47 replies to this topic

[Baro]

I'd really like to see a ban on the absolutely incorrect use of "human scale" please.

[jklymak]

^^ I largely agree with you Rob. But how can that be put into city planning? Are you happy with the case-by-case basis that things proceed on now?

[G-Man]

I am. That is what public hearings are for.

[amor de cosmos]

I'd really like to see a ban on the absolutely incorrect use of "human scale" please.

Me too. I think a whole human-scale building, if there could be such a thing, would be no bigger than a garden shed.

[Ms. B. Havin]

^^ I largely agree with you Rob. But how can that be put into city planning? Are you happy with the case-by-case basis that things proceed on now?

Case-by-case is how it works, unless you hire yourself a Baron Haussmann and knock down all of Old Town and start over with a master plan. That's what Haussmann did when he built Paris -- the medieval Paris was destroyed, utterly razed, and hundreds of people were displaced to the banlieue (ugly, unfinished "suburbs," still the plague of Paris). Sure, you have this wonderful gorgeous city centre, but don't forget the price that ordinary Parisians paid for it.

Scout around for some images by Honore Daumier, who caricatured the building frenzy set off by Haussmann's rebuilding of Paris. You see the "little people" in their little buildings, worrying about their little pot plants that won't get any light when the big buildings (Haussmann's) go up, and the wife assuring her little man that he won't have to worry about the little pot plant, since the authorities will soon be knocking their little house down to make way for the wide boulevards.

Does anybody really think that 19th century Paris was the product of any kind of market system? It was the product of authoritarian and frankly anti-democratic rule, and it was orchestrated from start to finish, at the expense of the "riffraff" (ordinary people). The "new people" that moved in to populate the place were as exotic as "Albertans" are to us.


That's the new Paris, above.

Somehow we think of it now as the old Paris, but it was new new new, shiny and lit up and bare then, people by strange aloof beings.

Let's puh-leeze drop the Paris meme already.

/end rant/

PS: I, too, love Paris (in the springtime when it drizzles, summer when it sizzles etc etc), but Paris has its problems (beyond the centre) and it can't be a model today, at least not in general. There are particulars you can learn from, but in general, I heard Haussmann is dead.

[jklymak]

I agree with most of what you say about Paris, and I don't think the packed-in lowrise idea is at all a good one. I like the podium towers. But I do object to cramming one block full of towers (i.e. 800 Yates and View) while across the street there are empty parking lots.

So basically you are saying case-by-case is fine. In which case, is there a need for a city plan? Or zoning? Or a planning department?

[Ms. B. Havin]

I agree with most of what you say about Paris, and I don't think the packed-in lowrise idea is at all a good one. I like the podium towers. But I do object to cramming one block full of towers (i.e. 800 Yates and View) while across the street there are empty parking lots.

So basically you are saying case-by-case is fine. In which case, is there a need for a city plan? Or zoning? Or a planning department?

Nothing quite so extreme -- I'm more objecting to the notion that we can have a one-size-fits-all template ("nine storey height limit," for example) or that we can have plans that are several generations out (50, 60 years or similar [excuse me] nonsense). I reject the "choice" between Haussmann-esque authoritarianism (to get Paris) and outright chaos.

But hey, this is supposed to be a thread for candidates, so I'll get out of the way. It was the Paris thing that set me off.

[Caramia]

The way I see it, the plans should be there as a baseline - to provide an indicator for both neighbours and developers about what the city would like to see in a spot. Assuming (big assumption here) that these plans are up-to-date (anything over 5 years old should be replaced) then the city should treat them as a guide, however there should be room within those plans for density bonusing and other flexibilities - clearly laid out.

Only where a new project offers something special - for instance a demonstration cob house, or a tower with 20% assisted living for the hard to house, or an unexpected gift of a playground in a park-poor neighbourhood, should there be a deviation from the plan.

That said, I think there is a very good argument for moving away from land USE zoning and towards built form zoning. It should not be possible for the City to refuse to have a garage turned into an in-law suite, a green roof playground added to a duplex, or a mixed use live-work-gallery-retail-welding shop that serves coffee, just because we don't have the zoning category for such a thing.

To the candidates... What is your position on certainty and neighbourhood plans? How old should a plan be before it is no longer relevant and needs replacing? And do you see any obligation by those who craft these plans to make sure that they are tied to funding opportunities, and fit into the CRD's regional growth strategy?

[Ms. B. Havin]

Bang-on, Caramia.

[aastra]

But, seriously, to compare little old Victoria to the great French capital is frankly ridiculous, in my humble estimation.

Yep, Victoria sucks.

[jklymak]

I'm more objecting to the notion that we can have a one-size-fits-all template ("nine storey height limit," for example) or that we can have plans that are several generations out (50, 60 years or similar [excuse me] nonsense). I reject the "choice" between Haussmann-esque authoritarianism (to get Paris) and outright chaos.

