153 replies to this topic

[Oxford Sutherland]

Maybe instead of "inner harbour" she could have said "south end of downtown" ?

[aastra]

I would have accepted that (the south downtown thing), but the two (or three) blocks thing is guff. That would mean a massive section of downtown and James Bay, too is "inner harbour".

The only complaint tourists ever seem to have about the Marriott Inner Harbour is the fact that it isn't located on the inner harbour. Saying it is doesn't make it so.

[Oxford Sutherland]

I suspect Madoff's suggestion of promoting more north downtown development is mostly driven simply from the desire to get development away from James Bay, and not really the desire to see a more balanced downtown.

[aastra]

Can somebody tell me what the real issue is here? I mean, how can a bunch of parking lots be good where a 17-story mixed use building full of light and life is bad? Exactly what are the naysayers opposing?

Obviously the Chateau Victoria and the Executive House didn't invite the end of the world when they were built (30+ years ago and 40+ years ago, respectively). They've had no negative impact whatsoever, and they aren't exactly architectural beauties with dynamic connections to the streetscape.

Obviously the Y-lot has turned out to be quite pleasant, even if it could have been better. The Marriott is very popular, we all agree that Belvedere is very nice, and Astoria may not be fantastic but it's certainly not terrible.

Obviously Aria will be a non-event, since the design is a step up from the Y-lot and the physical form is shorter/smaller than the Y-lot buildings.

Obviously the Juliet falls within the height restriction and the design is very nice and the corner in question is begging for it.

I want somebody to give me a lucid explanation for the hysteria. What do the naysayers fear will happen?

[Holden West]

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.

That's what I don't get. Developing the Y-lot and the old Vic General site was a top priority for Victoria for many years. No-one was proposing the Shutters site for pubic space, either. Now it's done and we're moving on the other areas of Victoria in need of development.

Where's the controversy? I'm baffled. As far as I can see, Victoria's growth is following the current downtown plan quite closely.

[aastra]

"Every month we're approving projects with no sense of what's going to be around it."

If we're talking about the various infill projects being built on parking lots, don't we know exactly what's going to be around them?

She should be happy as a clam. Shutters is short, Parkside is going to be short, Aria is going to be short, 860 View is short, the Wave is short, Corazon is short, Dockside Green will be short from one end to the other, Oswego is short, Swallow's Landing is short, the Reef is short, Shoal Point is short, the initial Well proposal was short, the initial Volvo lot proposal was short...

Is it really such a big deal that a couple of tall buildings are built along with them?

[m0nkyman]

She should be happy as a clam. Shutters is short, Parkside is going to be short, Aria is going to be short, 860 View is short, the Wave is short, Corazon is short, Dockside Green will be short from one end to the other, Oswego is short, Swallow's Landing is short, the Reef is short, Shoal Point is short, the initial Well proposal was short, the initial Volvo lot proposal was short...

Wow. Now I'm depressed. :?

[aastra]

Sorry if I seemed a bit short with that.

Also, I forgot the Railyards and the Wing. Very short.

[aastra]

And 1030 Yates.

[Mike K.]

And 732 Broughton.

[aastra]

And City Place. And the Cherry Bank. And the Urban.

Seriously, a massive construction boom is sweeping the industrialized world and Victoria (one of the most expensive/desirable cities in Canada) gets a batch of midrises and a few highrises to show for it...and the anti-development types are upset?

THEY SHOULD BE ECSTATIC.

[m0nkyman]

Seriously, a massive construction boom is sweeping the industrialized world and Victoria (one of the most expensive/desirable cities in Canada)

That should read, one of the most expensive/desirable cities in the world.

'Course Canada has a few cities screwing themselves... Ottawa has their height limit, Edmonton has the height limit due to their airport.... It's not unique to Victoria... and at least we don't have these:

[G-Man]

Good god where is that place!?

I thought the article was great! Yeah there was some inaccuracies but all in all another coup for the movement!

[m0nkyman]

Good god where is that place!?

Montreal. :shock:

[Oxford Sutherland]

Those are new buildings in Montreal I believe

Horrible

[Mike K.]

aastra, your comment that Victoria's development will never be finished is gold. Just gold.



I too thought the article was quite balanced. I also like how the tiresome and cliche anti-development sentiments expressed by Councillor Madoff were refutted within minutes on this forum. Hopefully some of Monday's readers will also read this forum.

However, I sense polarity forming around individuals who support development in Victoria. Those who are anti-development in general or support lowrise developments, period, are looked upon as everyday folk from a myriad of backgrounds who hold valuable opinions on the built-up environment of Victoria. And on the flipside, those who more readily support development and seek quality architecture in lieu of damning rules and regulations are being unfairly groupd into a segment of the population increasingly labelled as "highrise fanatics" or as members of a "highrise fan club."

It's great that Monday stated VV.ca is home to locals interested in Victoria's "new urbanism movement," but what councillors, heritage advocates and anti-development types choose to see aren't residents discussing and supporting "new urbanism," but merely residents trumpeting highrises. Period.

We're being mislabelled by certain individuals in an effort to make this movement and the individuals behind it less credibile in the eyes of the average Victorian. It's their only recourse to a movement that will eventually overtake them, but they won't give up without a bitter fight to the bitter end.

I'm simply saying that some of you should keep an eye on how individuals in support of devleopment are viewed, and question the "are in you support of highrises or not" polarity often observed in the media and heard during political debates.

[m0nkyman]

Yeah, I love high density where appropriate, but anyone who looks at my avatar should be able to tell that appropriate heritage preservation is huge in my world.

Appropriate being the important word.

Good design is also critical. I'll oppose ugly at any height.

[Mike K.]

^and that's what makes this movement so much more rounded than the traditional Victorian approach to development.

As but one example, we do not look at height as a single issue. Yet for NIMBYs and those who are typically anti-development, height is the ONLY issue.

For projects like Ross Place and The Wing, the lack of height made them A-Ok, even though their designs are butt-ugly and they have absolutely no value for the city at-large.

If they were 14-storeys in height, they'd have been earmarked for pre-permit destruction and wouldn't have seen the light of day because their designs would have been called into question.

[aastra]

I'm anything but a hardcore highrise fanboy. I think Victoria has already established a good variety of heights in the core and should concentrate on doing good work within that space rather than striving for arbitrary lows or highs.

I read something somewhere about good design being more important than height. It's true. Who cares about a couple of stories up or down, really?

As I like to point out, people scream bloody murder when you propose 16-stories on a site zoned for 14, but nobody gives you a medal when you build 12-stories. Nor should they. It's two measly stories. Worry about the building's design, the materials and finishing, and how it meets the sidewalk.

[gumgum]

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.

I said for a Monday Mag article it's pretty balanced. Not for a real newspaper it isn't.