8289 replies to this topic

[gumgum]

^yes thrre will always be nimbysm. Many instances for legitimate reasons.
I should also say I do recognize that all political stripes are likely to miss the benefits of density.
I'm talking about targeting the audience and the general mood of central Victoria.

[sdwright.vic]

I think this has gotten to the point it could become is own thread? Empty Retail Space & Its Affect?

Edited by sdwright.vic, 30 January 2015 - 08:07 AM.

[Mike K.]

Thank you Mixed. That's exactly what I am saying. We need to brand and box the indirect benefits for individual developments and overall density - to draw the connection between a crane going up and how it affects positively your average person that lives or frequents the core. Economically, socially and environmentally.
I just think the concept hasn't be properly packaged. And it should, because it's truth.

VV's raison d'etre was and continues to be just that. But at some point I think we realized that those who don't want development simply don't want it, period, and the effort has switched to being a voice rather than trying in vain to change the opinions of those who don't want their opinions changed.

Of course the irony is that through City Hall's incessant push for small small small the cost of real estate spiraled up. We on VV understand the reason why housing is so expensive isn't because of the big bad developers, but your average leftists blaring the affordability horn don't want to hear the logic behind unattainable housing costs as it doesn't jive with what they see through their lens.

I hear people constantly lamenting housing prices then crucifying a high density development. Somehow, in some way, the mindset of this city became such that sense and sensibility regarding development has been checked at the door and everyone retreats to their side of the fence over civic issues regardless of how utterly ridiculous and contradictory their positions may be.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the biggest problem facing downtown is slow population growth largely due to the high cost of housing, most of which is attributed to the artificial restrictions imposed by politicians who then gather with the lamenters to lament the cost of housing while praising their latest efforts to bring about faster urban population growth.

Secondly, crime and social issues are also MAJOR problems downtown but politicians don't want to stand up for the average citizen and say enough is enough.

[aastra]

 

Too often it feels as if the process of development is adversarial and a zero-sum game: if developers win the public loses; if the public wins, developers lose... this doesn't have to be the case.

 

I've complained about the adversarial format for a very long time but I really don't know if it will ever change. Because:

 

a) the "public" should include the people who live, shop and work in the new developments.. but for some reason it doesn't

b) 98% of the developments of the last 15 years have been very good... but for some reason nobody ever acknowledges it

 

In other words, if everything has been going well in this regard and everyone has been enjoying the new developments and the ruinous disasters that everyone fears have NEVER materialized, why on earth is there still this automatic opposition? And why on earth does this automatic opposition carry such political weight?

 

In recent years the forces of eternal opposition have cried wolf and been dead wrong more times than we could ever possibly count. And yet when they cry wolf again about Northern Junk or Pandora/Vancouver or the looming bus station redevelopment -- using the SAME generic arguments that they apply to anything and everything, regardless of its location, how big it is, how tall it is, what its purpose is, or even what it looks like -- they get all of the press and all of the coddling from politicians.

[VicHockeyFan]

Exactly.  Disasters are so very few and far between, partly because developers (and buyers) are not stupid.  No idea why there is always such opposition.  Can't imagine how lousy our downtown would be without the Bay Centre.

[aastra]

And lest we forget that baffling inclination that some people have to regard a new thing as bad simply because it's new, only to regard that same formerly new thing as an integral part of the local fabric a year or two later, when the next bad new thing comes along. This is related to that popular misconception re: everything that already exists has always been there, and anything new will surely disrupt the delicate age-old balance. "I moved to Victorian in 2008 and I'm shocked at how new development has ruined everything since then."

[Mike K.]

There's opposition because our council allows the squeakiest wheel to have an exagerrated presence at the table. In fact we, the tax payer, subsidize this opposition by funding neighborhood organizations stocked with people with an ax to grind or a political slant.

[aastra]

 

If you are 80 (or about 90% of the population in Fairfield), you don't want noise, hustle and bustle or change. You like things the way they are...

 

 

A concept in one tidy soundbite needs to be developed to point out the vast benefits to density that will appeal to your average Victorian.

 

Tidy soundbite:
You know how your neighbourhood is safe, clean and appealing because it has lots of people in it? We need to get more people downtown so that it too can be safe, clean and appealing.
 

Edited by aastra, 30 January 2015 - 09:40 AM.

[jonny]

It really is insane, isn't it?

 

It's good that people care. It's almost like they care too much. Nobody seems to care about what these buildings actually look like. It's always the same boilerplate complaints:

• It's too tall.
• Victoria *shouldn't have* or *doesn't need* buildings like that (wtf does that even mean?).
• It's "not appropriate" for the area. Nothing is ever appropriate. What we have is perfectly appropriate; however, that, is simply just not appropriate. I can't explain why it's not appropriate, other than I can assure you it is not.
• It is going to *loom* over the neighbors (ominous music plays). The shadows are really going to be devastating.
• It's not sensitive to its neighbors or the heritage of this not special or unique at all street/neighborhood/city.
• The greedy developers only care about the bottom line and don't care at all about the community.
• New buildings can only make the area worse. It is totally inconceivable that a new building could make the neighborhood better, more livable or nicer.

