146 replies to this topic

[Bob Fugger]

I've found that I can't get interested in this whole process. It seems that Official Community Plans are something that councils either hide behind so they wouldn't have to take a position and defeat something themselves (rezoning, development, etc.) or ignore/change when there's something that they want to push through.

[BlueBoy]

I've found that I can't get interested in this whole process. It seems that Official Community Plans are something that councils either hide behind so they wouldn't have to take a position and defeat something themselves (rezoning, development, etc.) or ignore/change when there's something that they want to push through.

I was surprised to find that I'm quite interested in it; I've ignored city politics for ages. But I'm really interested in architecture and how cities function and grow. I've studied a lot of favourites, like the Millenium bridge in London, Habitat 67 in Montreal, public housing projects (the Crack Stacks) in Minneapolis, and now the Gorge area, all controversial in their own ways.

At the city meetings I found a whole bunch of people talking about exactly how designs like those come about, and how maybe to avoid the errors of bad planning and unintended results. Is there anything we can do to fix the organic, spontaneous growth of the Pandora encampment? Should Rockbay be industrial, or mixed use? How are we going to move all those forecasted new residents around?

I'm not feeling cynical enough right now to think the whole exercise useless, or that it will all end badly. Yes, a plan may end up not being enforced, or applied inappropriately, or becoming outdated. But why not try?

[Mike K.]

Well, no one thing will spark development on its own. The area will have been rezoned as well, to allow residential building, and it is charmingly close to downtown. Wasn't it all industrial? And I seem to remember the Dockside Green land had to be cleaned, as it was contaminated (brown fields). When I first moved here 6 years ago, a friend wrinkled her nose in polite disgust at my suggestion of house hunting on this side of the Gorge. Coming from Oak Bay, she said "we don't cross the water, you know." Good thing attitudes changed.

Where developments go, and how they end up looking and working, can be influenced by a City Plan. I appreciated today that a City planning staffer was talking about set backs, and the effects of large buildings on passersby; they shouldn't be blank walled monoliths. I wish he'd had more input into some choices at Uptown.

The first brownfield sites to be developed in Vic West were on land we now refer to as the "Songhees" and planning started well before the goose was a public trail. Ditto for Selkirk Waterfront.

The remaining industrial sites we now refer to as Railyards and Dockside were eyed for high density residential and their use as such had nothing to do with the Goose other than it was a nearby trail that serves for alternative transportation options.

The goose primarily serves those who live within its proximity in already built up neighbourhoods or industrial areas. If the trail was as instrumental to development as was suggested for Vic West, we'd have seen many, many high density communities springing up along its stretch. In other words, to assume that Vic West's brownfield sites and Selkirk Waterfront owe their existence to the Galloping Goose is literally putting the cart before the horse.

[BlueBoy]

Here is my quick write up of what we talked about on Friday evening. The meeting was well represented by VVers and Blue Bridge people.

I enjoyed reading your blog post and look forward to hearing what you think of the OCP meetings.

[BlueBoy]

The first brownfield sites to be developed in Vic West were on land we now refer to as the "Songhees" and planning started well before the goose was a public trail. Ditto for Selkirk Waterfront.

The remaining industrial sites we now refer to as Railyards and Dockside were eyed for high density residential and their use as such had nothing to do with the Goose other than it was a nearby trail that serves for alternative transportation options.

The goose primarily serves those who live within its proximity in already built up neighbourhoods or industrial areas. If the trail was as instrumental to development as was suggested for Vic West, we'd have seen many, many high density communities springing up along its stretch. In other words, to assume that Vic West's brownfield sites and Selkirk Waterfront owe their existence to the Galloping Goose is literally putting the cart before the horse.

Thanks for the history. I didn't really think the Goose has quite the same effect as, say, a major transit corridor, like a highway or a streetcar route. We can but dream that a cycling pathway could have that effect. Think, someday entire communities could grow up around the E&N, and the Goose towards Sooke, like Montreal grew immigrant communities up the length of St.Laurent Blvd. But ours would look more granola-y, with little child/grocery trailers behind every bike.

[aastra]

I'd say Rock Bay and Douglas Street north of Hillside are two areas that could make use of a detailed plan but I'm honestly not getting why we need to over-analyze most of the other areas. Not to be flippant but "a little bit more of the same" would be a great recipe for the Old Town, downtown, south downtown, Harris Green, Fort Street, Cook Street, James Bay, Oak Bay Avenue, Quadra Street, the Selkirk...

