42 replies to this topic

[FunkyMunky]

The brownstone reference used in the Times-Colonist is a red herring. The fee simple townhouse zoning is a great idea but it adds nothing new or interesting to this project. No one is going to compare the houses across the road and the ones on this parcel and say to themselves, "This is the result of fresh thinking".

These are the relevant pages from the City of Langford agenda. Sorry for the poor quality but they are that way in the original because Langford scans the pages.







You will notice the same tired Langford style of townhouse with river rock and faux heritage fretwork from Home Depot. The streetscape is still car oriented and the façade is visually busy.

I expect the fee simple townhouse zoning in this case will be used solely as a selling feature. It certainly isn't going to reduce the price point. In fact, I wish sellers and developers would stop touting "affordability". When they use the word, what they really mean is "I'm selling it for less then I want to sell it for" but affordability means different things to each potential buyer based upon their economic situation.

Hopefully, someone will use this new zoning to build something innovative.

[Nparker]

Good on you for posting the details Funky. I knew in my heart-of-hearts that since this was Langford, this "innovation" would simply be another pastiche of mismathed faux-style very much in the suburban vein. Brooklyn Heights this is not. That the developers are planning these with the automobile in mind suggests that the only thing different here is the lack of strata control over the theme and maintenance of the buildings. What will these places really look like in 20 years? I am not sure I want my faux-stone, suburban tract rowhouse, in its muted earth tones butting-up against some garish pastel or jewel-toned "signature" space next door, but I will have no control whatsoever in what happens to my adjoining walls. If this is the new standard in 21st century rowhousing in Victoria, I will stick with my strata restrictions, thank you very much.

[arfenarf]

I love the idea. When I read the weekly "how-to-get-along-with-your-strata-council" column in the TC, I am terrified. When the kids and the dogs are gone, I'd much rather move into a townhouse like this (granted, always, that at just that age, I won't be so keen on lots of stairs) than a strata property.

Except not in Langford.

[Zimquats]

I'm curious. Since it is not strata, what happens when the roof of the center unit leaks and the water runs into an end unit and does damage there?

[G-Man]

^Same thing that happens when you bump into a car.

Your insurance would cover you unless you were negligent in maintenance leading to the damage.

While this may not be the ideal example of this happening there will be huge difference from the owners perspective as compared to the properties across the street. The owners will not have to spend time at tedious strata meetings, they will not have to pay strata fees and the owners will be able to have whatever colour curtains they want.

I was once in a strata that told you which direction your car must face in the parking lot.

That there is an opportunity to import this type of zoning into Victoria is tremendous. Many SFD owners will not belong to a strata but would choose to live in a more dense environment, this is an opportunity to to allow these people to do this.

The fact that you may change the property is in my mind a bonus. The examples of attached row housing I have seen around the world benefit from their individuality.

[Savannah]

I would seriously consider buying a row house. I do not really want to live in a strata complex again, and a single family house is not affordable.

[amor de cosmos]

You will notice the same tired Langford style of townhouse with river rock and faux heritage fretwork from Home Depot. The streetscape is still car oriented and the façade is visually busy.

I expect the fee simple townhouse zoning in this case will be used solely as a selling feature. It certainly isn't going to reduce the price point. In fact, I wish sellers and developers would stop touting "affordability". When they use the word, what they really mean is "I'm selling it for less then I want to sell it for" but affordability means different things to each potential buyer based upon their economic situation.

Affordability doesn't just refer to up-front costs but also the cost of utilities, maintenance, etc over a long time. According to a section on London's "terraces" (their name for rowhouses) in the Wikipedia entry on rowhouses,

In 2005 the English Heritage report Low Demand Housing and the Historic Environment found that repairing a standard Victorian terraced house over thirty years is around sixty-percent cheaper than building and maintaining a newly-built house. In a 2003 survey for Heritage Counts a team of experts contrasted a Victorian terrace with a house built after 1980, and found that:

"The research demonstrated that, contrary to earlier thinking, older housing actually costs less to maintain and occupy over the long-term life of the dwelling than more modern housing. Largely due to the quality and life-span of the materials used, the Victorian terrace house proved almost £1,000 per 100 m2 cheaper to maintain and inhabit on average each year."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowhouse

& "brownstone" only refers to the stone that many NYC rowhouses are built out of. So can we stop calling these "New-York-style brownstones" if they're just no-strata rowhouses?

