99 replies to this topic

[Baro]

My main problem is: what's the point of this? We seem to always be consulting about some grand feel-good plans in victoria but never implementing them. We're obsessed with generating community feedback and making the community feel involved (on a totally superficial level) and then just ignoring the document when it's done (if it's ever done). What will make this plan different? And like Ms. B said, why have 80 pages on wishy-washy aesthetic issues and not a peep about economic development, which is the core, the foundation upon which EVERYTHING is built. You can't ever take your economics for granted and it's important for a city to plan for this sort of thing.

My theory is that in Victoria, the idea of "promoting the economy" is some sort of evil capitalist plot to a lot of people, it's a bad thing. "The Economy", "developers", "the business community" are all in bed together in their quest to ruin victoria and the world, it's something to be stopped rather than promoted. Economic plans are NOT something quaint tourist villages do.

[Ms. B. Havin]

^ Oh, I think there's definitely a point to this! Without an approved Downtown Plan, the city won't have an official policy (like density transfers for heritage building owners) and there would be dickering every time someone wants to build a (somewhat) taller building on the E. side of Douglas St. If/ when the plan is approved, at least those things aren't just guidelines - they're policy. And that'll create a roadmap for the city and developers.

I'm just slack-jawed that this plan (which was years in the making) is now potentially going to get savaged again by a public that was ignoring it, but now has a shiny new target to hit at.

Approve it, please. The alternative is too awful to contemplate.

[Baro]

This had massive community input and even a vote, the cross-town plan was strongly supported by everyone involved. Are they just going to keep having more and more "input" until they get the input current council wants and then say "This is what the vast majority of the city want!" without any actual metrics to back it up (ie the vast majority of people strongly support a new bridge? How do I know? I just know!"

I'm really worried that the current city hall doesn't like this plan, know exactly how they'd like to change it, and will just keep paying for more meetings until they get it "right".

"The previous community plans were made primarily from input from small groups of the general public that don't necessarily represent everyone. To better represent what the city truly wants we've invited a totally random selection of community associations and groups to come in and help refine the plan. The new plan will be refined by the James Bay association, the Hallmark society, and some random totally impartial citizens appointed by council."

[Lover Fighter]

Wow, it's great to finally see this out.
I remember those giant open house / workshops they had at City Hall back in, yeesh, 2006? Maybe it's been on hold for a couple years.

[G-Man]

Enough with the public input lets put it in place!

[Barra]

^^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.

I used to hope for this. Fact is, creating underground parking spaces is very expensive. There are a specified # of spaces that must be provided for each residential unit or commercial space. That is the minimum we ever see. To try to convince a developer to dig another level of parking (to replace the former surface parking) they would likely claim economic hardship. On the other hand, it would be an interesting and useful amenity to include in the city's "density bonus" panoply.

[aastra]

From page 54:

For all streets in the Historic Commercial District, regardless of right-of-way width, a uniform setback ratio of 1:5 should be applied above the 10 metre height level, unless otherwise recommended by the City's Senior Heritage Planner.

Who comes up with this stuff? What's the rationale? It's as if we're backhandedly saying that we don't really like the significant buildings in the Old Town area. The last thing we'd ever want is more buildings like these.

[aastra]

Anybody know why/how the office complex on Broughton Street that contains the library has such a huge parking complex underneath? That's the way to do it (esthetic deficiencies of the building notwithstanding). Replace surface parking with a new building and multiple levels of underground parking. The new office block at Yates and Blanshard should have the same thing going on beneath.

[Layne French]

My theory is that in Victoria, the idea of "promoting the economy" is some sort of evil capitalist plot to a lot of people, it's a bad thing. "The Economy", "developers", "the business community" are all in bed together in their quest to ruin victoria and the world, it's something to be stopped rather than promoted. Economic plans are NOT something quaint tourist villages do.

Not to totally disagree with you, But promoting a growth agenda as a universally good thing can be just as dangerous. As discussed by such scholars as Kevin Cox, John Logan, Harvey Molotch, David Harvey and many others.

