Jump to content

      



























Photo
- - - - -

Ben Isitt | Victoria Council


  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

#21 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,184 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 11:12 AM

Barrett, please maintain discussions on candidates within their respective threads.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#22 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 09:20 PM

Re: Northern Junk, courtesy C-FAX 1070:

Newly elected Council member Ben Isitt objected vehemently to the idea of selling high-profile waterfront property to a condominium developer...

"I think our council is being asked - is being saddled - with a poor decision by the previous council, to allow the developer to entertain the idea that this public land could be available. I think too much city resources have already been devoted in terms of planning and conceptualizing a developers' dream for what they could do with city land".


This is not really surprising. Isitt advocates using municipal funds to construct low-end housing.

Here's his views on de Hoog/Kierulf's design for the 819 Yates/Capitol 6 condo:


He does not think the building strikes the right balance. We need to develop and
densify downtown; but he doesn’t think Victoria has to be a new Yale Town with urban canyons. Really tall
buildings may not improve the quality of life. A few stories less would probably be within the height limits
and that would be appropriate. The Sussex building is a good example of using terracing to reduce the
impact on the streetscape. There is a public walkway, but why are there gates? He has an issue of
another building going up while there are more homeless on the street. There are only two units for
affordability, but more housing for the affluent.


"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

#23 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 09:30 PM

"A few stories less" the mantra of Victoria city hall.

Using the sussex is a HORRIBLE example. That building's quality and finishes were absolutely gutted by taking a few stories off, it killed the building.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#24 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 09:43 PM

Not to mention the overall ground floor design doesn't work that well.

#25 zoomer

zoomer
  • Member
  • 2,144 posts
  • LocationVictoria - Downtown

Posted 15 December 2011 - 10:17 PM

Quote: He has an issue of another building going up while there are more homeless on the street. There are only two units for affordability, but more housing for the affluent.


This type of thinking drives me around the bend. Ironically enough on his Wikipedia page (which I assume Ben has written) it states: "Isitt ran as an independent candidate, offering to 'build a fair, safe and green Victoria'."

I would think that high density housing in the downtown core would be GREEN (far more so than the single family dwelling he resides in), SAFE due to more people on the streets and a greater sense of community and FAIR because this would increase Victoria's tax base allowing us to help those in need. Downtown Victoria remains the Capital Region's poorest neighbourhood, yet there is a perception that downtown is full of rich fat cats in their luxury condos.

How is living in a small concrete box stacked 15 high affluent? Are we talking about these same condos which cost far less than your average house in neighbouring Fernwood?

#26 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 16 December 2011 - 07:46 AM

Ben's the ultimate troll. He mascarades as a green, affordable housing advocate, but I bet he's actually an über right wing tree hatin, advocate for unaffordability. Because if he continues the same stance, that's exactly the results he'll be contrubuting toward!

#27 J Douglas

J Douglas
  • Member
  • 150 posts

Posted 16 December 2011 - 10:14 AM

I think Isitt is voicing a legitimate concern. We have plenty of examples of where the desires of developers have overridden esthetics in Victoria; the Victoria Regent (out of character with old Town), or the Worldmark timeshare near Laurel Point (hard to make it look cheaper and tackier if they tried), to name just two. The Northern Junk property is in a highly visible location, and it would be a shame to have just another mediocre box planted there. I'm not saying that the proposed development is all wrong, but I am glad that there is someone on council that is looking at the issue through a larger frame.

As for Yaletown, it does have a few concrete canyons featured, which are not exactly a selling point. I bet many in Yaletown look accross the water with envy at the developments on the south shore of False Creek, that has more greenspace, more variety of architecture, more public amnenities, and generally is more of a magnet for shoppers and pedestrian traffic. The insistence on these sort of features has long reaching effects on a neighbourhood, and it is those on council that are in the front line of decision making. They should have the courage to transcend expediency.

#28 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,184 posts

Posted 16 December 2011 - 10:53 AM

The Northern Junk property is in a highly visible location, and it would be a shame to have just another mediocre box planted there. I'm not saying that the proposed development is all wrong, but I am glad that there is someone on council that is looking at the issue through a larger frame.

Ask yourself though, is that what Isitt is actually doing, looking at the issue through a larger frame, or is he decrying the fact that the City of Victoria is the seller of land on which the developer plans to build the project?

If Isitt has his way, say goodbye to alternative mass transportation in this region. There will simply be too little density along important nodes to support it.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#29 SamCB

SamCB
  • Member
  • 665 posts
  • Locationvictoria

Posted 16 December 2011 - 01:03 PM

People like Ben Isitt who claim a commitment to being green, and oppose density downtown are either baldfaced liars or completely misinformed.

