Jump to content

      



























Photo

Cook Street Village


  • Please log in to reply
280 replies to this topic

#221 nerka

nerka
  • Member
  • 1,236 posts

Posted 23 November 2017 - 12:51 PM

^ Note all the open houses etc for giving input and asking questions, too.



#222 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,184 posts

Posted 23 November 2017 - 12:57 PM

It feels like 2006 again, it really does.

 

Quite frankly I do not feel it is worth the effort to engage here. We're in election mode and this plan, despite taking us backwards in terms of housing affordability and accessibility, will be championed by councillors.


Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#223 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,409 posts

Posted 23 November 2017 - 01:25 PM

It's not down-zoning, it's "sensitive density", and it will solve all the housing issues in the region from now until the end of time.



#224 nerka

nerka
  • Member
  • 1,236 posts

Posted 23 November 2017 - 03:46 PM

It feels like 2006 again, it really does.

 

Quite frankly I do not feel it is worth the effort to engage here. We're in election mode and this plan, despite taking us backwards in terms of housing affordability and accessibility, will be championed by councillors.

I get  that the process is a bit circular and therefore frustrating for folks like yourself who have had long involvement.

 

Still it isn't onerous to fill out the survey as a minimum. There are some portions of the plan that will allow more density and should be supported (IMO) lest they too are nixed by NIMBYs. 6 stories in CSV may be a lost cause but it doesn't hurt to push back in support of previously agreed upon acceptable density. There are councillors sympathetic to that view.



#225 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,184 posts

Posted 23 November 2017 - 04:02 PM

My concern is we’re starting to push people into ever smaller homes. The key is to provide enough massing to spread the density in a more livable way.

Some folks might like 350 to 450 square foot homes, but others are buying them out of necessity and not necessarily choice.

I guess what I’m saying is “sensitive density” is a ruse for decreased heights because the “density” will not change, just the size of units will change.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#226 dasmo

dasmo

    Grand Master ✔

  • Member
  • 15,239 posts

Posted 23 November 2017 - 07:24 PM

There is some validity to sensitive density. Sure 6 stories isn’t a lot and I wouldn’t be against it in the CSV but that’s a minor technicality. I do think an established neighbourhood like this has every right to defend itself. The area for large scale density is the Hudson to Uptown anyway. Fairfield should be row houses, duplexes and small mixed use clusters.
  • nagel likes this

#227 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,184 posts

Posted 23 November 2017 - 08:13 PM

The fact that CSV and area have been dominated by four-storey apartment buildings since the 70’s.

Surely in 2017 we can allow a little more height to even out that density some, no?

I mean, it’s six storeys, folks. That’s literally the height of an imax screen.
  • Nparker likes this

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#228 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,409 posts

Posted 23 November 2017 - 08:18 PM

...I guess what I’m saying is “sensitive density” is a ruse for decreased heights because the “density” will not change, just the size of units will change.

This.



#229 dasmo

dasmo

    Grand Master ✔

  • Member
  • 15,239 posts

Posted 23 November 2017 - 09:26 PM

I’m not sure it doesn’t make a difference. Perhaps if there is less incentive to demolish these 4 story buildings more will simply stay. I don’t see a big need to overhaul this area. The strip of single story strip malls, car lots and oil change shops from the Hudson to Uptown Has little intrinsic value. Push the incentive to build there instead. Make a new livable neighbourhood. This would serve the area a lot better that even greater gentrification of a village that truly hosts a mix of people.
I would not even have a height limit in the Hudson to Uptown zone if I was in charge.... it’s the perfect area for mega density.
  • rjag, grantpalin and nagel like this

#230 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,184 posts

Posted 24 November 2017 - 05:59 AM

Communities shouldn’t be museums, though. That’s why we have reasonable planning guidelines (like six-storeys in 2017 in the largest village centre, Cook Street Village) and why we have infill development.

Forcing everyone to be a pioneer is counterproductive and encourages a silo mentality where you’re told area A is considered full by its established residents (aka folks with money to buy into area A at any point in time) and if you want to buy a home, you have to live in a construction zone for the rest of your life and hope that your area B becomes something great ...some day. Oh but we’d like you to visit area A so we’ll build you a lil bike lane.

Look at how long it’s taken for Railyards to get to where it is now, while Dockside Green waivered and failed? Expecting all reasonable density to have to go in such areas comes with its downsides as we can see.

