Jump to content

      



























APPROVED
Christie Point, building A
Use: rental
Address: Craigowen Road
Municipality: View Royal
Region: Urban core
Storeys: 6
Christie Point, building A, is a six-storey purpose-built rental complex part of the eight-phase Christie Poin... (view full profile)
Learn more about Christie Point, building A on Citified.ca
Photo

[View Royal] Christie Point


  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

#41 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 17 April 2017 - 06:36 AM

This group seems to be fairly even-handed in their views:

 

http://christiepoint...considerations/


<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>

#42 Sparky

Sparky

    GET OFF MY LAWN

  • Moderator
  • 13,114 posts

Posted 17 April 2017 - 07:23 AM

^ Nice clean informative website.

#43 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:41 PM

The written version of the petition attracted 105 signatures, while the online edition received support from 580 people.

 

 

http://www.saanichne...-royal-council/

 

That does not sound all that strong.  How many people live there now?


<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>

#44 Kungsberg

Kungsberg
  • Member
  • 419 posts

Posted 11 June 2017 - 08:15 AM

Article this morning in the TC about this proposal:

 

 

 

Flashpoint at Christie Point: Residents, developer clash over $200M plan

 

Katherine Dedyna / Times Colonist

JUNE 11, 2017

http://www.timescolo...h.aN7uZsYF.dpuf

 

…View Royal council is expected to decide on Tuesday whether to allow the proposal to advance to a public hearing. Toronto’s Realstar Group is seeking to rezone the site of the two-storey Christie Point Apartments so that it can construct, over several years, seven buildings up to six storeys high, almost tripling the number of rental units to 473 from 161.

 

Should a hearing take place, as View Royal Mayor David Screech expects it will, it would likely happen by the end of the month.

 

Screech ranks the issue as the most complex he has faced in 15 years on council, generating hundreds of pages of documents making the case for and against a development that would cause hardship for longtime tenants, but add more than 300 rental units.

 

It is the largest housing proposal the town has seen, for rental or purchase.

 

The plight of the current tenants is “the hardest part of the proposal,” Screech said.

“My heart goes out to the existing tenants.”

 

But, he noted, “the need for purpose-built rental housing in the region has never been higher.”

 

“If passed, council would insist that the units stay as rental in perpetuity,” he said. In any event, it’s clear that the municipality must be “smarter and smarter about how we use land,” with higher density closer to the capital core and the military base.

 

…..The proposal is not a done deal, Screech said......

 

 

Attached Images

  • Christie Point.jpg


#45 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,390 posts

Posted 11 June 2017 - 08:34 AM

It boggles my mind how time-after-time when asked, residents of the CRD cite the high cost of housing as the region's #1 issue, yet whenever a proposal comes along that would add more housing stock it is always met with opposition.  :whyme:



#46 dasmo

dasmo

    Grand Master ✔

  • Member
  • 15,225 posts

Posted 11 June 2017 - 09:13 AM

Different perspectives should be heard. Land use affects everyone and just because we need more inventory doesn't mean we shouldn't do it right and listen to all the stakeholders. I personally think this development is good to do but as far as affordability goes it doesn't do much for it. I'm pretty sure those getting evicted will have to pay double. It's also important to review how a large increase in density impacts the area so it's done right. Look at the mess arose no Home Depot in Langford for an example of just doing it....

#47 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,390 posts

Posted 11 June 2017 - 09:33 AM

If it were just the Christie Point proposal I might be more understanding, but every single project in the region that proposes increased density gets objections. It's tiresome. People have to either accept high prices with existing density or learn that significantly increasing supply is the only way in which we can address the affordability issue in the CRD.



#48 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 11 June 2017 - 09:50 AM

Different perspectives should be heard. Land use affects everyone and just because we need more inventory doesn't mean we shouldn't do it right and listen to all the stakeholders.

I personally think this development is good to do but as far as affordability goes it doesn't do much for it. 

 

The folks that have lived there for years have enjoyed living on a cul de sac surrounded by water. How idyllic.

I think most of that will remain including the water views. I support the new increase in density for the point.


  • Nparker and tedward like this

#49 dasmo

dasmo

    Grand Master ✔

  • Member
  • 15,225 posts

Posted 11 June 2017 - 10:08 AM

If it were just the Christie Point proposal I might be more understanding, but every single project in the region that proposes increased density gets objections. It's tiresome. People have to either accept high prices with existing density or learn that significantly increasing supply is the only way in which we can address the affordability issue in the CRD.

like I said, this does nothing for affordability. It's demolishing low cost housing and replacing it with luxury rentals. It's more appropriate for the location and a good spot for density if done right and I support that in general. But.... it's not going to create more affordable housing by a long shot.

#50 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 11 June 2017 - 10:10 AM

As Mike K. has pointed out here, old stock like that can simply not be kept up with the major upgrades it needs, due to our rent controls and increasing property taxes.  It has to go.  Demolishing or massive renovation - with the resulting rent increases then allowed for new tenants - is the only solution financially.


Edited by VicHockeyFan, 11 June 2017 - 10:11 AM.