I mean, seriously, what are we really planning here? It's not as if anybody is going to plan for anything that departs significantly from a particular area's established character. Even in the relatively raw areas of the Songhees and Dockside Green the future direction seems to be predictable and obvious, does it not?

[BlueBoy]

I'd say Rock Bay and Douglas Street north of Hillside are two areas that could make use of a detailed plan but I'm honestly not getting why we need to over-analyze most of the other areas. Not to be flippant but "a little bit more of the same" would be a great recipe for the Old Town, downtown, south downtown, Harris Green, Fort Street, Cook Street, James Bay, Oak Bay Avenue, Quadra Street, the Selkirk...

I mean, seriously, what are we really planning here? It's not as if anybody is going to plan for anything that departs significantly from a particular area's established character. Even in the relatively raw areas of the Songhees and Dockside Green the future direction seems to be predictable and obvious, does it not?

Perhaps you should read the draft plan to see if there are any surprises? I was personally horrified to see in the Housing/Homelessness handout that building tent cities has been proposed by the community as a solution to the homeless problem. Tent city??? And listed as being in Rock Bay. (that poor district, its ears must be burning, it's come up so often in conversation lately.)

It's all in the drafting stage, and is being posted on the city website. Several areas were identified as transitional (Rock Bay), and different ideas are being discussed as to what form their not-yet-established character might take. The city is changing a lot every year, even if we don't really see it right now. The four choices of growth patterns will specifically influence how zoning is applied. (eg If village model is chosen, the city will scale back current proposals for zoning density in the downtown.)

Speaking of which, did you have a sense, say 5 years ago, of what Uptown would look like? I'm surprised every time I go by there. It's huge.

[Rob Randall]

This survey is kinda ridiculous. I wanted an "all of the above" option as none of these options were in any way mutually exclusive. You can't have a dense core if you develop along transit? You can't develop near green spaces if you have a dense core? Transit focused development can't be near parks?

It's allowed--even expected that people will give combination answers. I think the planners are simply asking what growth model is priority.

I preferred the Downtown density model--the bulk of growth would go here. But I also said the transit and village centre models could play a role. Village centres can be strengthened with low-rise residential. Density along transit routes could work but I strongly felt it needed to have a residential feel to contrast with the more urban areas. For instance, brownstones or rowhouses. Otherwise you lose the rhythm of the city and village centres bleed into each other like the worst, blandest parts of Surrey.

[Baro]

One thing mentioned by planning at the meeting is that even they known the "villages" plan is impossible due to the power of the CA's and NIMBY's. Look at how much **** is stirred up every time some extremely modest 3 story building in any of our core villages is proposed. With the current veto-like power the CA's hold this plan would be impossible. You can't grow our neighbourhood centres when no new buildings are allowed.

[Rob Randall]

Absolutely right, Baro.

Ridiculous "choices," imo, trying to separate (to "plan") artificially what should have a chance to grow spontaneously and organically.

Sometimes the better part of a plan is knowing when to get out the way.

Don't forget the development industry has been asking for clarity. They want to know the City will back them if they make a proposal. The immediate neighbours may hate a proposal but the City can point to the relevant plan and say suck it up, the people have spoken (but in more diplomatic language...)

One thing mentioned by planning at the meeting is that even they known the "villages" plan is impossible due to the power of the CA's and NIMBY's. Look at how much **** is stirred up every time some extremely modest 3 story building in any of our core villages is proposed. With the current veto-like power the CA's hold this plan would be impossible. You can't grow our neighbourhood centres when no new buildings are allowed.

The best example is Castana/Essentia Verde in Cook St. Village. An entire storey (or two?) of low income/seniors housing was swept off the table--permanently eliminated by a few grudge-holders in the community association.

[Baro]

Which is why it's idiotic to even have the "villages" option on the table when planning outright states it would be impossible due to the CA's and nimby's. Hell I think the transit corridor option would also be hard due to the same reasons. Nothing progressive can happen in this city untill the community associations are either made to actually represent their neighbourhoods and not just their neighbourhood's nimby-club or have their advice taken by city hall with a grain of salt and an understanding that for the most part they only represent an extreme fringe within that community.

[LJ]

When did CA's get all this veto power?

When I was last involved with a CA we could make representations to council or try to extract some goodies but that was it. City council, for better or worse, was elected to make the decisions.

Everyone I ever met that were driving forces in CA's were the "I'm here I don't want anyone else here or anything to change" types. Of course since the only ones that attend association meetings in any numbers are the same types it is easy to keep getting re-acclaimed.

