272 replies to this topic

[gumgum]

The reason the DT westside was so popular is because Vancouver is so large and spread out and hard to get around in. I think Victoria has a ways to go before our DT will be in as high demand. Do we want many empty lots in the meantime?

That may have been the initial reason. I don't really know. But d/t Vancouver has become a truly livable place because of its density. Everything within walking distance, great amenities from collected taxes because of density. It's a positive spiral. And more demand is met, the more demand increases.
I don't think we're anywhere near Vancouver demand either. But keep in mind that we have an underpopulated d/t. Very underpopulated.

[Baro]

I hope this building doesn't get the curse of the sussex: Amazing building proposed, height chopped down, architectural quality drastically cut back due to reduced density...

[piltdownman]

Victoria will never need the density downtown until more jobs come to the city. And not just jobs but high paying professional jobs. In Victoria most of the jobs downtown are retail, tourism and government. Where as in Vancouver there is a large number of corporate jobs. I'm not saying there isn't corporate jobs here, just that on average you make far less here working downtown. The amount of condo Victoria can build is not limited to by the number of people that want to live downtown, but rather who can afford to buy them.

The average household income in Yaletown in 2005 was $82k. Here the Humboldt Valley was $56k, North James Bay $50k and Downtown $38k. In Vancouver the Granville Strip had an average of $78k. Chinatown $66k, and even the south-westside of downtown is still $56k. I know those are just averages and don't tell the whole story, but they show that compared to Vancouver we simply don't have the same type of jobs.

Vancouver Data

Victoria Data

[aastra]

In Vancouver's case it was always the views that drove the residential highrise construction. That's why the West End was the area in which it happened first, and happened first in a big way, too. You could have water and mountain views from every building. As the years passed and the city changed and as the industrial areas downtown were eliminated, it became possible to take full advantage of the downtown peninsula's shape and build residential highrises in Coal Harbour and in Yaletown. Again, great water and mountain views in both directions from every building, and dramatically improved city views, too, as more development occurred.

James Bay is Victoria's West End. It's a peninsula that affords water and mountain views in more than one direction. No surprise, in the 1960s James Bay began developing in the same way that the West End was developing, until there was a backlash against the highrises. (It's also no surprise that there's a big old highrise on the hill in Rockland, and a couple of old junior highrise buildings on the rise on Beach Drive in Oak Bay. Take advantage of the heights, just like the old residential highrises on the slope above Kitsilano Beach, or up the hill in Point Grey.)

I'd say Vancouver has progressed from the views-from-ivory-towers phase to the density-has-its-benefits phase. Densification was a side effect of taking advantage of the views, but now densification is its own reward. Transit is also driving densification now. So you have lots of new residential towers in areas that were absolutely undesirable just a few short years ago, both in terms of views and in terms of lifestyle. Along the Millennium Line just east of the Burnaby border, for example.

Victoria is still stuck in the views-from-ivory-towers phase. It's all about views, and nobody really wants denser neighbourhoods. The problem with the ivory tower mindset is that it's slow going. Even the people who live in residential towers don't want residential towers! Nobody lives in the Songhees because they want to live in the Songhees. They live in the Songhees because they want a view. They scream bloody murder if a seagull blocks their precious view.

You could argue that Victoria killed its own momentum when the backlash against residential highrise buildings happened after the 1960s-1970s boom. Many Victorians didn't want density to become its own reward. So now we've banned highrise apartments in the areas where they would have been built (James Bay, waterfront areas in general, former industrial lands near downtown), and grudgingly accepted highrise apartments in the areas where views are not anything special (central/north downtown, Harris Green) and where momentum/appeal will grow very slowly, if at all.

One new Corazon or Juliet every four or five years? That's a glacial pace. Even 25 years from now, people who live in downtown Victoria will identify with the building in which they live rather than with the district in which they live. I live in The Falls. You live in 834 Johnson. She lives in the Hudson. It's about the buildings and the views rather than the dense neighbourhood and the overall experience.

