^ Note all the open houses etc for giving input and asking questions, too.
Cook Street Village
#221
Posted 23 November 2017 - 12:51 PM
#222
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
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
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
Posted 23 November 2017 - 04:02 PM
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
Posted 23 November 2017 - 07:24 PM
- nagel likes this
#227
Posted 23 November 2017 - 08:13 PM
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
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
Posted 23 November 2017 - 09:26 PM
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
Posted 24 November 2017 - 05:59 AM
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
Posted 24 November 2017 - 10:09 AM
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
Posted 24 November 2017 - 10:37 AM
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
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
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
Posted 24 November 2017 - 04:11 PM
I’m personally fine with 6 stories here, I’m debating the big picture.
#236
Posted 24 November 2017 - 09:30 PM
- Nparker likes this
#237
Posted 25 November 2017 - 09:03 AM
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.It is special because it is the one high density neighbourhood in the city. Adding more density will just make it more special.
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
Posted 25 November 2017 - 09:07 AM
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
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
Posted 25 November 2017 - 09:25 AM
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