24 replies to this topic

[AllseeingEye]

Apologies if this was already mentioned as I don't have much time to scour the site; nevertheless I thought this editorial was fairly apropos especially for this forum.

 

Interesting commentary - it is not particularly for or against height per se - but it does have a couple of references that made me chuckle. First the comment about "new skyscrapers" implies to me at least that there are_existing skyscrapers in Victoria. I can't speak for others but having a travelled a bit IMO there is not one building here that remotely qualifies as a bona fide "skyscraper". So that was somewhat amusing. The Promontory, for all the publicity it garners including here on VV, wouldn't even be a minor media sound bite in most cities, Canadian or otherwise. No doubt some locals actually do view a 20+ storey building as a skyscraper, hard as that may be for others to digest.

 

Also the reference to "booming" population growth should be viewed in context. The CRD as a whole grows by ~ 60K in a decade and the T-C would have its readers believe this is some huge giganormous number. Perhaps it is in Greater Victoria terms, however to cite another Canadian example not too far removed, Calgary for years now was growing at the rate of 7000 people/month so I would argue that "booming" growth is a very relative term. Overall though considering how the subject of 'height' has historically caused all sorts of hysteria regarding the End of Days and the Blotting out of the Sun etc, on whole this wasn't too bad:

 

http://www.timescolo...and-up-1.943239

[Nparker]

I found the editorial odd even by TC standards.

[G-Man]

 

 

They can expand horizontally and keep population density in check. 

 I found the above statement particularly troubling in that "density" is something you need to keep in check rather than encourage.

[G-Man]

Also the suggestion that there is some shortage of "green" space downtown already... 

[Mike K.]

I guess everyone has the right to form an opinion, even if its misguided or just plain wrong.

 

For the record, a "skyscraper" is largely accepted as a building of 150 meters in height or taller. Vancouver has fewer "skyscrapers" than the fingers on one hand if we use the formal definition. Promontory would need to stand nearly three times as tall to be defined as a "skyscraper."

 

The CRD's growth rate is manageable at about 3,000 - 4,000 residents per year. The challenges cities like Calgary and Vancouver face are at a scale we'll never experience here, and that's a good thing.

[jonny]

*Deep breaths*  

 

This editorial appears to be written by some granny in Oak Bay who ventures into Victoria once a year.

 

Why does population density need to be kept "in check"?

 

The demand ain't huge. In fact, it's completely manageable. There is land to build thousands of units before any existing buildings need to be turfed. The suggestion that the only way new buildings can be constructed is by tearing down existing building is laughable.

 

The notion that a few new buildings has us on the precipice of a traffic congestion nightmare is ridiculous.

 

How more buildings and residents downtown would somehow hurt our collective quality of life, as this editorial suggests, is a mystery to me. The comment that this plan will "fundamentally change the city's character" has me literally scratching my head.

[sdwright.vic]

They are pandering to the readership that actually buys their paper still.

[Nparker]

They are pandering to the readership that actually buys their paper still.

Wouldn't it have been easier just to have sent both those people a letter?

[rjag]

I guess they have not heard of density...how you can take 3-4 houses and put up 12 townhouses and remain within the original height envelope....or take down a 50 year old under utilised 3 storey apartment and put up a 6-8 storey mixed use building....what the editorial forgets is that we have an abundance of greenspace...its called peoples gardens and boulevards. There is no need for more mandated parks as this isn't a concrete jungle such as Yaletown or the West End where everyone lives in a condo/apartment.

 

It will be interesting to see if anyone from City Hall responds to this absurd article.

[aastra]

 

The capital region has added 60,000 new residents over the last two decades, and tens of thousands more are on their way.

 

That's alarming, isn't it? No, not really.

