117 replies to this topic

[jklymak]

But cap and trade artificially raises the value of one property and forces the residents or commercial tenants to carry the financial burden of several properties.

This isn't New York City where wealthy millionaires can afford such dings, this is a government town with most residents earning an average Joe income.

Furthermore, having to bring several land owners on board just to build one tower would be a horrendously complicated, controversial and lengthy process. What we really need is to relax heights and thin out our buildings, but since that won't happen we'll continue to see the chimeras that our blocks are turning into. And the problem is most planners don't even live downtown, and I wouldn't be surprised if most don't even live in the City of Victoria. Seeing a project on paper is what got us the tragedies like Soho where the balconies of several units back onto the Palladian.

 

 

Thinning out buildings still requires low overall FSRs.  So either you build on a lot meant for the 1890s and have a building that is extremely thin, or you assemble multiple lots, or you come up with a scheme to buy the air rights of adjacent lots.  

[Mike K.]

Lot consolidation is definitely a possibility, but even then, a developer won't go through all that trouble just to create a buffer for residents as that makes the entire proposition too expensive in this city. The Era lot was priced at what, $3.5 million if I'm not mistaken? Now imagine if Concert had purchased the Ginger Group property (or whatever it's called) fronting onto Johnson just to give residents more room. They'd have paid close to $7 million, give or take, and each unit would be forced to absorb that added cost while getting added height and recessing the tower portion of the project would have been a public hearing nightmare.

 

We're in trouble if planning doesn't see the problems it's creating with building within such close proximity to other properties. Nobody wants to be staring directly at their neighbour and particularly not when they're paying some of the highest real-estate costs in North America.

[29er Radio]

People forget that Urban Planners don't necessarily decide that is the best urban form, rather they are People Planners. I know it sounds silly, but any community or urban plan is made to represent the ideals of the neighbourhood or area. 

Long story short, blaming an urban planner is in correct, as they are just merely trying to represent the community they are planning for.

I suggest Urban Planners dont represent citizens at all. they dictate how a city should be generally based on theories, rather than understanding the real economics of a development. I put forward the theory that "whole block" developments need a gap in order to accommodate fluidity on the site. I feel this is a mis reading of Jane Jacobs assertion that long city blocks hurt cities. When
that theory has been foisted onto developers in this town, it has led to dark dreary alleys, (Union, Falls) and they do nothing to address the flow that Jacobs was championing.

[Mr Cook Street]

I suggest Urban Planners dont represent citizens at all. they dictate how a city should be generally based on theories, rather than understanding the real economics of a development. I put forward the theory that "whole block" developments need a gap in order to accommodate fluidity on the site. I feel this is a mis reading of Jane Jacobs assertion that long city blocks hurt cities. When
that theory has been foisted onto developers in this town, it has led to dark dreary alleys, (Union, Falls) and they do nothing to address the flow that Jacobs was championing.

I'd say it is probably more the difference between a good and bad urban planner. A good urban planner will entice developments that bring vibrancy to the streets and make the experience of being in that place a positive one.

[jklymak]

Lot consolidation is definitely a possibility, but even then, a developer won't go through all that trouble just to create a buffer for residents as that makes the entire proposition too expensive in this city. The Era lot was priced at what, $3.5 million if I'm not mistaken? Now imagine if Concert had purchased the Ginger Group property (or whatever it's called) fronting onto Johnson just to give residents more room. They'd have paid close to $7 million, give or take, and each unit would be forced to absorb that added cost while getting added height and recessing the tower portion of the project would have been a public hearing nightmare.

 

You are assuming prices are not responding to the development opportunities.

 

If you made it clear that developers had to create buffers around their properties, then land values would correspondingly drop because a small lot would not be viable for development. As it is now, whoever sold the Era lot got top dollar, and now whoever owns the Ginger Group lot must be allowed to build something just as big right next door, or they have been screwed out of their lot's value.  Its stupid.  

 

My way that 3.5 million gets shared by the surrounding properties, rather than just going to the property to develop first.  

[Mike K.]

The City's own planning rules will ensure the Ginger Group building can max out to whatever the zoning allows.

 

This very issue came up when the Falls was going through the process. The owner of the Budget property between the Sierra Systems building and the Falls property hired a legal team to attempt to sideline the Falls by arguing that their development potential would be severely impacted if the project went ahead. If Westbank bought the Budget property the effort to thwart the Falls would have been dropped immediately. This is the reason why the public hearing was canceled mid-hearing and had to be rescheduled.

 

But that being said, you can't place more value on one property and remove value from another artificially. If consolidating lots was required in order to build, the smallest piece of the puzzle could become the biggest obstacle and that would be within the property owner's rights. What we'd see is an endless tug-of-war.

 

Honestly, given the small albeit expensive lots in downtown Victoria, the only saving grace we really have is to build thinner and higher. Continuing as we are will create an undesirable, suffocating residential environment with a slew of 10-15 storey buildings backing onto, flanking and fronting each other. And that's just horrible urban planning.

[jklymak]

^ I think we agree as to the problem, and that the current zoning bylaws are nutty, but I'm not understanding your solution.

