[Downtown Victoria] The Jukebox | Condos | 8-storeys | Approved

[G-Man]

^ Well that is unfortunate. I am not sure why you would need to set-back townhouses from the street in this location anyways.

Forcing retail in this location will only cause difficulty for the developer and the future shop owners and potentially take away the consumer benefit of the new owners from Fort Street

[Mike K.]

Actually no, it’s due to the reduced setback requirements if the ground floor is commercial. Adding to that craziness the developer proposed to have these changed to townhouses, which the city decided would then require a complete DVP re-submission. Further asinine red tape is then added by the city bylaw requirement that at least 50% of the commercial units must be ‘retail’. In such small spaces this does not pencil and is not going to be practical.

That's mad! The Harris Green development guidelines were outdated the year they were revealed. In 2012 they are completely ass-backwards and counterproductive.

[Baro]

Does Victoria do this "war of attrition" against every development on purpose to try to kill them or is it just a motiveless mindless red-tape beast that's grown out of control?

[Islander888]

Originally Posted by Baro

Does Victoria do this "war of attrition" against every development on purpose to try to kill them or is it just a motiveless mindless red-tape beast that's grown out of control?

Pretty much yes, but It’s important to differentiate between the decision makers, the policy makers and the bureaucrats. Common sense appears to take a back seat to individual opinions and ‘wants’ within the planning and engineering departments, and whilst city hall has taken steps to alleviate some of the frustrations developers face many still remain. It clearly makes no sense to have commercial on the ground floor in this location, townhouses would sell in a heartbeat and create a more street friendly environment than small little stores that close at 5pm. Look at how well this has worked elsewhere, and how it creates nice little doorway sleeping areas if commercial is mandated. This section of View street is clearly not retail freindly, yet the planning department continues to insist that retail stores be placed on the street because that’s what the zoning stipulates, common sense doesn’t enter into the equation, but then again that applies to a lot of the Harris green zoning. It’s frustrating to see developers move on from what could be a great project due to the bureaucracy or to end up with something that nobody is happy with due to the whim of a bureaucrat

[VicHockeyFan]

The thing is, does street-level retail really "kill" a deal this big?

Ya, it might be a dumb idea, but say they end up getting 25% lower lease rates than a normal, busier street because of the area. Does that kill it? Not all retail has to attract a walk-by crowd to be viable. Hair salons, specialty retail, stuff like that can work there. Does "retail" mean they can't have say, lawyers offices there?

[Holden West]

I think live/work units like 860 View would work here.

[G-Man]

^ Exactly. Some are townhouses some are art galleries.

[Mike K.]

The best example of this sort of commercial space is at 1030 Yates. There's a hair salon and I'm not sure what else. Certainly no street presence nor a desire to attract walk-ins, that's for sure.

http://maps.google.com/?ll=48.425278...346.56,,0,-4.5

[Holden West]

I thought that the deal with 1030 Yates was that it was supposed to be residential ground floor but was changed to retail at the last minute which is what accounts for the lack of cohesion and commercial appeal you allude to.

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by Mike K.

The best example of this sort of commercial space is at 1030 Yates. There's a hair salon and I'm not sure what else. Certainly no street presence nor a desire to attract walk-ins, that's for sure.

http://maps.google.com/?ll=48.425278...346.56,,0,-4.5

Ya, there's a lawyer there too, live/work. But really, that commercial is like it's not even trying. It's almost hiding.

[Mike K.]

...and with the recessed stairs leading up to the commercial Jukebox just seems like it's trying to replicate 1030.

I thought that the deal with 1030 Yates was that it was supposed to be residential ground floor but was changed to retail at the last minute which is what accounts for the lack of cohesion and commercial appeal you allude to.

First I've heard but that would explain a few things.

[Islander888]

Originally Posted by VicHockeyFan

The thing is, does street-level retail really "kill" a deal this big?

Ya, it might be a dumb idea, but say they end up getting 25% lower lease rates than a normal, busier street because of the area. Does that kill it? Not all retail has to attract a walk-by crowd to be viable. Hair salons, specialty retail, stuff like that can work there. Does "retail" mean they can't have say, lawyers offices there?

Great points and common sense would suggest that you are right however.......... remember the earlier post re: common sense, the City mandates that 51% must be 'retail' I.E restaurants, boutiques, stores etc Lawyers, accountants, Hairdressers etc are ok but only up to 49%. These spaces are far too small to be viable for any sort of retail and as for a restaurant, well how many failed in the Mosaic before it switched over? (I believe it was 4?) The venting and fire systems alone would make it a money losing operation before it even opened. Does it kill the project? probably not, but it makes the developer look twice before proceeding, or switching to pre-sales before starting anything. Without the reduced setbacks by going commercial on the ground floor, thus allowing increased density, this project would not be viable in todays market.

[Islander888]

Originally Posted by Mike K.

...and with the recessed stairs leading up to the commercial Jukebox just seems like it's trying to replicate 1030.



First I've heard but that would explain a few things.

That’s an old plan, due to the cities insistence that the ground floor be commercial the developer was forced to re-design the frontage, the latest version has leveled the ground floor out allowing street level access to these spaces, due in large part to the requirement of wheelchair accessibility for commercial spaces. This is further exacerbated by the additional requirement of a wheelchair accessible washroom within the space, taking what was already a limited floor area and making it even less desirable to any potential ‘retailer’. I realize this is a one-sided simplistic view (mine J ) and the urbanization of downtown requires more commercial outlets, however forcing a round peg into a square hole leaves you with something that looks like it doesn’t belong, IMHO

[Mike K.]

Thanks for your input, Islander. I am also glad to hear that the stairs connecting "commercial" spaces have been axed.

[Mike K.]

Have we seen the website for the project already? Not much on the site -- but turn down your volume as they've got a music widget that makes some noise as you enter.

[gumgum]

The quality of that site makes me very nervous about the quality of the project.

[Baro]

So glad I use flash-blocker. What an awful site !

[gumgum]

I rolled my eyes as I walked by the site today. Still a sign is with a rendering saying "Completion spring 2012" is up.

Part of me is hopeful that this project is dead. I am not a big fan of the rendering. Nor do I think any commercial is a good idea.

[Gary H]

Their website is gone now.

[Mike K.]

Signage has now come down.

...something about this lot, hey?

[Nparker]

No not the greatest proposal, but it was something. As we all know Victoria's love of vacant lots, abandoned/boarded up buildings and of course heritage parking supercedes all development proposals. I expect in a few years we shall see something similar (i.e. abandoned & overgrown) where St. Andrews school currently operates.

[2F2R]

>>>...something about this lot, hey?<<<

No, I think it's something about Victoria and it's attitude towards development.

[Mike K.]

This project was approved and initial plans by the developers were to launch well in advance of Era, Union, even Promontory. The duo touted no underground parking and its lengthy excavation period as a major plus for their project. Somewhere along the way the developer lost momentum and the project never took off the ground.

It's all very strange.

[ZGsta]

How is it Victoria's attitude towards development that blew this up?
Developer bought the land, got a project approved, created a design, and then failed to execute it. It happens everywhere and will happen again.

There's a lot of backwards thinking in this city, but we can't just "blame Victoria" every time a developer fails.

[VicHockeyFan]

There is a lot coming out of the ground right now, can't blame anyone for holding off a bit.