[Fairfield] Cook & Pendergast (Pic-A-Flic Video site) | Residential and commercial

Any updates on how the community presentation?

............how the community presentation was accepted?

I see the plans have gone back to the developer from the City. That didn't take too long.

Perhaps this project will move along a little faster than 200 Cook.

City is reviewing revised plans submitted by developer on May 10th, but no details on Development Tracker at this point.

This is shaping up to become quite an amenity for the neighbourhood. Aragon will provide a daycare operator space for 50-to-57 children at a 50% discounted lease rate for seven years, followed by a 25% reduced rate for an additional three. Five children who reside in the building will also be eligible to receive a 50% daycare fee subsidy.

Subsidized daycare to play key role in dev pitched for Pic-A-Flic site in Cook Street Village

This is shaping up to become quite an amenity for the neighbourhood. Aragon will provide a daycare operator space for 50-to-57 children...

One person's amenity is another person's disadvantage. I would never knowingly move into a building that housed a daycare centre.

The racket at midnight would be terrible.

Does a 1500 square foot outside play area meet the statutory requirements for 50-57 children? The requirement under the Child Care Licensing Regulation is 6 square meters per child (~65 sq. ft), which would be 3,230 sq. ft. for 50 children. 

The only outside area of any size on the site, other than the unit patios, is where the parking stalls on the north side of the building are currently shown.

Edited by Torrontes, 03 December 2018 - 08:48 AM.

This is going to CotW this coming week with a staff recommendation to move it to a public hearing. The project now includes a subsidized daycare (presumably at ground floor).

The daycare is not in this development. Aragon owns a strata CRU in the building next door (380 Cook Street), which is the proposed location of the daycare.

The daycare is not in this development. Aragon owns a strata CRU in the building next door (380 Cook Street), which is the proposed location of the daycare.

They would still need the outside play area, which likely means converting some of the surface parking at 380 Cook Street.

Referred back to staff. Staff and developer are to work with BC Housing on possibly having 10-20% of the units secured affordable rental units, and the three parking spaces on Pendergast are to be eliminated from the proposal.

Isitt moved to send it back to staff and have the developer come back with a 100% rental proposal, but that motion was defeated 4-3.

No dog fountain on this one.

Referred back to staff. Staff and developer are to work with BC Housing on possibly having 10-20% of the units secured affordable rental units, and the three parking spaces on Pendergast are to be eliminated from the proposal.

 

Isitt moved to send it back to staff and have the developer come back with a 100% rental proposal, but that motion was defeated 4-3.

 

No dog fountain on this one.

Do we know why Councillor Isitt wanted this to be rental instead of strata?  I think that the city usually requires new stratas not to restrict rental units *anyway*, so building the structure as a condo building wouldn't prevent individual owners from renting out their suites.

Pic-A-Flic is now up on Pandora in the Stadacona Centre.

Edited by Mystic-Pizza, 06 December 2018 - 01:40 PM.

Do we know why Councillor Isitt wanted this to be rental instead of strata?...

Because he hates private property ownership/pandering to his base.

Do we know why Councillor Isitt wanted this to be rental instead of strata?  I think that the city usually requires new stratas not to restrict rental units *anyway*, so building the structure as a condo building wouldn't prevent individual owners from renting out their suites.

Isitt is opposed to basically any new strata development in the City. I don't remember all the details of his motion, but he did speak to a saturation of market condos in the region and an increased need for everything else on the housing spectrum.

Isitt is opposed to basically any new strata development in the City. I don't remember all the details of his motion, but he did speak to a saturation of market condos in the region and an increased need for everything else on the housing spectrum.

I'm not convinced that we have a saturation of market condos in the region; for one thing, market condos are increasingly becoming long-term living options for people who would rather purchase a condo than a single family house (I think I saw a statistic showing that just 27% of Canadian households are traditiona. 'two parent with at least one child at home' families).  Furthermore, market condos- especially at the more modest price points- give renters an opportunity to become home owners, thereby freeing up rental units.  Lastly, I'm sure the developer wouldn't be bringing these condo units to market if the pool of potential buyers is limited...

Edited by Kapten Kapsell, 06 December 2018 - 02:02 PM.

Isitt ...did speak to a saturation of market condos in the region...

I guess that's why the prices of condos have plummeted 

...The MLS® HPI benchmark value for a condominium in the Victoria Core area in November 2017 was $456,200, while the benchmark value for the same condominium in November 2018 increased by 9.7 per cent to $500,500...

https://www.vreb.org...rent-statistics

Do we know why Councillor Isitt wanted this to be rental instead of strata?  I think that the city usually requires new stratas not to restrict rental units *anyway*, so building the structure as a condo building wouldn't prevent individual owners from renting out their suites.

Renters don't need capital. Just because wealthy capitalist strata unit owners cannot restrict others from renting, doesn't mean they can't reside in the unit themselves.

It was a blatant attempt to try and regulate the nature of the realty interest available, as distinct from the built form and use of the building. Just because it's not provided for in any bylaw, plan, or lawful, is immaterial. It's a shot across the bow of developers. Fortunately, at least 4 of the 7 didn't want to start out the term with a law suit.

What's up with eliminating the three street-side parking spots? They only want bicycle owners and local residents to frequent CSV? Not a good sign for local SMBs.

If I was the developer, I would take the day care proposal off the table after that reception.