Jump to content

      



























Photo

[Rockland - Victoria] 1322 Rockland Avenue condos | Proposed


  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#1 Gregory Hartnell

Gregory Hartnell
  • Member
  • 45 posts

Posted 15 November 2006 - 05:37 PM

+++

I wonder if anyone has an update on the status of Wei Tu's plans for the huge heritage mansion at 1322 Rockland Avenue? There is still a development proposal sign at the Rockland driveway entrance.

I believe that she has been before City Council four times already with various different proposals.

While generally opposed to modifications to the exterior of the mansion, I believe that most neighbours would not be opposed (or are at any rate resigned) to seeing new housing on the property, up to four stories. Any higher would probably not fly with the Rockland Ratepayers' Association, or whatever the local neighbourhood group is called.

I am not a member of the RRA, nor have I ever taken a public position on this proposal, until now.

+++

#2 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 16 November 2006 - 05:23 PM

News on 1322 Rockland?

Well, the Rockland Neighbourhood Association (RNA) has a link on [url=http://rockland.bc.ca/rezoning1322.html:924b1]this page[/url:924b1] where they've posted the correspondence between them and the city (and indirectly, the owner) thus far. [url=http://victoria.wetpaint.com/page/Schuhuum+--+1322+Rockland+Avenue:924b1]Style Council[/url:924b1] also posted an opinion about this, but it doesn't have any new information or facts.

However, yours truly recently by chance had the opportunity to speak to one of the property's immediate abutters, a gentleman who wanted to see Wei Tu's apartment iteration (with the underground parking garage) go through, the proposal that had the RNA's more hawkish NIMBYs go nearly ballistic, and this gentleman told me that Wei had told him (remember, this is hearsay) that she is now thinking of turning 1322 into a halfway house for recovering drug addicts and alcoholics. She wouldn't even need a variance to do this, since it's already zoned.

Way to go, RNA -- you could have had a pretty snappy development, but (if the hearsay is true) you might get a halfway house instead...
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#3 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 16 November 2006 - 06:34 PM

Can't help but giggle at that news.^

#4 Gregory Hartnell

Gregory Hartnell
  • Member
  • 45 posts

Posted 16 November 2006 - 08:09 PM

+++

I appreciate the opportunity the forum provides for the disemination of real news. These rumours are worse than useless.

+++

#5 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 16 November 2006 - 08:58 PM

She did say it was a rumour.
As long as a rumour isn't dressed-up as anything but a rumour, I see it just as valid as anything else written here.

Show me a forum with only facts and I'll introduce you to my pet leprechaun.

Show me a forum with only facts and I might die of boredom.

#6 Gregory Hartnell

Gregory Hartnell
  • Member
  • 45 posts

Posted 16 November 2006 - 10:20 PM

+++

This website will quickly lose any credibility it now enjoys if rumours and rumourmongering are treated in the same manner as hard facts. Where are the moderators to guide us on this issue? It seems to me this is an important point to establish if the site is to attract any degree of credibility outside of the regulars.

God knows there has been enough acrimony and contention in the Rockland neighbourhood for some time now over this particular issue. We certainly don't need to give credence to baseless rumours that would only confuse the ignorant and discourage those, like myself, interested in reality.

+++

#7 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 16 November 2006 - 10:43 PM

Well, Mr. Hartnell, since you're the one who started this thread with a request for information, but who also doesn't like what's bubbling up, I suggest you call Wei Tu (she is an incredibly personable woman) and ask her yourself. You can then report back to us, as we are just waiting with bated breath to hear the news from on high.
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#8 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,155 posts

Posted 16 November 2006 - 11:39 PM

Well, Mr. Hartnell, since you're the one who started this thread with a request for information, but who also doesn't like what's bubbling up, I suggest you call Wei Tu (she is an incredibly personable woman) and ask her yourself. You can then report back to us, as we are just waiting with bated breath to hear the news from on high.


Where are the moderators to guide us on this issue?


Ms. B's suggestion sounds like a plan.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#9 Galvanized

Galvanized
  • Member
  • 1,196 posts

Posted 17 November 2006 - 12:29 AM

Where are the moderators to guide us on this issue?


Ms B clearly stated that it was hearsay;

(remember, this is hearsay)


Past President of Victoria's Flâneur Union Local 1862

#10 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 17 November 2006 - 10:45 AM

Funny thing about development-related rumours in Victoria...they almost always turn out to be true.

I say "almost" because I allow for the possibility that someday we'll hear a rumour that doesn't turn out to be true. Still waiting.

Also, I think it's a great idea. People are telling us a halfway house in Oaklands/Jubilee is a glorious, joyful thing. A halfway house in Rockland can only be that much more glorious and joyful, right?