 

CRD population change:*

1941-1961: +75,455 (from 86,492 to 161,947) = 87% increase

1951-1971: +83,257 (from 121,546 to 204,803) = 68% increase

1961-1981: +87,526 (from 161,947 to 249,473) = 54% increase

1971-1991: +94,747 (from 204,803 to 299,550) = 46% increase

1981-2001: +76,281 (from 249,473 to 325,754) = 31% increase

1991-2011: +60,441 (from 299,550 to 359,991) = 20% increase

 

If I'm not mistaken, the population density of Vic West has been increasing lately. So is Vic West getting better or worse because of it? I'm going to say it's better. So what exactly are we afraid of?

 

*I whipped this up in a huge hurry so let me know if anything isn't right. The source for most of the historic data is:

 

"British Columbia Regional District & Municipal Census Populations"
Source: Statistics Canada

Produced by: Central Statistics Bureau, August, 1988

Edited by aastra, 07 April 2014 - 02:19 PM.

[Nparker]

So based on your numbers aastra not only has the CRD seen the smallest percentage increase in population in the past 20 years but also the smallest numerical increase since 1961. I am not sure there is anything about which to be alarmed in terms of massive hordes disrupting the way of life of the regions citizens any time soon. This editorial seems so random and off-base one has to wonder what inspired it.

[aastra]

The CRD seems to be projecting slightly more growth between 2001-2021 as compared to 1991-2011. Somewhere between 20%-25%?

 

Anyway, the TC editorial is funny. Just a couple of years ago another local publication was saying something quite different:

http://www.vicnews.c.../138972059.html

 

 

"I never thought Victoria would meet those projections (for 2011)," said Larry McCann, a professor at the University of Victoria's department of geography.

"Victoria has always grown very slowly," he said. "Historically, it just inches along, inches along."

The economic downtown put a real halt to condominium development, he said. "Part of that growth estimate was more retired people would be moving into the metropolitan area, and that just didn't happen."

Victoria's growth isn't keeping up to the provincial or national average because the people it does attract are older with smaller households, he said.

 

So to summarize, the TC cautions us:

 

 

That our city will grow is clear. What it grows into is a question still to be answered.

 

But a UVic geographer reminds us:

 

 

"Victoria has always grown very slowly," he said. "Historically, it just inches along, inches along."

Edited by aastra, 07 April 2014 - 02:34 PM.

[Mike K.]

Ha! Victoria's population growth has never been above the provincial or national average, at least not in recent history.

[G-Man]

That is the really story here. We should be looking at why we have such low growth and do something to fix it. 

[jonny]

Over the last decade or so Canada's population has grown at an annual rate of 1.2%.

 

Aside from the odd year (between 2009 and 2010 being one), we don't typically get a growth rate that is higher than the national average. Why that is, is the more important question that needs to be answered.

[Nparker]

Why is this attitude still celebrated: http://www.timescolo...ation-1.2254638

[aastra]

That's a very silly piece, for sure. The major misconception that it exhibits is this idea that because post-war buildings in Victoria tended not to exceed a certain height, we can therefore conclude that the demolition of the city's heritage was minimal. In fact, check out the list of long gone great buildings in Victoria to see the true extent of the damage. As I like to say, if you were to take everything that was lost and assemble it in one place it would constitute a historic district to rival or even exceed the one that we currently have. Pound for pound, I'd actually suggest that Victoria's architectural collection was one of the hardest hit in all of Canada, despite the mythology that aims to convince us that the old city was somehow preserved in amber. It wasn't. Much of the old city was gutted. There seems to have been an obsession from the 1940s through the 1970s in particular to strip away the old grandeur and detail and replace it with generic modern lowrise blandness. It bugs me that just because the new/remodelled buildings tended to be shorter than the historic buildings, we've decided to frame the entire debacle as some sort of triumph of preservation.

 

When aastra was asked what he thought of heritage preservation in Victoria, he replied "I think it would be a good idea."

[aastra]

I see now that a lot of images in the long gone greats thread are broken. We should try to fix some of those wherever possible.

[jonny]

Editorials are for people who can't think for themselves. 

[AllseeingEye]

Too bad the T-C shut down the "Comments" option. This thread/editorial has the potential to generate all sorts of interesting, um, 'debate', heh.