[jklymak]

^ So you are saying to lure them in with the views, but then hope they fall in love with the density?

It seems to me there is plenty of room for both approaches. You can have streets like you have in many older cities where the apartments are cheek and jowl with no view for anyone except of the apartments across the way. Or you can have your Le Corbusier ivory towers surrounded by sterile parkland. Or you could have something in between where density and views are encouraged. Tall towers punctuating a 4-6 storey infill.

However, folks aren't going to buy in the future Juliet or Corazones if they think a new tower will block any sunlight they have in three years. Look how the folks at 840 View got screwed by the Wave.

This is actually one of the reasons I liked this proposal (and still do). The N/S extent of the lot was planned as one property, and the height restrictions on Fort and south are not likely to change any time soon. People buying in this development have a pretty solid idea of what they are getting view wise.

The disadvantage is that it sets up a wall for much of that stretch of View. The chance to develop N of there is pretty low, and the folks at the Metropolitan get kind of shafted. I understand that they are not entitled to clear views in perpetuity, etc etc, but having this building one lot to the east would have broken up the wall effect.

I don't buy that there is no role for city planning in making the best choices for densifying downtown. I think some rational thought as to how to best encourage more development would go a long way and that long term vision won't necessarily be done by individual developers.

[aastra]

^ So you are saying to lure them in with the views, but then hope they fall in love with the density?

I think I was saying this: highrise apartments tend to be built in areas where the highrise format would yield the most satisfaction for tenants. If you allow highrise apartments to be built in those areas where people want to live in highrise apartments, then the density will come easily and quickly. If you don't allow highrise apartments to be built in those areas where people want to live in highrise apartments but try instead to shift residential highrise construction to other less desirable areas, then it will be slow going and the density will take much, much longer to come.

I'm not thrilled about another tall building standing so close to View Towers, but I'm also 99% sure that View Towers won't be there forever.

[jklymak]

I agree with that. I'm not sure why James Bay construction stopped except for a few streets which are indeed heritage worthy. James Bay could be a much more vibrant spot.

OTOH, the views from just a few floors up in Harris Green can be fabulous. I wouldn't write it off as a bad area for desirable views that encourage density. In order to encourage that density I think towers should be staggered to allow owners views and keep or regain some cachet.

[Rob Randall]

View/Fort condo project tabled

By Robert Randall • Published on Saturday, May 29, 2010

City Councillors at the Thursday Governance and Priorities meeting tabled the proposed rezoning for the 930 Fort/937 View condo project.

The move came after a presentation from the City Planning Department that recommended Council reject the proposal as inappropriate for the Harris Green neighbourhood.

http://vibrantvictoria.ca/?p=2656

[G-Man]

AGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A freakin beautiful fourteen storey building doesn't "fit in" next to the 20 storey View Towers and less than a block from the 18 storey Park Residences and 15 storey Manhattan?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The freakin hell is going on at cityhall!?

[Bob Fugger]

This is easily one of the coolest-looking building proposals for this city in a long, long time. Perhaps Council in their infinite wisdom didn't think it was cracky enough, and might show up View Towers.

Phoque.I.Hate.This.Council...

[bicycles]

awful.. what does council think is appropriate for Harris Green? did I miss somewhere in the 200 page long views section of the downtown plan the part about preserving the views of View tower?

[VicHockeyFan]

AGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A freakin beautiful fourteen storey building doesn't "fit in" next to the 20 storey View Towers and less than a block from the 18 storey Park Residences and 15 storey Manhattan?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The freakin hell is going on at cityhall!?

Surely there has to be a better process than this guessing-game way that proposals come forward, only to be shot down over major factors such as height and density. Can't city staff and council develop some type of parameters and ask that the developer present something within that, and the council will agree to accept if it meets the criteria?

[aastra]

On the bright side, we'll all get to enjoy that fine parking lot for a while longer.

