1676 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

Here we go:

 

[Nparker]

I look forward to seeing this crane from my bedroom window soon. 

[Citified.ca]

Some timeline info regarding the construction start.

 

Construction start on Vancouver Island's tallest building just weeks away

https://victoria.cit...ust-weeks-away/

[2F2R]

I look forward to seeing this crane from my bedroom window soon. 

Oh ... from the Jack Davis building !!!

[Nparker]

 ... from the Jack Davis building !!!

I wish HP1 was going to obscure my view of the Jack Davis Building. 

[Kapten Kapsell]

This is going to Council CoTW on Thursday Feb 22. City Staff are strongly in favour of the development per the official report.

[Nparker]

I still don't quite understand what needs to be approved with this project. Since no additional height has been requested beyond what has already been approved, and to the best of my knowledge the correct zoning is in place, what exactly remains to be decided?

[Kapten Kapsell]

I still don't quite understand what needs to be approved with this project. Since no additional height has been requested beyond what has already been approved, and to the best of my knowledge the correct zoning is in place, what exactly remains to be decided?

Council still must decide whether or not to issue a Development Permit.

[Nparker]

Council still must decide whether or not to issue a Development Permit.

Is there any logical reason why they wouldn't? On the off chance they didn't issue a DP, would the developer have any recourse or appeal process?

[Kapten Kapsell]

Is there any logical reason why they wouldn't? On the off chance they didn't issue a DP, would the developer have any recourse or appeal process?

I think they can reject it for any number of reasons; for example, Councillor Isitt votes against developments that don’t have a certain number of affordable units.

[nagel]

I’m pretty sure I saw in there that there is a height variance of 4m required.

[Nparker]

I think they can reject it for any number of reasons; for example, Councillor Isitt votes against developments that don’t have a certain number of affordable units.

Hence my use of the word "logical" in my above query.

[tjv]

I still don't quite understand what needs to be approved with this project. Since no additional height has been requested beyond what has already been approved, and to the best of my knowledge the correct zoning is in place, what exactly remains to be decided?

 

 

The City is considering a Development Permit with Variance application to construct a 26 storey mixed use building facing Herald Street. The proposal requires the following variances: Section 6.70.6 (d) – an increase in the height from 72 m to 75m. Section 6.70.8 (b) – Relaxation of massing setback, measured at the upper most storey, from 13.22m to 2.31m Section 6.70.7 (a) - reduce the minimum site area from 4480m2 to 2100m2

 

https://tender.victo...Number=DPV00045

Edited by tjv, 16 February 2018 - 07:31 PM.

[2F2R]

>>>I wish HP1 was going to obscure my view of the Jack Davis Building<<<

 

I don't understand the dislike of the Jack Davis building ... I like it !!! It needs a paint job however.

[Nparker]

...I don't understand the dislike of the Jack Davis building ...

The JDB is a pink wide-scraper, with red windows - a garish combination - and if that wasn't bad enough, its East-West orientation creates an enormous north wall that is almost always in shadow. If buildings are going to be this wide, they should at least be situated North-South to reduce the amount of "dark side" on their north facades.

 

It also suffers from "dead ground floor syndrome"; an affliction of many pre-millennial modern office buildings in the CoV, before retail and other non-office uses were encouraged for the ground level.

[Nparker]

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.

...“I don’t feel there was enough attention paid to what the impact to the long views are and what role this building will play as part of that overall composition,” Madoff said. By allowing a three-metre height variance, as is proposed, Madoff said, an element of uncertainty is added to any long-term vision for the composition of the city...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...

http://www.timescolo...oval-1.23184540

[Mike K.]

Yes, it's difficult to comprehend what is happening at the council chambers in recent weeks. A 44-unit, four-storey rental project among four-storey buildings is nixed, councillor Madoff has once again made a comment regarding a three metre variance that I can't understand, and councillor Loveday is ready to kill this residential project.

 

This is, of course, election season, so talking points among councillors are their way of signalling to their base.

 

The public hearing component of this project is coming up soon, and if you've been holding back for that one and only one appearance before council, this should be it.

[aastra]

 

...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,”

 

Crikey, this concern about families and residents being "pushed out" of the city centre because longstanding parking lots or empty lots are finally being redeveloped... I mean, seriously, we're talking about the Hudson district. Families and homes actually were pushed out when the Hudson parking lot & subsequent parking garage were created all those decades ago. But the process is in full reversal right now. There are homes now where homes have not been for generations. If even one or two families live in the Hudson district today it would be a huge positive change in this regard.

 

Anyway, the wording there is interesting. These towers will become symbols of a process that's supposedly happening. People will be living in the towers, families and children will be living in the towers, but the towers will nevertheless be symbols of people and families being pushed out. Does anyone really care what some uninformed person thinks the towers do or do not symbolize? Do Chard's buildings on the parking lot beside the Capitol 6 or the parking lot beside the Coronet also symbolize people being pushed out? Nobody lived on those sites before, but soon many people will be living there.

 

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?

Edited by aastra, 25 February 2018 - 11:08 AM.

[Mike K.]

Try not to lose too much sleep over this.

 

The number of people living in my building who have young children just shake their head when comments like this get any traction. And if not for the TC picking up the quote it wouldn't have even registered.

[Nparker]

I hope you will be expressing these sentiments in writing to Council in advance of their vote on the variance request aastra. I know I will be.