[aastra]

From now on we should refer to them as Langford-style riverstones.

Even though there's no river in Langford.

[amor de cosmos]

All of Goldstream Park is in Langford.

[aastra]

Is that a river?

I'll be darned. It is a river. I thought it was a stream. My whole life. A couple of school field trips to see the salmon and everything.

But then I'm not sure I even know what the difference is.

Crap, I've told countless folks from out-of-town that there's no river in Victoria. For years and years I've done that.

Now I'm going to get it.

[aastra]

Anyway, we should definitely refer to them as Langford-style riverstones.

[amor de cosmos]

Is that a river?

I'll be darned. It is a river. I thought it was a stream. My whole life. A couple of school field trips to see the salmon and everything.

But then I'm not sure I even know what the difference is.

Crap, I've told countless folks from out-of-town that there's no river in Victoria. For years and years I've done that.

Now I'm going to get it.

why would you even bother posting a response like that?

[aastra]

Why? Because I'm genuinely surprised to learn that Goldstream is a river. I've told countless folks from out-of-town that there's no river in Victoria. I've actually been pretty aggressive about it, for years and years. It's one of my pet peeves, the way some people spread disinformation about Victoria and perpetuate false stereotypes and such, so you can imagine how flabbergasted I am to learn that I've been doing it myself on this particular topic.

Now I'm wondering if Colquitz Creek is a river. Who makes the ultimate call on that? Is it official or unofficial?

[aastra]

Goldstream's website refers to Goldstream variously as a river, a stream, and a creek.

[Zimquats]

Maybe this is dumbing it down too much, but if it is indeed a river and not a stream, wouldn't that fact lend itself to the people who name rivers to perhaps call it Goldriver as opposed to Goldstream.

It's like a winery coming up with a new Merlot and naming it Pilsner. It makes no sense. It's almost as bad as Fifth Street (don't get me started on this one).

[aastra]

Maybe there's some British influence in there somewhere. Britain is all about place names that don't make sense, right?

Victorians refer to local hills as mountains. That also seems like a very British thing to do.

Like you say, if Goldstream is a river then it follows that Goldpond would be a lake and Goldhill would be a mountain.

[WSgrrl]

Good on you for posting the details Funky. I knew in my heart-of-hearts that since this was Langford, this "innovation" would simply be another pastiche of mismathed faux-style very much in the suburban vein. Brooklyn Heights this is not. That the developers are planning these with the automobile in mind suggests that the only thing different here is the lack of strata control over the theme and maintenance of the buildings. What will these places really look like in 20 years? I am not sure I want my faux-stone, suburban tract rowhouse, in its muted earth tones butting-up against some garish pastel or jewel-toned "signature" space next door, but I will have no control whatsoever in what happens to my adjoining walls. If this is the new standard in 21st century rowhousing in Victoria, I will stick with my strata restrictions, thank you very much.

The Development Permit will run with the lands and regulate form and character in perpetuity.

[Nparker]

The Development Permit will run with the lands and regulate form and character in perpetuity.

So it's all the regulations of a strata without even the pretense of strata democracy (AGMs etc.)

[Mike K.]

Does anyone know the status of this project?

[LJ]

Does anyone know the status of this project?

Drove by today, all done and all full.

Definitely not "brownstone" walkups tho, all modern inexpensive materials, but that is how you make them affordable I guess. The ground level contains a single garage in each unit.

They are just another method of getting into housing a little cheaper.