1740 replies to this topic

[phx]

^ We'll need a team of six people to chain themselves to each of the trees in the median to protect them.

[Marilyn]

I think people deride it because it deserves to be derided in this instance. A traffic island is not -- nor should it ever be considered to be -- green space. Traffic islands are inaccessible, there's no way for anyone to utilize or enjoy them... I'm reminded of Rachel Carson's concern that the shoulders of busy roads should be arbitrarily greened. Why? So motorists can feel better about themselves as they drive by? It's silly.

It may not seem useful to motorists driving by but as a pedestrian who takes buses, I have enjoyed that green space and have seen others do so too. We actually walked on it instead of just driving by.

The view for pedestrians would not be blocked . In fact, the new walkway and terraces and such should (if done well) produce an enjoyable walking experience and enable views that currently do not exist.

It closes off the view of the water for busy pedestrians walking around the area for other reasons than just taking a stroll. It will make the area feel claustrophobic rather than open as it is now.

It's very difficult to consider that claim seriously. Are the streets of Victoria gridlocked 24 hours per day? Is it impossible to park on the street? Is it impossible to find a space in a surface lot or parkade? Not even close. You could add 50,000 people into the core and it still wouldn't be anywhere close to that.

Streets in that area are very often grid locked. Only yesterday we could not access lower Pandora. Parking is a major problem in that area and all over downtown Victoria.

But that sort of ambiance does not exist now in the immediate vicinity of the Northern Junk buildings. Parking lots, empty lots, and abandoned, neglected buildings do not constitute a positive historical ambiance. They simply do not.

Consider: there are several less-than-ideal modern buildings in that area, and some of them are quite large. The Regent Hotel, the Salvation Army's building, and the Yates Street parkade are the most obvious ones, I think. If a pleasant historical ambience still exists after the insertion of these buildings (and the destruction of the historic buildings that they replaced) then what the heck are we even worried about? Does a smallish and not unattractive new building -- one that won't displace or destroy any historical buildings -- really represent some sort of menace that those other buildings didn't/don't?

"It's already pretty bad, so what's wrong with making it worse?" seems to be what you are saying.

Why do so many Victorians seem to dread the revitalization and re-utilization of historic buildings above all else? I just don't get it.

I dread inept city planning and closing in the waterfronts and the harbour with condos and hotels. Toronto did that with Lake Ontario and many people regret it. "Revitalization" can be just another word for uncontrolled development and the destruction of the heart of a city.

[gumgum]

^So you're saying that it would block views and add to traffic problems, so therefore it shouldn't exist?

[Hotel Mike]

Where is Sam Bawlf when we need him?

And who was it that actually developed the egregious Victoria Regent? The single worst blow against the Inner Harbour and heritage the city has seen in many, many decades?

You can have Sam Bawlf Bingo.

[ryleyb]

It may not seem useful to motorists driving by but as a pedestrian who takes buses, I have enjoyed that green space and have seen others do so too. We actually walked on it instead of just driving by.

It closes off the view of the water for busy pedestrians walking around the area for other reasons than just taking a stroll. It will make the area feel claustrophobic rather than open as it is now.

I'd just like to express my disagreement with this. I ride my bike through this area daily and the only people I ever see enjoying the "green" spaces are homeless gentlemen. Everyone else is just trying to get through the wasteland of criss-crossing traffic.

I dread inept city planning and closing in the waterfronts and the harbour with condos and hotels. Toronto did that with Lake Ontario and many people regret it. "Revitalization" can be just another word for uncontrolled development and the destruction of the heart of a city.

That's funny, I lived in Toronto a few years ago and all I really remember is being surprised how nice the waterfront was. I strolled and biked all the way to Etobicoke and back many times in the summer. I guess between the Beaches and downtown was an industrial area that was less nice to go through?

Other notes:

-I'd love to see the walkways along the Inner Harbour become ever more connected, until I can take a nice stroll all the way out to Selkirk Trestle.
-I agree with anyone saying that this isn't a perfect proposal, but I'm excited and supportive of development on this property

[aastra]

"It's already pretty bad, so what's wrong with making it worse?" seems to be what you are saying.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I meant to say was, if YOU think it's a wonderful ambiance the way it is now (with the Salvation Army's building, the Yates Street parkade, the Regent Hotel, the abandoned buildings, the surface parking...) then you shouldn't worry when a decent proposal comes along, especially a decent proposal that:

- isn't very big, and
- introduces useful public spaces while eliminating useless/unsafe ones, and
- reutilizes historic buildings instead of destroying them

It will make the area feel claustrophobic rather than open as it is now.

That damn claustrophobic Old Town, eh?

Parking is a major problem in that area and all over downtown Victoria.

It's been a crisis for 40 years. And yet anyone can go downtown and park with no trouble at any time.

