99 replies to this topic

[VicHockeyFan]

15,000 downtown residents envisaged in draft core plan

By Sandra McCulloch, Times Colonist May 17, 2010

Over the next few decades, Victoria will evolve into an array of vibrant urban neighbourhoods with a pedestrian-friendly downtown core featuring a broad range of employment, housing, shopping and recreational opportunities.

Read more: http://www.timescolo...l#ixzz0oI9alT9o

PLAN: http://www.scribd.co...Area-Plan-Draft

[Baro]

Wow, the map of downtown actually encompasses DOWNTOWN.

[VicHockeyFan]

180+ pages. How long has this been in the hopper, anyone know?

[Dennis Carlsen]

The draft downtown plan has been in the works since Council adopted the preferred option in 2008. The update of the downtown plan has actually been underway since at least 2006.

[gumgum]

Pg 19 suggests a park on the current Chrysler dealership on Yates and Cook. Are they privy to something we aren't?

[Baro]

This plan, which will only be a general sugestion to planning and council and in no way binding, will come into effect in 2032. Unfortunately 18 community plan revisions will be done in between then and now and the process to officially expand downtown's borders will only finish consulting every resident of James Bay by 2105, at which point we'll need to hire more consultants to help vision new visioning processes to help us generate community feedback as to the process for processing new visions. But don't worry about any of this, it's not like council ever follows any of these plans unless it's politically convenient at the moment but by god do all these seminars, studies, and community meetings make the city feel so in-touch and democratic.

[aastra]

It's clear that the traditional Downtown core alone will not be able to accommodate much more in the way of people or businesses: the inventory of vacant or underutilized land within the downtown neighbourhood has dimished to a level that will simply not meet future demand.

What do y'all think of that? Off the top of my head:

Wharf street parking lots;
Capital Iron parking lot;
Rock Bay parking lots, empty lots, and underutilized lots;
parking lots around the legislature;
flatiron parking lot;
Janion parking lot;
Chinatown parking lots;
Radius site;
Centro site;
underutilized lots at Blanshard/Caledonia;
Traveller's Inns and parking lots;
Gateway Green site;
Johnson Street parkade;
Johnson Street parking lots between Blanshard and Cook;
car dealership lots around Yates and Cook;
parking lots and empty lots around View Towers;
empty lot at View Street and Vancouver Street;
Capitol 6 and parking lot;
Broughton Street parking lots between Douglas and Quadra;
Courtney Street parking lot and underdeveloped lots;
Royal Theatre parking lot;
Courthouse underdeveloped lot;
Bus station underdeveloped lot;
Crystal Court motel underdeveloped lot;
St. Andrew's Presbyterian gymnasium underdeveloped lot;
di Castri storefronts underdeveloped lot;
Yates Street swamp lot;
Pandora and Quadra strip mall;
Johnson and Vancouver strip mall;
Underdeveloped office building on Blanshard behind Centro lot;

The number of significant office buildings and residential buildings that you could build on those lots would well exceed the number of significant office buildings and residential buildings that already exist.

[aastra]

Pg 19 suggests a park on the current Chrysler dealership on Yates and Cook. Are they privy to something we aren't?

Stupidity, perhaps?

[Rob Randall]

Pg 19 suggests a park on the current Chrysler dealership on Yates and Cook. Are they privy to something we aren't?

As I understand it, the plan is to have a park in the vicinity. The problem is, it's hard to put a indefinite vicinity on a map.

[Dennis Carlsen]

The list of parking lots may give the impression that these lands are available for development. The reality is that these parking lots provide a critical function for businesses. Past development proposals in Chinatown have underscored how sensitive the business community is to the removal of parking spaces. Redevelopment of the parking lots on Wharf Street is a graveyard of development concepts. If you take the parking lots off the list then it does not leave many potential sites for development.

[aastra]

I'm choking on page 13. I don't have time to read anymore but suffice it to say, I hope they drop the weasel words over the next few pages and start employing specific, concrete terms as per the planning documents we've seen from various other cities.

Supporting new developments that complement the existing Downtown Core Area, in their building sites and orientation, massing, height, setbacks, materials and landscaping.

I wish. In Victoria this sort of weaselese usually translates into "short, wide buildings flaunting inappropriately large setbacks, suburban esthetics, and jarringly out-of-place horizontal details are the best buildings."

[gumgum]

^^Removing surface parking does not have to mean less parking. A more dense development can mean a multi story underground parking, serving the development itself and the area.

[aastra]

Yes, when you develop on a parking lot you typically increase the amount of available parking (if you do it right).

In other words, after every large surface parking lot has been eliminated there should end up being much more parking than there was before.

[Baro]

No real urban centre wastes land with surface parking. Put that crap underground or multi-story and use the core for what it's there for: buildings. And with enough density downtown the demand for parking won't expand in a linear relationship with the increased density as many of the people will be living/working very close. The entire need for these huge parking lots is because we're spent the last 50 years working to segregate work from housing. We'll always need parking, but how crucial that parking is can be greatly diminished by increasing density, mixing uses, and good transit.

