78 replies to this topic

[Phil McAvity]

^Since that question left you speechless, now maybe you can answer my previous question. I also don't by any means think that everything can be quantified using money. On numerous occasions I have been struck by the majesty and beauty in nature, I just think the economy should be the first priority. Many people in Victoria obviously place such things as jobs, the economy and prosperity much further down the list though. "Quality of life" is the catchphrase I hear all the time, with those saying it seemingly oblivious to the critical importance the economy plays in determining quality of life. As Bill Clinton once said, "it's about the economy, stupid", and while I certainly didn't agree with everything slick Willy did, he was right on the mark with that. Victorians seem to have such a love affair with government (probably because so many work for it) that they are fine seeing it expand. I on the other hand, see the expansion of government (of which view cones are yet another in a myriad of examples) as not only a strain on the economy in the form of higher taxes, but a move towards Orwellianism. More specifically, why is it government's job to preserve and protect things we see, be they the ocean or the mountains? What if a small group of people decided they didn't like the looks of black cars cars? Since municipal governments seem to cowtow to every snivelling whiner out there, I guess black cars would just be banned in Victoria? At what point do people say, government has gotten out of hand? Apparently, in Victoria, there is no limit because everything government does here can be justified using some sort of convoluted, bizarre explanation, of which Caramia provided a great example.

Caramia, so the reason I can see Craigdarroch Castle from all over the city is because view cones protected it? I always just figured it was because it was a lot taller than the surrounding houses.

[Caramia]

No. It is contrived.

[victorian fan]

I'm not sure about viewcones but the impact of the Wang Building (mid 80s) out Douglas St wasn't good.

[jklymak]

^"Quality of life" is the catchphrase I hear all the time, with those saying it seemingly oblivious to the critical importance the economy plays in determining quality of life. ... I on the other hand, see the expansion of government (of which view cones are yet another in a myriad of examples) as not only a strain on the economy in the form of higher taxes, but a move towards Orwellianism. More specifically, why is it government's job to preserve and protect things we see, be they the ocean or the mountains?

I think there is a compelling argument for government regulation of how the city looks, and that argument has a very substantial economic component. Believe it or not, having an attractive, vibrant city, is good for business. Last time I checked we get a ton of visitors because we are an attractive city. We attract high tech business because we are a nice city. Textbook cases abound around the world: San Francisco is pretty popular because it is such a nice city.

Regulation is needed because individual profit does not always correspond to community "profit". The owner of the car dealership may personally benefit from having large splashy signs and a huge carlot. Does what is good for his personal gain mean it is good for the community? We could argue that it is - it encourages entrepreneurial initiative and provides jobs etc. But its a choice with costs and benefits, and I dont' believe for a second that the market is the only way to mediate those costs and benefits.

I'm in Cannon Beach Oregon right now. They have obviously heavily regulated signage, the character of buildings, and the size of buildings. So no big box stores, strip malls, etc. Compare to Seaside just 5 miles north which is stripmall after stripmall. I can garauntee you that Cannon Beach is doing better than Seaside, and will do better for the foreseable future. Whats best for the economy does not necessarily mean crass commercialism.

What if a small group of people decided they didn't like the looks of black cars cars? Since municipal governments seem to cowtow to every snivelling whiner out there, I guess black cars would just be banned in Victoria?

Then presumably the black car owners and appreciators will complain and whine back and the elected government will decide that the "small group" doesn't have broad-based support.

Lets take the marina example. A small group of people are whining: kayakers and Songhees developers. They are taking their case to the public. If we all decide we don't really want a marina at that site, or we don't like the proposed use of that marina, I think we have every right as a community to refuse it. Others have the right to point out the benefits of the marina and the message it sends that we don't like business or progress or what have you.

So deride government all you want, but I think it is the only way for communities to make choices. The communities that make the wrong choices ultimately suffer. By all means argue that some of the choices are daft, but please don't argue that they shouldn't be made at all.

[Phil McAvity]

I'm not sure about viewcones but the impact of the Wang Building (mid 80s) out Douglas St wasn't good.

How did that building harm the neighbourhood (or city)?


jklymak, having been to San Francisco a few times, you've got no argument from me that it's a nice city. It always ranks very highly in Conde Nast magazine's tourist rankings as well but I think to suggest that municipal government is the reason for it's (and Victoria's) popularity is wrong. I think their popularity lies much more in the fact both cities are set in beautiful, oceanside locations, both have very mild climates, and numerous well-known tourist attractions, and none of those things have anything to do with view cones or municipal government.

