54 replies to this topic

[Ben Smith]

Hey guys!

New to the forums, and this is my first post. I feel I need to adress the issues of the core of our downtown.

I love downtown, I feel its a nice place (besides the homeless issue) but it needs higher buildings. Why limit it to 50 meters? My favorite presently is either the CIBC building on Douglas and View or Sussex Place on Broughton and Douglas. I find that we are in desperate need of a signature tower, possibly in the area between Government and Blanshard, and Courtney and Yates, it would just look cool!

What are your opinions of taller buildings in the city? And can someone tell me the motives of the city council limiting the height to 49.9 meters?

Thanks guys,
Ben

[Mike K.]

Believe it or not, the height limit is actually 43 meters! Why? Who knows. It might as well have been 42, or 48, but the powers that be set it at 43 back in the '70's.

The motives for the height limit date back to the last highrise boom of the late 1960's and early 1970's when the current tallest building (Orchard House -- 22-storeys/62 meters) was built. The scale of the building and its location (it tends to block out the Olympic range when looking south along Douglas Street) was cause for concern for vocal anti-development Victorian's and the outrage eventually turned into the present-day height limit. Perhaps if Orchard House was built elsewhere in James Bay or in the downtown area opposition wouldn't have been as strong or perhaps another building would have taken Orchard's title as the bringiner of height limits.

My personal opinion on development is more or less as follows: Victoria cannot sustain itself economically or socially under the current height and general density/massing limitations. Real-estate prices are at record highs and obstructing housing development for the sake of tourist industry mantras is ludicrous (you know, Welcome to Victoria, a wee bit 'o England; Victoria, the seaside town on the tip of Van Isle; Victoria, the charming westcoast outpost with world-class hanging baskets, etc etc etc). With companies wanting to locate offices in downtown Victoria and commercial tenants wanting to tap into a growing downtown market, downsizing what can be built under the same guise as residential development is damaging to the local economy and the future economic diversification of Victoria and the region.

So long story short, I see development limits as they stand today as damaging to Victoria and a burden on Victoria's taxpayers. As for aesthetics, highrises cause me no alarm nor do I believe they will change Victoria as some naysayers want us to think. Although what might change when Victoria breaks away from it's "keep it lowrise to protect tourism touchy feeliness" mentality is people's false impression of Victoria as a tourist enclave to people's impression of Victoria as a real city.

...and welcome to the forum

[Holden West]

Hey, Ben. Love your shirts. Or is that Ben Sherman? Anyway.

The theory in brief: The height limit was imposed by some in an effort to keep an "intimate scale" to downtown. To avoid the "concrete canyon" effect. Tourists would be disappointed to arrive in the big highrise city they were trying to get away from. To keep the downtown "walkable" and "human scaled". To keep the streets from being sunless, cold, wind tunnels.

Choose any or all of the above.

[Mike K.]

Yup, those highrises sure contribute to "anti-walkability." :roll:

Perhaps what they meant was "vertically walkable?" You know, "how high can grandpa go without an elevator" walkability?

I was always under the impression Orchard House was the last nail in the coffin before the doors were shut on reasonably tall buildings. Was there a general consensus at the time Orchard House was going up that highrises would be considered bad and lowrises good, and OH simply went up as vocal anti-development types were raging?

[Holden West]

I suppose the appearance of Orchard House was a big reality check for Victorians. It would have made them realize the massive and drastic transformation that had taken place in Vancouver's West End was about to take place in quiet, family-oriented James Bay and they simply said no way.

[Oxford Sutherland]

The problem is they say "no way" to height everywhere in the city, which is what is hurting downtown.

In the shaded area on this map, I think we shouldn't be afraid to allow 70m buildings

[Ben Smith]

The problem is they say "no way" to height everywhere in the city, which is what is hurting downtown.

In the shaded area on this map, I think we shouldn't be afraid to allow 70m buildings

I agree with that map, looks nice. I find, that skyscrapers would not only leave walkability unaffected, but could influence tourism, if they look nice. I think, if they were to re-locate the position of the Great Library building on Blanshard there (in between Broughton and Courtney") they could make that a nice spot for a signature tower (100m? maybe a tad bit less..)

What'd you guys think?

P.S: Thanks for welcoming me to the forums, could'nt be more happy to be here!

Thanks,
Ben

[Scaper]

no problem....Glad to see you posting!!!

[VicHockeyFan]

That map looks right.

I'd also like high-rises on the blocks south of Hillside up to Bay, from maybe Cook to Douglas, or just Blanshard.

[Scaper]

Yup, those highrises sure contribute to "anti-walkability." :roll:

Perhaps what they meant was "vertically walkable?" You know, "how high can grandpa go without an elevator" walkability?

I was always under the impression Orchard House was the last nail in the coffin before the doors were shut on reasonably tall buildings. Was there a general consensus at the time Orchard House was going up that highrises would be considered bad and lowrises good, and OH simply went up as vocal anti-development types were raging?

They promote walk ability for spiderman who keeps hitting buses in Victoria as he can't swing from building to building.

Ohhh and that map needs to include Harris Green too!!!