Most of these surface parking lots downtown are used by workers rather than customers, street parking and the city parkades are good enough for that. Shoppers need to be attracted and cared for and many won't come unless there's easy parking, but there's no reason we can't design our city so that most all workers coming into town do so without a car. Putting those workers within a 10-20 min walk of their work will make huge strides in this regard. But where to put all these workers? Hey... look at all those surface parking lots....

[aastra]

The revised off-the-top-of-my-head list minus the surface parking lots:

Rock Bay empty lots and underutilized lots;
Chinatown empty lot;
Radius site;
underutilized lots at Blanshard/Caledonia;
Traveller's Inns;
Gateway Green site;
car dealership lots around Yates and Cook;
empty lot beside View Towers;
empty lot at View Street and Vancouver Street;
Capitol 6;
Courtney Street underdeveloped lots;
Courthouse underdeveloped lot;
Bus station underdeveloped lot;
Crystal Court motel underdeveloped lot;
St. Andrew's Presbyterian gymnasium underdeveloped lot;
di Castri storefronts underdeveloped lot;
Yates Street swamp lot;
Pandora and Quadra strip mall;
Johnson and Vancouver strip mall;
Underdeveloped office building on Blanshard behind Centro lot;

[Baro]

You should make a map showing every parking/empty lot in one colour, and under-built lots zoned for much higher another colour. After that I got a fence for you to paint

[gumgum]

Interesting concept on pg 63.

[aastra]

Gotta love page 99.

[aastra]

Still don't understand this obsession with the Sooke Hills. It makes no sense for Victorians to be arguing about the significance of something as obvious as the Johnson Street Bridge while also taking it for granted that "views of the Sooke hills" are a critical element in the downtown milieu.

I chalk it up to Vancouver envy.

[Ms. B. Havin]

It's so refreshing to read the comments here, after wading through the more vitriolic examples in the T-C comments board.

Quite a few people on the T-C comments board are ticked off about the awful social issues Victoria has (homelessness, open drug use, etc.), but it's surprising how many seem to draw a straight line between the run-down, squalid character of our moribund downtown and condo development.

They seriously think that, somehow, development (and greedy developers) contributed to forcing Victoria into the ditch. Back in the day, accordingly, when Victoria was low-rise and sleepy, all was good and beautiful, with nary a homeless person in sight. Ergo, they reason, it's because of development that we now have social problems.

[Excuse me while I go tear my hair out...]

It's not politically correct to be outraged about people who openly break the law or abuse themselves. But it's totally and completely politically correct to be outraged by "the rich" (which includes those greedy-ass developers, of course, and the rich "non-Victorians" to whom they sell the condos that are making life such hell for true Victorians)...

Back on topic: I wish the City luck with this document. The main thing that drives me bonkers about the endeavor is this: there was massive public consultation in the past 2 (or even more!) years leading up to the document just released. Yet now, after literally years of public input, this document is going to be exposed to more "public consultation," and for what? So that the cranky can stick their oar in? Row us in yet another direction?

The sub-things that bother me:

One, I agree with aastra, and also think there's a lot of blue-sky in here that's not supported by realities on the ground. Proof of that is weasel language and also unrealistic assessments of space needs and the supposed lack of currently un- or underdeveloped land. However, I'm prepared to support the document, because the alternative is yet more stalling.

Two, I'm worried about the lack of economic development thinking from the city. Does Victoria even have an economic development plan? What is it? Please don't tell me, "more retail." I can't find the source right now (if I do later, I'll post it), but I was just reading about how North America as a whole is overserved by retail, compared to Europe. And while retail selection in Victoria is the sh*ts, it's not because there aren't a lot of stores here trying to make it (and often enough failing). The numbers re. North America v. Europe are interesting. Europe has a very small fraction of retail square footage per person compared to the US. Yep, don't jump on me and say, "Victoria isn't the US." I know that. But urban economic development has to be more than retail or selling (stuff or services) to tourists. How is the city supporting industries, nascent or otherwise? What is it doing to work with neighboring municipalities to strengthen growing fields, like tech? Regional transportation? Regional festivals to celebrate what we do well (food, beverage, green tech)? Tax incentives for creating co-working hubs?

A couple of years back I went to an open house at ABEbooks, after they moved from Selkirk to Vic West. The open house was tremendous - hundreds of people came through the doors, real excitement to learn about this company, and the tour was impressive. I asked back the next day whether a single City of Victoria councilor came through, and the answer was "no."

For better or for worse, that sort of disinterest in vibrant and forward-thinking businesses by the politicians informs my view of whether or not a city-devised plan for developing downtown is going to succeed.

Oh, PS/ Edit: props to the City for putting the document on Scribd. Makes it much easier than downloading the PDF - but you have the option of downloading a copy from Scribd, if you want.

PPS: Oops, I take it back, City of Victoria - no soup for you! It appears that dhelm02 posted the document to Scribd. That would be Denise Helm of the Times-Colonist, so props to the T-C for doing it!