![]() | BUILT Turnberry Use: subdivision Address: Champions Court at Bear Mountain Parkway Municipality: Langford Region: West Shore Sales status: sold out / resales only |
Learn more about Turnberry on Citified.ca

[Langford + Highlands] Bear Mountain | 4,000 homes | U/C
#41
Posted 21 September 2006 - 11:08 PM
#42
Posted 21 September 2006 - 11:15 PM
-City of Victoria website, 2009
#43
Posted 21 September 2006 - 11:18 PM
These units in Langford (Bear Mountain) are also all high end units. The sales are going well. 5,500 people moved into the CRD last year. at least that same amount will move into the CRD this next year possibly even more.
That's the city of Duncan moving into the CRD. So why won't these get built. On top of this, people from Alberta are buying up lots of bear mountain for rentals, retirement, and secondary homes.
BearMountain earlier in the year also had the largest one day condo sale in Victoria's history.
Yes in one day Bear Mountain had 66 million dollars in condo sales in one day. Yes in ONE DAY!!! 66 million dollars in guaranteed sales.
So yes these will get built.
BearMountain is in phases right now there is over 20 phases. It's the largest development in Victoria's History. It dwarfs Dockside, it Dwarfs Broadmead...it's massive. And these condo's are selling.
#44
Posted 21 September 2006 - 11:24 PM
Perhaps these towers will end up being like Ryugyong Hotel in Pyongyang North Korea which is just a vacant shell. There's nothing in it. Maybe these towers are going to be the same way?

Now, isn't that a sexy beast? I know they wouldn't look like that, but just as an example.
#45
Posted 21 September 2006 - 11:28 PM
#46
Posted 21 September 2006 - 11:29 PM
It's for that new TV show "Pimp My Vacant Lot". Nothing gets built of course, but that vacant lot ends up being worth a lot of bling by the time the rezoning application passes Council.
I missed this while typing my post....
that's funny...hahahhaah!!!
that should be a new catch phrase for some of these proposals in Colwood.
#47
Posted 21 September 2006 - 11:32 PM
-City of Victoria website, 2009
#48
Posted 21 September 2006 - 11:35 PM
I have a couple of close friends on the real estate board and they are fed up with the city. Many many buyers come here looking to buy downtown and have nothing to buy and have bought out in Langford. This is a big problem for people wanting to build downtown.
The falls success demonstrates this.
anyways Im off for now...CYA
#49
Posted 22 September 2006 - 12:08 AM
Young people don't have a voice because we're all to dumb... Baby boomers know everything...yup.
#50
Posted 22 September 2006 - 06:27 AM
I thought Bear Mountain could not build anything else until they built the overpass?
Also is it just me but are they removing that traffic light that is there right now and planning an overpass but right afterwards they are going to be putting in a new traffic light?
#51
Posted 22 September 2006 - 06:49 AM
Exactly.I don'; think someone comes to Victoria and says "Oh Dang no high end condos available downtown I guess I'll buy on a golf course. Those two completely different sets of buyers.
Take me for example...I moved here three and a half years ago. I considered moving to Langford for about three seconds because properties were cheaper, but then I thought to myself "Wait a minute I'm moving to Victoria to live in Victoria."
Langford can build as many towers as they want - it's penis envy, man. They'll never be Victoria. Towers are only a small piece of a puzzle that makes a city great.
If people wanna live in Langoford, fine. Have a good life, just don't boast about how much better the amenities, the shopping, the this, the that, because it will not matter to people who live in and love Victoria.
#52
Posted 22 September 2006 - 08:12 AM
The same thing is happening in Surrey where buyers are choosing Whalley over downtown Van or east false creek.
What I'm also seeing in this discussion is the typical Victoria attitude towards development. "It's not right for Langwood!" "They're too tall!" "They make me uncomfortable!" "They'll destroy the world!" "It's not right to build there!" "They'll never be better than downtown towers!"