I'm probably missing some, but these are what come to mind this morning.

 

When the Juliet was going up, (I was working nearby at the time - there were lots of comments) it was too tall. Who is even going to want to live there? Victoria doesn't need buildings that tall. OMG how tall is that building going to be?!? WHAT IS THIS, VANCOUVER???

 

Now that the Juliet is there, everybody just goes to Timmies, but nobody says a peep about the building itself. It's just there like it's some old church that's been there for 100 years.

 

On the affordable housing topic, the public laps it up every time a politician wants to *do something* about affordable housing. Doing something always seems to mean ineffectively throwing heaps of public dollars at a few dozen units. Nobody ever talks about the supply and demand curves. Supply, supply, supply. There is no way to increase supply without development. Development requires evil developers and those inappropriate new buildings though, so I guess we really are screwed.

[VicHockeyFan]

And lest we forget that baffling inclination that some people have to regard a new thing as bad simply because it's new, only to regard that same formerly new thing as an integral part of the local fabric a year or two later, when the next bad new thing comes along. This is related to that popular misconception re: everything that already exists has always been there, and anything new will surely disrupt the delicate age-old balance. "I moved to Victorian in 2008 and I'm shocked at how new development has ruined everything since then."

 

I've said it before.  Name any of these things that would get built today:

 

• A private hotel facing the harbour (Empress)
• The Legislature
• Milestones
• Fisherman's Wharf (float homes, restaurants, tour companies, fuel dock)
• Mill Bay Ferry dock in Brentwood

Look how hard it was to replace the Oak Bay beach hotel - with another hotel.

[jonny]

I have no idea how the Grand Pacific or Harbour Towers hotels ever got built.

[gumgum]

I don't buy that things are hopeless. I honestly believe that a good portion of people that are against development and density simply haven't allowed themselves to think beyond one or two steps. Most people don't even think on a macro/ urban planning level, and certainly don't see how the resistance to one new building affects the big picture of a city. Many certainly have not connected density to a healthy core.

 

It needs pointing out in a simple and concise package - we're talking #hashtag size here.

Edited by gumgum, 30 January 2015 - 09:39 AM.

[aastra]

 

...nobody says a peep about the building itself. It's just there like it's some old church that's been there for 100 years.

 

I got a kick out of this. It's so true.

[Layne French]

As someone engaged in the planning profession, there has been a more recent debate over rethinking the ideas of Jane Jacobs. If anyone is interested I suggest they look up the more recent article by Thomas Capella called "The life and death of great american planning." In this piece he outlines how we got to where we are( US context, CDN context is a bizarre mix of UK tradition and US), and how the spatial turn is coming about. 

 

As politics go, there goes planning hand in hand. I have often lamented the fact the profession lacks the resources/tools for proper long term planning. As we often know we are speaking in 10-20 year time intervals, politicians are thinking in 4 year intervals and much of the public are lucky if they are thinking in 4 minute intervals.

 

.  

[jonny]

I think the resistance has subsided somewhat. The Era and Promontory went up without much fuss. 

[Mike K.]

I don't buy that things are hopeless. I honestly believe that a good portion of people that are against development and density simply haven't allowed themselves to think beyond one or two steps. Most people don't even think on a macro/ urban planning level, and certainly don't see how the resistance to one new building affects the big picture of a city. Many certainly have not connected density to a healthy core.

It needs pointing out in a simple and concise package - we're talking #hashtag size here.

It's the community organizations that drive opposition and they're well versed in the process and have an entrenched following. Make no mistake about it, the anti development voice is well organized. And tax payer subsidized.

[VicHockeyFan]

I think the resistance has subsided somewhat. The Era and Promontory went up without much fuss. 

 

And Victoria Plaza (Monty's) and Escher had easy rides too.  Duet, well, hard to fathom what all the 10-year fuss was about.

[Mike K.]

Era was zoned prior to being conceived. Promontory snuck under the radar, but that didn't stop some politicians and community activists from trying to thwart it.

Meanwhile look at the nonsense at Cook and Vancouver or what will come down for Cook and Oliphant. Heck, even Northern Junk is facing serious scrutiny from subsidized opposition and here we thought the heritage crowd would be all over it.

[dasmo]

Good Morning Victoria! 

[Nparker]

There's opposition because our council allows the squeakiest wheel to have an exagerrated presence at the table. In fact we, the tax payer, subsidize this opposition by funding neighborhood organizations stocked with people with an ax to grind or a political slant.

OMG this is SO true in regards to the St. Andrew's proposal.