69 replies to this topic

[aastra]

Holy f*ck Aastra! I mean, who says "good gravy" anymore?!?!?!

I suppose I'm just not hip enough to be profane on a public message board....

Crikey! I think I'll go and hide now in my elevated, hermetically sealed concrete suite. The one with the huge sliding patio door (which interferes with the effectiveness of the seal, but then nothing's perfect).

Mr. Tafler wonders why anyone would choose to live in the city of gardens and also choose to live in a highrise condo. Is the city so ugly that no one should want a view of it? Are the ocean and mountains not worth a second look?

And why single out new condominiums, anyway? Are all of the people who rent units in Victoria's old highrise apartment buildings exempt from justifying their choice? Maybe it makes perfect sense to rent a unit in a tall building, but it's insanity to purchase a unit in a tall building?

[aastra]

Anyway, I agree with Mr. Tafler that it's disappointing to see so many of the new units being used as vacation rentals. Victorians seem to think it makes perfect sense to buy a unit in the core and rent it to tourists, because Victoria's core is so charming and convenient and all of that. But many of those same Victorians don't seem to think it makes any sense to live in the core themselves. The city is still being treated as something to sell to outsiders, rather than something to savour as permanent residents.

[Baro]

I don't agree, lots of us want to live there but can't afford to, and we can't afford to because we wern't 'selling' downtown enough back in the day for the units it be affordable to locals now. We're getting the process started now, and hopefully by my kid's generation we'll have a proper living housing cycle going on downtown.

Construction costs and markets are just as such that the only people who can afford these units are either VERY dedicated to living downtown, or wealthy out of towners. We need money and construction to get this cycle going, like a jolt of electricity to bring our creation to life. Just because our city isn't doing a well choreographed rendition of 'putting on the ritz' the moment it finally comes back to life doesn't mean it won't in the near future, so long as we keep the energy alive and no scared villagers assault our creation with torches and pitchforks.

[Holden West]

You know you are reading a shoddy rag when the first sentence isn't even finished and you are already shaking your head. "Come with me on an evening stroll through Condoria, an empty world of failed housing policies that is turning this city into an enclave of absentee haves and homeless have-nots." As the rest of you have covered the myriad half-truths, fallacies and misinformation in the article, i'll tackle the grammar. ".....failed housing policies that is turning this city...."

Since the word "policies" is plural, the sentence should read;".....failed housing policies that ARE turning this city....." Keep in mind that the only writing course I have ever taken was in high school and I have never been paid for writing anything.

Sorry, Phil. The use of the plural would be incorrect as it is the world of Condoria (singular) that is the subject, not the housing policies (plural). Tafler is grammatically correct in this instance.

As for Tafler's tedious tome, new condo construction will always appeal to vacation renters. I don't think anyone's vacationing in the Metropolitan or Denby Place.

[jklymak]

^^ Is it true that folks can't afford to live downtown? There are 1000 sqft units for sale in Sutton West and East for ~$320k. Thats not cheap, but its not terrible either. I would expect there to always be a premium for living downtown, compared to say Burnside.

Sure, they can't afford the brand new buildings unless they can squeeze into small square footage, but there are older buildings downtown that are not as expensive. i.e. Regent's Park, the Metropolitan, the Sandpiper. And in 30 years you'll be able to move into the Belvedere for less of a premium than now.

The biggest problem I see is that so many 1-bdr places are being built. 700 sqft is a little small to live in for the rest of your life, particularly with kids. I know Ms B suggested bunk beds etc, but lets face it - most families are not going to want to live in anything less than 1000 sqft and will move out of town to do so if that is the only choice. Building all these 700 sqft places means we are building for singles, young couples, or empty nesters.

[Mike K.]

Just because our city isn't doing a well choreographed rendition of 'putting on the ritz' the moment it finally comes back to life doesn't mean it won't in the near future, so long as we keep the energy alive and no scared villagers assault our creation with torches and pitchforks.

No need for torches and angry villagers. We have councillors salivating over the chance to kill the momentum we've built up over the last several years.

If the City's planning department, of all things, is concerned that less proposals will hit their desks in 2008/2009 while the market is keen on buying downtown units, that should tell us that future political decisions (or indecisions) will further artificially decrease the downtown housing supply that's already artificially stifled by bureaucracy. Developers are scrambling to secure rezonings before the 2008 elections, and for good reason.

[G-Man]

I agree with jklymak that many families would not want to live in the small apts that we are currently providing but I think that as we see more buildings with ground floor townhouses there will be increase in the total amount of units available for families.

One of the big issues I see with current buildings is that the largest units are on the top floors so not only are you forced to pay a premium for space but also for the best view. We should be increasing the amount of large spaces available on lower floors and this is somehting we can convince developers to do.

[jklymak]

^ I like that idea. Large podiums with townhouses and slightly larger decks on the top of the podium would really suit kids. The smaller units could go in the towers.

Though townhouse construction is nice on higher floors too - sound isolation between the upstairs and downstairs. Both 860 View and the Wave have a few of these. They do tend to be the more expensive units though.

Anyway, I guess the point is that larger units will be less likely to be rented out as vacation homes and more likely to be lived in which I think has some benefits.

[Mike K.]

My idea of a townhome would be a three-storey design high up the tower a la Westbank's Woodwards.