Your hypothetical situation with the car lot reminds me of the way Victoria used to be in the '40's and '50's with big, brash signs all over the place and I would argue (as I have before) that Victoria looked a lot more vibrant and alive then that it does today. I think Victoria today looks incredibly boring and staid, thanks to things like the city sign bylaw. You said, the car lot signs are, "a choice with costs and benefits", but there is no choice actually since businesses have to adhere to the city sign bylaw which means they can't just erect any business sign they want. You also used the expression, "crass commercialism". You mean there is a subdued, humble commercialism?

Do you really think that most people that live in Cannon Beach shop there? I doubt it. I strongly suspect most drive the five miles to Seaside to do their shopping. Why do you think Seaside has over three times the population of Cannon Beach? Because there are jobs there!

Talking about my hypothetical situation of the black cars, you said the owners and fans of black cars just need to whine back but the problem is, people that own black cars are usually too busy working and looking after their families to do much *****ing so the public and government only ever hear from people that whine about not liking black cars which is a big part of the reason we in Canada are tyrannized by the minority.

Your final point about democracy was flawed as well because the horseshoe section of the westsong walkway was designed so a marina could be built there in the first place! It seems to me that the NIMBY's that are complaining about it are about 20 years too late. Had that marina simply been built in the first place we the taxpayers would have saved millions in legal fees as well. I don't think the question is about democracy, the question is, "should a very small but vocal group be allowed to hurt the local economy?" I don't think they should. The situation in the Songhees is very similar to a small group of your neighbours *****ing so much about changes you make to your house that they get a bylaw passed so that you can't make them......but it's your house! Are you seriously trying to tell me that you would be happy with that decision all because it represents some bizarre, minute form of democracy? I know I wouldn't be happy.

I'm also still waiting for an answer to my question about beachfront properties in the U.S. Whenever you're ready.

[jklymak]

Do you really think that most people that live in Cannon Beach shop there? I doubt it. I strongly suspect most drive the five miles to Seaside to do their shopping. Why do you think Seaside has over three times the population of Cannon Beach? Because there are jobs there!

Again costs and benefits. Houses also cost a heck of a lot more in Cannon Beach.

Talking about my hypothetical situation of the black cars, you said the owners and fans of black cars just need to whine back but the problem is, people that own black cars are usually too busy working and looking after their families to do much *****ing so the public and government only ever hear from people that whine about not liking black cars which is a big part of the reason we in Canada are tyrannized by the minority.

So you are claiming business owners don't get in their fair share of lobbying? Sounds like nonesense to me.

Your final point about democracy was flawed as well because the horseshoe section of the westsong walkway was designed so a marina could be built there in the first place! It seems to me that the NIMBY's that are complaining about it are about 20 years too late. Had that marina simply been built in the first place we the taxpayers would have saved millions in legal fees as well.

I agree. However, it doesn't mean that folks now don't have a right to debate the old plan.

I don't think the question is about democracy, the question is, "should a very small but vocal group be allowed to hurt the local economy?" I don't think they should. The situation in the Songhees is very similar to a small group of your neighbours *****ing so much about changes you make to your house that they get a bylaw passed so that you can't make them......but it's your house! Are you seriously trying to tell me that you would be happy with that decision all because it represents some bizarre, minute form of democracy? I know I wouldn't be happy.

Uh huh. Try adding a third floor to your house, our painting it alternating magenta and orange, and see what happens. Like it or not, your actions on your house can indeed upset your neighbours and you will find them fighting you.

I'm also still waiting for an answer to my question about beachfront properties in the U.S. Whenever you're ready.

Have you ever tried to build a fence on a beach?

[Phil McAvity]

So you are claiming business owners don't get in their fair share of lobbying?

Bingo! While many business owners have the money to lobby government, few have the time.

Uh huh. Try adding a third floor to your house, our painting it alternating magenta and orange, and see what happens. Like it or not, your actions on your house can indeed upset your neighbours and you will find them fighting you.

This is something that I find just ****ing amazing. It's not enough that homes here are extrmemely expensive and because of this property taxes are high, but if a homeowner wants to make changes to their own house they actually have to ask permission from the municipality and if the municipality says it's okay, they then must get the appropriate permits and then their neighbours can still veto their plans. In this way I think we take the notion of democracy too far.

Have you ever tried to build a fence on a beach?

What? You mean you haven't?