Cheers

[Holden West]

Believe it or not, that map does include Harris Green. Half of Harris Green Park is not in Harris Green, it's in Fernwood.

[G-Man]

AND North Park

[Ben Smith]

So, what do you guys think should be the first steps?

Any lots of parts of town you could imagine being transformed into high rise condos or businesses?

Ben

[Scaper]

I believe we should keep highrise development out of Old town completely.

I also think old town should be kept up better, some of our coolest heritage buildings look the craps.

Though building wide massive ugly block monster buildings outside of old town will look the craps too.

The songhees hilltop building at 11 stories is going to be this cities Fatscraper of fatscrapers. It's going to kill the views of the sooke hills. Then we will here pam go on and on ...I told you so....this is what highrise development will do, it's ruining the city!!!

Yeah.....and it's a fat mother low rise....If it was a 15- 20 story thin glass tower we would have saved most of the view of the sooke hills and had a nice building to look at to boot.....

but this is going to be pam's baby....I know it!! She will use this forever as her fight against highrise development. Grrrrrrrr

[G-Man]

Well depending on how the Hudson process goes I think that the North Part of town is where we are going to see the most change. Hopefully the first couple of projects indicate there will be some mixing of office and retail in this area.

We will continue to see Harris Green fill out though we are not going to see much development beyond that area at least any time soon.

[Oxford Sutherland]

This city definitely needs more thin towers, not more fatscrapers.

[Mike K.]

The songhees hilltop building at 11 stories is going to be this cities Fatscraper of fatscrapers. It's going to kill the views of the sooke hills. Then we will here pam go on and on ...I told you so....this is what highrise development will do, it's ruining the city!!!

Precisely. As I said before, C. Madoff is optimistic that this building will give her the ammo she needs to crucify highrises of any type.

Nevermind the fact that this building literally fits every design element she champions: under 12-storeys (it'll be 10-storeys); it's wider than taller (fits her "horizontal highrise" push); and its outside of the historic downtown areas. But it's still a big, bad building because, well, it's a building!

And let us not forget she's already stated that the design is "decades out of date." Because, you know, heritage champions such as herself have genuine distate for old designs and decades-old buildings If C. Madoff was truly concerned about the elements she speaks of, she would have pushed for a slimmer, taller building with a modern design. It was in her power to do so as the developer was in discussions with the City and the community for several years. It's too late for her to cry about it since her multi-year window of opportunity to become involved with the project has slowly passed her by. Or did she let it pass her by? We'll soon find out.

[Holden West]

I can't remember which of you (if it was you) forwarded this link to me...it's worth reading...

http://www.governing...cles/7down.htm#

Vancouver Condos
A Downtown Dilemma (with photo essay)

Governing Executive Editor Alan Ehrenhalt visits Vancouver to witness the city's condo boom firsthand.

COVER STORY/DEVELOPMENT

Extreme Makeover

After transforming its downtown into a residential mecca, Vancouver is trying to find the right balance between condos and commerce.

By ALAN EHRENHALT

[Ben Smith]

So you guys want more slender, high rises then "fat scrapers"...

Its funny, in that article it made me realise how serious Victoria is becoming in Canada. We are considered (in BC) second ONLY to Vancouver, and that article reminded me that Vancouver is Canada's third largest city!

I would say Victoria's "mood" would depict the kinds of buildings, and Downtowns position hurts the idea of a large, urbanized core (which would be nice...). Lets start with the "mood" I beleive, until the core is largely urbanized, Glass towers would look aweful amognst hertige and brick buildings, like the Empress and buildings like Sussex Place on Broughton and Douglas.

The position of downtown hurts it, unless Esquimalt joins in on Victoria (which I don't know is possible) it would need to expand back, inland from the harbor towards Harris Green and Beacon Hill Park. I think if were the condos are in Esquimalt and the big industry land is, that would be good, relativly flat land for large high rises, and it would look neat with high rises on each side of the harbor, with Johnson Street bridge linking them...in my mind

Ben

[Ms. B. Havin]

Victoria City Style Council's [url=http://victoria.wetpaint.com/page/Linkiography%2F+Bibliography%3A+resources:a7884]Linkiography page[/url:a7884] notes that the article is

very much in line with those earlier articles and pieces by Trevor Boddy (see above) that criticise Vancouver for becoming too residential and not business/ commercially oriented enough. See also the WSJ opinion piece by Malanga, re. trashing idea of 'the creative classes.' Some relevance for Victoria, although here it’s more of a problem of having retirees becoming 'resort-ies'...

Ehrenhalt and Malanga and those guys argue that a city can't sustain itself on "resort"-seekers because it doesn't actually create productive economies. And Style Council's blurb seems to imply that Victoria perhaps doesn't (yet?) suffer from too many "resort-ies," but rather "retirees," who also come as consumers, but not creators of economies. The "resort-ies" perhaps have more money (which means they'll attract even more bad feelings from many here); the "retirees" live on fixed incomes. It would be interesting to know if d/t condo purchases have either the "resort" or "retire" angle, or ...what? Although at this point, I don't even care. I just want more people living downtown. I figure it might heighten the visibility profile of "normal" people in the city...