1676 replies to this topic

[Nparker]

... if not for the TC picking up the quote it wouldn't have even registered.

Still, I have to wonder why our local politicians and our local daily news rag feel a need to perpetuate these misconceptions.

[dasmo]

#nomercy

[jonny]

 

Coun. Jeremy Loveday also was against the plan, saying that new developments have to include an element of affordability.

“If we don’t do that, I think we’ll end up with a city that’s not livable in another way, in that people can’t afford to live in it and these towers will become symbols of the way the city was built out in a way that pushes families and many residents out of the core,” Loveday said.

 

Good gravy Councillor Loveday. Please come in this thread and debate your viewpoint. This sentiment is unforgivable. This is a housing project, for goodness sakes. Don't we want to house people? Don't we want people living downtown? Don't we want to revitalize downtrodden areas of the city? Perhaps some Councillors do not. 

 

How could the redevelopment of a department store and parking garage push families and residents out of the core? This used to be a parking garage. What the hell does this "livable" comment even mean? 

 

What do you mean that all new developments have to include an element of affordability? Do you mean all residential construction projects must be government subsidized to some degree? 

 

This area of town is was clearly not livable before Townline came along - given how zero people lived in the area prior to the Hudson redevelopment. We're going from zero residents to upwards of a thousand thanks to Townline. How is City Hall not jumping up and down with joy? 

[jonny]

Madoff is correct that a 25-story building at the Hudson will make it more likely that future projects in the vicinity could be equally as tall or taller. But the question needs to be asked: so what? I've raised this point before: what exactly was the goal of the hardcore clampdown against highrise buildings? I thought the point was to protect/preserve the historic district. But now we're saying the point was to prohibit highrises? Anywhere and everywhere? And we're claiming that restricting residential density -- especially in areas that currently have zero residential populations -- would somehow reap long-term benefits? It would be good for downtown, it would be good for families? How could that possibly be?

 

Secretly (or not so secretly) there are major segments of the Victoria populace who have this image that Victoria is not actually a growing, prosperous city. These are typically rapidly aging people who were perfectly happy with 1975 Victoria and want downtown to be nothing more than the old town and some government office buildings. These people have absolutely no vision. They don't see our downtown as a vibrant, changing, advancing, growing place where people actually want to spend most of their time. They abhor the ongoing rebirth of downtown. They typically live in a SFH, sometimes in different municipalities altogether, and spend shockingly little time walking the streets of downtown. 

 

I would be happy to ignore these people, except the misinformation and fear mongering they spew is a city Councillor or two away from setting the ongoing revitalization and rebirth of downtown back a decade. 

[Nparker]

I couldn't agree with you more jonny.

[tjv]

More nonsense from CoV council. Townline could build a 25 floor building here immediately, but add an extra 3 meters in height (that's a "massive" 10 feet folks) and suddenly it destroys both the future of the city and affordability.

But my question is what is so special about this magic 3 meters?  lop off a floor and reduce it to 24 storey and no dealing with council

[Nparker]

...lop off a floor and reduce it to 24 storey and no dealing with council

I believe it's currently approved for 25. The massing has already been adjusted to create a slightly less boxy 26 storey building. Reduce the height further and you start to move into an unarticulated rectangular box shape (shades of a narrow View Towers - yuck!) to achieve the same density. The best proposal for this site was at 29 floors where the footprint continued to get smaller the higher it went.

[tjv]

^no one said to lop off the top floor, take out a floor down the tower like the 12th and it still maintains the top shape

[Nparker]

^no one said to lop off the top floor, take out a floor down the tower like the 12th and it still maintains the top shape

No matter from where the floor is taken the massing would have to be rearranged likely resulting in a boxier shape since it would be distributed over fewer levels.

[tjv]

^then I guess they should have designed it so they didn't have to go thru variance approvals. 

 

That's like me saying but my house would look so much much better with zero setbacks and 6 storeys.  If I took out a floor it would become a box.

[Nparker]

^then I guess they should have designed it so they didn't have to go thru variance approvals...

I think after completing 4 projects in the vicinity Townline knows what they are doing and probably have a pretty good sense of how amenable Council is to an additional 10 feet to get the best design possible. That being said, I sent a letter in support of the variance request to the Mayor and Council today and I'd encourage others to do the same. It can't hurt.