I think "inappropriate" in this instance means "decent looking."

[RMC 24409]

James Bay is Victoria's West End. It's a peninsula that affords water and mountain views in more than one direction. No surprise, in the 1960s James Bay began developing in the same way that the West End was developing, until there was a backlash against the highrises. (It's also no surprise that there's a big old highrise on the hill in Rockland, and a couple of old junior highrise buildings on the rise on Beach Drive in Oak Bay. Take advantage of the heights, just like the old residential highrises on the slope above Kitsilano Beach, or up the hill in Point Grey.)

I would agree to that. Taking advantage of the heights is the only viable compromise in a situation like this one.

Densification was a side effect of taking advantage of the views, but now densification is its own reward. Transit is also driving densification now. So you have lots of new residential towers in areas that were absolutely undesirable just a few short years ago, both in terms of views and in terms of lifestyle. Along the Millennium Line just east of the Burnaby border, for example.

Well, in Victoria, the transit system is horrible. Coming from Ottawa I can simply tell you that Victoria has much to learn on this matter. The routes aren't the greatest and the schedule is barely followed. I think densification for the view might be driving transit in the medium to long term but right now people are still using their cars, mostly. (The price for a parking space in a new condo is off the roof by the way).

Victoria is still stuck in the views-from-ivory-towers phase. It's all about views, and nobody really wants denser neighbourhoods. The problem with the ivory tower mindset is that it's slow going. Even the people who live in residential towers don't want residential towers! Nobody lives in the Songhees because they want to live in the Songhees. They live in the Songhees because they want a view. They scream bloody murder if a seagull blocks their precious view.

Is Victoria really in that phase? What about all the condo buildings that just went up in Victoria West and downtown recently? I think it's the other way around. Some people are afraid of expanding the high-rises over areas of traditionnal neighbourhoods. I would say that this phenomenon is true in Victoria / James Bay. I see Victoria West /Esquimalt (east) as the ground to expansion. Have you seen Swallow's Landing? It's in Esquimalt. There will be densification. It will be more rapid in the west part of the city where the view can only be created by the building elevation. Hopefully this won't create a "wall"against the harbour though.

There's a huge prickiness about living in Victoria versus Esquimalt - even Victoria West tends to define itself as part of Victoria versus Esquimalt. Many city of Victoria residents never (have to) cross the bridge. In the case of Victoria West, the super yacht marina is an outrage to downtown and the residents of Victoria West, much more than just a complaint about a seagulls. If you pay 400k+ for a condo you buy for the view and its luxury, why would you concern yourself with densification?

One new Corazon or Juliet every four or five years? That's a glacial pace. Even 25 years from now, people who live in downtown Victoria will identify with the building in which they live rather than with the district in which they live. I live in The Falls. You live in 834 Johnson. She lives in the Hudson. It's about the buildings and the views rather than the dense neighbourhood and the overall experience.

I think it's already happening. People associate themselves with buildings, some with the roads they live on. It's a "downtown Victoria" syndrome because if you live 10 mins of driving away almost no one knows about it. It's about the view and it's about getting something new that doesn't remind you of the 1970's. It's also a little more complicated than that. Many of the owners aren't looking to live there 365 days a year. They're from Alberta or the US and they want a summer retreat. The drive for densification is severely limited by its demand because the demand is very limited by its local population. So, unless you can create an outside demand (that will buy for location, view, amenities), Victoria will never re-create itself as an efficient, dense, yet practical city.

[Baro]

Uh oh, looks like I'm going to have to start punching, perhaps even kicking.

[aastra]

Just some clarification:

Have you seen Swallow's Landing? It's in Esquimalt.

Swallow's Landing is a perfect example re: "views from ivory towers."

I think densification for the view might be driving transit in the medium to long term but right now people are still using their cars, mostly.

In Victoria densification isn't driving transit at all. I meant in Greater Vancouver. I might not have been clear on that one.