[jklymak]

In this way I think we take the notion of democracy too far.

Changing how your house looks and is built impacts your neighbours. Whether you like it or not, what you are allowed to do becomes a political decision, and I think democracy is as good a way as any to make that political decision. Does that mean I agree with every decision or that we shouldn't argue them? No. But throwing our hands up and claiming the whole system is idiotic doesn't do much good.

[G-Man]

^^ i don't think the City of Victoria requires a permit for painting your house so if you want a magenta or orange house, go ahead.

[Phil McAvity]

Changing how your house looks and is built impacts your neighbours. Whether you like it or not, what you are allowed to do becomes a political decision, and I think democracy is as good a way as any to make that political decision. Does that mean I agree with every decision or that we shouldn't argue them? No. But throwing our hands up and claiming the whole system is idiotic doesn't do much good.

I never said democracy (or "the whole system") is idiotic, you're overreacting. I said your neighbours should not have any say in what you do with your house. They should only have a say in what they do with their houses. Just as you shouldn't have any say if your neighbour decides to paint their house bright pink. I'm not saying you have to like it, i'm just saying that people should be free to make decisions about their own homes, free of government interference.

[Caramia]

Well... the argument against that stance, Phil, is the interface between the Soho and the Palladian.

[Holden West]

Vancouver's skyline: high-rises versus snow-capped peaks

Proposal for four extra-high buildings will test residents' commitment to mountain views

Vancouver's director of planning says he will be proposing that the city allow four new extra-tall buildings on its skyline, including one with a potential height of 700 feet.
...
That proposal is a minor revolution for Vancouver, which has fought hard for the two dozen “view corridors” that it created two decades ago as a way of preserving views. Those corridors have resulted in: a dome-like skyline for the city; shorter buildings downtown than in cities such as Calgary or Seattle; and a continuing debate about whether the view corridors are valuable or just creating a conundrum for architects.

“I think the whole exercise has missed the point entirely,” says architect Richard Henriquez. He said the study had originally been aimed at figuring out how to increase building capacity in the downtown, in order for the city to trade density for community benefits.

He wanted the city to set a new policy allowing unrestricted building into the view corridor, as long as building developers provided amenities to the city and created beautiful buildings.

Planning consultant Lance Berelowitz said the recommendations are a “modest move,” though not surprising in a city where people see mountains and buildings as opposed to each other.

“Some day, perhaps we can start to envision buildings as a part of the view.”

[...]

I agree that amenities and buildings aesthetics are frequently ignored and peoples' focus is almost exclusively on height. Of course, we know it's width that is the true view killer.

[G-Man]

Good to someone with some sense in Vancouver. That said they will still have a fight on there.

[aastra]

Methinks Vancouver's cityscape could lose its unique look in a hurry as a result of this belated effort to satisfy skyscraper envy. People all over the world recognize Vancouver, but nobody recognizes Calgary and hardly anybody recognizes Toronto if you crop out the CN Tower. Seattle has several skyscrapers. If you crop out the Space Needle, is Seattle's cityscape more famous than Vancouver's?

By that I mean to question the point of building peaks in a skyline that's famous because it doesn't have any (or didn't, until just now).

As for esthetics, when you're building 30+ stories taller than the buildings all around you, you're going to end up with a lot of vertical repetition. There's no way to avoid it (Shangri-La being exhibit A). More is more, but it's not always better. It's preferable to a building half as tall and twice as wide, for sure. No question. But in Vancouver they wouldn't have built something twice as wide, anyway.


picture from www.shangri-la.com

[G-Man]

No one one would recognize the Vancouver skyline without the mountains behind it now.

[aastra]

Really? So you're telling me that (generally informed) people wouldn't recognize Vancouver from a picture like this one?


picture from http://vancouver-canada.ca

[G-Man]

We recognize it but I doubt someone from LA or even Seattle would say hey that is Vancouver.

[aastra]

I'll rest my case by pointing out that Vancouverism is real. People all over the world are considering it, copying it, modifying it for their purposes, rejecting it, etc.

Vancouverism is an urban planning and architectural technique pioneered in Vancouver, Canada. It is characterized by mixed-use developments, typically with a medium-height...

Calgaryism, Edmontonism, Saskatoonism, and Torontoism do not exist.

If Vancouverism has evolved to the point where it now can (must?) turn against some of its fundamental concepts then so be it. But I don't see why it's necessary to do that or what will ultimately be gained by doing that.

[Caramia]

I'm with aastra on this one.