Jump to content

      



























Photo

Monday Article - Faulty Towers - by Sid Tafler


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#41 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 30 January 2008 - 10:09 PM

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.


Bravo, aastra.

That's right, Tafler, the problem with our city is the lack of cross-block crossings! No wonder you become homeless, having to walk around an entire block.

#42 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 30 January 2008 - 10:23 PM

Maybe this guy has a point. Maybe cross-block pedestrian accessibility is suffering downtown.

Why are Victoria's neighbourhoods so nice, whereas downtown is so insufferably awful? Simple: it's because in the neighbourhoods you can tromp right through the middle of the block from one corner to the other. Or from one side to the other and back again. Cross-block pedestrian accessibility is 24/7.

Oh sure, there are fences to hop. But Victorians build sturdy fences. And since the backyards in Victoria tend to be small, it's usually pretty easy to elude the occasional dog that happens to give chase. The next fence is never far away.

Everybody respects pedestrian rights in the neighbourhoods. That's why people are so satisfied.

#43 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 30 January 2008 - 10:31 PM

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...and their interests, delight and right to experience the city as not only a centre of commerce but also a centre of satisfied people

So giving pedestrians stuff to see and do doesn't constitute an acknowledgement of their importance?

I don't think this guy even knows what he wants. If I understand him correctly, downtown would be great if there weren't so many darned shops and places to eat and drink. People don't go downtown for that stuff! They go downtown to walk!

It almost sounds like he wants a running track in the heart of downtown. Or maybe a bunch of treadmills or something. Places to walk that aren't contaminated by the stink of commerce (that ancient enemy of urban vibrancy).

#44 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 31 January 2008 - 10:57 PM

We need more paved open spaces!! More!! Sometimes when I walk in a random direction I come to an impasse due to some sort of "building"!! This simply will not do in a city!! Roads are not enough, we need every block to be a flat walkable surface.
  • aastra likes this

#45 FunkyMunky

FunkyMunky
  • Member
  • 416 posts

Posted 31 January 2008 - 11:56 PM

Where has he been?

The South Jubilee Community Association, apparently. He's the recycling authority over there. You can order his book An Architect's Journey from Trafford Publishing.

And Mr. Smeeth is a man with a vision; from the September 2007 newsletter:

There is a particular group of “stranger” that look to the possibility of changing things here. I mean by that the development industry. Apparently, by 2009, all the empty Victoria land, hopefully not including Kaspai Park, will be built out - no more available. If things play out the usual way, the industry’s next strategy would move to tear-down and rebuild with higher density. And that is my concern for the future of South Jubilee.


Your concern about the abundance of parking lots is unwarranted.

#46 Ms. B. Havin

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

Posted 01 February 2008 - 08:50 AM

^ Hmm, interesting. I'm not surprised to see one individual embody an obsessive concern with garbage as well as a nearly psychotic fear of urban density simultaneously. I think there's a long social history there. In previous periods, other people too thought that "cosmopolitanism" and "pollution" (with racial overtones) went hand in hand. They were totally wrong then, and then they still are today.
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#47 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 01 February 2008 - 09:24 AM

So this guy fears progress? While I agree that we must be careful about tearing down good quality rental housing, having a fear of filling up surface parking and vacant lots because in the future this may impact current housing stock is bizarre but yet speaks volumes about the strange obsessiveness in Victoria with keeping things the same.

#48 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 01 February 2008 - 10:24 AM

Apparently, by 2009, all the empty Victoria land...will be built out - no more available.


If that's the case, I really have to question our definition of "built out." Just off the top of my head I can think of:

- Ogden Point parking lots
- Wharf Street parking lots
- old town parking lots/empty lots
- Broughton Street parking lot
- Royal Theatre parking lot
- Johnson Street parking lots
- Roundhouse
- legislature parking lots
- Hillside Mall parking lot
- Fort & Foul Bay parking lot
- Jubilee parking lots
- Rock Bay parking lots/empty lots
- Douglas/Hillside parking lots

I mean, was Town & Country "built out"? Of course not. Is Winnipeg fully built out for all of its parking lots? Of course not.

#49 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 01 February 2008 - 10:43 AM

The condos should be happy with the second floor and up.


Why just the condos? Why not the houses, hotels, and office buildings, too? Just imagine, public breezeways on the ground floor of every new building. Victoria would be a walker's paradise.

#50 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,409 posts

Posted 01 February 2008 - 10:46 AM

It's going to be quite the flurry of activity to get ALL of the above lots built out in the next 23 months. I am assuming a December 31, 2009, date for "total loss of open space", but if the writer meant January 1, 2009, most of these lots better have buildings on them now.

#51 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 01 February 2008 - 12:40 PM

I'd love to see an actual example of the type of urban architecture Mr. Smeeth is advocating. I can't seem to picture it. It sounds an awful lot like the Rothingham building on Blanshard between Pandora and Cormorant. Plenty of area given over to the pedestrian there.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#52 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 01 February 2008 - 12:52 PM

But is that space really dedicated to the pedestrian? It serves no purpose, has no draw/appeal, and isn't convenient. That's precisely why pedestrians never enter it.

To argue that empty paved spaces would make an ideal urban environment for walkers is like arguing that open fields would make an ideal park environment for them. Hardly anybody ever goes walking in circles on big playing fields like Lansdowne, etc. Why would they? Nothing to see, nothing to do, no variety, and you're ultimately not getting anywhere. People rarely go walking on big empty parking lots or public squares for exactly the same reasons.

