102 replies to this topic

[Holden West]

There's a open house today at City Hall from 3 to 8 pm about three items, the Downtown Plan, Harbourfront walkway plan and the pedestrian plan.

http://victoria.ca/c..._downtown.shtml

You can also submit your opinions online.

[amor de cosmos]

not a moment too soon! I told them i wanted an rss feed so I can be kept "apprised" of their progress

[G-Man]

So I was down there today and well the walkway stuff was boring and the pedestrian plan was missing bits and the downtown plan(S) really pissed me off.

I am ticked that it has come this far and once again they are doing more consultation. Anyways as is shown on the website here: http://victoria.ca/c...n.shtml#options

So they have once again madea great effort of failing to commit to anything.

I did feel like they were trying to push option 4 or the Pamco option as I will call it, down your throat. They even use the word "horizontal" in the benefits section of the proposal.

The only option that had any substance to it IMO is option 3 which expands downtown to the north and east. I encourage veryone to look at the option and provide feedback to the city here: http://www.zoomerang...=WEB2274GUHX3UQ

I don't know why the Pamco option is the only one that has development move into Rock Bay that just seems weird.

Some of the city massing pics are cool I wonder if we can upload them...

Ok Option 3 (the good one)

[amor de cosmos]

I also liked option 3 the best (& option 1 the worst). Building up other streets besides Yates should be considered also, like View, Johnson & Pandora. I think it's great that the city is planning. I just hope they follow through with their plan. As much as I like how new development has cleaned up Langford/Colwood is I really think it should be happening downtown 10 times as much as it is anywhere else. Victoria will really look bad if they just go with the flow & maintain the status quo imho.

(I think this should be in its own thread now that it's not really the coriolis report anymore. )

[zoomer]

Yes, I agree with Option 3 as well. In fact I think they've structured the options so this is the only logical choice! Seriously, there is no way the Rock Bay will become strictly residential, with no light industry along the harbour so those options are automatically eliminated.

It only makes sense to further develop Harris Green as it's a logical extension of downtown, and a pedestrian friendly grid (instead of the long strip along Douglas, which will hopefully also be improved).

Fascinating to see how James Bay is not even included in the mix!! Not even in the map! Hmm...wonder how that neighbourhood got excluded from consideration.

G-Man, if you agree we can make this a start of a new thread?

[Mike K.]

Yes, I agree with Option 3 as well. In fact I think they've structured the options so this is the only logical choice!

Perhaps you're onto something there.

[G-Man]

Yup lets go to a new thread how is brave enough to try the cut.

[G-Man]

Alrighty I'll get the hang of this new forum yet.

So I agree that Option 3 seemed to be the best from my perspective but I will guarantee that Option Pamco was getting just as much attention from those in the room.

Option 2 uses the "uptown" title which is ridiculous. I am also slightly concerned about the the inclusion in all the plans of more park space. I am not sure if we need to do this as there is already a lot around town and this will just further distribute the users.

[amor de cosmos]

Perhaps you're onto something there.

They've already sort of decided for us. Instead of just asking what people think, they've decided that we'll choose one of the four. (which is really more like one or another, not really 4)

[Holden West]

City offers four options for downtown growth
Victoria council expected to make a choice in 2008

Carolyn Heiman, Times Colonist
Published: Thursday, November 08, 2007

For recent Fairfield resident Freda Knott, the room full of information boards at the open house at city hall was a lot to process.

"I love the city and don't want it to change," said Knott, who moved from Metchosin several years ago after finding her acreage too much work and friends too far away. "The idea of highrises just boggles me. But maybe that's because I'm old. I'm worried about the future even if I won't be around," said the 71-year-old.

Meanwhile, Grade 12 student Joseph Boutilier, clearly one the youngest people there, said the boost in residential area in the plan was encouraging and "the new greenways and walks along the harbour are long overdue."

