18 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

Can't help but laugh out loud at this one...

Towers leave footprint

Re: “We have too many people,” July 28.
Before constructing great towers to accommodate the people who wish to live here, perhaps it would be expedient to assess the limits of our water supply and road capacity before encouraging more immigration to this area.
We have plenty of clear-cuts on this Island. Would it not be appropriate to use some of those areas, particularly the ones close to the rail lines, to start new towns? [Brilliant!] They could be planned with new technology and transportation in mind, and provide for new businesses to maintain the new residents (grocery stores, hardware stores, farm markets, etc.).
Let them build tall towers there, to make a smaller “footprint” on the land, and incorporate all the amenities which developers want to include in the towers they wish to build in Victoria. Link these new towns to Victoria by rail, and reduce the necessity of commuting anywhere, particularly to Victoria or Nanaimo, by providing work-at-home opportunities. [I think we've got an emerging Einstein here]
Many retirees who wish to come to B.C. come for the climate and the beauty, which could be found in these small towns, and may prefer the traffic-free environment. Then Victoria could keep its building-height limits and remain the gem that has attracted us to this place for generations.
Carolyn Herbert,
Saanich.

[G-Man]

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

Please note:

Carolyn Herbert,
Saanich

[VicHockeyFan]

Jesus H. Christ

[Scaper]

This is the craziest letter I have read yet. It tops the letter in Sunday's paper

"....People Like to have Sex, developers know this...."

Anyone read that one?

[aastra]

Mrs. Herbert would probably be stunned to know that you don't have to come from outside Victoria to be fool enough to want to live in downtown Victoria. Plenty of Victorians want to live there, too.

Once again we encounter a Victorian who believes that the ocean/island is the only thing Victoria has going for it. Nobody lives here for the city itself. The city sucks. It's the beaches and the ocean that people like. The city is an unfortunate side-effect of 340,000 people living on the Saanich peninsula.

[Ms. B. Havin]

Another brilliant letter to the editor, along the same lines as "Towers leave footprint": [url=http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/letters/story.html?id=58cf1d47-5054-4830-9129-a5a29877b116:51c23]Tall buildings hurt Victoria's character[/url:51c23].

Tall buildings hurt Victoria's character

Times Colonist

Friday, March 02, 2007

The natural beauty and tranquillity of Victoria has always been the drawing card for the many tourists who flock to our lovely city in the summer months, while others spend the winter months here to escape the bitter cold of the Prairies and to enjoy the old-world charm for which Victoria has always been known.

But no more.

We are now being surrounded and suffocated by a towering, engulfing concrete jungle.

Over the years my husband and I travelled extensively, visiting many of the large cities of the world, but we still favoured Santa Barbara, Calif. - a city where, because they are limited to erecting only four-storey buildings, it is a delight to stroll the downtown area where you can still see trees and blue sky between the buildings.

Sheila Relf,
Victoria.
© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2007

Santa Barbara???

Santa Barbara, place of four-storey height limits, but sky-high real estate prices? Santa Barbara?!? Where in 2002 the price of a 2000sq.ft. 3-BR, 3 bath house reached US$2M? Where a 2-BR, 2 bath apartment rents for US$2K to $2.5K (also 2002 rate)? Where the median home price passed US$1M in 2004? Where, as the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Barbara,_California:51c23]Wikipedia source[/url:51c23] also notes, there is "a large homeless population, due in part to the high cost of living"?

That Santa Barbara? That's what we want to emulate, eh? My god, these letter writers live in la-la land....

[m0nkyman]

[Mike K.]

"But no more."

:smt100

[aastra]

If natural beauty is Victoria's only draw, then why do people come to Victoria at all? Why not go somewhere else on the island, where the ugly, horrible city won't corrupt the experience? Heck, why not go anywhere else on the coast but here?

Does "tranquility" really describe the vibe in Victoria's tourist areas during the summer months?

I'd be interested to know where she lives that she feels like she's being "surrounded and suffocated" by a "towering, engulfing concrete jungle." Could four or five new highrise buildings over five years or so really have triggered such a dramatic (and apparently horrendous) transformation? Makes me recall that angry letter to the TC a few years ago about all of the new highrises in the Humboldt Valley. In fact there was only one new highrise (the Marriott) but the writers seemed to think there were bunches.

If people are visiting Victoria to escape Victoria then they're bound to be frustrated.

[aastra]

I don't have time to verify it right now but at a glance it appears the population density in the city of Santa Barbara is about half of what the population density is in the equivalent area in Victoria (Victoria/Oak Bay/Esquimalt/part of Saanich).

