Jump to content

      



























Photo

Monday Mag: Up With Downtown


  • Please log in to reply
153 replies to this topic

#1 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 01 November 2006 - 05:13 PM

Up With Downtown

Will all these new towers change how the city feels?


By ANDREW MacLEOD Monday Magazine
Nov 01 2006

With mayors and councillors from across British Columbia in Victoria for the Union of B.C. Municipalities meeting last week, street-level issues dominated the agenda. While those issues are key to the health of our cities-and Victoria's downtown in particular-it's time we looked up at where the building boom is taking us.

"I've never seen development like this since I've been on council," says Victoria city councillor Pam Madoff. "We're reacting to applications that are coming at us with no sense of what kind of city we want to be . . . It's not being guided by any real policy on our side."

Officially, the maximum building height in Victoria is 43 metres, which translates to 14 storeys. The policy has, for the most part, kept Victoria at a human scale. Exceptions, however, are made on a case-by-case basis, with developers given the right to go taller in exchange for adding residential density.

"The implications of [the policy] now are just enormous," says Madoff. Known as the bonus density policy, it penalizes anyone who wants to build office space, she says, and forces a "segregation of uses" which she believs is a bad idea. "It encourages a type of development that doesn't need any encouragement."

And indeed, developers have taken advantage of the policy to go tall. According to the website VibrantVictoria.ca, a home to locals interested in the "new urbanism movement", there are two towers under construction that exceed the city's height limit-and another four proposed.

The towers under construction are The Falls, not far from the Empress Hotel, which will include a section that is 18 storeys tall, and The Belvedere on Humboldt Street, which tops out at 15 storeys. The four proposed include the three for the old Bay department store site on Douglas Street, the tallest of which is pitched at 25 storeys. The fourth would be a 16-storey tower on the current Capitol Six movie theatre site at the corner of Blanshard and Yates.

Taken together, the projects will rapidly change both the feel and the look of downtown. "We have no idea what the city's going to look like in five years," says city councillor Pam Madoff. "Every month we're approving projects with no sense of what's going to be around it."

Deborah Day, the city's director of planning, was unavailable for comment.

The Western Communities are also, by the way, surging upwards. Langford has approved a pair of towers 20 storeys and taller, and Colwood has said yes to towers that will be 29 and 17 storeys. Colwood is also looking at proposals for three more giants, including The Michelle which would be 41 storeys. That's almost three times the current maximum downtown.

The city is in the process of updating it's 1990 Downtown Victoria Plan, but Madoff says there's a long way to go despite a public progress report last week and the start of the plan's second phase. "We haven't got down to any policy issues yet," she says. "I'll be surprised if this is done before the next election."

Gene Miller is a native New Yorker who founded Monday Magazine before becoming a consultant to developers. "I don't get a sense [from the city] of direction or a plan," he says. People put more energy into contesting plans, he adds, than they do into working to make them better. "Victoria is living testimony to that. It doesn't get the job done. It just coasts on the assets that it's inherited from the accidents of history."

But when it comes to the question of height-with some people predicting Vancouver-like concrete canyons where sunlight doesn't make it down to ground level-Miller chooses to walk on the bright side of the street. "The height issue simply isn't an issue for me," he says. "I know it's a matter of sensitivity to other people. I won't even say anything about them. At least not to you . . . People are entitled to their views. I know in Victoria there are people who are height-a-phobic, and I think their concern is misplaced."

Between a mediocre 12-storey building, and a beautiful one that's 20-storeys, Miller says he'd take the beautiful one. And what if both proposals are beautiful? "I'll take them both."

For her part, Sandra Meigs- chair of the Downtown Residents' Association and a visual art professor at the University of Victoria-says, "The proposals I know of are using height very appropriately. If you have a block-long building that's 12-storeys high, it's going to take up a lot more light than if you have a number of taller towers."

More important, she says, is good design. "We look at the design before we look at the height." She'd like to see Victoria develop a varied skyline with beautiful buildings that become landmarks or even icons for the city.

