149 replies to this topic

[amor de cosmos]

I thought Burnside would make a good Kitsilano, but I guess Oak Bay Ave might be good too

[aastra]

I've always thought that Kerrisdale would make a good Esquimalt.

Seriously, can we just stop making these sorts of comparisons? Even for a little while? Victoria is never allowed to just evolve naturally, never allowed to just be Victoria. Anything that ever happens is viewed through the same twisted lens, to serve as evidence of Victoria's tragic and terrifying transformation into some other place, thus inspiring all sorts of outrage and resistance.

It's a neighbourhood commercial street. Neighbourhoods everywhere have neighbourhood commercial streets. It's not just a Vancouver thing, as amazing as that might seem. Oak Bay Avenue has been there for a hundred years. Other neighbourhoods in Victoria have neighbourhood commercial streets, too. No, really. They do.

Would Esquimalt Road make a good Oak Bay Avenue? Maybe Menzies would make a good Beacon Avenue?

[jklymak]

Nope, but Council is the guardian of our community, and if the candidates/councillors are serious about keeping housing affordable, they had better start dealing with the issue of loss of rental stock.

You deal with lack of housing stock by increasing the supply of housing. This proposal does so, as far as I can tell. Sure, the folks living there now will have to move, and probably won't be able to afford the new rents, but the new people moving in were living somewhere, and will create vacancies that will trickle down to these folks. I don't understand the logic of rental requirements, particularly when it leads to fewer new units built.

[Coreyburger]

You deal with lack of housing stock by increasing the supply of housing. This proposal does so, as far as I can tell. Sure, the folks living there now will have to move, and probably won't be able to afford the new rents, but the new people moving in were living somewhere, and will create vacancies that will trickle down to these folks. I don't understand the logic of rental requirements, particularly when it leads to fewer new units built.

Absolutely, you increase supply. We have (almost) no new supply of rental housing stock. I am talking dedicated rental, not condos that happen to be rental market.

As for the rental requirements producing less units built, I say: prove it.

[Mike K.]

As for the rental requirements producing less units built, I say: prove it.

What do you mean? Doesn't the lack of rental development prove it?

Developers are in the business to make money. They build condos because the cost of building rental housing at the restricted densities in this region means creditors are unlikely to back projects due to high construction costs and overly extended payback periods. No backing equals no money, equals no rental housing.

Some projects that are proposed are more often than not turned down by councils who promise rental housing strategies but fail to implement them properly.

There are several major rental companies in this region that have stated on multiple occasions that due to the restrictions on what can be built, they are not investing in new buildings. That aside, pressure on rental units has been lifted by the relatively new and rapid increase of condos available as rentals and secondary suite conversions. Luckily for this region, where government fails the free market steps in and deals with demand.

[Bingo]

Nope, but Council is the guardian of our community, and if the candidates/councillors are serious about keeping housing affordable, they had better start dealing with the issue of loss of rental stock.

Not to worry, the basement suite conversion business is alive and well in Oak Bay, and the demand can't wait for council to regulate it.

[Mike K.]

Here are the plans courtesy of DAU Architecture

[G-Man]

Nice!

[aastra]

Looks pretty good to me. Are those bricks?

[Baro]

Seems ok to me, but I can't see a big increase in numbers of units vs what is being demolished. Certainly an increase in dollar value.

[aastra]

It's hard to tell from the images but I hope they aren't going to go overboard with planters and such and thus make the sidewalks too narrow.

[G-Man]

^ Good point. I wonder if that is some sort of neighbourhood guideline. That one that was built a few blocks West has the same thing which makes it very narrow to walk through.

[MarkoJ]

Interesting application of what appears to be a lot of cedar soffits.

[ryleyb]

Looks excellent to me.

I'm not sure what's going on with the street-side planters, but that's definitely the same as a few blocks up around Davie and Oak Bay, and also Bank and Oak Bay. Neighbourhood plan is my guess....

[Nparker]

...Neighbourhood plan is my guess....

Just one more reason why democracy doesn't work. Most people just don't have a clue. Fewer voices at the design table is not necessarily a bad thing.

"Oh we MUST ensure there are lovely planters on all of our sidewalks...we are the city of gardens after all"...

Of course not all sidewalks can accomodate planters but if it's part of a neighbourhood plan this point is moot.

[Urbanistco]

It's an area wide guideline, hence the ability to go for a site specific variance...

Either ask for beautification on every single bland project or require it by default and allow for variances...

[G-Man]

^ Sorry what do you mean? Which area? I have never seen this occur outside of this strip here.

[Urbanistco]

I meant it as a general statement to area wide guidelines. There is often complaints as to why municipalities as for items, so I was saying rather then expect nothing, they ask for something and if it doesn't fit, exceptions occur via variance.

[VicHockeyFan]

This baby is at public hearing tonight.

[SamCB]

Here are the plans courtesy of DAU Architecture

Is this the same architect as the Atrium? This looks a lot like the atrium on blanshard, looking south. Not a bad thing...