1095 replies to this topic

[aastra]

In my opinion.

[Nparker]

I realize these are row houses as opposed to SFH's, but I think these "boxes" create a very pleasing aesthetic.

Compare the above with the following "traditional" design

Too much of anything is never a good choice.

[aastra]

I'm just saying I wouldn't want three or four of them in a row as per your lower pic, or on both sides of the street, etc.

 

I can't put my finger on it but some housing styles just seem to fare better than others when they're repeated excessively. The effect is more neighbourhood-ish for some styles than for others.

[Nparker]

...I can't put my finger on it but some housing styles just seem to fare better than others when they're repeated excessively. The effect is more neighbourhood-ish for some styles than for others.

If I had to guess I would say that we are "used to seeing" repetition of traditional housing forms. If every SFH built in the past 125 years had the "squared box aesthetic" and someone started inserting elaborate Victorian gingerbread structures among them, I think the effect would be just as glaring. Is one form better than the other or are we simply more accustomed to seeing one form more than the other?

[Jackerbie]

"Victoria should consider imposing a moratorium on the demolition of single-family homes — a trend that may be adding fuel to the current red-hot real-estate market, says Coun. Ben Isitt.

“My feeling is the city should move forward with some sort of interim emergency bylaw to halt demolitions of single-family homes in the city,” Isitt said Friday."

 

That's not legal, as far as I know. You can impose a moratorium on Building Permits, but not Demolition Permits. My understanding is that municipalities can only withhold Demolition Permits where heritage properties are concerned. So unless he' also proposing to designate every single SF property in Victoria as heritage... not gonna fly.

 

Edit: I just realized how old this original post was. Whoops!

Edited by Jackerbie, 10 April 2017 - 12:48 PM.

[rjag]

That's not legal, as far as I know. You can impose a moratorium on Building Permits, but not Demolition Permits. My understanding is that municipalities can only withhold Demolition Permits where heritage properties are concerned. So unless he' also proposing to designate every single SF property in Victoria as heritage... not gonna fly.

 

Edit: I just realized how old this original post was. Whoops!

 

hehe! Mr Isitt is not the sharpest knife in the block even though he is a PhD candidate its most definitely not in economics and must not have any math or statistical component.....that being said, if you restrict the supply then all you do is drive the price up of the existing stock. Any 3rd grader could figure that out! But then again Mr Isitt isnt in the 3rd grade.....

[3isenough]

Just received this in an email newsletter from my daughter's school. A rezoning application to remove property from A-1 to build 36 townhouses in Royal Oak.

Makes sense, no farming happening beside the Royal Oak Mall area. A logistical nightmare though, traffic in that area is already a cluster.... 😡

Attached Images

• 

[Nparker]

I'm assuming it's this area I have outlined in red.

It seems like it should be a no-brainer that this site will become residential, but I see the neighbours fighting the rezoning for the usual reasons.

[nerka]

The city is surveying for feedback on the future of Fairfield

 

http://www.victoria....rhood-plan.html

 

I am sure that the NIMBYs will be responding to this in great numbers. Would be nice to get some responses from people who support some smart growth.

[nerka]

^Especially around Cook Street Village IMO.

 

They also talk about housing forms like row houses that could fit in almost anywhere in the hood

[Baro]

I'd love to see most of fairfield and james bay allow for fee-simple rowhouses absolutely anywhere. Just have different setbacks for different areas.  A street of mostly single family houses with 10' front yards?  Rowhouses with similar setbacks will fit right in.

[sebberry]

Interesting... maybe urban sprawl is better for our mental health after all...

 

 

Does City Life Pose a Risk to Mental Health?

Life in the city can be taxing. City dwellers often face higher rates of crime, pollution, social isolation and other environmental stressors than those living in rural areas. For years studies have consistently linked the risk of developing schizophrenia to urban environments—but researchers are only beginning to understand why this association exists. Addressing the link is increasingly urgent: According to a recent U.N. report, the proportion of people living in cities will rise from 54 percent of the world’s population in 2014 to 66 percent by 2050.

 

[...]

 

[Mike K.]

Hmm. Vancouver is looking uglier and seedier than ever. I've never seen so much garbage and dirty sidewalks as I did this weekend.

But I guess when you're busy thinking up new taxes and ways to meddle in free markets things like sidewalks don't get much attention.

Honestly though, it was weird. The downtown area appears to be in shambles with the amount of detritus around.

[tedward]

Great summary of the symbiotic relationship between transit and densification. I think he is correct, you need both as to try to densify without proper public transit is simply making the problem worse.

 

Doing Something Real About Gentrification and Displacement

by Dan Savage • May 22, 2017

 

The only thing worse than listening to suburbanites ***** about being stuck in traffic? Listening to local politicians pretend they can actually do something to Make Commutes Great Fast Again.

Way, way back in the '50s and '60s, people got it into their heads that they had a constitutional right to live in the suburbs and drive in or through the center of a city—to jobs, to stores, to stadiums, to hookers, to suburbs on the other side of the city—going seventy miles an hour. Our local politicians can't bring themselves to tell these entitled shits the truth: It's never going to be the 1960s around here again, when expressways were expressways, not parking lots. We can't build our way out of this. We can only build alternatives to cars, aka mass transit. (Preferably rapid transit, which is grade-separated transit. Without taking lanes away from cars, which we aren't going to do, BRT is not rapid transit. It's an oxymoron.)

 

full article >>

 

 

 

[Nparker]

BRT is not rapid transit. It's an oxymoron.)

[VicHockeyFan]

You're taking urban planning advice from Dan Savage?  

[aastra]

Has this already been posted here?

Can Victoria be saved from its own popularity?

 

 

Who wouldn’t want to live in Victoria? The city is known for its inviting lifestyle, affordable housing, good schools, plentiful green spaces, and solid career opportunities. It’s so tempting, in fact, that recent years have seen a spike in the number of newcomers setting up home. This growth in population, however, means that the very enticements that brought people here in the first place could be put at risk. Hear from a panel of UBC and community experts for a discussion about how good city planning, a solid housing strategy, and a diversifying economy can support growth while maintaining the lifestyle that will continue to make Victoria a desirable place to live, build a career, or raise a family.

 

 

 

- "We had a bet backstage who would say the word 'density' first..."

- "No, it was 'vibrant', it was 'vibrant density'

(laughter)

 

 

- "You know, If it wasn't for Vancouver... the Canadian conversation would always have been unaffordable Victoria. So if you go back, you know, 20 years of housing price data, Victoria is unaffordable by standard measures within Canada. It's just that Vancouver is so much more unaffordable that it got to sort of not be discussed. So it's not as though the history here is some, you know, bucolic wonderful community in terms of pricing where everything fit together and people could afford whatever they wanted and then two years ago it all ended.

 

Makes me think of some of the items that I mentioned here...

Edited by aastra, 02 June 2017 - 06:55 PM.

[Nparker]

Another useless CHEK poll. 

So I guess Victoria must be full then? Or do we tell all newcomers they must live in the suburbs? I sometimes think the greatest density in our region is between many of the residents' ears.

 

[Jackerbie]

^ Can I creatively interpret that poll as indicating favour for greater density outside of the downtown core, i.e. the 'village centres'?

[Nparker]

^ Can I creatively interpret that poll as indicating favour for greater density outside of the downtown core, i.e. the 'village centres'?

I guess so...