1984 replies to this topic

[Nparker]

She's saying people are concerned Mason St. will become a busy traffic corridor...

Yes, a street that currently is barely wide enough to accomodate 2 cars side-by-side is surely going to become the next Autobahn. Typical NIMBY scaremongering.

[VicHockeyFan]

...the NPNA land use meeting about the St. Andrew's site is Thursday, September 6, North Park Manor.

[Nparker]

Oh great, I am out of town on that date. I wonder if I can persuade anyone to act as my proxy (or at least my eyes & ears) at the meeting?

[VicHockeyFan]

Oh great, I am out of town on that date. I wonder if I can persuade anyone to act as my proxy (or at least my eyes & ears) at the meeting?

Ya, I can.

I'd propose that if they need to enter/exit off mason, then dead-end Mason 2/3 of the way down from Cook, and only have traffic to the new housing come in off Vancouver.

[Nparker]

Thanks VHF!

[VicHockeyFan]

So this is still moving forward but a few steps away from public hearing, for sure.

[G-Man]

Anyone read the Vic New article?

Oh boy...

While I think there is some area for improvement this response is ridiculous. Particularly Gudgeon's. She actually thinks that because she is the NP liaison that she should vote the way the community association thinks? She also equates the CA with the general population.

[VicHockeyFan]

Anyone read the Vic New article?

Oh boy...

While I think there is some area for improvement this response is ridiculous. Particularly Gudgeon's. She actually thinks that because she is the NP liaison that she should vote the way the community association thinks? She also equates the CA with the general population.

I think an extra 400 or however many people in the new complex would be awesome for North Park, and great for more eyes on the park at night. Having aid that, there are only 4 homes on Mason St. west of the commercial block, I don't know why Blue Skies doesn't just buy them. 3 are knock-downs.

Anyway, I'll speak in favour, anger my friends on the NA, and the thing will go one way or another. I'm not that concerned. It can sit as a field for another few years, or become townhouses, or whatever.

[gumgum]

I can understand why they wouldn't want part of Mason turned into a loading area. But I hope they see the benefits of density. Smart density though? Torn.

[Rob Randall]

While I think there is some area for improvement this response is ridiculous. Particularly Gudgeon's. She actually thinks that because she is the NP liaison that she should vote the way the community association thinks? She also equates the CA with the general population.

This is why Cook St. Village's Castana project turned into a circus. The developer and residents both claimed the public was on their side. The Community Association was against it but the developers produced evidence that Fairfield as a whole thought it was a good idea.

“(The St. Andrew’s) site is a great development site that could really strengthen the neighbourhood.”

At the same time, she added, “I’m elected to represent the neighbourhood (and) the neighbourhood is opposed.”

Some may appreciate Gudgeon's honesty but she is being very undiplomatic here.

Legitimate concerns:

Mason St. becomes a loading dock. Too often developers cheap out on the back of buildings. The architects need to sharpen their pencils and design a back end that is as engaging as the money shot depicted in their Pandora St. renderings. Experience has shown that traffic is a non-issue. The turnover of cars, even from a large parkade, is negligible if you do the math. However, clattering noise from a parking entrance gate can be annoying at 3 am and steps should be taken to design something acceptable for neighbours.

[rjag]

This is why Cook St. Village's Castana project turned into a circus. The developer and residents both claimed the public was on their side. The Community Association was against it but the developers produced evidence that Fairfield as a whole thought it was a good idea.


Some may appreciate Gudgeon's honesty but she is being very undiplomatic here.

Have to agree here as the whole issue of cars is BS, if they had concerns about cars on the 'high-volume bike corridor' then they would have made the MacDonalds change out their vehicle entrance as there are way more cars per hour going in there than there would be in a 24 hour period to an apartment building.

I've visited the coffee shop on Mason St and the furniture store a few times but can honestly say its a few nice older buildings and they have some character but the rest of the street is non-existent and possesses little if any 'character' and the volume of traffic is practically non-existent. I think it will remain as such as condo's dont usually draw a lot of traffic unless theres a grow-op or a brothel:cop:

Its nice to obtain an opinion from the locals and provide solutions to their concerns but do they have veto powers?

We lived in Fairfield in the early 90's for 2 1/2 years. Right across the street was one of the main members of the Community Association. He used to rave to us about how they were the 'guardians' of the community etc, 1 day I asked him why they never asked our opinion on projects, instead they always played the NIMBY card and he said that as residents we weren't informed enough to make decisions so they decided for us.....needless to say I laughed in his face and called him an arrogant ass.

[Baro]

Every time she opens her mouth (or gets behind the wheel) I regret voting for Gudgeon.

[G-Man]

If the vehicle exit/entrance was near the "farm than it really wouldn't have any impact on the houses. That said perhaps moving the entrance exit to Pandora would be a good compromise. That would leave all of Mason for townhouse entrances which would be nice.

The benefit to the community of this type of project will be immense. It will ensure that the park is no longer a drug hangout and will open up the possibility of more redevelopment along Mason to the West which is currently one of the worst blocks in the city IMO.

[tedward]

Lemme get this straight: Gudgeon is being vilified because she has the temerity to attempt to represent her constituents and seems to believe that the project can go ahead after addressing their concerns?

Really!?!?!

I guess I missed the part of civics class where once elected a city council member has no responsibility to address the concerns of citizens. I must also have missed the subsequent class where it is taught that there can never be any negotiation between a developer and the neighbours. Clearly I need to go back to school.

[G-Man]

^ Well she is appointed as the rep for NP by council. She is not elected by the residents of NP as their rep. I would bet 95% of NP residents have no idea she is their rep. In her statement she equates the opinion of the NPNA as the opinion of all residents which I can assure you is not the case.

[VicHockeyFan]

^ Well she is appointed as the rep for NP by council. She is not elected by the residents of NP as their rep. I would bet 95% of NP residents have no idea she is their rep. In her statement she equates the opinion of the NPNA as the opinion of all residents which I can assure you is not the case.

I'm afraid most NP residents don't care one way or the other. Indeed, even at the annual NP AGM, there are only about 18 people in attendance. Regular meetings, usually about 9.

[Mike K.]

Bosa is quickly learning this isn't the mainland.

[Holden West]

I'm afraid most NP residents don't care one way or the other. Indeed, even at the annual NP AGM, there are only about 18 people in attendance. Regular meetings, usually about 9.

That is typical throughout Victoria. A dozen or so passionate residents at most, typically much less. The vast majority of residents have opinions but the typical community association or City Hall meeting is not reaching them.

[VicHockeyFan]

That is typical throughout Victoria. A dozen or so passionate residents at most, typically much less. The vast majority of residents have opinions but the typical community association or City Hall meeting is not reaching them.

Ya, that's what I should have said, no doubt people care, but not enough to go to meetings or City Hall.

[LJ]

^But the other residents should still have a chance to say what they want or don't want.
Most of these CA spring up from some development that somebody is against and they rally a few of their friends to join them and elect themselves spokesman for the whole neighbourhood. If there is a contentious project a mailer should go out to each resident allowing them to respond.

If I was a developer I would hire a bunch of university kids to take a poll around to the neighbourhood residents and see what sort of response I got.