These well-meaning people need to understand the CRD will continue to grow. If Victoria's council doesnt let it grow here (where it should!), it'll happen somewhere else. Forget the opportunity cost of letting tax revenue get away, and put the environment first, Mr. Isitt. Your ideals put pressure on greenfield sites, your ideals make developers build single family homes in langford, your ideals put more cars on the road. Yours is a commitment to the environment without critical thinking. Sadly, this nonsense is what resonates with anti-everything voters in victoria.

If you're going to provide input on urban design, do some research first. There is a freely accessible body of knowledge surrounding the topic. It's not too much to ask from a guy as well educated as Mr. Isitt.

#30 Bob Fugger

Bob Fugger

    Chief Factor

  • Member
  • 3,190 posts
  • LocationSouth Central CSV

Posted 16 December 2011 - 01:36 PM

If you're going to provide input on urban design, do some research first. There is a freely accessible body of knowledge surrounding the topic. It's not too much to ask from a guy as well educated as Mr. Isitt.


I don't think that's a fair comment: clearly, Mr. Isitt knows all and sees all; and so further research would just be a waste of his time. Time that could be spent ruling over and educating us, for our own good. He is so clearly enamoured with the scent of his own flatulence that he obviously must be onto something.

EDIT: No doubt he is also the writer of his award winning councillor biography: http://www.victoria....l/mayor_council

#31 Bob Fugger

Bob Fugger

    Chief Factor

  • Member
  • 3,190 posts
  • LocationSouth Central CSV

Posted 16 December 2011 - 01:47 PM

Ben's the ultimate troll. He mascarades as a green, affordable housing advocate, but I bet he's actually an über right wing tree hatin, advocate for unaffordability.


Funny how authoritarian tyrants seem to start off life as socialists/Marxists...

#32 isitt

isitt
  • Member
  • 10 posts

Posted 16 December 2011 - 01:51 PM

At the risk of adding more hot air to this forum (and dignifying some of the comments above with a reply), here is my position with regards to the Northern Junk proposal:

-the previous council erred in providing the opportunity to a single developer to envision possibilities for this prime downtown real estate;

-given the Johnson Street Bridge project, the first step is for council and staff to determine the final design for the easterly (downtown-side) bridgehead;

-Council should then inventory city land in the vicinity of the bridgehead (including the proposed land adjacent to Northern Junk) to determine whether any of this land is surplus (exploring all options, including greenspace and future uses such as rail);

-if land is determined to be surplus, consider whether such land can meet the city's social priorities (vis a vis affordable housing), through discussions with BC Housing, VIHA and not-for-profit providers;

-if a stand-alone publicly financed housing initiative is deemed impractical, the City should consider issuing a Request for Proposals to the private sector, with priority given to applications that (1) partner with social housing providers; (2) provide public access to the harbour front; and (3) enhance the heritage character of Old Town (in that order).

Ben


Ben Isitt
Victoria City Councillor and CRD Director
Email. Ben@Isitt.ca | Tel. 250.882.9302
Web. www.BenIsitt.ca

#33 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,184 posts

Posted 16 December 2011 - 01:58 PM

Welcome to the forum, Ben, and thank you for your input.

Could you clarify why you feel that social housing/affordable housing, however one wants to label it, belongs on a prime piece of real-estate and why it is not in the interest of the City to charge a market rate for the land, then turn around to do with the proceeds what it deems is in the best interest of tax payers? The two historic buildings on the waterfront demand renovations and the private sector needs the cooperation of City Hall to turn what is currently an underused and crime-oriented area into a lively and noteworthy component of our harbourfront.

With regards to market housing, would it not be more prudent to increase density, therefore decrease the cost of individual units built on extremely expensive land in the City of Victoria with very high development costs (partially the fault of the City) and therefore begin the process of easing the burden on individuals who wish to move from rental accommodations and into market units?

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#34 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 6,363 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 16 December 2011 - 02:16 PM

Its ridiculous that anyone would consider social housing on this property! The best use would be to extract maximum value out of it and use that maximum value to develop other less valuable properties for social housing, i.e. you get twice or more bang for your buck just a few blocks in from the water....look at what happened on Store St when there was such a high concentration of social housing, it became a ghetto and this was prime waterfront real estate that should have bars and restaurants and shopping and be busy all the time which creates jobs that gets people off social assistance.....

Why dont you approach this from the pespective that if a district can be created where people will go to shop and eat then this creates jobs and demand. Retailers then want to set up where the action is which in turn generates revenues for landlords and retailers. Valus of properties increase which in turn means higher property taxes which can then be used to develop other parts of town for social housing, i.e quadra or cook corrider or better yet, James Bay!