[Baro]

I'd just like to see the city acknowledge that sustainable long-term jobs are an important part of a city and actually plan to help foster these things.

[gumgum]

I used to hope for this. Fact is, creating underground parking spaces is very expensive. There are a specified # of spaces that must be provided for each residential unit or commercial space. That is the minimum we ever see. To try to convince a developer to dig another level of parking (to replace the former surface parking) they would likely claim economic hardship. On the other hand, it would be an interesting and useful amenity to include in the city's "density bonus" panoply.

I think there's going to be a new trend on minimum spaces allowed on new developments. Already there are some condo conversions d/t that don't provide any parking whatsoever. And that one on James in James Bay is being pondered that would slash the provided parking significantly.
And I think the demand for downtown condos is high enough that many would jump at the idea of a unit without provided parking if it meant lower prices.
I'm not scared of height or some serious densification. What's a couple more stories are a several more units for some public parking? I would argue strongly that that kind density bonus would be a very good thing. Density is good all around anyway.

[Mike K.]

In Berlin many newly built residential buildings do not have parking. People vie for parking spots on the streets below. Some are lucky and park in front of their building, others have to trek back several blocks on foot.

Does it cause a societal meltdown? Not in the least. So why are we marketing Victoria as a "bit of ol' England" while straying as far away from the European indifference towards the automobile (i.e. parking need not be everywhere) as possible?

[Baro]

But but... if parking wasn't a right by law (well by bylaw) then the planning of our cities might change and people might demand services and work close to where they live and people would start walking more and cats and dogs would live together

[Dennis Carlsen]

The City did hire Coriolis consulting to provide economic analysis of the downtown. He has pointed out that retail and tourism might not be as strong as it was. That being said, the City has historically taken the view that economic development is not part of their mandate and it should be done at a regional level. The result is that economic development is not being done at all. The unfortunate fact is that many communities are dismantling their economic development function at a time when they are needed more than ever.
As far as the ongoing and everlasting public engagement, my observation is that Council is constantly beseiged by special interest groups that want more public consultation. I don't see much pressure on Council to do otherwise despite comments on this site and from other business organizations.
Great cities are not created by plans, they are created by the vision of political and business leaders. I don't think we have either.

[VicHockeyFan]

The City did hire Coriolis consulting to provide economic analysis of the downtown. He has pointed out that retail and tourism might not be as strong as it was. That being said, the City has historically taken the view that economic development is not part of their mandate and it should be done at a regional level. The result is that economic development is not being done at all. The unfortunate fact is that many communities are dismantling their economic development function at a time when they are needed more than ever.

I don't know. What do these economic development offices do anyway?

Here is how to do economic development: Keep taxes low and make rezoning easy and flexible, and any other interaction with City Hall more streamlined and fast. Get rid of stupid bylaws and rules.

[Ms. B. Havin]

...Council is constantly beseiged by special interest groups that want more public consultation. I don't see much pressure on Council to do otherwise despite comments on this site and from other business organizations.
Great cities are not created by plans, they are created by the vision of political and business leaders. I don't think we have either.

Double-plus-1 (and 3 stars, to boot), Dennis, especially on that last sentence.

[G-Man]

Dennis gets a star from me too!

[Rob Randall]

Public consultation is dominated by the Community Associations which in turn are dominated by a small hard-core group of people that have been doing this for many, many years and are often hostile to people they deem as unworthy or misinformed.

[G-Man]

Perhaps it is time have elected reps from communities rather than allow thes clubs (CA's) to have the power they seem to.

[Jacques Cadé]

So, a return to councillors elected in wards? A century ago, Victoria used to have five wards, each represented by one councillor. We voted in a referendum to switch to the current "at large" system in 1921.

Wards might reduce influence of the CAs. And they would diminish the likelihood of councillors being elected by interest groups (e.g. heritage preservationists, cyclists, pot smokers). But they could create even smaller fiefdoms -- municipalities within municipalities -- than exist today.