Check it (the three-storey townhomes are the indents along the edges of the taller tower):

[aastra]

We have...maybe 50,000 other people in desperate need of affordable housing.

Are there really 50,000 people in Victoria in desperate need of affordable housing?

[aastra]

So all we need to do is build 100 copies of View Towers and the housing crisis will be solved?

[Holden West]

If View Towers is actually 357 suites we might only need 75 of them. Isn't that better?

- - -

Horrors! Those evil, foreign Victorians are snapping up San Francisco real estate:

Foreigners get a piece of the real estate pie

James Temple, San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Kevin and Denise McCullough, a couple from Victoria, British Columbia, visited San Francisco nearly 50 times in the past decade, taking in Giants games, jogging along the Embarcadero and eating at favorite restaurants like Farallon and Myth.

They long talked of buying a vacation home here, but early inquiries brought home the twin realities of the city's sky-high housing costs and their country's weak exchange rate. That all changed last year, when the Canadian dollar reached and then passed parity with the U.S. dollar as the local real estate market flattened.

[aastra]

That must be a misprint. They're probably from Calgary.

[problembears]

This is just the dumbest article I've ever seen printed in Monday Magazine. Worse, they published 4 letters to the editor this week swooning over how great and accurate this article was. I'm just speechless. Most has already been said but one thing that got me was this line: "Where is everybody? Watching the early show at the Capital Six down the street? You'd think they'd leave a light on?" Why, Mr. Tafler, should I leave a light on in my condo when I'm not there? Is it so unimaginable that the owner of a downtown condo could be out eating, or still working at 8pm?

[VicHockeyFan]

This is just the dumbest article I've ever seen printed in Monday Magazine. Worse, they published 4 letters to the editor this week swooning over how great and accurate this article was. I'm just speechless. Most has already been said but one thing that got me was this line: "Where is everybody? Watching the early show at the Capital Six down the street? You'd think they'd leave a light on?" Why, Mr. Tafler, should I leave a light on in my condo when I'm not there? Is it so unimaginable that the owner of a downtown condo could be out eating, or still working at 8pm?

The first letter (on the web anyway) talks about the dreaded wind tunnels.

[aastra]

Lost viewscapes, wind tunnels and loss of sunshine and greenspace are just a few of the physical results.

If you think it's bad now, just imagine how bad it would be if any of these things had actually happened!

Parking lots are NOT green space!!

[aastra]

As I walk by the closed Shamrock Motel and Crystal Court on these very cold evenings, I wonder why the city couldn’t find a way to use these for emergency shelters. They are so adept at making things available for developers, so why not for those at the other end of the spectrum?

Remind me again, exactly what is the city "making available" for developers?

[Ms. B. Havin]

How about letter #4, whose author is (I think) an architect (and I hope he's not building anything around here, because I don't get the impression he knows how to use his eyes, note the emphasized parts...):

Sid Tafler’s eloquent bemoaning of the city’s obviously failed housing policy helps me to see it has produced nothing of meaningful value to the people—except to tax collectors and investors. Call it what you like, but as Tafler makes clear, it sure isn’t “housing.”

One of the underlying extensions of this thesis brings us to consider a not-so-obvious but essential part of civic life—the activity of the pedestrian, the foundation of that life. Except for a few more (questionably) needed retail shop windows or sidewalk coffee tables, most of the current condo boxes make no gesture to, or acknowledgement of, the importance of walkers—be they local or tourist—and their interests, delight and right to experience the city as not only a centre of commerce but also a centre of satisfied people . . . without whom we have no city.

My first submission to the “Pedestrian Rights Bylaw” is a requirement that 50 percent of the ground site area of all new developments shall be dedicated to 24/7 pedestrian accessibility cross-block connecting public space—and not just malls. The condos should be happy with the second floor and up.

Roger W. Smeeth, Victoria

Where has he been? Practically every recent development downtown has been put under a microscope to examine its pedestrian-friendly aspects. (Possible exceptions: those developments -- like Cherry Bank, for example -- which are off the beaten track; but even these are obliged to present pedestrian-friendly street-scapes.)

And who is he to say when there are enough coffee shops/ retail outlets? Is he the commerce czar of Victoria? Is this what some people's idea of "planning" is?

If people in Victoria aren't "satisfied," it's less due to the built environment than it is to a lack of suitable economic opportunity for some (i.e., they're not able to get out of poverty or improve their standard of living) on the one hand, or to a general culture of complaining and seething resentment of anything that smacks of success on the other.

And someone explain to me how one can "eloquently bemoan"? Eloquence suggests ...well, eloquence. "Bemoan" suggests moaning, misery, abjectness. Nothing eloquent about that.

[Holden West]

Mr. Smeeth would be a valuable guy to have around if the earth enters a wormhole and emerges in 1965. His tips would come in handy.

[aastra]

My first submission to the “Pedestrian Rights Bylaw” is a requirement that 50 percent of the ground site area of all new developments shall be dedicated to 24/7 pedestrian accessibility cross-block connecting public space—and not just malls. The condos should be happy with the second floor and up.

What a silly, silly comment. Not too long ago, a full 100% of the ground site in the Y-lot was "dedicated to 24/7 pedestrian accessibility cross-block connecting public space." I suppose this guy was zig-zagging back and forth across it all day and all night, happy as a clam? Now he's miffed because he can only go in two directions, and on paths dictated by the evil developer? FOR SHAME.