(crickets chirping)

#11 Gregory Hartnell

Gregory Hartnell
  • Member
  • 45 posts

Posted 17 November 2006 - 06:01 PM

+++

Thanks to Ms. B. Havin for the lead to the Style Council opinion piece, which I believe was written by Yule Heibel. I also appreciate the link she provided to the neighbourhood group. That is real helpful information that I appreciate.

I was confused, however, why Ms Havin would also add the hearsay, which seems somewhat strange, especially the last bit taunting the so-called nimbys in that group, whoever they are, over an hypothetical scenario. She seems to imply that providing a recovery house in the neighbourhood would be a bad thing. I disagree. We need abstinence-based recovery houses in all neighbourhoods of Greater Victoria.

I know Wei Tu, have done business with her, and agree with Ms Havin that she is indeed very approachable and personable. I think that she might see this as a good opportunity to get her side of the story on this website, so I will give her a call, and encourage her to do so in her own words, and thanks for the suggestion! In any case, I was intending to do that, so we are all on the same page!

In starting the thread, I guess what I was really also fishing for was an explanation from some City Councillor or planning department type that would give us an idea of what the bureaucrats and our elected representatives are thinking...

I wonder if any of them have the courage of their convictions and will help us understand the differences they have with the neighbourhood association, and the proponent? They must have heard of the website by now...

I must say that I often find it hard to determine if the Planning Department, the real estate-development lobbyists or the City Council is really in charge at Victoria City Hall when it comes to land use decisions, but that's the subject for another thread, I suppose...

+++

#12 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 17 November 2006 - 06:25 PM

The community ass.'s seem to have the most power in that regard. There's a reason you only see million dollar townhouses in jamesbay as opposed to any new rentals, and it's not developers.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#13 m0nkyman

m0nkyman
  • Member
  • 729 posts

Posted 17 November 2006 - 08:08 PM

She seems to imply that providing a recovery house in the neighbourhood would be a bad thing. I disagree.

No. She implied that the NIMBY's might be more upset about a halfway house than a taller building. I tend to agree with her assessment.

For the record, I too would be more upset my a halfway house being built next door to me than I would be by a 500 foot high rise.

#14 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 17 November 2006 - 11:08 PM

The neighbour/abutter to 1322 didn't seem upset at all by the idea of a halfway house, although he's also not one of those residents opposed to developing the property (eg., the apartment-with-underground-parking idea). Some of the people who loudly and vociferously protested the latter, however, are going to be upset by the idea of a halfway house (and I still can't quite wrap my head around it, because I don't see how the owner will profit from this scheme, which is why, to my mind, it falls into the hearsay category unless and until she confirms it). They're going to be upset not least because it takes away the notion of stable long-term residents and instead would turn the property into transient accomodation. Halfway houses, by definition, aren't long-term, right?, so we're talking about a transient population. Coupled with the nursing facilities for the aged in the neighbourhood (one-way ticket in, you go out head first), this contributes to further changes, which those members of the RNA (and remember, the RNA has a membership -- it's not just the Board) who are opposed to changes (including development) are going to freak out over.

Ok, "freak out" is a strong formulation, but keep in mind that I've gone to practically every open meeting (including the ones at City Hall, and the ones hosted by the RNA) regarding this project, and there are some very heated opinions around this thing. I'm not unfairly impugning anyone's reputation by referring to NIMBYs in Rockland. Believe me, there are NIMBYs in Rockland.

As for the city or planning directing this in any even marginally conspiratorial way: I haven't seen any unseen guiding hands. Council would like to see something happen (not least because they're sick and tired of wasting their time as well as staff's on it), but everytime this project comes before it, there are residents on hand to ensure that council is aware of their deep-seated opposition to the proposal, an opposition they claim is dominant.(*) At this point, council hands it back to staff (i.e., the planning department), which gets to tear its hair out once again, trying to find some way to tell the developer what to do, perhaps without appearing to be telling the developer what to do, because of course it's also not planning's job to tell a private property owner what to do with his or her property. We still live in a democracy where certain rules apply, even if it's a 2-acre site, which some people seem to think should be a public park for their enjoyment, and that any talk of actually building higher density on the site immediately brands an owner as a "greedy" developer.

Planning has no ax to grind, as far as I can tell -- they have parameters, but are in fact required to take "direction" from council. The latter in turn are pushed this way and that by the determination of the owner on the one hand and the ire of some of the residents on the other, so they (council) cop out by handing it back to staff (planning), and the cycle goes on.

(*) This, despite the fact that some neighbours at a public January or February 2005 presentation by Wei Tu and her architect Hywel Jones at the Truth Centre spoke passionately in favour of the apartment idea (including a former RNA Board member), not least because it would allow them to continue living in the neighbourhood (by downscaling from houses they can no longer afford or maintain). But those views are ultimately silenced by the Board's duty to uphold the 1987 Rockland Plan (which is a guideline, and not a bylaw, although many RNA members would like to see it turned into a bylaw). That plan states that no new apartments should be built in Rockland -- regardless of the fact that quite a few apartment buildings already exist in Rockland, and that the only reason the old mansions managed to survive intact during the "lean" years was because they were turned into apartments or suites. Rockland's population is around 70% renters.