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#53
Posted 22 September 2006 - 08:42 AM
I agree with this one! They won't be better than downtown towers becuase it is not the building by itself that I endorse it is the lifestyle and community surrounding the building. A suburban condo building is just that because these people are still going to commute to their jobs in Victoria and/or drive to the store to buy milk.
I could have saved some money buying in the Westshore but as many studies have pointed out in the long term a downtown lifestyle is more affordable, healthier and better for the environment as well.
Yes it may be cheaper to buy 2 bedroom condo in Langford than Downtown but you have to either fork out 65 dollars a month plus 10 hours a week to take the bus to work or 250 a month and 5 hours a week to drive your car not counting fuel. It costs me zero dollars a month and 2.5 hours a week to walk to work. Multiply that by however long you want and monetarily I win, the person in the condo in Langford loses.
#54
Posted 22 September 2006 - 08:50 AM
If I had $300,000 to invest in a condo and I had the option of buying a 700 sq ft condo downtown or an 1000 sq ft condo in Langford centre, with cheaper strata, lower taxation and amenities definitely within walking distance, I'd seriously consider it. Even if I did have to commute into downtown there's a bus leaving Langford centre every few minutes during rush hours. Besides, living in Langford is like living in an uptown district of a larger city. Instead of treating it like just a distant urban hood, we treat Langford like an entity that is somehow disjointed from the rest of the urban area of Victoria.
When I moved to Vancouver I lived near the beach in White Rock. Some consider that about as suburban as one can get in Vancouver, although I actually walked more often to the beach and to local grocery stores than I do here. That community was very pedestrian friendly but you wouldn't even think it belonged to a large metropolitan area. I have great faith in Langford and its drive to become a vibrant urban centre. It's certainly a good thing and I support their densification in the hopes that it can emulate, at least in some sense, the successes of our downtown core. Besides, like I mentioned above, it's only a few kilometers away from downtown so even folks living out there are never far from downtown Victoria or a bus that will get them there. Remember, we need density to sustain an LRT or high-frequency transit. We won't get density unless we, well, build it.
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#55
Posted 22 September 2006 - 09:00 AM
The Westshore in general has some of the lowest transit use in the city so I don't think that building LRT to Langford helps most Victorians in anyway. I don't want LRT for LRT's sake I want good transit that serves the greatest good. That would be better transit along already well used routes not out to the Westshore. LRT can be sustainable along already dense routes but no one wants to discuss it for some reason.
#56
Posted 22 September 2006 - 09:05 AM
I too wish it could have been built in the core serving downtown through to the UVic area (our busiest bus routes) but for some reason it's not on the boards. It could have something to do with the drive out west to welcome that sort of transportation as opposed to Victorian's bickering that trains are running down Johnson Street and then Shelbourne. The RAV line situation in Vancouver proved that established, wealthier hoods aren't keen on making way for mass transportation of any kind. It's sad, but unfortunately a reality.
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#57
Posted 22 September 2006 - 10:41 AM
LRT and effective transit systems in general will eventually be needed to connect the two hemispheres.
#58
Posted 22 September 2006 - 11:09 AM
i'm curious as to why you see langfords vision as penis envy against victoria??
I wouldn't say they have penis envy towards victoria, or else wouldn't they be having to go soo big??
I'm starting to think of it as a different city into its own right. I understand this might feel wierd but people will get use to it. perhaps they are trying to create something unique that will stand out on the south island, for this i cannot blame them.
for example you have san francisco and oakland which are in the same metro however they feel totally different and are in their approach to these matters.
#59
Posted 22 September 2006 - 11:30 AM
I wish Victorians really opened their eyes to see reality instead of ....Bahh let them it doesn't matter we will always be better......Complacency kills.
#60
Posted 22 September 2006 - 01:54 PM
for example you have san francisco and oakland which are in the same metro however they feel totally different and are in their approach to these matters.
This is what I was getting at. Victoria just may end up being a twin city. The smallest twin city on the continent (by population and also by square kms).
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