What about all the condo buildings that just went up in Victoria West and downtown recently? I think it's the other way around.

Those buildings are exactly what I'm talking about. They're all about views. The Songhees is all about views and south downtown is also all about views (hence why the folks who were waiting to move into the uncompleted Astoria had a flip when Aria was proposed in front of them, or why the folks who lived in the Savoy had a flip when the Y-lot was finally developed or when the Cherry Bank was proposed next door). Nobody says, "Awesome, new buildings and more people will make the area more interesting!" Everybody says, "Outrageous! My view might be affected!"

If you pay 400k+ for a condo you buy for the view and its luxury, why would you concern yourself with densification?

But that's exactly what my point was. Nobody is interested in densification and its rewards, unlike for example in downtown Vancouver (which has now evolved to the point that "being there" is just as valuable as "being there with a great view"). But Victoria is still in the "views from ivory towers" phase. It's all about the views. Nobody moves into the Songhees because it's an interesting neighbourhood. The Songhees is nothing. It's merely a place to put your condo so you can enjoy the view.

The drive for densification is severely limited by its demand because the demand is very limited by its local population. So, unless you can create an outside demand (that will buy for location, view, amenities), Victoria will never re-create itself as an efficient, dense, yet practical city.

See, I'm on the opposite side of that argument. It's fine to cater to outsiders but then again that isn't how you create neighbourhoods. Why is Cook Street/Fairfield the densest neighbourhood in Victoria? Because the neighbourhood is its own reward. Hardly anyone has a view in Cook Street/Fairfield. There are no tall buildings there. And yet it's the densest neighbourhood. Has been for a long time. It's not about ivory towers there.

[Bob Fugger]

Well, in Victoria, the transit system is horrible. Coming from Ottawa I can simply tell you that Victoria has much to learn on this matter. The routes aren't the greatest and the schedule is barely followed.

And OC Transpo is a model of transit perfection? Pffffft. Say, how far along is the Ottawa's light rail expansion project doing? Oh, wait a sec...

[aastra]

...unless you can create an outside demand...

I'd say inside demand is more important than outside demand when we're talking about what we're talking about. Many folks from other places will be especially interested in "ivory towers" living, for sure. But you know you've really made it when locals place a high value on the neighbourhoods themselves, regardless of whether or not they're living in a penthouse.

So how do we regard the Selkirk development? I'd say it was a deliberate compromise. There's an ivory tower aspect to it, but it's not the main emphasis, not by a long shot. They were trying to create a neighbourhood right out of the box. Were they successful? I'd say only partially, but I think the Selkirk nevertheless demonstrates that new developments don't always have to follow the ivory tower model.

[VicHockeyFan]

Nobody moves into the Songhees because it's an interesting neighbourhood. The Songhees is nothing. It's merely a place to put your condo so you can enjoy the view.

I suppose there are indeed some people that buy on the leeward side of Songhees condos, save $100-$200k and enjoy the view buy going out for a daily walk. So for them, the greater neighbourhood is interesting.

[jklymak]

But you've come full circle because that's exactly what my point was. Nobody is interested in densification and its rewards, unlike for example in downtown Vancouver (which has now evolved to the point that "being there" is just as valuable as "being there with a great view").

I was in the West End recently. I really don't think that are many blocks where the buildings are jammed together like they are in say the 800-block Yates and View. I spent some time on google maps and saw the occasional tall building and lots of 4-storey infill. While I'm sure they exist, I did not see any instances of tall buildings (>8 storeys say) cheek and jowl.

So sure, people shouldn't whine if a building goes up in their periphery. However, I think its not true that people in Vancouver are willing to sacrifice views for "being there" and I sure don't think Victoria is anywhere near the point where we should cram all the tall buildings right next to each other.

To that end, while I love the original design of this building, I can see the wisdom of not wanting it right next to View towers. It makes a huge wall that anyone to the north won't be able to see around. Is that really good planning?