Pedestrians will cut across big fields and big parking lots if it's quicker and/or more convenient than going around, but the utter openness of the space has nothing to do with the convenience of the shortcut.

For the record, I'd say it's much more convenient to cut through the Y-lot now than it ever was before. There are steps now. You can actually reach the north sidewalk directly, without going to the corner (there used to be quite a drop below the north sidewalk, with a railing along the edge).

#53 Phil McAvity

Phil McAvity
  • Member
  • 1,238 posts

Posted 02 February 2008 - 09:15 PM

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity; "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."

Holden West responded; "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."


I disagree, but unlike the average reader (and writer!) of Monday magazine we actually have some very bright people that come to this site, so perhaps someone else could weigh in on (and hopefully resolve) our little grammatical dispute.

#54 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 02 February 2008 - 11:08 PM

In my opinion it isn't clear in that sentence whether the "empty world" is turning the city into an enclave of absentee haves and homeless have-nots, or whether the "failed housing policies" are doing it. How can the "empty world of Condoria" turn the city into anything? The policies are what do the turning.

Also, Condoria isn't really a world "of failed housing policies," it's a world "of absentee haves and homeless have-nots." Condoria is an outcome of failed policies, the very same failed policies that are also transforming the greater city into something undesirable (according to the writer).

Either way, it's a very clumsy sentence. Can a world really turn a city into an enclave?

Suggested rewrite:

Come with me on an evening stroll through Condoria, where failed housing policies have created empty enclaves of absentee haves in the heart of a city of homeless have-nots."

It's still just as ridiculous a claim as before, but at least it's understandable now.

Seriously, it's pretty silly to summarize the housing situation in Victoria in terms of absentee haves and homeless have-nots. I'm sure something like 98% of the people who live in Victoria wouldn't fall into either category.

#55 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 18 February 2008 - 07:25 PM

This weekend I took a break in the square below Astoria there and observed the people movement for a few minutes. Suffice it to say, it's no ghost town. People were coming and going in dribs and drabs the whole time. Not busy or crowded by any means, but certainly not dead, either. Also, I saw no cars come or go during that time (about fifteen minutes). Just people on foot, and one guy in a wheelchair who entered via the vehicle entrance.

I took a moment to go around back of Aria and check out the construction progress and there was another guy doing the exact same thing...

#56 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 18 February 2008 - 08:34 PM

There is a great response to this article in the Monday this week.

#57 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 20 February 2008 - 12:58 PM

Monday Magazine
Letters
Feb 06 2008

A different take on towers

Re: “Faulty Towers,” Jan. 24-30

I sincerely hope that Sid Tafler’s ears started burning when he, with “Faulty Towers” freshly published, attended Charles Campbell’s UVic lecture on conglomeration in the Canadian press and heard Campbell specifically and vigorously castigate Canadian journalists for their slovenly habits of retailing untruths. “Faulty Towers” is certainly and thoroughly corrupted by untruth and exaggeration, to the point that one wonders whether Tafler’s exercise in demagoguery veiled another purpose.

It’s difficult to know where to begin setting Tafler straight, because of course he’s just clever enough to appeal to legitimate concerns around affordability, which breathe enough life into his straw man for his article to appeal to the credulous.

But let’s just remember that practically all the condos he so abhors sit on what used to be surface parking lots, and they didn’t displace anybody’s “comfortable single-family home with a backyard.” Really, Mr. Tafler: you appear to be concerned about social and environmental ills, yet advocate a hackneyed suburban vision.

Tafler writes that “the city of Victoria approved 3,000 condo units in the last five years—800 in 2007 alone, more than any other year”—as if that were a bad thing. I’d argue it’s a great thing: that’s 3,000 fewer “units” going to suburban sprawl and 3,000 more units contributing to the city’s tax base and 3,000 potential units of people downtown shopping, recreating and adding life to those streets.

Believe it or not, there are people living in many of those units. Good friends of mine live in Shutters, although, since they travelled for the past two months, their unit is dark. Likewise, you’ll find many empty-nesters who leave Victoria at this time of year to catch some sun. In the lower price range, you will find investors buying units, but guess what? They rent them out, which helps alleviate Victoria’s rental crunch.

Nor did these projects derail some magical solution to homelessness or affordability. It’s not the case that anyone was willing to step up to donate a building to that cause, nor that city councils can somehow magically wave a wand and make affordable housing appear.

Which brings me to my last point: you have to love the armchair quarterback, second-guessing all those lazy, incompetent city councilors. Judging from Tafler’s grasp of economics (a simultaneously shallow and flaccid grasp), I’d hate to see him in a councillor’s seat because I’m sure he’d go mad at the workload and the demands on his attention by every citizen who knows everything about anything better than he, the councilor, does.

Yule Heibel, Victoria
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#58 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,184 posts

Posted 20 February 2008 - 01:42 PM

Excellent rebuttal.

Now let us only hope this letter reaches as many readers as Tafler's article did.

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


#59 D.L.

D.L.
  • Member
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 20 February 2008 - 01:53 PM

ya thats a good one :tup:

#60 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 20 February 2008 - 02:24 PM

Interesting to see if there will be rebuttal to that letter.

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