117 replies to this topic

[jklymak]

I think if you decided the development potential of land downtown, and taxed based on that value, you'd get rid of a lot of speculatively owned parking lots in a hurry. Of course you'd have to phase these taxes in over 20 years or so, but it'd sure spur the pace of development.

[Holden West]

Those changes have already been made, that's the thing. The OCP was adopted in 2011(?) and other than that there are no actual changes. It's a bit of a mystery why staff all of a sudden decided to engage in a public info session.

 

The meeting was about the parts of the downtown business district rezoning that will become a bylaw. It's detailing and fine-tuning the new zones so they are easier to understand and reflect the new thinking in the OCP. Era and other new construction is a preview of some of these new rules. This is not an official explanation, just the take of an interested amateur observer.

[Mike K.]

But Era fits within the zoning prior to the "changes." I still don't get what's changing here.

[G-Man]

Nothing at all is changing. All of these changes were agreed to in the new Downtown Plan almost 2 years ago (maybe more). I expect that they are formally putting those rules into the various allowable zonings. It is a transcription form a high level plan to written down rules. It means nothing. 

[jonny]

What's the population now? 2000?

 

I believe just over 7,000.

[Nparker]

It is a transcription form a high level plan to written down rules. It means nothing. 

But it gives the impression of public input in an election year even if nothing is actually going to come of it. Perception is more powerful than reality especialy in the world of politics.

[Mike K.]

So what you're saying is this is a political move to give incumbents an extra bullet point on their election platforms?

[tedward]

^ Ding! We have a winner!

[jonny]

By my count approximately 1,100 units are in some way, shape or form planned be be built in downtown Victoria. I don't know what the typical ratio of residents to units is, but I'd guess these buildings would be housing something like 1,500-2,000 residents. 10,000 really would be quite do-able.

 

 

Hudson Mews - 6 floors, 3 buildings - 150 units

Hudson Tower 1 - 24 floors - 200 units

819 Yates - 17 & 12 floors - 250 units

Hudson Tower 2 - 17 floors - 150 units

257 Belleville - 8 floors - 80 units

Jukebox - 8 floors - 200 units

Monty's Redevelopment - 6 floors - 50 units

Sawyer Residences - 6 floors - 50 units    

 

Total: 1130 units

Edited by jonny, 17 January 2014 - 02:40 PM.

[LJ]

I think if you decided the development potential of land downtown, and taxed based on that value, you'd get rid of a lot of speculatively owned parking lots in a hurry. Of course you'd have to phase these taxes in over 20 years or so, but it'd sure spur the pace of development.

Interesting concept, but you would have to demonstrate a need for more office/retail/residential before you could "force" someone to build something on their property.

 

Perhaps the city could prioritize a couple of properties each year and encourage the owners to build whatever was needed on them or tell them that their taxes were going to rise significantly otherwise.

[Marilyn]

By my count approximately 1,100 units are in some way, shape or form planned be be built in downtown Victoria. I don't know what the typical ratio of residents to units is, but I'd guess these buildings would be housing something like 1,500-2,000 residents. 10,000 really would be quite do-able.

 

 

Hudson Mews - 6 floors, 3 buildings - 150 units

Hudson Tower 1 - 24 floors - 200 units

819 Yates - 17 & 12 floors - 250 units

Hudson Tower 2 - 17 floors - 150 units

257 Belleville - 8 floors - 80 units

Jukebox - 8 floors - 200 units

Monty's Redevelopment - 6 floors - 50 units

Sawyer Residences - 6 floors - 50 units    

 

Total: 1130 units

My address is 845 Yates so I am very interested in the development of 819 Yates. Can I get more information on the two towers, 17 & 12 floors? Will David Chard wait until the ex-Capitol Theatre property is settled in order to begin the development there. It will have a major impact on us. We lived through two years watching the Atrium go up and it was worth it since it has enhanced the neighbourhood considerably. Thanks

[Mike K.]

You'll want to keep your eye on this thread, Marilyn. There are no new updates for 819 Yates from Chard as he's focusing on another project (ex-Black Press building/property).

