1225 replies to this topic

[Nparker]

...many of the concerns (the real concerns) could be addressed by taking the AirBnB bull by the horns to ensure that residential space is increased...

I imagine the future strata is free to bring in rules to prohibit short-term rentals. My building has such rules.

[Kapten Kapsell]

I received an orange flyer as well on my door today...

I wonder if there are plans for the SFH that faces Cook- demolition... or relocation?

In terms of the loss of the affordable rentals, they are "affordable" due to deferred maintenance and relatively limited upkeep. If the owner had done the kind of renovation recently undertaken in the building at Heywood and Southport, the rents would no longer be "affordable." This is a larger issue than just this particular development...

[GRT]

In terms of the loss of the affordable rentals, they are "affordable" due to deferred maintenance and relatively limited upkeep. If the owner had done the kind of renovation recently undertaken in the building at Heywood and Southport, the rents would no longer be "affordable." This is a larger issue than just this particular development...

 

These places are certainly not prime rental units.  I know a woman who lives in the basement/ground floor of the Cook/Oliphant building, and she has RATS!! in her unit.  Sounds exactly like Kapten says ....

[mbjj]

I think the new development on the corner of Foul Bay Road and Oak Bay Avenue is very unattractive. Just my two cents.

[LJ]

What the developer should do is offer up two plans, the modest building he has proposed, and then another for a low barrier shelter should the original plan not meet with residents approval.

[sebberry]

I think the new development on the corner of Foul Bay Road and Oak Bay Avenue is very unattractive. Just my two cents.

I don't think it's particularly attractive either. It's not the height, it's the design I don't like.

[sebberry]

Think of the children

 
Dear God - it will be taller than the hydro poles. How is that even legal.

Clearly the poles are too short and should be extended.

[aastra]

 

I think the new development on the corner of Foul Bay Road and Oak Bay Avenue is very unattractive.

 

I'm not crazy about it, but methinks that only fuels my point. Oak Bay Avenue has certainly not been destroyed because somebody built a new lowrise building that aastra and mbjj and sebberry don't like. And even though I might wish that the building itself had a different look, I appreciate its ground floor and its overall presence. It's an improvement in that regard.

 

For the record, I really, really, really dislike that block beside Pic-a-Flic in CSV. And yet again, the village survived despite my very strong feelings about that building.

Edited by aastra, 28 November 2016 - 07:47 PM.

[Nparker]

...For the record, I really, really, really dislike that block beside Pic-a-Flic in CSV...

Hey! I used to live in that area...not the seniors building; the 3-floor walkup on Southgate.

[aastra]

Anyway, renderings suggest that this proposed building will flaunt quite a different vibe than the one at Foul Bay and Oak Bay. Will everyone like it? Surely not. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. Heck, if everyone did like it -- CSV curmudgeons included -- then alarm bells should probably be going off.

[Bingo]

 Will everyone like it? Surely not. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. Heck, if everyone did like it -- CSV curmudgeons included -- then alarm bells should probably be going off.

 

I think you are alluding to the Donald Urgent Method Plan, which will be a huge success in Victoria.

Flood the city with many projects that people won't like, and by the time they have it figured out the area is built out into an amazing collection of something completely different.

The DUMP collection.

[grantpalin]

Quite the apocalypse they are putting forward. I liked the project already, but I even more want it to succeed just to spite the NIMBYs.

 

Related story: 

West Vancouver seniors complain about new 3-storey rental building amid housing crisis

Some choice quotes:

 

A follow-up to this, apparently the project has been approved.

 

 

West Vancouver council has approved its first all-market rental development in 40 years.

Despite stiff opposition from adjacent neighbours, council voted 5-1 to allow Hollyburn Developments to build 41 rental suites in three- and four-storey buildings at 125 21st St., surrounding an already existing rental tower.

Council acknowledged the concerns over parking, the loss of green space and views, and the lack of an updated plan for area below Ambleside raised at Monday night’s overflow public hearing but the majority found creating more rental units was a long overdue step towards addressing affordability and stemming the exodus of West Vancouver residents.

“The fact is, we’re in a housing crisis,” said Coun. Craig Cameron. “We’re in unprecedented territory here in Vancouver, and West Vancouver in particular.”

Cameron said he rejected the mentality that people who work in West Vancouver should not have the opportunity to live there as well.

“It violates pretty much everything I hold dear in terms of my sense of the world and what we are as a community. I think we have a responsibility to others to meet their needs,” he said. “I don’t think it’s good enough to tell people to bugger off if they can’t afford to be here.”

Coun. Mary-Ann Booth moved the motion saying council needed to start encouraging other forms of housing while the average price of a home in West Vancouver is $3.7 million and condos sell at $1,000 per square foot.

“It means that all of West Vancouver is going to be having to make some sacrifices to accommodate those that aren’t’ as nicely set up as many of us are already,” she said.

Coun. Nora Gambioli said she too was moved to vote on behalf of the would-be residents who are struggling while West Vancouver’s vacancy rate is a paltry 0.2 per cent.

“As leaders, we have to look at the bigger pictures and what’s in the interest of the community as a whole,” she said. “Many young people will be renters for long periods of time, if not indefinitely. So we have to deal with this pressing transition. If we want intergenerational fairness and sustainability, more rental is needed.”

