the hearing notice is Dallas Point Developments.

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