But he worried the plans didn't really spell out where affordable housing would exist or how social services, such as needle exchanges, could co-exist with residential development.

City Coun. Dean Fortin said by the time the city finishes with the plan "it will be too late. Just scan the downtown and look at the towers and build-out we already have. We are not moving fast enough to keep what makes Victoria special."

Nice to hear people supporting preservation of the crumbling one-storey shacks, vast empty surface parking and weed-strewn vacant lots that make Downtown so lovely and special.

[Mike K.]

Nice to hear people supporting preservation of the crumbling one-storey shacks, vast empty surface parking and weed-strewn vacant lots that make Downtown so lovely and special.

I could not have said it any better myself.

Is the general population of this city really that ignorant? Are we, as councillor Fortin says, really losing something special by redeveloping eyesore properties with buildings that actually fit the needs of and benefit the local population? What made us special will remain but the one and two-storey architectural blights we have littering this "big Chilliwack" of a capital city (a term coined by Joe Easingwood of CFAX) make parts of the downtown core look like a nondescript town in a nondescript part of the country. And that makes us special, hey?

Anyone who feels that the status quo is the way to go obviously has little pride in Victoria and little desire to make this city the best it can be.

[amor de cosmos]

I could not have said it any better myself.

Is the general population of this city really that ignorant? Are we, as councillor Fortin says, really losing something special by redeveloping eyesore properties with buildings that actually fit the needs of and benefit the local population? What made us special will remain but the one and two-storey architectural blights we have littering this "big Chilliwack" of a capital city (a term coined by Joe Easingwood of CFAX) make parts of the downtown core look like a nondescript town in a nondescript part of the country. And that makes us special, hey?

Anyone who feels that the status quo is the way to go obviously has little pride in Victoria and little desire to make this city the best it can be.

It reminds me of that quotation attributed to Winston Churchill "the best argument against democracy is a 5-minute conversation with an average voter." If I read the plan correctly, the city is going to keep the stuff people like about Victoria (Government St, Old Town, Chinatown) & fix the stuff that people don't like. If I read that lady's comments correctly, she just didn't like Metchosin because of her acreage & distance from friends. Now that she's in Fairfield, she doesn't have to deal with a big lot, and she's closer to her friends! In Fairfield, much closer to downtown, she still has everything she liked about Metchosin, and nothing she didn't like! Doesn't she realize that Victoria is a capital city? It should look like one!

[Ms. B. Havin]

I think that as long as our municipal leadership never bothers making the case for why we can't maintain the status quo, said leaders will never be able to tap into the groundswell of support that is actually out there for change.

Instead, they cower before the wrath of the CAVE people (Citizens Against Virtually Everything), they quake before the BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone), and implore the "Charm Fairy" (that mythical creature who nonetheless is real enough that her dust clouds people's eyes to the actual blight and sordidness of those one- and two-storey wastes-of-space) not to desert them.

I'd like to know whether there wouldn't be a strong expression of support for progressive change, if only the politicians were capable of spelling out such a "vision."

But it seems that either they aren't capable, or they don't want to put themselves on the line to spell it out and stand behind it.

[Ms. B. Havin]

I'm reacting (above) to media's pandering to the "sky is falling" types (the ones that Winston Churchill no doubt would NOT have asked about democracy, for example), and I'm reacting to the sense I got that planning staff may have worked their tails off to get those plans out there, but that the elected leaders sort of fade into the background until they can "assess" the popular responses/ reactions.

This is wrong. You can't present 4 options to people who come with wildly differing levels of knowledge/ interest in the subject, and with wildly differing agendas based often enough on which neighbourhood they live in, and then say, "choose one of these options for downtown revitalization."

At the very least, the political leaders should have been out there for weeks in advance banging the drum, er, informing people as to why he or she stands behind Option 1 or 2 or 3 or 4. C'mon, councillor/mayor folks, you know the budgets, the finances, the states of things -- tell us what you think the wisest choice is, and then maybe we can argue or talk or whatever. But to make political decisions based on "feedback" from the community, when leadership hasn't done much at all to inform the community with specific, concrete information and examples, seems stupid, imo.