[aastra]

So can somebody explain this to me?

http://globalnews.ca...ulation-demand/

 

The blue areas are the 72m maximum areas, yes? Currently occupied by the likes of the "Centra Gas" building, Denby Place, the office block at Johnson & Douglas with this sunken retail spaces, the Johnson Street parkade... There are numerous major and minor buildings in the blue areas that will probably not be ripe for any kind of redevelopment any time soon, perhaps not for several decades. So who cares if the height limit gets adjusted on those sites? You might as well adjust the height limit for St. Andrew's Cathedral or the Empress Hotel. When will anybody ever be able to take advantage of the change?

 

I just don't get it.

 

Meanwhile the block occupied by Chateau Victoria gets the lowest limit. Surface parking lots and other underbuilt properties adjacent to towers...

[jonny]

I finally got a chance to take a quick read through this stuff. 72m maximum? I'd like to see 100m+ with 10:1 FSR. Let's see some vision and height for a change. Enough piddly 10-15 floor buildings. I want to see 25-30 floors and some variation in building height. Our new buildings should stand out, not fit in.

 

Having the lowest height limits around the Humboldt Valley and Quadra/Pandora/Johnson has to be a mistake, right? And how can the Capital Theatre property not have the highest allowable height? What is so special or what needs "protection" around that block of View/Fort in between Quadra and Blanshard that requires such low limits? That former VanCity building in particular could easily be a high rise.

[Mike K.]

"Victoria’s skyline, long a collection of heritage buildings and low-rise commercial outlets, may start looking a bit more like Vancouver’s in the coming years."

 

 

What a bunch of BS, Global News.

[jonny]

^ Yeah, it's an statement that doesn't make any sense and probably feeds right into this region's pervasive fear of change and misguided belief that new buildings "destroy" old buildings.

 

 

As a side note, I was chatting with a colleague the other day who exclaimed to me that he couldn't believe the city approved a fifteen floor building down the block (the Era). Fifteen, can you believe it, he asked. It's going to tower over its neighbors, he said. I said yeah, it's going to be a tower, that's kinda the whole point. He was surprised when I noted the Juliet, which is probably like 80 meters away is 14 floors.

 

A new 15 floor building, now that is too tall! Meanwhile, a nearby building of similar height doesn't stand out enough for the same person to even consider how tall it is.

[Mike K.]

Yup. People get all bent out of shape over nothing. Meanwhile the tallest building in the city is just a smidgen taller than the previous tallest built in the 1960's.

[aastra]

 

A new 15 floor building, now that is too tall! Meanwhile, a nearby building of similar height doesn't stand out enough for the same person to even consider how tall it is.

 

Are you reading my lines now? Or maybe we're the same person. Anyway, I made a note of this tendency a while back. People were in a stew because some proposed building was going to be the tallest thing in the area, but in actuality it wasn't even going to be the tallest thing on its own block! I can't remember what building it was, but something from 5-10 years ago.

 

It just goes to show you how silly it is to obsess about a number (15 floors! Yikes!) when nobody really cares about numbers as they're walking around and experiencing a place.

[Bingo]

Are you reading my lines now? Or maybe we're the same person. Anyway, I made a note of this tendency a while back. People were in a stew because some proposed building was going to be the tallest thing in the area, but in actuality it wasn't even going to be the tallest thing on its own block! I can't remember what building it was, but something from 5-10 years ago.

 

It just goes to show you how silly it is to obsess about a number (15 floors! Yikes!) when nobody really cares about numbers as they're walking around and experiencing a place.

 

Right!   I suppose you could also include the spire like they do for measuring some buildings.

 

Here is Camosack Manor, and as far as being tallest building above sea level probably wins hands down as far as the views go.

 

[Mike K.]

For all building nerds out there:

 

Camosack Manor has an antanna, not a spire, and as such the height of the building is only to its roof. If it had a spire (like the Sussux building downtown) the spire's height would be added to the building height.

 

The more you know. Because knowledge is power.