145 replies to this topic

[amor de cosmos]

Saanich approves condo towers at Tillicum Mall
May 27, 2009

A proposal to build two residential condo towers at Tillicum Mall has been given the green light by Saanich councillors.

RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust plans to build two towers, one 13 storeys and one nine storeys, with ground-floor commercial space on the northeast edge of the mall property overlooking Cuthbert Holmes Park.

Two restaurants at Tillicum Mall — Montana's and Kelsey's — will be torn down and relocated in another area of the mall in order to make way for the condos.

Several residents wrote in opposing the proposal..

Ker Avenue resident Susan Kay said in a letter that a bargain store planned for beside Fabricland be removed from the plan.

Craig said there is no bargain store planned, simply more retail space.

Neighbour Matt Kuhnke said the proposed height of the towers was out of character for the area.

“I am also concerned with the proposed development’s proximity to the Colquitz River,” he said.

Honica Zylstra also urged councillors to turn down the proposal.

“At meetings with RioCan we have received no indication that they are even aware of the ecosystem they propose to invade and have certainly not studied the impact that a three-year constructuin period of two over-height towers, with more than 1,000 new residents , would cause; especially as this is proposed only a few metres from the salmon stream and fish ladder,” Zylstra wrote.

But Gorge Tillicum Community Association president Robert Wickson said discussions amongst his association indicated the neighbourhood is probably split on the issue of height.

“Some have told us that more height would lead to more affordability, while others are adamant that no buildings in Saanich should be taller than four stories,” Wickson said.

“In general the efforts of the developer to include many important amenities with the project have helped to gain general acceptance,” he said in a brief to council.

Originally planned as 15- and 13-storey towers, the project had neighbourhood support at an open house more than a year ago but never reached council because of questions about height and affordability of the units.

Saanich's Official Community Plan calls for an eight-storey height limit, but changes can be made if the developer incorporates affordable housing and other benefits.

The developer is planning almost $1 million in amenities from the developer, including:

• $1,500 per unit toward the Saanich Affordable Housing Fund, up to $444,000;
• $200,000 toward a new daycare at Pearkes Recreation Centre;
• $148,400 for car-share co-op memberships, two parking spaces and two vehicles
• $200,000 worth of improvements to Cuthbert Holmes Park.

http://www.timescolo...5536/story.html

[aastra]

In my opinion it's perfectly reasonable to be concerned about a format change in a particular area. Developer wants to put a large shopping centre on a site that used to be a suburban drive-in theatre? That's a big departure, so people should take the matter seriously because it has all sorts of implications for the future. Jump forward 30 years and now a developer wants to build junior highrise buildings on the shopping centre's parking lot. That's another significant step in the evolution of the area and it shouldn't be taken lightly.

I have a problem with people who move to the Songhees to get away from boats and floatplanes, or who move downtown to find peace and quiet, or who complain that a large building would be inappropriate for a particular site even though there are several very large/very old buildings standing all around it.

But I don't have a problem with somebody who moves into an area like Tillicum to get away from highrise buildings. Because there aren't any highrise buildings in Tillicum. I've asked the question before: how is somebody supposed to choose an area in which to live if somebody else is just going to come along and try to change the area into something significantly different from what it is?

Change will happen whether we like it or not, but the form that the change takes and how dramatic the changes are with every iteration is what it's all about.

...we have received no indication that they are even aware of the ecosystem they propose to invade and have certainly not studied the impact that a three-year construction period...would cause; especially as this is proposed only a few metres from the salmon stream and fish ladder,”

So they aren't opposed to the buildings themselves (or, we can deduce, to the shopping centre and its parking lot) but they are worried about the environmental impact of construction? Am I reading that right? Is the excavation for the underground parking the major point in this regard?

[VicHockeyFan]

So they aren't opposed to the buildings themselves (or, we can deduce, to the shopping centre and its parking lot) but they are worried about the environmental impact of construction? Am I reading that right? Is the excavation for the underground parking the major point in this regard?

$200,000 to go to Cuthbert Holmes Park. They must know there is something nearby in the form of an eco-system.

Now, the affordable housing thing. So they'll give $1500 per unit to affordable housing, and by doing that they make each suite $1500 more to buy. That makes sense.

Here is how you create affordable housing - make more housing in general. You see, there is a well-known theory about supply and demand, and price. High supply equals low price. Some lefties should look into that.

[AnonAnnie2]

www.Saanich.ca provides detail on the project.

As far as the park and environment is concerned, the care and attention (and funding) that is being provided will see the health of the park improve certainly moreso than if things were to remain the same as today. To me that is a plus.

If new residential homes do not go up where do they go?

They go out. They broaden. They trample more and more land.

They sprawl.

The folks overseeing the park in conjunction with the development are the same folks involved in Dockside Green. Another plus in my opinion.

This project is striving for Gold Leeds however under the circumstances will be Silver.

I think voicing concern is healthy and concerns can often evolve to solutions if the will is there.

[CharlieFoxtrot]

www.Saanich.ca provides detail on the project...

....the folks overseeing the park in conjunction with the development are the same folks involved in Dockside Green.

...this project is striving for Gold Leeds however under the circumstances will be Silver.

Couldn't find details on the website - maybe I'm dim. Do you have a more specific link for the dim?

Which folks are overseeing the park? Tri-city Finishing? Windmill/Vancity? Cafe Fantastico? There's a lot of people "involved" in Dockside...

And as for LEED (of whatever colour), yes, building to a "sustainable" "standard" is good, but don't be fooled by eco-branding into believing that something is totally freaking awesome just because it has the right acronym in front of it.