Staff comes up with tons of "product," and then we let the blind lead the blind.

It's one thing to go to a downtown workshop for brainstorming sessions and to produce tons of "community input." But this is way past that stage, and I'd like to know why our leaders would opt for whatever option they'd choose.

Plus, I agree with the comments above, that the whole thing seems kind of rigged since Option 3 was the only one that approximated sense.

[Caramia]

You can add another vote for Option 3 here. I was all ready to come back to the forums and advocate for Option 2 when I read about intensifying density along a LRT line, but then when I got to Option 3 it seemed like it has the best of both worlds - Here is what I like about Option 3

- Both corridors of the cross are extremely troubled areas, places where it is not pleasant or charming. That is where the change is needed.
- Density along Douglas will support and enable better public transport and hopefully, eventually an LRT or Trolley of some kind.
- We need that second line of density on the East-West axis, and Harris Green is atm a project half finished, imo.
- Option 3 points the City in a direction that enhances the possibility of an LRT while preserving walkability (the Harbour walkway, and Harris Green pedestrian way). Again, density is the key to both, along with mixed use.
- I am a passionate advocate for continued industrial use in Rock Bay of water-oriented industry that requires the deep harbour. Because of the amount of aggregate consumed in the core, for sustainability reasons I want to see that material dispersed from the core ... not trucked in by contractors from Colwood. I also like it from an aesthetic point of view. Option 3 maintains the industrial harbour while allowing for other uses in the rest of Rock Bay - a flexible solution that builds on the Selkirk experiment of mixing uses.
- The higher building height allows for higher quality buildings: steel frame construction that will last centuries instead of wood frame disposable buildings. It allows for increased density in the core, which then benefits housing affordability in the city at large by taking pressure off the lower end of the market, adheres to the principles of smart growth and sustainability, by providing population in the core, creates a better tax base for the City of Victoria, and enhances the viability of downtown retail and restaurants.
- Park space is well located in Option 3. The waterfront walkway is a significant addition to public space right in the CBD, we don't need to plop down more greenspace there too, where it will only become habitat for our more troubled citizens. The two park locations shown in Option 3 are better located and will serve the two lines of residential density. Perfect.

My perfect Downtown Victoria is somewhere where I can walk everywhere, where building and commercial space vacancy is low, where I can live no matter what my income, and experience a diversity of people (not just yuppies), where I can work close to my home, and where connectivity to other parts of the city is provided by quality public transit. So yeah, Option 3 looks like the best bet.

I just want to add, I think the planning department really did well here. It is easy to criticize, but sometimes we forget to give kudos where they are deserved. Despite the fact that the four option plans may seem like waffling, I have to respect the willingness to engage in public debate that they represent, along with the reality of the extra workload that it must have created to do it this way. Hats off.

[Holden West]

Wishy-washy editorial from the Times-Colonist. Summary: there are four options; you should choose one. :-/

Editorial: Planning downtown's future
Times Colonist
Published: Friday, November 09, 2007

Urban planning doesn't seem all that complicated. There are some straightforward choices -- build taller buildings and accommodate more people in a smaller area, for example, or opt for low-rise development spread over a wider area.

But each decision taken is like rock tossed into a pond -- the ripples affect every element of community life. Tall buildings might bring shaded streets and a skyline some find unattractive. But they also allow for cheaper, more effective public transit, which means fewer vehicles downtown and a more livable city.

The City of Victoria is working on an update to its downtown plan in an attempt to set broad development directions for the next 20 years. It has taken four options to the public in an effort to get a sense of community concerns. Anyone who cares about the future of the city -- and the region -- should grab the chance to participate.