[Ms. B. Havin]

A big shout out and thank-you to James Gauer, whoever you are! I couldn't have said it better myself: [url=http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/letters/story.html?id=a6400c89-e104-4aa1-baaa-492439d224ff:4901a]Blame mediocrity, not height[/url:4901a]

Blame mediocrity, not height

Times Colonist

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Re: "Tall buildings hurt Victoria's character," March 2

Where is this "towering, engulfing concrete jungle" that is surrounding and suffocating us? And on which of Victoria's downtown streets is it possible to stroll without seeing trees and sky? Perhaps I've missed something, but I just don't see it.

Victoria long ago missed the opportunity to remain a city of low-rise buildings. Its most visible concentration of tall buildings, the apartment towers in James Bay, are almost half a century old. What is most disturbing about them is not their height but their appalling architectural mediocrity.

A mandated height limit of four storeys would do nothing to preserve old-world charm. Bad architecture knows no height limits, as evidenced by the glut of banal low-rise apartment buildings that blanket the streets around Cook Street Village.

The real threats to Victoria's charm, old world or otherwise, don't, in general, take place at the top of buildings, whatever their height. They take place primarily at street level. The swelling ranks of the homeless. An urban fabric gap-toothed with surface parking lots. Poorly designed and shabbily maintained public spaces. Prominent historic buildings neglected by indifferent landlords. Temporary buildings parked permanently on the grounds of the legislature. A dearth of good shopping. And the curse of mediocre architecture. None of these is caused by tall buildings.

Victoria's current construction boom is not engulfing us in a concrete jungle. It is creating badly needed density, urbanity, economic vitality and a long overdue upgrade in architectural quality.

James Gauer,

Victoria.
© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2007

[Caramia]

Hey! That's what I meant to say!

[Ms. B. Havin]

Do you suppose he reads anything on this forum? It sounded like the sort of thing we all mean to say...

Check this:

Jim Gauer

Gauer & Marron Studio
102-639 Foul Bay Road
Victoria BC V8S 4H4
Canada
250.598.3483
http://www.gauermarron.com
mailto:jgauer@gauermarron.com

Architect James Gauer is the author of The New American Dream: Living Well in Small Houses, published by Monacelli Press. While his projects range in scale widely, including the 3,200 square-foot Upper East Side restaurant, Senza Nome, Gauer has developed a reputation for finding elegant architectural solutions to the challenges of small homes.

[url=http://www.houseandgarden.com/bliss/content/061010blco_Gauer:a02c4]source[/url:a02c4]

[Mike K.]

Somebody tell this individual about VV!

[Baro]

wow, great letter! I really like this guy!

[G-Man]

Here is one from today

We can do without tall buildings
Times Colonist
Published: Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Re: "Tall buildings hurt Victoria's character," March 3.

I came to Victoria in 1992 for a visit -- and stayed. I have seen the intrusion of highrise buildings ad infinitum and it has certainly ruined an otherwise beautiful and tranquil city.

While we have a city council that exchanges the height of buildings for other facilities, this horror will continue and we'll be just like other North American cities, which disproves the contention that "bigger is better."

It certainly is not.

Joan Pritchard,

Victoria.

[Ms. B. Havin]

"...came to Victoria in 1992 ...seen the intrusion of highrise buildings ad infinitum..."

Where to begin?

I wish people would get a grip on rhetoric, for starters. Built things can't "intrude" "ad infinitum," unless there's some special hell reserved in spheres no sane person would believe in.

"...the horror will continue..."

Yes, it would be so horrible to have another good-looking tall building vs. all the ugly, crappy, and impoverished short ones we already have, or vs. all the attractive <kof> parking lots that give the city its distinctive "open spaces," so necessary in an urban environment. :roll:

[Mike K.]

If I were a serious anti-development, or anti-taller development, advocate in this town I would cringe every time a Mrs. Pritchard, a Mrs. Relf or a Mrs. Herbert submitted a masterpiece to the local press.

We have those who support new development and those who oppose it submitting pieces. If my memory is correct, the supporters have thus far submitted letters and articles that are thought-provoking and representative of the realities facing our development scene/urban area. The pro-development letters lead to serious dialog in the community and between our civic leaders.

These recent anti-development sound-offs tell us Victoria is plagued by "horrors ad infinitum," is a "concrete jungle" and is a region that should promote development on mountainsides to preserve downtown. Regardless of opinion on the matter, these letters make the NIMBY arguments appear foolish and ad nothing beyond comic relief to the debate on development.

[aastra]

She's seen the intrusion of highrise buildings...since 1992???

Methinks she should have taken a better look around before she decided to make the move.