Esquimalt: the Community that Time Forgot?

By Tim Morrison • Published on Thursday, December 3, 2009 • Categorized as Articles, Business & the Local Economy, Politics, Real-estate

As the Capital Regional District experienced a boom of growth over the past decade, there was one place that was left behind. Did anyone notice that Esquimalt, one of metropolitan Victoria’s 13 municipalities, hasn’t changed much? Did anyone care? Why is Esquimalt the place that time forgot? It doesn’t make any sense.

Of all of Victoria’s bedroom communities, Esquimalt has the closest proximity to the downtown core. It is encased by scenic waterfront, blessed with sea breezes, ensconced in green spaces with some of the region’s best parks and recreation on offer. And most importantly in an era of record-breaking housing values, the price is right. While only a fuzzy boundary separates Esquimalt from Vic West (the City of Victoria’s western-most neighbourhood), housing prices decline quite significantly upon crossing the railroad tracks. Esquimalt has it all and at the right price, but yet nothing happens. Minimal development pretty much sums it up. So, why has Esquimalt been so stunted in growth?

Esquimalt is determined to find the answer. Municipal Hall spent this fall engaging residents in a dialogue to help redefine itself into a place more alluring to dollars from developers. Esquimalt politicians and residents have struggled with this question for decades. Most of its 17,000 residents have yearned for a revitalized community with all the perks that come with prosperity, but at the same time, they tend to be conservative, cautious, and even nervous when a major project is proposed.

Esquimalt residents take great pride in their community and their “small town ambiance”. It is not that they fear growth, but rather they just want to ensure it is done right. There is no appetite for rampant growth just for the sake of catching up. In 2007, Esquimalt settled on an Official Community Plan (OCP) that preserves much of the community as single-detached residential homes. For designated high density areas, particularly around the newly-planned “Esquimalt Village” core, it was agreed that buildings would be limited to ten storeys. But now, municipal planning staff will tell you that developers won’t bite. Potential investors want higher density, as evidenced by the controversial Legion Tower proposal at Admirals and Esquimalt Road that hopes to go almost double the OCP guidelines.

Feedback from the community is varied. There are complaints that lack of growth has led to a loss of local businesses and services that packed up and left town. There are pressures on Council to provide more for the community and to keep property tax increases to a minimum. Development is seen as key to filling the financial coffers of the municipality’s ability to fund those demands.

Others are adamant that building higher than ten storeys will destroy the charm of Esquimalt and clog local streets with traffic that the community is not equipped to handle. They are argue that the OCP is more than generous to developers with density allowances that are double what they were prior to 2007. Besides, with the economic downturn, the OCP was never really given a full chance to be tested with developers. When times recover, perhaps Esquimalt’s current OCP will prove more conducive to development.

Long-time residents will tell you that they have heard all this discussion before, and it never seems to go anywhere. But, this time could be different. The population is transforming. Young families and urban professionals are purchasing homes and settling in for the long-haul. They want a vibrant community, but they want it planned right.

Esquimalt enjoys a new, can-do Council with a spirited leader in Mayor Barb Desjardins. As we enter 2010, look to Esquimalt Council to tackle the issue of growth strategies, one that could very likely redefine the community and transform Esquimalt into a beautiful swan suitable to its scenic shores.

To discussion the Esquimalt community plan process, please refer to VibrantVictoria.ca’s forum’s Rethinking Esquimalt’s Town Centre discussion thread.

Tim Morrison is a public policy communications specialist and Editor of EsquimaltReview.com, Esquimalt’s online community newspaper.

Responses to this Headline or Article

The five most recent replies to VibrantVictoria.ca's discussion forum's Rethinking Esquimalt's Town Centre thread, the most relevant thread to the above headline or article:

amor de cosmos

Mar 22, 2009 at 9:40 am

This seems to be the right thread for this:

Quote: Building height topic of Esquimalt forum
By Richard Watts, Times Colonist
March 22, 2009

High-rise towers in Esquimalt? More townhomes? Duplexes? They're all on the table Tuesday at a public forum on Esquimalt's official community plan.

Last September, the previous council delayed approval of a 17-storey condo tower on the site of the Esquimalt Legion at 622 Admirals Rd., pending a revisiting of the community plan, a loose blueprint that determines what kinds of buildings can be built where.