#35 SamCB

SamCB
  • Member
  • 665 posts
  • Locationvictoria

Posted 16 December 2011 - 02:20 PM

Nice try, rjag. You know as well as I do that the City of Victoria's code of ethics strictly prohibits developers turning a profit as long as a single homeless person exists, even if it would benefit the city. We don't believe in win-win.

#36 isitt

isitt
  • Member
  • 10 posts

Posted 16 December 2011 - 02:46 PM

Developers are free to turn a profit on lands they acquire in the real estate market (the vast majority of property in the City of Victoria is held privately and bought and sold in the private market). I believe that the City and other public entities have a distinct role to play, leveraging these public (as distinct from private) assets in pursuit of goals that are not adequately addressed in the private real-estate market, including the provision of affordable housing, green space, transportation infrastructure, and other social, environmental and economic priorities. I do not believe there is a shortage of private property where private developers can pursue their profit goals (including the privately held Northern Junk parcels).

Such views may conflict with those of some people on this forum. But I believe they generally reflect the views of the 8,400 people who asked me to represent them at the council table.

Turning to the issue of process and the speculative question of the best use of this property if council were to decide that it should be transferred to private hands: will we realize the "highest and best" use by entering into exclusive discussions with a single developer? Or would the city achieve a better outcome through an open process, issuing a request for proposals that would allow private sector-developers to compete by putting forward their visions for the highest and best use? Surely Reliance would have come up with a more creative and site-appropriate proposal if they knew it would be measured against other proposals from the development community.

I will be offline in meetings for the remainder of the day, but appreciate the contributions to this forum, particularly the reasoned contributions based on facts (rather than assumptions about motivations, attitudes and views).

#37 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,184 posts

Posted 16 December 2011 - 02:52 PM

Thanks, Ben.

Can anyone confirm what parcels of land Reliance currently owns in relation to the Northern Junk proposal?

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#38 J Douglas

J Douglas
  • Member
  • 150 posts

Posted 16 December 2011 - 03:12 PM

Ask yourself though, is that what Isitt is actually doing, looking at the issue through a larger frame, or is he decrying the fact that the City of Victoria is the seller of land on which the developer plans to build the project?

If Isitt has his way, say goodbye to alternative mass transportation in this region. There will simply be too little density along important nodes to support it.


What I hear Isitt saying is that the community has certain priorities, and the city should use its leverage, whatever that may be, to try and obtain them. These priorities include a positive and liveable shape of the urban landscape we live in, and the provision of some basic social needs. I do not hear him saying that city land should not be sold to developers under any circumstances. Items like social housing, or a liveable downtown core, may be, but are not necessarily, the priorities of developers. I'd say that taking these matters into account can be described as looking through a larger frame.

As for social housing, personally I would list this as priority 2 or 3, however, there is precedent for the successful mix of market and subsidized housing. Scattering social housing units around, as was done in False Creek for example, helps get away from the "ghetto" like feel of some developments. It's going a little far afield, but there is also a good example of this in Havana, Cuba. Areas there undergoing restoration for tourism often also have secondary functions, such as clinics, schools, housing for the aged, etc. This helps to create a more vibrant and cosmopolitan cityscape than the Disneyland type creations seen elsewhere. This may be a possibility for the Northern Junk property too- a mix of social and market housing, along with other uses.

I really don't see how these type of developments preclude mass transit. Certainly, the city is experiencing infill and greater density, and taking a few stories of the top of some condos is not, IMO, going to bring mass transit to a screeching halt. In fact, we can think back to when Victoria had a complete rail transit system, from Oak Bay to Esquimalt, with less density, and much less population than today. Density is important, but there are other factors that urge the use of mass transit, including: the liveability of our urban landscape, the best use of societies resources, the cost and availability of energy supplies in the future, the possibility of global warming limiting the use of fossil fuels in the future, and decreasing pressure on farmland, to name a few.

#39 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 16 December 2011 - 03:20 PM

[quote name='isitt']
-the previous council erred in providing the opportunity to a single developer to envision possibilities for this prime downtown real estate;

-given the Johnson Street Bridge project, the first step is for council and staff to determine the final design for the easterly (downtown-side) bridgehead;

-Council should then inventory city land in the vicinity of the bridgehead (including the proposed land adjacent to Northern Junk) to determine whether any of this land is surplus (exploring all options, including greenspace and future uses such as rail);]

#40 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 16 December 2011 - 03:23 PM

-the previous council erred in providing the opportunity to a single developer to envision possibilities for this prime downtown real estate;

-given the Johnson Street Bridge project, the first step is for council and staff to determine the final design for the easterly (downtown-side) bridgehead;

-Council should then inventory city land in the vicinity of the bridgehead (including the proposed land adjacent to Northern Junk) to determine whether any of this land is surplus (exploring all options, including greenspace and future uses such as rail);


This seems like a reasonable and a breath of fresh air approach.

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