[phx]

Secretly (or not so secretly) there are major segments of the Victoria populace who have this image that Victoria is not actually a growing, prosperous city. These are typically rapidly aging people who were perfectly happy with 1975 Victoria and want downtown to be nothing more than the old town and some government office buildings. These people have absolutely no vision. They don't see our downtown as a vibrant, changing, advancing, growing place where people actually want to spend most of their time. They abhor the ongoing rebirth of downtown. They typically live in a SFH, sometimes in different municipalities altogether, and spend shockingly little time walking the streets of downtown. 

 

I would be happy to ignore these people, except the misinformation and fear mongering they spew is a city Councillor or two away from setting the ongoing revitalization and rebirth of downtown back a decade. 

 

I disagree.  There are lots of young people who've jumped on the sustainability and urban containment bandwagons.  They don't seem to realize that they're the ones on the losing end of it.

 

Also, it's not the people in other municipalities causing the mess in Victoria.  Nobody outside Victoria voted for Helps or Isitt.*

 

 

* non-resident property owners aside, but there aren't too many of those

[G-Man]

Yes this is unfortunately true. There is a large portion of the youth today that are frustrated by the cost of housing but don't see the full context of the scarcity of supply in Victoria and instead think are problem is the same as Vancouver.

[Mike K.]

Just wait for the pending rental housing reno-viction scenario to really take hold. 20,000-units require refurbishment or replacement by 2025...

[MarkoJ]

I think after completing 4 projects in the vicinity Townline knows what they are doing and probably have a pretty good sense of how amenable Council is to an additional 10 feet to get the best design possible. That being said, I sent a letter in support of the variance request to the Mayor and Council today and I'd encourage others to do the same. It can't hurt.

 

Three of those being rental towers! To hold them up on this small variance would be ludicrous.

[jonny]

I disagree.  There are lots of young people who've jumped on the sustainability and urban containment bandwagons.  They don't seem to realize that they're the ones on the losing end of it.

 

Oh, there are eco extremists and Marxists as well. People who think oil is evil and that highrise buildings are beacons of capitalistic tyranny. Then there are just the wide swath of local dippers who are oblivious and refuse to learn about the basic laws of supply and demand.

 

To be clear, I was describing one segment of the local population. This ultra conservative segment, from a development standpoint, is the one I think Madoff most appeals to.

 

Helps has been great for development. That’s I think the one area she has really excelled at. She most definitely is not afraid of change, and for that she should be applauded.

 

I suppose it’s no surprise that Isitt and Loveday are against HP1.

 

Isitt is a straight up Marxist. He’s all about class struggle and class warfare. Everything with him is a battle against the evil tyranny of capitalism. The sense I get is he’d be happy if all new housing was “non-market”.

 

Loveday, while clearly is close buddies with Isitt, I think is trying to appeal more to classic NDPers who think the government is there to solve all problems through direct intervention. He seems to be all aboard the “increase the supply of affordable housing” train (i.e. big government subsidisation and doomed housing programs).

 

Anyway, I agree with Mike K and NParker that all of our hand wringing is likely much ado about nothing. Townline knows what they are doing. Only 5 of Mayor and Council need to support the DP, which shouldn’t be a problem.

 

 

 

Also, it's not the people in other municipalities causing the mess in Victoria.  Nobody outside Victoria voted for Helps or Isitt.*

 

I was speaking about the populace, not the electorate, but whatever. 

[Nparker]

...Anyway, I agree with Mike K and NParker that all of our hand wringing is likely much ado about nothing. Townline knows what they are doing. Only 5 of Mayor and Council need to support the DP, which shouldn’t be a problem....

And let's face it, a 25-storey condo building could start construction immediately at this site. Holding up the entire project for the sake of 10 feet in additional height is beyond absurd.

[J_Loveday]

I raised the same issue on the Burdett rental project. I believe that the City should mandate an element of affordability into every project we approve. I ended up voting in favour of the Burdett project at the Public Hearing despite much public pressure to oppose it. I will look at this project with an open mind at the hearing. For those of you who watch closely, you'll know I don't inherently have an issue with height or density.

[jonny]

What does "an element of affordability" mean?

 

That's such an insanely vague criteria.

[Mike K.]

There is only one solution to affordability: supply.

 

Asking constituent A to subsidize a home for constituent B does not improve affordability on paper.