Admittedly, the Jan/Feb. 05 iteration was a bit over the top, but the second version after that broke the scheme down into a more manageable scale, which again faced massive opposition, with a high turn out at City Hall when it went before Committee of the Whole, and with residents opposed to the proposal even going so far as to bad-mouth council for "tabling" Tu's proposal, vs. turning it down outright. In other words, nothing short of shutting her down completely was going to satisfy them.

As for the rumour: I don't quite believe it because I don't see how the owner stands to profit from the institutional route, given that previous iterations for private residences vaulted this development into the tens of millions. Of course she could still subdivide and pave the whole thing over with surface parking and townhouses -- I'm not sure, but I don't think that would require much of anything in terms of variances. That would probably be the worst-case scenario, as far as I'm concerned.

And now I'm done with this. This is all I know, and so there'll be no further comment from me.
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#15 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 04 September 2007 - 09:00 PM

I'm told by a friend in the Real Estate industry that there is an info session at 6pm Wednesday at the Tructh Centre for a project that will encompass the land and building that was famously bought for a song by Baron Von Bothsomethingorother.

Any word on this on this site?

Rockland LUC info: http://www.rockland.bc.ca/luc.html

THE CALENDAR

5 September RNA is holding a Community Meeting for all residents regarding the rezoning application for 1322 Rockland Ave., the former Caroline Macklem Home. 7:00- 9:00 pm. Victoria Truth Centre, 1201 Fort Street
AGENDA
1. Introduction (D. Mueller) 5 mins.
2. Rockland Zoning Overview (M. Hammond) 5 mins.
3. Presentations by Large & Co. Developer 40 mins.
4. Open discussion of the proposal 60 mins.

The doors to the Centre will open at 6:30 pm for viewing displays provided by the developer. The meeting itself will commence at 7:00 pm. If you are speaking please restrict your comments to the current proposal. You will be limited to 2 minutes for questions and/or presentations. Kindly respect the time limit so that all neighbours can be heard. If you wish to submit a written question or opinion to be read by a board member during the meeting, please submit same in writing with your name, address and phone number to one of the board members co-ordinating the meeting on the floor.

A report on this proposal by the RNA Land Use Committee may be found here.

12 September. Meeting of the RNA Board of Directors. Volunteers’ Cottage, Government House, 1401A Rockland Avenue, Wednesday, September 12th 2007 - 7:00 p.m. Meetings are held on the second Wednesday of each month. Agenda




<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#16 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 04 September 2007 - 09:05 PM

Here is some more talk: http://victoria.wetp... ... nue?t=anon
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#17 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 05 September 2007 - 06:08 AM

And more current details about today's upcoming meeting on the [url=http://www.rockland.bc.ca/:236f4]Rockland Neighbourhood Association website[/url:236f4].
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#18 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 06 September 2007 - 08:50 PM

I decided to go to the meeting as it was only a couple of blocks away from me, plus I had never seen the inside of the Truth Centre.

There was a large turnout. The biggest concern seemed to be that many felt the proposal did not adhere to the 1987 Rockland Official Community Plan.

The condo buildings were larger than I expected. But it seemed like the best views would be preserved. I liked the public pathway idea. Number 10 is the architect.

I estimate that perhaps 60% of the speakers were against it.

#19 Galvanized

Galvanized
  • Member
  • 1,196 posts

Posted 06 September 2007 - 10:37 PM

1987? Wow, that needs updating!
Past President of Victoria's Flâneur Union Local 1862

#20 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 06 September 2007 - 11:05 PM

The neighbourhood plan allows for townhouses, or single family residential on the property. The developer explained that if he put single family or townhouses on the property it would chew up the entire landscape, as each one would have to be serviced by roads/infrastructure and it still wouldn't pay for restoring the mansion and coach house.

His plan calls for saving the protected trees and restoring the gardens, and opening up view corridors from the street. The site would use green materials and technologies. He intends to give the City a pathway running diagonally through the property and past the mansion to the city, as a link in the proposed Pemberton Trail. The Pemberton Trail is a branch of the [url=http://www.victoria.ca/common/maps/grnwys_map.pdf:a12a5]Greenways plan[/url:a12a5] that follows Rockland.

The new condos would be in arts and craft style, granted, it isn't west coast contemporary which I would have preferred, but it isn't glass towers which I think would send the good folk of Rockland into a lather. It is aimed at the extremely wealthy - and in fact the mansion only has three condos in it.
Nowadays most people die of a sort of creeping common sense, and discover when it is too late that the only things one never regrets are one's mistakes.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users