"Revitalization" can be just another word for uncontrolled development and the destruction of the heart of a city.

This is true. Victoria knows it as well as any place. Consider Centennial Square and the misguided auto-era efforts to "open up" the claustrophobic old city.

[aastra]

There should always be room for criticism with regards to a new project; but so many times instead the criticisms, they are thin veils for reasons why a project should not happen at all.

I've said it many times: opposition tends to be generic whereas support tends to be specific. Not always, but most of the time.

"Too tall" - doesn't matter if it's 25 stories or 5 stories (as in this case). If this proposal had been 4 stories instead of 5 would the reaction be any different?

"Traffic will be a nightmare" - doesn't matter if it's 250 units or 25 units, traffic will worsen beyond all hope, as if there's no traffic going and coming from the surface parking lot that currently occupies whatever site we happen to be talking about

"It's Way out of scale" - doesn't matter if existing buildings in the immediate area are the same size or even much larger, or if Victorians were building larger back in the 19th century

"Architecturally Inappropriate" - doesn't matter what the style is or what the materials might happen to be or whether or not the plans have even been made public yet

"They'll ruin the neighbourhood" - doesn't matter if the proposed building contains tiny bachelor pads or large, luxurious units, the new residents will ruin the neighbourhood (there are plenty of genuinely appalling social ills on the streets of Victoria... this popular insinuation that middle-class and upper-middle-class condo dwellers are the scourge of decent society is absolutely ridiculous and, dare I say it, a diversion away from Victoria's legitimate problems)

[gumgum]

I would just love to hear some solid, economically realistic solutions by those that want to see nothing built here.

Provide some alternative solutions that are viable. How will the Northern Junk Buildings be revitalized?

Also, how is a proposal such as this going to destroy the character of Olde Town?

[aastra]

More about that last one: I made the observation in another thread that the social impact of hypothetical new condo residents is an issue that's absolutely drenched in hypocrisy. Established residents will often claim that the residents of a proposed new building will ruin the neighbourhood.

Remember how the residents of the Savoy complained that the residents of Astoria were going to ruin the neighbourhood? Remember how the residents of Astoria (before their building was even completed!) complained that the residents of Aria were going to ruin the neighbourhood?

And officialdom ALWAYS sides with established residents against hypothetical future residents, but when the day comes that the hypothetical future residents are now established residents, officialdom ALWAYS sides with THEM against the next batch of hypothetical future residents... and nobody seems to be aware of the loop.

We're supposed to despise them when they're hypothetical bogeymen but we're supposed to love them to death when they finally have names and faces. When they finally have names and faces we're supposed to support their noble crusade against the incoming horde of hypothetical bogeymen.

Lest we forget, there were many complaints about how residents of the new Leiser Building apartments would ruin the neighbourhood, what with their inevitable distaste for noisy street life, etc.

So here we are today and the residents of the Leiser Building are now the establishment.

Anyone want to bet that the folks who eventually occupy this new building will one day be arm-in-arm with the residents of the Leiser Building when the time comes to complain about how the residents of the proposed Janion condo building will ruin the neighbourhood? You'd be crazy to take that bet.

They're all just real people. Time to grow up.

[jklymak]

That's funny, I lived in Toronto a few years ago and all I really remember is being surprised how nice the waterfront was. I strolled and biked all the way to Etobicoke and back many times in the summer. I guess between the Beaches and downtown was an industrial area that was less nice to go through?

Yes, I agree. Whereas 25 years ago, the Toronto waterfront was oh so attractive when it was cut off from downtown by the Expressway and acres upon acres of rail yards and home to disused piers and grain elevators. I find it hard to believe that people are actually pining for that instead of an active vibrant space full of people.

[aastra]

I'm not saying the potential impact on traffic shouldn't be considered, or that the style of the architecture isn't relevant, or that the height/scale of the buildings shouldn't be taken into account.

OF COURSE these things are relevant and OF COURSE they should be considered.

Consideration is the key. I'm saying people need to take the blinders off and actually consider the particulars of each proposal instead of falling back on the same old blanket condemnations.

Instead of dreading some absurd multi-faceted worst-case scenario, why not take a moment to actually consider other recent projects of the same type and see how they turned out?

I suspect that I know why: because you could go down the list of recent condo projects in Victoria and probably not find one that didn't do a heckuva lot more good than bad.

Nothing is ever perfect, I agree. But new projects are rarely the disasters that many people seem to expect. Let's get realistic, how many legitimate disasters have there been in Victoria, ever? Folks, the vast majority of the recent condo and office projects in Victoria (city) have been darned good. Residential projects in particular have been MUCH better than the residential projects of any earlier era, hands down.

[aastra]

I find it hard to believe that people are actually pining for that instead of an active vibrant space full of people.