The project had encountered public resistance, largely because the building's height exceeded the 10-storey maximum called for in the 2006 official community plan.

Mayor Barb Desjardins said the controversy was understandable, since many of the critics had participated in the creation of the plan and felt they had a stake in it.

But Desjardins added that Esquimalt needs to increase its population density to collect more tax revenue, although that has to be balanced against the public's vision for the community. "What we felt we needed to do was get a little education going for council and for the community."

The forum will feature architects, municipal planners and professional builders discussing building height, density, the official community plan, and how things like zoning requirements can restrict or encourage community renewal.

One of the guests, Gene Miller of the Urban Design Institute in Victoria, said official community plans can contain the best and worst impulses of a community. "They represent the best collective thought of the community about what it is and where it wants to go," said Miller, adding he also finds the plans frustrating because circumstances can change quickly and "sometimes they turn out to be inflexible, rigid and unresponsive."

But Miller said he believes communities benefit enormously from regular re-examinations and discussions of their official community plans. "

The community forum is set for 6 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. at the Esquimalt Municipal Hall, 1229 Esquimalt Rd.

http://www.timescolonist.com/Building+height+topic+Esquimalt+forum/1415998/story.html

definitely highrises. the stretch from lampson to admirals should become less of a suburban-looking strip mall with hige parking lots, etc & more like its own downtown sort of area

Holden West

Mar 22, 2009 at 10:15 am

As aastra has frequently pointed out with his Fairfield maps, you can have high density without height. What Barb and other Esquimaltians should be looking at is if they want to sculpt a skyline like Victoria did when approving the Hudson and surrounding highrises or just allow it to develop willy-nilly.

Generally, high density is accomodated by podium towers or Paris-style streetwalls. I say the latter doesnt' work in a modern context unless you have Haussmann-style power to completely transform the landscape.

I can see a solid, low rise streetwall with a few junior Juliet towers in the downtown surrounding a cluster of architecturally superior mid to highrise podium towers in the middle of whatever becomes the centre of downtown Esquimalt. But that takes vision and I doubt this meeting will acheive that.

jklymak

Mar 22, 2009 at 12:39 pm

^Capitol Hill in Seattle is one of the densest, most vibrant neighbourhoods you will find anywhere. There are no buildings over 6 storeys, and it was not built as a streetwall or by a master planner. Same with much of San Francisco. I don't think Victoria will be approaching Manhattan or West Side Vancouver density anytime soon, and by advocating big towers as the solution to density you are going to spread the towers out. Every tower you build in Esquimalt or Langford is one fewer tower downtown. Every time you build a 18 story tower downtown there will be two 6 storey buildings that don't get built.

aastra

Mar 22, 2009 at 1:24 pm

Quote: ...Esquimalt needs to increase its population density to collect more tax revenue...

Methinks the problem with a simplistic statement like this is that it makes a 20-story proposal seem like a good thing simply because it represents an increase in density, regardless of how out-of-place the 20-story proposal might be. Just take this one spoon of awful medicine and it's all you'll have to do. Everything else will remain the same.

I'd suggest setting a target (increase density in neighbourhoods along Esquimalt Road by X per cent over 20 years) and then coming up with a vision for accomplishing it that fits Esquimalt's character as much as possible. Arbitrarily inserting a couple of very tall highrises here or there would be a big mistake. We've been the Camosack Manor route before. We should learn from our mistakes.

Be realistic. Will Esquimalt ever achieve the sort of densities we have today along Cook Street or in parts of James Bay? No chance. That would require dozens of new apartment blocks and several highrise buildings, too. But more comfortable increases should be easy to accomplish by utilizing potential development sites more efficiently. Redevelop strip malls and parking lots with urban-format lowrise buildings and allow for the occasional junior highrise on selected sites, and I think Esquimalt should be able to achieve the sort of densities that we have today in the Oaklands/Hillside neighbourhoods of Victoria (for example).

I think they should be able to raise density fairly significantly without doing anything particularly drastic.

Holden West

Mar 22, 2009 at 2:12 pm

It worries me when even Councillors have trouble grasping the relationship between density and height.

Aastra is right. The first step is establishing a realistic density goal. Everything else flows from that.

View the full threadRegister to comment