The design for the Bay site, for example, does a good job of maintaining the look of the existing building while making excellent use of the rest of the property. "We see what they're doing there as a big asset to the downtown." Over at The Falls, the developer lowered the design by a storey to satisfy the city, but the DRA thought it would look better at its proposed height and asked to have the level put back on.

The one caveat she adds is the height has to be appropriate for the location. Where she lives in Chinatown, for instance, it wouldn't make sense to start building a tower, she says. "It would really take away from the historic character of this area."

More important than height, says Miller, are questions of urban economics and design. He asks, "How do you turn downtown and the periphery into a truly urban place that is beautiful, filled with character, rich, diversived and intelligent in its responses to change?"

For councillor Madoff, height is part of it, but it's also about building the city we want to live in. "We should have a very detailed downtown plan that directs where the growth should go," she says. It might make sense, for instance, to do things to encourage growth in the north end of downtown, she says, instead of having it all focussed around the inner harbour. But to make those decisions it would be wise to follow the lead of other cities and start making three dimensional models of what Victoria will look like when it's built out. The current method isn't good enough, she says. "It's like building a house one room at a time. The only thing you can be sure of is you have no idea what the end product will be." M

© Copyright 2006 Monday Magazine
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#2 m0nkyman

m0nkyman
  • Member
  • 729 posts

Posted 01 November 2006 - 05:18 PM

The only thing you can be sure of is you have no idea what the end product will be."


And that's true whether you have a plan or not... unless you favour Stalinist type controls over the city.... :oops: Oh.... I see. :?

#3 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 01 November 2006 - 05:25 PM

WOW!

For a Monday article, it's pretty balanced.


Get ready for another large wave a registrants to the site btw.

#4 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 01 November 2006 - 05:27 PM

Wish Pam was balanced though.

#5 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 01 November 2006 - 05:28 PM

...the maximum building height in Victoria is 43 metres...The policy has, for the most part, kept Victoria at a human scale.


You know, because most humans are 43 metres tall.

Sure, you could allow a building at 53 metres or maybe even 63 metres, but how would people see over top of it?

#6 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 01 November 2006 - 05:39 PM

Balanced?

They mention how the Falls and Belvedere exceed height limits, but then FAIL TO MENTION the Chateau Victoria and the Executive House.

They ALWAYS fail to mention the Chateau Victoria and the Executive House.

The reason they ALWAYS fail to mention the Chateau Victoria and the Executive House is because acknowledging their existence blows the entire anti-height argument out of the water.

Those two highrises are decades old. Those two highrises are in the heart of downtown. Those two highrises well exceed current height restrictions. Those two highrises have wreaked no harm on anyone or anything. So much for the evil of exceeding height restrictions.

Folks, the height restriction is absolutely arbitrary. It could have been 49 metres, it could have been 58 metres, it could have been 28 metres. It's as arbitrary as legislating against a particular colour of brick or a particular style of roof.

#7 Oxford Sutherland

Oxford Sutherland
  • Member
  • 522 posts

Posted 01 November 2006 - 05:43 PM

Good design is more important than height
Good design is more important than height
Good design is more important than height
Good design is more important than height
Good design is more important than height
Good design is more important than height
Good design is more important than height
Good design is more important than height
Good design is more important than height
Good design is more important than height
Good design is more important than height
Good design is more important than height
Good design is more important than height
Good design is more important than height
Good design is more important than height
Good design is more important than height
Good design is more important than height
Good design is more important than height
Good design is more important than height
Good design is more important than height
Good design is more important than height

Did I mention that good design is more important than height?

#8 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 01 November 2006 - 05:44 PM

Victorians had already exceeded that 43 metre height restriction three times before the start of the second world war!

The height restriction has a pathetic pedigree but some people are acting like it's ancient gospel. There are probably twenty tall buildings in Victoria (taller than the height restriction) that were built before the height restriction was imposed. Where was the sense in imposing a height restriction that didn't even take into account the existing city?

It's all about preserving the Victoria that never was.

#9 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 01 November 2006 - 05:47 PM

"We have no idea what the city's going to look like in five years,"


Plenty of concept images at this site and SSP that should give you more than a good idea.