  • Nparker and Bingo like this
<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>

#51 johnk

johnk
  • Member
  • 1,608 posts

Posted 11 June 2017 - 10:42 AM

The peril of renting. Your home can disappear out from under you. Bad enough news if you're 40, beyond horrible if you're 80.

#52 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,155 posts

Posted 11 June 2017 - 10:43 AM

It is impossible to build what most Victorians now agree is "affordable" housing unless the government has a significant stake in the project and therefore all tax payers have heavily subsidized it. And even then the rents are hardly what was considered "affordable" even five years ago.

The notion that we can build free market "affordable" housing is just another form of NIMBYISM, as is the accepted narrative that everything being built is "luxury" housing. Since no one can argue against building more housing, the latest NIMBY stance is that it's not "affordable," and therefore must be "luxury," and therefore objected. That's really what it all boils down to.

I will wager that the Azzurro, which promised starting rents at around $750 for a studio apartment during its approvals phase, will offer rents starting at around $850 to $900. To the average Victorian that is not what they would consider "affordable," but the project got a pass as "affordable" at the council table because it's built by a non-profit.

I would further wager that we'll see the top floor units at Azzurro rent for $1,100 to $1,250, pretty much in line with what a market studio would rent for on a comparable floor. But again, it's an "affordable" development so it's good to go. But had the exact same project been built by a for-profit developer the units would have been referred to as "luxury," lol.


  • Nparker, sebberry and johnk like this

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


#53 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 11 June 2017 - 11:40 AM

Mike, will Azzurro have ensuite laundry and dishwashers?  Is there any savings these days by omitting that?

 

One way to have affordable housing without the taxpayers taking a big hit is providing the land, waiving development fees, and quite frankly changing some dumb laws re unit size or amenities and/or accessibility.

 

Would anyone buy a unit with only a stand-up shower, common laundry, no dishwasher or oven, no elevator, no parking, no balconies?  Probably not, but they'd rent it (see: Dominion Rocket).  


Edited by VicHockeyFan, 11 June 2017 - 11:41 AM.

<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>

#54 dasmo

dasmo

    Grand Master ✔

  • Member
  • 15,225 posts

Posted 11 June 2017 - 12:41 PM

Exactly, it's impossible to build affordable housing. That is my point. Old stock is the last bastion of affordability so anything replacing it shouldn't claim to solve affordability. Again, I'm for this, I'm pro development. I'm anti BS.
  • jonny and nerka like this

#55 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,390 posts

Posted 11 June 2017 - 02:02 PM

...Old stock is the last bastion of affordability so anything replacing it shouldn't claim to solve affordability...

But again, I must reiterate, building additional housing stock of any type, is a better way to create greater overall affordability than letting the current housing stock fall into disrepair simply to keep it "affordable". Sooner or later older properties will need to undergo significant repairs or be replaced and that might as well be with greater density.


  • sdwright.vic likes this

#56 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 11 June 2017 - 05:45 PM

This is where Susan Lees lives, she's one of the Saanich voices opposed to the Christie Point development.

 

screenshot-www.google.ca-2017-06-11-18-42-13.png

 

 

 

 

Six storeys for several of the proposed seven new buildings might not sound high, but it will look “monstrous” in such a bucolic setting,” said Susan Lees, whose house overlooks Christie Point from Saanich.

 

“The other analogy floating around is that it will look like a cruise ship sitting out there 24/7.”

 

- See more at: http://www.timescolo...h.U6UEPUiX.dpuf

 

 

Now, imagine swishing around in Susan's oceanfront pool in your floating lounge chair, and looking over that way.  At best it will occupy 2% of the view in that direction.

 

54-1851_3.jpg


Edited by VicHockeyFan, 11 June 2017 - 05:56 PM.

<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>

#57 weisguy86

weisguy86
  • Member
  • 115 posts

Posted 11 June 2017 - 06:03 PM

like I said, this does nothing for affordability. It's demolishing low cost housing and replacing it with luxury rentals. It's more appropriate for the location and a good spot for density if done right and I support that in general. But.... it's not going to create more affordable housing by a long shot.

 

The current units are not low cost, they are at market rates with the exception of a few people that have lived there for a long time and have benefited from the maximum 3% per year increase. The new units will also be at market rates, accepting that the market rate is climbing year after year.


  • Nparker likes this

#58 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,390 posts

Posted 11 June 2017 - 06:33 PM

This is where Susan Lees lives, she's one of the Saanich voices opposed to the Christie Point development...

 

The very definition of NIMBY.  :whyme:



#59 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 12,701 posts

Posted 11 June 2017 - 07:12 PM

I've driven out there a couple of times and thought it was a beautiful piece of property with a bunch of tatty looking rental units. You should be able to charge a premium for living out there, definitely not the place to build "affordable" read cheap, housing.


  • Nparker and jonny like this
Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#60 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,155 posts

Posted 12 June 2017 - 04:34 AM

Mike, will Azzurro have ensuite laundry and dishwashers? Is there any savings these days by omitting that?

One way to have affordable housing without the taxpayers taking a big hit is providing the land, waiving development fees, and quite frankly changing some dumb laws re unit size or amenities and/or accessibility.


I can't speak to those details, unfortunately.

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


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