197 replies to this topic

[Nparker]

...I'm supposed to believe there's no way to fit a new development on the property without harming the tree? No alternative configuration that would work? ...

Half as wide so as not to infringe on the oak tree's "personal space"; 2.5 times as tall so that all the parking can be above ground and to make up for narrowing the footprint of the project. Do you think the neigbours will go for a skinny 10-storey building?

[Nparker]

But would any of them be oak trees?

Is there any reason why all 12 couldn't be Garry Oaks?

[aastra]

Insert link here to past discussions re: why do new developments in Victoria almost never feature new oak trees.

[aastra]

 

Do you think the neigbours will go for a skinny 10-storey building?

 

I don't expect anyone involved to be thoughtful or flexible on any aspect, which is why these situations tend to be so infuriating.

[VicHockeyFan]

Why not cut it down and turn it into nice oak wainscotting for the York building halls?

[Nparker]

Why not cut it down and turn it into nice oak wainscotting for the York building halls?

Or cut it down and burn it to release it's oakey spirit back to the cosmos.

It's. a. Tree. 

[todd]

Why not cut it down and turn it into nice oak wainscotting for the York building halls?

 

Or cut it down and burn it to release it's oakey spirit back to the cosmos.

It's. a. Tree. 

 

If I didn't know you two were NIMBYs i'd tell what to do with it.

[MarkoJ]

Is this one big joke or the neighbours for real? This has to be the stupidest case of NIMBYs I've seen in a while. The building is too big? It doesn't look to be much bigger than a two story home with a steep roof. And of course, no trees were cut down in Oak Bay in the last 150 years to accomodate houses/buildings.  

 

It's a great looking building in my opinion especially with the wood soffits. So few units that there will barely be anyone coming and going.

[Nparker]

You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

[aastra]

 

It's. a. Tree. 

 

The key point here: it's a very old tree. If you cut it down then it'll be a lifetime before you'll have anything that could even begin to approximate a replacement. Making flip decisions about significant trees is no different than making flip decisions about significant buildings. Heck, architectural changes tend to happen much more rapidly. There are plenty of sites in downtown Victoria that have changed buildings two or three times during the life of this very tree. The Empress Hotel has done several major expansions during the life of this very tree.

 

I know I'm a broken record about this, but the way these issues tend to get framed within two polarized positions is just inane. If you want a new building then you must also want the tree to go. If you want the tree to stay then you must also not want a new building. Give me a break. There are no end of possibilities for redeveloping this property. Oak Bay has "oak" in its frickin' name, for crying out loud. Why not celebrate Victoria's uniqueness for once and build something that pays heed to its context?

[Nparker]

My point is the hypocrisy of the "concerned" neighbours whose homes very likely only exist because similar trees were cut down.

[VicHockeyFan]

The key point here: it's a very old tree. If you cut it down then it'll be a lifetime before you'll have anything that could even begin to approximate a replacement. Making flip decisions about significant trees is no different than making flip decisions about significant buildings. Heck, architectural changes tend to happen much more rapidly. There are plenty of sites in downtown Victoria that have changed buildings two or three times during the life of this very tree. The Empress Hotel has done several major expansions during the life of this very tree.

 

I know I'm a broken record about this, but the way these issues tend to get framed within two polarized positions is just inane. If you want a new building then you must also want the tree to go. If you want the tree to stay then you must also not want a new building. Give me a break. There are no end of possibilities for redeveloping this property. Oak Bay has "oak" in its frickin' name, for crying out loud. Why not celebrate Victoria's uniqueness for once and build something that pays heed to its context?

 

I'm coming around to this.  Excavate until you see the roots.  Then protect them (save the tree) and come back with your plan, that you have announced and have had approved in advance.

[todd]

May have been the only tree on the site you have the historical documentation?

 

It's like interpreting an x-ray from 1954(york house built 1969) but:  

 

http://www.webturf.c...ght_of_fantasy/

Edited by todd, 05 September 2017 - 10:42 AM.

[MarkoJ]

The key point here: it's a very old tree. If you cut it down then it'll be a lifetime before you'll have anything that could even begin to approximate a replacement. Making flip decisions about significant trees is no different than making flip decisions about significant buildings. 

 

The alternative to density and losing a tree is clear cutting to accomodate SFHs outside the core.

[MarkoJ]

 If you want a new building then you must also want the tree to go.

 

Let's be real, the heart of the issue is people don't want development. The tree is just something to grab on to.

 

If the developer was to build something without re-zoning requirement there would be no story, yet potentially the roots could get damaged. This is a case of, hmmmm, developer needs re-zoning so we will bring up as many issues as possible; too big, the tree, etc.

Edited by MarkoJ, 05 September 2017 - 11:19 AM.

[Nparker]

todd, on 05 Sept 2017 - 11:42 AM, said:

It's like interpreting an x-ray from 1954(york house built 1969)...

Presumably trees were cut down to build the houses that pre-date York House.

Edited by Nparker, 05 September 2017 - 11:20 AM.

[aastra]

 

...the heart of the issue is people don't want development. The tree is just something to grab on to.

 

Exactly. This is my point. Suffice it to say, if the option to deliberately leave sufficient space for this tree (and for the tree that eventually replaces it when this tree dies or gets struck by lightning or otherwise needs to be taken down) is off the table right out of the gate then we probably don't really care all that much about the tree and its presence, etc.

[aastra]

 

The alternative to density and losing a tree is clear cutting to accomodate SFHs outside the core.

 

Come on. A lowrise apartment project in the heart of Oak Bay has meaningful impact on the pace of suburban development in Langford?

 

Anyway, I'm saying the density on this site could well be the same (or higher) even if you build around the tree. Any way you slice it we're talking about a small apartment building. But the shape of the small apartment building could be much more context-sensitive. In a sane world the development process would encourage and/or require it to be much more context-sensitive.*

 

*context-sensitive does not = shorter

Edited by aastra, 05 September 2017 - 11:31 AM.

[MarkoJ]

Exactly. This is my point. Suffice it to say, if the option to deliberately leave sufficient space for this tree (and for the tree that eventually replaces it when this tree dies or gets struck by lightning or otherwise needs to be taken down) is off the table right out of the gate then we probably don't really care all that much about the tree and its presence, etc.

 

Do you think if the developer came up with an idea of notching out the building to accomodate the tree in exchange for a penthouse level that anyone would support it? The project has to be economically viable otherwise it doesn't get developed.

 

On my property I cut down gary oaks, arbutus, etc., all legally because I simple designed my house on top of the trees and when inside building envelope and you don't need re-zoning not much anyone can do nor did any of my neighbours complain. Here the developer needs something (a rezoning) and all of a sudden this is the last garry oak standing. Funny part is it even isn't on his or her property.  If the tree means so much the coop should buy the property off the developer and just rent it out.

 

Notice how their website is called "stop the quest," not "save the tree."

Edited by MarkoJ, 05 September 2017 - 11:36 AM.

[Bingo]

I suppose the developer can plant 12 nice replacement trees that nobody cares about, and that nobody waters until the trees die, and because these dead trees are not protected like the original they replaced are unceremoniously yanked out and fed into the chipping machine, so that another townhouse can be built on that space.