 

What should have gone in on the Era's lot to make space for something to be built on the Ginger Group site?  How do you enforce tall and skinny?  And surely that comes at a price as well - I can't imagine it doesn't cost a heck of a lot more to build a 25 storey building with 60% of the footprint of the Era.  Just the stairwell-to-dwelling ratio would be pretty crazy.

[VicHockeyFan]

The Ginger Group does not have a site, it has a functional 4-floor, well-maintained, fully-leased building full of offices.  Mine is one of them.  It's called Maynard Court, owned by David Siegel, who bought it from the late Michael Williams (before he was late).

 

The building to the west is vacant and for sale though, it might have been combined with Era.

[Urbanistco]

As an urban planner by training, I feel I need to defend my colleagues a little bit...but not much haha.

 

There are good urban planners and bad urban planners just like there are bad doctors and good doctors...

 

Vancouver deemed 80ft to be the minimize glass to glass for neighbouring buildings. It is also one of the reasons for the explosion of the podium style tower you see all over downtown.

 

Rezoning for any project is a discretionary approval of Council, they are obligated in no way to approve anything. That said, they are also in charge of asking for any modifications they want. Urban planners make next to no decisions whatsoever. Bad urban planners, through intimidation and strong arming, attempt to influence the process through threats of their recommendations on the staff report to Council or slowing down the process. At the end of the day, Council can ignore every single recommendation and go in the opposite direction. They can change the OCP, zoning, and procedural bylaws at any time.

 

Transfer of development rights

 

- lack of oversight once zoning is achieved

- for every relaxation, another restriction needs to be in place

- initial zoning is what creates the allocation of density to be traded. For every new zoning must have an equal downzoning or else an areas overall density may be too great

 

TDR's touch on some interesting topics in urban planning, some of you are complaining about zoning yet do not fully realize that zoning actually protects your property value. When a residential zone is protected from a heavy industrial use, your residential property value increases. 

 

A land lift through zoning always has the potential to create a wipeout of value or utility of somebody elses land. There is a reason TDR is usually reserved for heritage preservation...

 

Good read: Robert Hahn, 1984, Market Power and Transferable of Property Rights

[Mike K.]

Thanks for that.

All the transfer schemes and whatnot are great in theory but don't work in practice. What we need to do in downtown is force a practical minimum distance between residential buildings.

[Rob Randall]

What we need to do in downtown is force a practical minimum distance between residential buildings.

 

So you're saying this Mason St. condo from a few years ago is too close?

 

[Mike K.]

Just a tad.

 

At least these guys have a few feet to work with.

 

"Honey, I love the brick work on the giant wall outside of our bedroom window."

 

[jklymak]

Great Above the fourth floors building has to be set back 25% of its width from the lot boundary or 40 feet which ever is larger. If there is an existing building the minimum is 60'.

[Baro]

There's plenty of 4+ story buildings with zero side setbacks that work just fine.  The streetwalls created by such massing are pleasant enough to attract flocks of tourists to the great cities of europe.  Less setback regulations, more streetwalls and the freedom for respond to local demand.  Don't want a wall outside your window? Don't put a window there or build the setback your self, but assume a firewall on the lot line some time in the future.

 

Won't anyone think of the setbacks??

[jklymak]

^ OK. now make that 12 or 15 storeys tall, and place another one across a street that is as narrow as View Street.  

 

Modern highrises and downtown density are competing against suburban sprawl, an option that didn't exist in the metropolises of the 1700s.  I'll accept we should build to the lot line some day, but claiming that architecture packed in like the above will attract people to live downtown Victoria in 2015 is completely unreasonable in my opinion.  

 

(PS want to bet most of those places have big courtyards out back?) 

[Mike K.]

^ OK. now make that 12 or 15 storeys tall, and place another one across a street that is as narrow as View Street.  

 

Modern highrises and downtown density are competing against suburban sprawl, an option that didn't exist in the metropolises of the 1700s.  I'll accept we should build to the lot line some day, but claiming that architecture packed in like the above will attract people to live downtown Victoria in 2015 is completely unreasonable in my opinion.  

 

(PS want to bet most of those places have big courtyards out back?) 

 

I would imagine so. That has been my experience with similar buildings in Europe.

[Urbanistco]

There's plenty of 4+ story buildings with zero side setbacks that work just fine.  The streetwalls created by such massing are pleasant enough to attract flocks of tourists to the great cities of europe.  Less setback regulations, more streetwalls and the freedom for respond to local demand.  Don't want a wall outside your window? Don't put a window there or build the setback your self, but assume a firewall on the lot line some time in the future.

 

Won't anyone think of the setbacks??

 

 

That isn't a streetwall at all....it's a viewpoint haha. There are positive relationships between street classifications and building to building distances. We do not build architecture of this kind anymore, brick/mortar, high detail, varying lines and articulation. Just look at the level of detail in just one 100ft section...it's gorgeous! 

 

I personally think the "first 30ft" principle works well. Do very high level detail/quality on the first 30ft of height for pedestrian interest, step the buildings after that to create a podium.

[VicHockeyFan]

Given that politicians do not always get it right when they accept or reject a rezoning... so let's say they get it wrong at least 10% of the time when they approve a project...

 

Can we point to the hundreds of projects that were approved and should not have been?  That have turned their area into a disaster?