(and yes, I meant to have separate quotes around sustainable and standard in this context, but as for why....that's a whole other thread on it's own, but to scratch the surface and borrow from a Falls thread posting: http://tinyurl.com/obkdc4 )


Oh, and I almost forgot - I am totally behind this project. The area can only benefit from it.

[AnonAnnie2]

Did they say why not?

Expense, no room for it etc.

[AnonAnnie2]

Couldn't find details on the website - maybe I'm dim. Do you have a more specific link for the dim?

Which folks are overseeing the park? Tri-city Finishing? Windmill/Vancity? Cafe Fantastico? There's a lot of people "involved" in Dockside...

And as for LEED (of whatever colour), yes, building to a "sustainable" "standard" is good, but don't be fooled by eco-branding into believing that something is totally freaking awesome just because it has the right acronym in front of it.

(and yes, I meant to have separate quotes around sustainable and standard in this context, but as for why....that's a whole other thread on it's own, but to scratch the surface and borrow from a Falls thread posting: http://tinyurl.com/obkdc4 )


Oh, and I almost forgot - I am totally behind this project. The area can only benefit from it.

oppsey! I guess because the hearing is over they pulled it off the site.
*shrugs*
The folks contracted by the developer to do the work for the environmental aspects...you know, those type of professionals who take care of environment....

[AnonAnnie2]

The Gorge Tillicum Community Association has been involved in on-going discussions with Saanich Planning staff and Rio Can. We have outlined our discussions in a letter to Mayor and Council dated May 15, 2009. This letter can be found at http://www.gorgetill...GTCARioCan1.pdf.

The Saanich staff report to Mayor and Council can be found at the following web link http://www.gov.saani...s/tillicum.html

The above was taken from the Gorge Tillicum Community Association.

The link to the City is still up just checked it.

[amor de cosmos]

too bad the rendering got cut off:

Tillicum towers get green light
Benefits of busy live-work development outweigh neighbours' concerns
By Bill Cleverley, Times Colonist
May 28, 2009 6:33 AM



Saanich councillors unanimously gave their blessing this week to construction of two residential towers at Tillicum Mall.

Local residents spoke out against the project at a rate of almost three to one -- mostly expressing concern about increased traffic, the height of the towers and the potential impact on neighbouring Colquitz Creek.

But in the end, Saanich councillors decided the merits of the plan outweighed concerns.

[...]

http://www.timescolo...8290/story.html

[G-Man]

Hmmm... From the small pic it seems pretty good for what it is. Still would have been far better oriented along Burnside then the way it currently is....

[VicHockeyFan]

It's going to be interesting to see just how many people want to live at a shopping centre. That parking lot likely is quite lively when the last movies let out, esp. on Fridays and Saturdays, and most people leave via Burnside..

[aastra]

The ground floor seems to be very short. Or at least it does along where that shadowy figure is walking.

[ZGsta]

I never get the "increased traffic" complaint when it comes to projects like this. They're building on a destination mall for the city so there's tons and tons of traffic that drives through the area to get to and from the mall, especially the theater.
So wouldn't the extra traffic from a couple condo towers only be a very small percent increase over the current traffic load?
I mean, if you opened 1 or 2 more stores on that area, or expanded the movie theater, wouldn't the amount of increased traffic turnover dwarf what you'd get from the residential? And I doubt people would be going to council complaining about increased traffic then.

I don't know I may be completely wrong about this. Does anyone here know any traffic studies or have any experience in this field?

[Nparker]

Hmmm... From the small pic it seems pretty good for what it is. Still would have been far better oriented along Burnside then the way it currently is....

I suppose the one positive about the proposed orientation is that it does allow more of the units to have a view over the park. I have to admit I sort of hate the big parking area directly in front of the buildings. It doesn't add to a "village-y" feel at all. Are any more renderings available?

[VicHockeyFan]

I never get the "increased traffic" complaint when it comes to projects like this. They're building on a destination mall for the city so there's tons and tons of traffic that drives through the area to get to and from the mall, especially the theater.
So wouldn't the extra traffic from a couple condo towers only be a very small percent increase over the current traffic load?
I mean, if you opened 1 or 2 more stores on that area, or expanded the movie theater, wouldn't the amount of increased traffic turnover dwarf what you'd get from the residential? And I doubt people would be going to council complaining about increased traffic then.

I don't know I may be completely wrong about this. Does anyone here know any traffic studies or have any experience in this field?

That all sounds right to me. When a developer proposed those two care homes on Shelbourne many years ago, on each side of the road just south of Hillside, people complained about the potential increase in traffic. WTF, an increase in traffic on Shelbourne, from two senior care homes? Gimme a break, the increase has got to be less than 0.25%.

[amor de cosmos]

I can see traffic in the parking lot increasing but not so much on Burnside (well it will but I doubt anyone will really notice it). Maybe fronting onto Burnside would have been better. they'd still have a decent view overlooking the park

[aastra]

You're right that people can be very selective about their traffic concerns. When people worry about traffic to and from residential buildings I can't help but think of the Songhees. It always seems like a ghost town re: vehicular traffic. Meanwhile the area around the Save-On Foods plaza in Vic West has become very busy.

Methinks the traffic generated by commercial establishments tends to dwarf the traffic generated by residential buildings.

Selkirk is another good example. When the office buildings are closed it's a ghost town for cars, too.

[aastra]

I think a lot of people might be surprised at how little vehicular traffic there is in a high-density residential area like Coal Harbour. You can jaywalk at will around there.

[VicDuck]

Where exactly are these buildings going to be located?

[Linear Thinker]

Where exactly are these buildings going to be located?

From today's Times Colonist: