Jump to content

      



























Photo

Victoria City council height attack fails - July 30th


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#1 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 31 July 2012 - 01:45 PM

So.. at last night's council meeting to ratify the OCP, Isitt brought forward a motion to cap all height in the city at 15 levels.

For:

Gudgeon
Isitt
Madoff

Against:

4, including Helps.


Right out of left field, I think this vote was.

<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#2 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 31 July 2012 - 02:00 PM

While I am happy that it failed but holy crap that is close! I completely misread Shellie Gudgeon...

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#3 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 31 July 2012 - 02:12 PM

I don't know much about this meeting but obviously it's on an odd day as they worked through the OCP overload.

But why would it show up at this meeting, such an important vote/topic?

Was this on the radar, I never heard anything about it. Months of consultation about the OCP with residents, then someone tried to stick this in it at last reading? Or am I off about what this meeting was last night?

Who was missing from the meeting? Sounds like they were down one councilor.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#4 Bob Fugger

Bob Fugger

    Chief Factor

  • Member
  • 3,190 posts
  • LocationSouth Central CSV

Posted 31 July 2012 - 02:38 PM

So.. at last night's council meeting to ratify the OCP, Isitt brought forward a motion to cap all height in the city at 15 levels.

For:

Gudgeon
Isitt
Madoff

Against:

4, including Helps.


Right out of left field, I think this vote was.


I met with Lisa Helps a few weeks ago and I have to say that I was thoroughly impressed by her. I would have been disappointed to hear if she had voted for this. As impressed as I was with Helps, I was equally disappointed with Gudgeon. Talk about someone who is in love with being a Councillor for the (perceived!?!?) prestige of it.

#5 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 31 July 2012 - 03:23 PM

Exactly how precise was this motion? Did they specify a height in metres? What about sites that already contain buildings in excess of the limit, either by sheer height or by floor count? Would the limit be applied to future redevelopments of those sites?

Did anyone offer a rationale for such a limit? Did anyone explain how they arrived at the magic number of 15? Why not 16? Or 14?

Did anyone elaborate on the benefits of such a limit?

#6 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,409 posts

Posted 31 July 2012 - 03:27 PM

So.. at last night's council meeting to ratify the OCP, Isitt brought forward a motion to cap all height in the city at 15 levels...


Arbitrary height limits like this serve no one and only add to the red-tape required to be battled when great proposals (such as Promontory) are put forward. They also are likely to scare away developers who might not want to be bothered dealing with a council so out of touch with reality. Why is the only density nearly half of this council understands is that which lies between their ears? :mad:

#7 Hotel Mike

Hotel Mike

    Hotel Mike

  • Member
  • 2,234 posts

Posted 31 July 2012 - 04:02 PM

I gather this was an amendment introduced at the last minute by Isitt.
Don't be so sure.:cool:

#8 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 31 July 2012 - 04:13 PM

Well now I have a proper reason to not be a fan of Gudgeon beyond her restaurant, vehicle, and driving habits. She managed to get my vote this election but not next one.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#9 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 31 July 2012 - 05:03 PM

I don't understand this - I thought Issit was for the environment and more housing? How can a height limit serve either of those policy goals?

#10 Candarius

Candarius
  • Member
  • 81 posts

Posted 31 July 2012 - 05:21 PM

Exactly how precise was this motion? Did they specify a height in metres? What about sites that already contain buildings in excess of the limit, either by sheer height or by floor count? Would the limit be applied to future redevelopments of those sites?

Did anyone offer a rationale for such a limit? Did anyone explain how they arrived at the magic number of 15? Why not 16? Or 14?

Did anyone elaborate on the benefits of such a limit?


Well said.

Sheer stupidity and randomness mashed together to come up with a last minute requirement for a decision.

#11 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 31 July 2012 - 05:35 PM

So in their perfect world, Astoria and the taller part of the Falls would be a bit shorter than they are now? But every other building constructed between 1995 and now would be basically unchanged?

It strikes me as a solution in search of a problem.

Edit: I suppose Promontory must be worrying some people. Maybe that's it?

#12 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 31 July 2012 - 06:27 PM

Tall buildings are SYMBOLIC to them of political / economic things they view as a symptom of other problems. Thus a height limit will help solve those other problems!