The four options, just starting points, offer a useful basis for discussion. One choice, for example, would see more intensive, taller residential and commercial development north along Douglas Street toward Hillside. The increased population would support bus service and reduce development pressure on the existing core.

Another choice would see lower density development over a larger area, including a shift in Rock Bay from industrial and commercial to residential. It would mean fewer tall buildings, but more sprawl and fewer traditional industries within the harbour area.

The four broad options, along with readers' comments and news coverage, can be found at www.timescolonist.com. The city also has full information on the choices, and how to have your say, at www.victoria.ca. (Just click on "What's New.")

It's your chance to help shape the future, and you need not be limited in responding. The four options, for example, give short shrift to housing affordability. That should be part of the plan.

Urban growth doesn't just happen. It reflects market forces and demographic changes. But it also responds to the choices we make.

© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2007

[Ms. B. Havin]

^ Typical. (I really have to restrain myself from saying something very snarky...)

Just to clarify, in relation to Caramia's comments, too: I'm not criticizing planning staff, b/c I recognize that they put tons of work into this. But as with anything, an outfit is only as good as its leadership, and while staff is staff with its leaders in place, it's ultimately "led" by our political leadership. It's the last bit I find particularly deficient.

Ok, I will say something snarky about the T-C. I think they could use better editors. I don't want to rag on the individual reporters, 'cause who knows what the copy they hand in looks like compared to what the paper prints. It's the editorial level -- the leadership at the paper -- that needs a make-over. I don't know who the editors are, but for this paper to produce, consistently, such low-grade material has to be due to poor editorial thinking. (Heck, even head office in Winnipeg gave the local bosses hell when they made the jackass decision to fire Vivian Smith, remember? So even head office thinks they're bad. Maybe Victoria doesn't rank as important enough to warrant a real make-over, and so it becomes a self-reinforcing cycle?)

Take a look at the silly article in the T-C today about UVic ranking Nr.1 in Maclean's small university survey. There is NO information in the whole piece. It's all touchy-feely and about how groovy the students feel about the place, or, alternately, about how "frustrated" they are at this point in their studies. You can read this and never know what actually counts as innovative and forward-thinking at UVic. So you come away with the sense that the students just like (or dislike) the "atmosphere" or something. It's a disservice to the university, to the students, to the community. And it's an insult to the environment to waste the paper to print this sort of fluff.

That's my beef: the media (editors), the politicians.

[jklymak]

My perfect Downtown Victoria is somewhere where I can walk everywhere, where building and commercial space vacancy is low, where I can live no matter what my income, and experience a diversity of people (not just yuppies), where I can work close to my home, and where connectivity to other parts of the city is provided by quality public transit. So yeah, Option 3 looks like the best bet.

I agree wholeheartedly with your vision.

One thing I would enjoy seeing is the city insisting on some bigger units in these new buildings. You are only going to get yuppies without kids or downsizing retirees downtown if all the units are 900 sq ft.

[Ms. B. Havin]

^ Re. bigger units: Higher ceilings. Seriously, you can feel comfortable with less square footage if your ceilings are high enough so you don't have a sense of being smothered. That way, the square footage might still be relatively small (compared to a SFH, say), but you'll manage better with other people (kids, spouse) in the space. Plus, you can think of putting in lofts for sleeping, which frees up floor space.

But that would mean rethinking the "height limits" even more.

[G-Man]

^ Good point.

Tall buildings might bring shaded streets and a skyline some find unattractive

Because the 10 storey building in the low rise option do not produce shadows...

Please if anyone wants to dispute the fact that it makes any difference in shadowing between a 10 storey and an 20 storey building take a walk down the 700 block of johnson Street. A complete block of 4 storey buildings and there is rarely a drop of sunshine. It is not a bad thing, I am just pointing out that there is really no difference unless the taller building is being built next to a field.

The four options, just starting points, offer a useful basis for discussion.

NOOOOO!!!!!!!!!! more discussion? I thought this was supposed to be complete this decade.