Fully agree. Caramia's description of the process is what I would like. Plans that are updated every 5 years or so. Of course those plans should include a vision of where the city will be in 20 years, but they need regular cultivating to make sure they still reflect reality and current tastes. If done regularly the plans need not take a long time to do, and people won't be so conservative in them because mistakes can be tweaked.

[amor de cosmos]

Fully agree. Caramia's description of the process is what I would like. Plans that are updated every 5 years or so. Of course those plans should include a vision of where the city will be in 20 years, but they need regular cultivating to make sure they still reflect reality and current tastes. If done regularly the plans need not take a long time to do, and people won't be so conservative in them because mistakes can be tweaked.

I think living document, evergreen document, dynamic document are all names for something like that.

[aastra]

'Human scale' means that one is still able to recognize a person standing on the top of the building from a street vantage point below.

Okay, so that means the legislature and the Empress Hotel and the various big cathedrals aren't "human scale." Fair enough, they were built back when Victoria had "big city" ambitions, and that time has long since passed. But here's my question: what's the harm? What are the negative impacts of tall buildings such as these?

[Sue Woods]

This plan would not define the neighbourhood plans, but it bring in issues of city wide concern, visions for the future and common context and language of the city.

I heard an interesting radio interview today on this issue - so these are not my original ideas - but I support the idea to turn the tradional development process upside down by designing a model for how we want areas of our city to look and then getting developers to accomodate with incentives, permit assistance, fast tracked approvals etc.

Instead of the traditional model of a developer buying a lot, deciding what would fit to address their business bottom line and trying to get the plan passed - the community/local government "drives" what we need by designing liveable and sustainable areas working with the needs that exists and in concert with an overall plan. Deciding on green space, public amenities like grocery and drug stores, cultural and recreational requirements - then invite the development community to participate with a clear and supported mandate.

I believe we have a number of socially conscious (big picture) developers in Victoria to step up to that plate.

For now, Sue

[Joseph]

I agree completely. A politically active approach to civic development would address so many more issues than design and aesthetics. It's arguably the only way we will be able to support the housing demands of our city.

I won't go on because it's all on my website, but it's nice to see this finally being recognized as a consistent issue here..

[Sue Woods]

In the early 1980s Vancouver was in many ways where Victoria is today. Growing population with the debate about whether to build up or out.

Mayor Mike Harcourt has referred to the way Vancouver's long range plans were crafted (which have been successful in many respects) as "guided democracy" that originated with good public policy at Vancouver City Council.

And for the record, I believe it is better to go up then out as long as we stay under 20 storeys.

I am always open to being wrong - so please share your thoughts.

Thx Sue

[Barra]

Thank you Susan for identifying and defending neighbourhood planning from the point of view of Victoria's neighbourhood associations!

[Sue Woods]

Thank you Susan for identifying and defending neighbourhood planning from the point of view of Victoria's neighbourhood associations!

Pieta - I will only say in my defence that I am open to dialogue, open to cooking up new ideas, and as oft mentioned, open to being wrong. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, and since everyone is seeking leadership, and certainly none of us can claim to have all the answers, I think its the questions we pose that matter.

Thanks. Sue

[amor de cosmos]

In the early 1980s Vancouver was in many ways where Victoria is today. Growing population with the debate about whether to build up or out.

Mayor Mike Harcourt has referred to the way Vancouver's long range plans were crafted (which have been successful in many respects) as "guided democracy" that originated at Vancouver City Hall.

In that vein, the new approach to planning as I referred to above, may be more effective and timely if expert city staff work with civic representives to design a specific area for development - then a formal plan is presented to neighbourhoods for input and approval.

I am always open to being wrong - so please share your thoughts.

Thx Sue

ps - and for the record, I believe it is better to go up then out as long as we stay under 20 storeys.

Hong Kong - 1104km2 (one of the densest in the world, due to LACK OF SPRAWL SPACE)
Greater Vancouver - 1973km2
13 municipalities of Greater Victoria (incl rural Victoria, C Saanich, Metchosin, Highlands etc & all our parks & green space) - 454km2
If we want to maintain the amount of green space we have, for as long as possible, I'd say we should build up. As many people know, there's already development encroaching on Metchosin (& I don't know where else off the top of my head) in the Olympic View area. Meanwhile there are vacant lots & surface parking lots downtown. Time to wake up....

[zoomer]

I like your open, thoughtful approach Susan. I've now decided that I will be voting for you come election day, and hopefully more folks will continue to be won over.

As for neighbourhood associations, I would like to see their political power curtailed by City Hall. Of course their hard working members do make great contributions to the community and enhance our neighbourhoods; however, they hold too much power for unelected bodies. I vote for a mayor and councillors to represent me, my city and all it's neighbourhoods.