[Rob Randall]

Community consultation is good but it's not perfect. Take this example:

[Apple's] Steve Jobs has often cited this quote from Henry Ford: "If I'd have asked customers what they wanted, they would have told me, 'A faster horse!' "

This is Jobs's defense of Apple's reluctance to listen to even its most passionate customers, and the line is a good one to remember the next time you're considering a new round of focus groups. "The whole approach of the company is that people can't really envision what they want," says Reid. "They'll tell you a bunch of stuff they want. Then if you build it, it turns out that's not right. It's hard to visualize things that don't exist."

Sometimes residents are the worst judges of what the future of their city should look like. I give the example of the older lady at the City's 2006 visioning process. When asked what the neighbourhood of 30 years from now resembled, she replied, "I want a bus stop outside my house". Past civic leaders thought getting rid of Victoria's old streetcars and even the crumbling Empress Hotel was a brilliant move into the future.

All politics is local, they say, and all local politics is at your front door.

[Bernard]

So I missed the meetings this weekend because I was camping in Carmanah..... I would love to hear more about what happened

[BlueBoy]

Bernard--darn, I was hoping to hear from you what you thought. I'm not really in a position to describe what happened, as people divided into small group sessions to talk in depth. I did learn a lot, especially on Housing, not enough on Homelessness. And lots about Rock Bay.

For anyone that wants, there's huge amounts of reading online now. It was finished and posted just before the event. All ten chapters and 13 appendices of the draft downtown core plan in particular are good reading.

[Bernard]

My camping trip bounced around over a bunch of dates and finally settled on last weekend.

I have also been behind in keeping up on the OCP process because I have had a couple of weeks of long work hours.

[Jared]

One thing mentioned by planning at the meeting is that even they known the "villages" plan is impossible due to the power of the CA's and NIMBY's. Look at how much **** is stirred up every time some extremely modest 3 story building in any of our core villages is proposed. With the current veto-like power the CA's hold this plan would be impossible. You can't grow our neighbourhood centres when no new buildings are allowed.

I think the Community Forum had a bias toward the villages plan, so the planners are obviously considering how to do it. Obviously the solution is that the neighbourhood associations need to be broken.

There was a suggestion in the neighbourhood planning session that planning should be more centralized in Victoria (as well as suggestions for the opposite). I think that the associations should be replaced with village associations that have some jurisdiction over land that's a 10-minute walk from the village centre. Under the villages plan, basically no development should happen outside of that, so it doesn't really matter who plans the rest of the municipality.

The village associations should be structured to be representative of interests besides home owners. They could either be randomly-sampled (and paid) planning juries or with specific seats allocated to representatives of developers, renters, homeless people, etc.

[Bernard]

I posted my latest thoughts on the OCP on blog.

The jist of it is that I remain underwhelmed at how the City is engaging with the public to get input into the future of the City. They could have got so much more detailed input from the public but are going for a very bland and limited direction.

[BlueBoy]

I posted my latest thoughts on the OCP on blog.

The jist of it is that I remain underwhelmed at how the City is engaging with the public to get input into the future of the City. They could have got so much more detailed input from the public but are going for a very bland and limited direction.

Dude, you went camping. Which is great, of course, especially in summer. But it's a choice. You missed 2 days of intense one-on-one discussion with City staff and planners, where you could have given detailed input to your heart's content. And this is in addition to the previous open forums in March. They served excellent lunch/tea to the participants, joined people in conversation at the breaks, went for drinks afterwards, over the Friday aft/evg, and all day Saturday. The materials show input from residents, including your own ideas, but you're not happy unless you also get specific credit? Funny! If they did any more, you'd be complaining that the city spends too much money on public outreach.

But the website is still open to community input: http://www.shapeyourfuturevictoria.ca/.
The reams of materials make good reading.

[Mike K.]

Dude, you went camping. Which is great, of course, especially in summer. But it's a choice.

Blueboy, cut the guy some slack.

Bernard clearly states that he was volunteering his time with a group of Scouts. It's not as though he made the choice to go into the bush for a weekend of partying in lieu of participating at an informational session.

We all have limits to what we can and cannot do with our time. If you're able to attend these sessions and add input, great. But let's refrain from discounting those who have time conflicts and cannot attend, and in turn focus on the topic at hand. Don't forget it is through social media platforms like this forum and personal blogs that the majority of opinions on all of City Hall's plans are aired. Formal meetings are but one, not the sole, method of gathering input from the community.