Tall buildings are a symbol of capitalist excess, luxury spires towering over the homeless. The rich stealing the very sky from the common people. They're also symbol of technology, something many greens see as a cause of environmental issues. If we cap buildings at 15 stories, all the money that WOULD have gone into the extra floors will simply trickle out the top and solve our economic, social, and environmental issues. It makes sense!
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#13 MarkoJ

MarkoJ
  • Member
  • 5,771 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 31 July 2012 - 08:25 PM

Close call. Certainly won't be voting for the three that were in favor.

Marko Juras, REALTOR® & Associate Broker | Gold MLS® 2011-2023 | Fair Realty

www.MarkoJuras.com Looking at Condo Pre-Sales in Victoria? Save Thousands!

 

 


#14 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,409 posts

Posted 31 July 2012 - 08:33 PM

...If we cap buildings at 15 stories, all the money that WOULD have gone into the extra floors will simply trickle out the top and solve our economic, social, and environmental issues...


Sadly, I think that is EXACTLY what some on council believe. :whyme:

#15 dasmo

dasmo

    Grand Master ✔

  • Member
  • 15,239 posts

Posted 31 July 2012 - 09:10 PM

Brutal. There should be a more comprehensive plan for density than a blanket height restriction policy. It's to bad we are not all part of one larger region where we could preserve our natural areas through a dense core...That is another thread...
Certain zones should be restricted IMO. Behind the parliament buildings, old town. Other areas should be encouraged to go skyward like the area around the Bay.
Other view / sun corridors could be pinpointed as well but a blanket cap is not a good idea.

#16 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 31 July 2012 - 09:39 PM

Arbitrary height limits like this serve no one and only add to the red-tape required to be battled when great proposals (such as Promontory) are put forward.


Promontory is already on a bit of a rise, so it gains a couple of levels over nearby buildings because of that.

I wonder why the council didn't decide to measure the height limit from sea level just to keep tops of everything even when viewed from Mt. Tolmie.

Haven't they got more pressing in camera stuff to attend to?

#17 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 31 July 2012 - 09:47 PM

This failed attempt at arbitrarily limiting height is stupid and outrageous.

The Official Community Plan has been in development for many years and is a ground-up document, meaning it contains input from years of citizen engagement guided by City staff. For a handful of mostly newbie councillors to force in a fundamental change at the very last minute, after the public hearing has closed, after any chance for citizens to respond is beyond comprehension.

I don't understand this - I thought Issit was for the environment and more housing? How can a height limit serve either of those policy goals?


To be fair, you can make a building shorter without cutting the density. A short building can have more inhabitants than a tall one.

However, you cannot easily re-mass a building without violating the policies in the Official Plan, the very plan we have been fine-tuning for years.

For instance, the Plan is very clear on making tall building massing appear attractive and less imposing by maximizing sunlight penetration, responding to neighbouring buildings and paying attention to form and proportion [OCP, page 72]. You throw that out the window by squashing a building down.

And you can't sacrifice density. The Plan is very clear on population targets and the need to aggressively develop without risking existing low-rise heritage and green space.

Increased building height along the crosstown corridors is a prime foundation of the Official Plan. This increase in height and density was the result of many years of in-depth discussion with the community and was endorsed by those involved.

It's clear they don't care about the ramifications an arbitrary limit will have. If people want to re-open the height issue, then you have to go back to the drawing board--restart a decade-long process that just concluded.

I met with Lisa Helps a few weeks ago and I have to say that I was thoroughly impressed by her. I would have been disappointed to hear if she had voted for this. As impressed as I was with Helps, I was equally disappointed with Gudgeon.


I agree, Bob. I publicly endorsed Gudgeon for Council last election. I'm withdrawing that endorsement. This is a bad decision and one that is disrespectful to the process and unfair to Victorians.

#18 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 01 August 2012 - 06:28 AM

^ Good post Rob. I am certainly agreeing with you on Gudgeon. She got my vote last time but never again.

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#19 Hotel Mike

Hotel Mike

    Hotel Mike

  • Member
  • 2,234 posts

Posted 01 August 2012 - 07:29 AM

This is a bad decision and one that is disrespectful to the process and unfair to Victorians.


That's exactly right Rob. Some folks would go apoplectic if a new OCP were brought in without serious consultation. Yet, Isitt and his disciples, are willing to throw out all those hours and work by the community to develop a plan, for some ill-conceived, arbitrary height limit.
Don't be so sure.:cool:

#20 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,409 posts

Posted 01 August 2012 - 07:31 AM

...I am certainly agreeing with you on Gudgeon. She got my vote last time but never again.


Count me amongst those who now regrets giving Ms. Gudgeon my vote last fall. I won't be making that mistake again.:mad:

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