For crap's sake, what's so damn difficult? You'll have the Falls, Aria, the Juliet, three Bay towers, maybe the Capitol 6 tower, maybe the View Street tower.

Doesn't exactly boggle the mind.

#10 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 01 November 2006 - 05:53 PM

...The Michelle which would be 41 storeys. That's almost three times the current maximum downtown.


BARF!!

Again, this is why I'm not a journalist. Is that a grotesque distortion of the truth or is it just an atrocious factual error? Good Lord.

The Michelle would be about TWICE as tall as a downtown building like Astoria or View Towers.

Michelle may indeed be about three times the maximum height currently allowed downtown according to the current height restriction. But the current height restriction is nothing more than a delusion, so why mention it? If you want to offer people a relevant and useful point of comparison, you reference existing buildings. Familiar buildings. You don't reference an ordinance.

#11 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 01 November 2006 - 05:56 PM

"Victoria is living testimony to that. It doesn't get the job done. It just coasts on the assets that it's inherited from the accidents of history."


Gene Miller, you should get an award for that remark. Wow. Talk about nailing it.

I'd take it a step further and say that Victoria has done a hell of a job TRASHING the assets that it's inherited. Just take a look at the heritage thread on this forum for the proof.

#12 Oxford Sutherland

Oxford Sutherland
  • Member
  • 522 posts

Posted 01 November 2006 - 05:57 PM

The Michelle would be 41 times the height of the Monks Office Supply store at Fort & Blanshard

:wink:

#13 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 01 November 2006 - 05:57 PM

...some people predicting Vancouver-like concrete canyons where sunlight doesn't make it down to ground level...


I'd like to see a restriction that prevents people who've never been to Vancouver and don't know anything about it from saying supremely stupid things.

Any sunlight hitting the ground in this shot? Or have the "concrete canyons" killed off even the cockroaches?



#14 Oxford Sutherland

Oxford Sutherland
  • Member
  • 522 posts

Posted 01 November 2006 - 06:00 PM

Vancouver doesn't get sunshine, so it doesn't matter anyway :wink:

#15 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 01 November 2006 - 06:02 PM

"It's like building a house one room at a time. The only thing you can be sure of is you have no idea what the end product will be."


Ma'am, I'm sorry, but we're talking about a city here. You're damn right you have no idea what the end product will be. THERE IS NO "END" PRODUCT. The city NEVER ends.

It makes me want to cry. Where's the historical awareness?

#16 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 01 November 2006 - 06:04 PM

It might make sense, for instance, to do things to encourage growth in the north end of downtown...instead of having it all focussed around the inner harbour.


Remind me again, where is all this growth that's focussed around the inner harbour? We're saying Belvedere and Aria are on the inner harbour?

I suppose Shutters would qualify. Swallow's Landing. But that one's not even in Victoria proper.

#17 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 01 November 2006 - 06:06 PM

^Yeah, what's with that? Again with the Inner Harbour highrise fearmongering.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#18 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 01 November 2006 - 06:06 PM

Will all these new towers change how the city feels?


Yep, all of those abysmal parking lots will finally be gone, replaced by homes and places of business. The city will feel nice.

#19 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 01 November 2006 - 06:06 PM

Sorry, I've said my piece. I haven't gone off on a comment rant like that in a long time.

#20 Oxford Sutherland

Oxford Sutherland
  • Member
  • 522 posts

Posted 01 November 2006 - 06:08 PM

It might make sense, for instance, to do things to encourage growth in the north end of downtown...instead of having it all focussed around the inner harbour.


Remind me again, where is all this growth that's focussed around the inner harbour? We're saying Belvedere and Aria are on the inner harbour?

I suppose Shutters would qualify. Swallow's Landing. But that one's not even in Victoria proper.


I think that was a fair comment she made.

The Falls, Marriott, Astoria, Belvedere, Parkside, CityPlace, Aria, and Oswego are all basically about 2 blocks from the inner harbour.

I'd like to see more development in the north end of downtown to balance it out.

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users