In Victoria I think a lot of people are just afraid to go forward. Doing nothing is better than doing something because when you do something you just know the boo-birds will make a big fuss.

The boo-birds NEVER make a fuss about former industrial sites, abandoned heritage buildings, or surface parking.

The boo-birds love to claim new developments are eliminating waterfront access, when (as in the case of this Northern Junk proposal) waterfront access is often greatly improved by new developments on disused waterfront properties (if not introduced outright where no public access had existed before).

[Bernard]

The questions for me remain the following:

Does this help the Old Town look and feel and draw tourists north in the city? Is the impact on tourism an important consideration? I personally am not too concerned about tourism and honestly avoid most of old town from May 1 to Oct 30th to avoid the tourists.

Why do we want to keep the old buildings at all? To me if the buildings are isolated behind the development we may as well not have them at all. Are they are an important part of the heritage of the city? I am not opposed to seeing old buildings razed if they have few or no real values beyond being old. There are some amazing old buildings that have been taken down, but that is not a reason to now save every old building.

Finally, is this corner going to become an extension of the sterile Songhees area into downtown? The Songhees area has been developed for some time now and still feels rather dead and sterile to me. Yes there are people walking along the shore, but the buildings and the spaces between the buildings are dead.

[ryleyb]

The questions for me remain the following:

Does this help the Old Town look and feel and draw tourists north in the city? Is the impact on tourism an important consideration? I personally am not too concerned about tourism and honestly avoid most of old town from May 1 to Oct 30th to avoid the tourists.

...

Finally, is this corner going to become an extension of the sterile Songhees area into downtown? The Songhees area has been developed for some time now and still feels rather dead and sterile to me. Yes there are people walking along the shore, but the buildings and the spaces between the buildings are dead.

It will have ground floor retail won't it? I'd say that alone will put it miles ahead of all of Songhees with respect to pedestrian interaction.

For tourists, this proposal certainly seems like a step up - public waterfront access, more retail, closer connection to the N side of Pandora.

Why do we want to keep the old buildings at all? To me if the buildings are isolated behind the development we may as well not have them at all. Are they are an important part of the heritage of the city? I am not opposed to seeing old buildings razed if they have few or no real values beyond being old. There are some amazing old buildings that have been taken down, but that is not a reason to now save every old building.

This seems especially true in the Northern Junk case... I'm not a heritage person in general, but at least some of the buildings being protected are interesting. NJ just seems like a waste of space (of course, they might do something amazing with it, then I'll eat my words )

[Hotel Mike]

This proposal won't do much for the Northern Junk buildings from the street side, but it may look pretty cool from the water.

[Bernard]

From the pictures I can not tell what they are contemplating for the ground level. If you look back at the artists renditions for the Songhees, there was a lot of street culture in them - in theory I have one of the old plans for the area with pics I could scan, but not something I am going to dig and find right now.

What is the ground floor intention? And if it is retail where will customers come from and will you be able to park there? If the intent is to rely on people living there, then this will not be enough. Selkirk can still not support retail.

[jklymak]

I think the plan to have a restaurant/bar overlooking the water and bridge should be a winner for that area if done right ala Canoe Club (as opposed to Milestones and the rest of the tourist fare just south of there.)

[SP!RE]

Many cities would be lucky to get a nice, sensitively designed project like this which would revive a stretch of the waterfront and bring two derelict buildings back to life and to the spotlight.

Instead, Victorians seem dead-set on keeping the buildings derelict, and left to rot. Who wins that way? Instead of productively saying "How can we do this best?" I'm hearing a lot of "Let's not do anything." By the time all is said and done, the design will be outdated, will have gone back and forth, and will be watered down and... will please no-one.

Unbelievable.

Thank God this forum exists-- we need an positive pro-urban-development force at work in Victoria. If I do indeed move out there this summer, you can expect me to get very active in these matters.

[gumgum]

What does this even mean?

Should we let Northern Junk to crumble? Do nothing and that's what will happen.

^So you're saying that it would block views and add to traffic problems, so therefore it shouldn't exist?

I would just love to hear some solid, economically realistic solutions by those that want to see nothing built here.

Provide some alternative solutions that are viable. How will the Northern Junk Buildings be revitalized?

Also, how is a proposal such as this going to destroy the character of Olde Town?

I'm reposting some of my questions in the hopes that I get a reply. I really feel that they are valid ones.

I'm trying really hard to understand the other's perspective, but I'm not satiated by complaints without alternative solutions.

Do any of use really believe that doing nothing is an option? Is that really what I am hearing?

[aastra]

Provide some alternative solutions that are viable. How will the Northern Junk Buildings be revitalized?

I can answer that. All somebody needs to do is propose an appropriately scaled building that fits the character of the area, doesn't affect views, and doesn't attract the wrong kind of residents.

It's simple, really. Just address each of those points and the response would be enthusiastic.