Mayor Michael Smith said the project fills a gap that West Vancouver has left open for too long.

“We had legitimate concerns (Monday) night but I genuinely believe, when that project is built in two years, hopefully, that people will realize it does not negatively impact their way of life in West Vancouver. It’s going to meet a need and something it is worthy of is the support of this council,” he said.

Coun. Christine Cassidy said she resented being asked to vote on the project when the district’s official community plan hadn’t been updated since 2004, but she begrudgingly voted in favour. Cassidy pointed out that, at roughly $1,700 for a one-bedroom unit, the project would be suitable for well-to-do downsizers, not young people leaving home for the first time and looking to get established. Those downsizers are also important to keep in West Vancouver and might otherwise choose North Vancouver, Coal Harbour or Yaletown where there is nicer and newer housing stock to choose from, she added.

Coun. Bill Soprovich was the lone dissenter, saying other developers would be licking their chops for more similar opportunities, and without a planning policy that supports that type of development, he would not go against the community’s wishes.

“I can’t support a single development in this community until that OCP is in my hand and I’m satisfied with all that goes with it,” he said.

The process for a new OCP is set to begin next year.

 

[Mike K.]

Victoria council is eager to hear the public's feedback regarding this proposal. Mayor and council can be contacted at http://www.victoria.... email&referer=

 

And note this paragraph in the article:

 

"Reinforcing the mayor’s message, an independent report commissioned by the City of Victoria to assess the suitability of the City’s community plans has identified projects identical in massing and scope to Cole’s as ideally suited to Victoria’s urban villages. The report outlines four storeys are no longer economically viable, given real-estate values in desired neighbourhoods like Fairfield."

 

Did we know this was happening?

 

 

Public hearing scheduled for mixed-use Cook Street Village development

http://victoria.citi...ge-development/

 

A December 8th public hearing has been set for a mixed-use rental, condo and ground floor commercial development planned at the south end of Cook Street Village.

The five-storey, 53-unit low-rise envisioned for 212-220 Cook Street will include 17 rental apartments – nine of which will be available at 10% below market value – 31 condo residences with several available as live-work lofts along the ground floor, and a single retail space fronting onto Cook Street.

Developer Leonard Cole of Victoria-based Urban Core Ventures says the project, in planning since 2014, is destined to become a landmark in the village and serve as an example of Victoria’s new planning guidelines.

“We’ve spent the last two-and-a-half years working with the City of Victoria’s planning department to arrive at a proposal that has met the City’s expectations in every way. Throughout the municipal planning process we also invested heavily into a community engagement strategy that made a tremendous difference in our architectural design efforts, the make-up of our units and helped solidify the building’s role as a destination in the Village,” Cole said. [Full article]

[Nparker]

I'd sure love to hear a rational explanation from the anti-height crowd as to how one additional floor (3 metres?) on this project will destroy their quality of life.

[Rob Randall]

What's the "Friends of CSV" website? It eludes me at the moment.

[Nparker]

What's the "Friends of CSV" website? It eludes me at the moment.

Even more puzzling, I wonder if these Friends are friends of the Friends of Beacon Hill Park?

[nerka]

I received a communique from the "Friends of Cook Street Village" today. Less alarmist and more reasonable than the earlier flier. Encouraging my attendance at the hearing Thursday night at 630 PM. I won't be going to the hearing but have written mayor and council in support of the project.

 

Here is their summary:

 

* The Friends of Cook-Oliphant are not anti-development; we would welcome a development at Cook-Oliphant in a style consistent with the citizen preferences expressed at the LAP forums, including a lower height and larger setbacks from the street.

* We believe the negative impacts of this proposed development far outweigh its very modest net contribution to housing supply. 

* Accordingly, we respectfully request the Developer’s proposal be denied.

 

Reading through their communique their concerns really seem to boil down to height.  4 stories OK, 5 stories bad. They also seem to be concerned about the precedent of "oversized buildings" in CSV. They also make a nod to the loss of the existing relatively affordable units. Though they contradict themselves by saying elsewhere that Fairfield doesn't need new housing anyhow. 

[VicHockeyFan]

The Mayor on CFAX today suggested that the meeting might go until 2am this Thursday.

[Nparker]

I defy anyone with common sense to read many of the comments that follow this article from Vic News and not get a totally WTF vibe.

http://www.vicnews.c.../404273846.html

One of my favourites:

...When you look at that top floor, you see much higher than average ceilings, which suggests two things: first, that these would be built for people of wealth, not those targetted in the City's Housing Strategy...

So only people of wealth are interested in tall ceilings. Apparently, those of lesser means prefer to be stooped over in short spaces.

Another writer remarks on the Mayor suggesting that fear is behind much of the sentiment of those against this development, yet this same person uses highly exaggerated, one might even say fearful, language himself

...I guess we will see how Fairfield voters feel when construction of this behemoth begins to tear apart this gem of an urban village

Dramatize much there friend?

 

And people wonder why we have a housing crisis in this city. I am sure it is going to be another NIMBY gong show at Thursday's meeting. I may have to tune in online.

[aastra]

 

...these would be built for people of wealth, not those targetted in the City's Housing Strategy...

 

I've noted this attitude before. Some people seem to want developers to build brand new shabby old apartments.