It’d be nice if we finally recognized that already built up commercial nodes should keep building out, for they offer what so many people want and need in a community. But if we’re now saying that the gate is closed and new residents must live in industrial areas that will hopefully become nice places to live then a buyer like me is saying thank you to Victoria and will pay taxes in another community where I don’t have to be the first buyer in an industrial area.
  • Nparker likes this

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#231 dasmo

dasmo

    Grand Master ✔

  • Member
  • 15,239 posts

Posted 24 November 2017 - 10:09 AM

The Railyards was vacant brownfield land. Chris has built a new community. Totally different.
This is the role of government, to represent the people. So we have a well established village that functions extremely well. It has nothing to do with making it a museum. It has to do with growing it in a sensible way. It’s precious and should have special consideration. I think what has been happening there is good. No need to double the density in short order. We have plenty of other areas to play with first. My zone, Rock Bay, DG etc.

#232 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,184 posts

Posted 24 November 2017 - 10:37 AM

I agree, no need for pushing for high high density, but forcing buildings to only four-storeys means that the reasonable density that is already on the radar will be forced into smaller buildings which means smaller units.

Is that really what we want, micro-lofts, studios and one-bedroom units dominating with two-bedroom units selling for massive premiums and three-bedroom units unquestionable for all but the upper echelon, if even available?

Is Esquimalt’s Head Street core going to be ruined by the six-storey Verde, and was it ruined by the six-storey skyline? Will the six-storey Esquimalt Town Centre buildings destroy Esquimalt’s municipal district? Will the six-story Westbay Quay destroy that waterfront area?

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#233 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,409 posts

Posted 24 November 2017 - 10:43 AM

...It’s precious and should have special consideration...

Precious? Really? 1960s & 1970s wood-frame, walk-up apartments are precious? I'd hardly place the CSV in the same league as the seven wonders of the ancient world, the Eiffel Tower, Angkor Wat, the Taj Mahal and the Vatican. In a generation, much of the existing housing stock in the village will be in such a poor state of repair that it will all have to be replaced. Perhaps then locals won't place sentimentality ahead of increasing the housing supply. 



#234 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,409 posts

Posted 24 November 2017 - 03:16 PM

Meanwhile in Vancouver...

The Housing Vancouver Strategy...touches on everything from creating affordable housing and taming speculation, to expediting the approval process and combating homelessness. Of particular interest to observers is the city’s proposal for the “transformation of low-density neighbourhoods,” which would see parts of the city zoned for single-family houses — almost 80 per cent of Vancouver’s residential land — opened up to other housing options such as townhouses and row-houses...


http://vancouversun....ths-of-the-city

 



#235 dasmo

dasmo

    Grand Master ✔

  • Member
  • 15,239 posts

Posted 24 November 2017 - 04:11 PM

Its not the buildings themselves that are precious it’s the fabric of the hood. If it wasn’t special it wouldn’t be so popular OR a destination spot. (Despite the old buildings)
I’m personally fine with 6 stories here, I’m debating the big picture.

#236 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 24 November 2017 - 09:30 PM

It is special because it is the one high density neighbourhood in the city. Adding more density will just make it more special.
  • Nparker likes this

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#237 dasmo

dasmo

    Grand Master ✔

  • Member
  • 15,239 posts

Posted 25 November 2017 - 09:03 AM

It is special because it is the one high density neighbourhood in the city. Adding more density will just make it more special.

Absolutely not what makes it special. That said more density might but only after the infrastructure is there for it like bringing back the tram that used to it and getting the bike lanes in.
We just have way better zones to make denser. Anything here doesn’t really do much for anyone but a developer. It actually erodes affordability in the area and disrupts am established well functioning neighbourhood.

#238 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,184 posts

Posted 25 November 2017 - 09:07 AM

The accepted narrative of modern urban planning is to build upon already built up commercial nodes, not call them “done.”

Now while we hum and haw over Cook Street Village projects and Rockland projects the City of Victoria pushes yet another social housing project for Burnside. The irony of it all makes for terrible optics.
  • Nparker likes this

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#239 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,409 posts

Posted 25 November 2017 - 09:21 AM

It is special because it is the one high density neighbourhood in the city. Adding more density will just make it more special.

Absolutely not what makes it special...

Dasmo is partially right, it's more than the density that makes the CSV special. I also agree with G-Man, having more people living in the immediate vicinity will only add to the the vibe that already exists.



#240 dasmo

dasmo

    Grand Master ✔

  • Member
  • 15,239 posts

Posted 25 November 2017 - 09:25 AM

Not calling it done. Those are your words. It doesn’t really make an actual conversation when it’s always internet style of framing “the other side” in an idiotic way.,

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

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