Jump to content

      



























Photo

Victoria City council height attack fails - July 30th


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#21 tedward

tedward
  • Member
  • 1,974 posts
  • LocationJames Bay

Posted 01 August 2012 - 08:15 AM

What an over the top reaction. Disagree with one vote (without bothering to find out the reasoning behind it) and this councillor is unworthy of your votes ever again? We are entering Tea Party purity test territory here.

1. The OCP has to be approved by Council whom we elected to do just that. They are empowered to make amendments because sometimes changes need to be made. That is part of their job and making a minor change like this is in no way an attack on the public process.

2. The height restriction imposed would be subject to the same exemptions as any other development issue and an exemption could be granted. What a limit does is indicates that a developer needs a good reason to go higher than 15 levels. Convince the council of the day and you are good to go.

3. We have had height restrictions in the city before and the world did not end. I see no problem saying that in general we don't need buildings over 15 stories high in Victoria. Why on earth are people getting so worked up about this? There is lots of candidate areas for densification around Greater Victoria without building higher than 15 stories. We will not solve homelessness or whatever by building higher than that and frankly, given the complaints about poor transportation management, the last thing I think we need is a 30 story skyscraper downtown.:rolleyes:

Lake Side Buoy - LEGO Nut - History Nerd - James Bay resident


#22 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 01 August 2012 - 08:17 AM

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.


This is where we really could use the meeting being video-taped, so we could see how this all shook down. Because I think even Madoff would have had a problem with the process here, and I also hope the Mayor said something about what they were doing here.

I'm going to call one of the councilors and get a read on this.
<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>

#23 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,184 posts

Posted 01 August 2012 - 08:28 AM

^please do and thanks.

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


#24 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 01 August 2012 - 08:31 AM

^^^ Really? I am pretty sure we have seen a good number of proposals come forward that would never have seen the light of day had the insane 43 m height restriction remained in place. This is a huge course direction to one of the central discussion items of the OCP planning process, not a minor amendment. A change here would have had a severe impact on the local economy and would hurt our city's credibility.

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#25 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,184 posts

Posted 01 August 2012 - 08:48 AM

Rob Randall's take on the length of time and resources the community has put into the OCP makes this trio's attempt to disregard years of planning undemocratic.

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


#26 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,409 posts

Posted 01 August 2012 - 09:06 AM

...We will not solve homelessness or whatever by building higher than that and frankly, given the complaints about poor transportation management, the last thing I think we need is a 30 story skyscraper downtown.:rolleyes:


No that it is going to happen, but how would having a 30 storey building in downtown Victoria cause life as we know it to end? If properly designed and in the right location, transportation issues can be managed for a building of almost any size.

Also more housing created through taller, more dense building increases the overall housing stock so it does help in some small part to alleviate homelessness.

#27 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 01 August 2012 - 09:18 AM

What a limit does is indicates that a developer needs a good reason to go higher than 15 levels. Convince the council of the day and you are good to go.

Isn't that the way it's been working for many years now? So what was the point of this new motion then?

#28 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 01 August 2012 - 09:48 AM

I see no problem saying that in general we don't need buildings over 15 stories high in Victoria. Why on earth are people getting so worked up about this?

But who are "we"? Are Victorians who live above the 15th floor not included in that definition of "we"? Are tourists who stay in hotel rooms above the 15th floor not included in that definition of "we"? And what does "don't need" mean in this context? Were tall buildings needed behind the Empress Hotel, in order to see over it? If a building is needed at 15 stories, is it really possible that the same building could not be needed at 16 stories? And why 15 stories? How did we arrive at that figure? And why are we concerned about floor count when sheer height would seem to be much more relevant? And what are we to make of all of the existing buildings that exceed 15 stories? Are those buildings deficient in some way or otherwise having some negative impact on their surroundings?

Disclaimer: I'm one of those people who thinks everything has been working really well re: building heights. The various lowrise projects in the old town indicate that developers get it. They're playing ball. Meanwhile, highrises and junior highrises are being built where they really fit, in the company of existing buildings of similar height and/or in areas that need an injection of life. I just don't understand why anyone would be alarmed. If anything, the anti-height crowd should be pleased with the way things have been playing out.

#29 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 01 August 2012 - 10:08 AM

What an over the top reaction. Disagree with one vote (without bothering to find out the reasoning behind it) and this councillor is unworthy of your votes ever again? We are entering Tea Party purity test territory here.


I agree that one needs a bit more context before jumping all over any individual councillors...


We will not solve homelessness or whatever by building higher than that and frankly, given the complaints about poor transportation management, the last thing I think we need is a 30 story skyscraper downtown.:rolleyes:


Not sure I understand this at all. How does a skyscraper downtown impact traffic management? If anything, it means more people either on a reverse commute, or walking. Residential skyscrapers are great for traffic downtown.

#30 Bob Fugger

Bob Fugger

    Chief Factor

  • Member
  • 3,190 posts
  • LocationSouth Central CSV

Posted 01 August 2012 - 10:33 AM

What an over the top reaction. Disagree with one vote (without bothering to find out the reasoning behind it) and this councillor is unworthy of your votes ever again? We are entering Tea Party purity test territory here.


I agree that one needs a bit more context before jumping all over any individual councillors...


You don't think that proposing an arbitrary height limit and then trying to ram it through after extensive public consultations have already ended is kind of indicative as to what kind of Councillors they are? Are you suggesting that this is a one-off and that they will be completely reasonable when it comes to other tenets of urban planning?

While I expected something like this from Isitt (especially with his ****ing "I'm a UVic history socialist professor and there is no greater evil than profit" noblis obliges attitude) and Pam "I Can't See the Sooke Hills from My Car" Madoff, it's a bit of a shocker from Gudgeon. I'm apt to believe that they are likely to be as myopic, authoritarian, arrogant and disrespectful to citizen initiatives and the citizenry in general. Gudgeon has stepped in and indeed wallowed in the same pig pen as those two and I have a feeling washing that stink off of her will be difficult.

#31 SamCB

SamCB
  • Member
  • 665 posts
  • Locationvictoria

Posted 01 August 2012 - 10:36 AM

a uvic urban geography professor once told our class that victoria's arbitrary 14 storey limit was adopted from Washington DC-- 14 floors is apparently the height of the washington monument. No buildings there are allowed to exceed it.

Not sure if true, but it's kind of interesting.

#32 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 01 August 2012 - 10:44 AM

a uvic urban geography professor once told our class that victoria's arbitrary 14 storey limit was adopted from Washington DC-- 14 floors is apparently the height of the washington monument. No buildings there are allowed to exceed it.

Not sure if true, but it's kind of interesting.


By law, Washington's skyline is low and sprawling. The first building height restrictions in D.C. were put in place following the construction of the twelve-story Cairo Apartment Building in 1894. The Heights of Buildings Act of 1910 amended the restrictions to allow buildings that are no taller than the width of the adjacent street, plus 20 feet (6.1 m).[68] Despite popular belief, no law has ever limited buildings to the height of the United States Capitol or the 555-foot (169 m) Washington Monument,[48] which remains the District's tallest structure. City leaders have criticized the height restriction as a primary reason why the District has limited affordable housing and traffic problems caused by urban sprawl.

http://en.wikipedia....Washington,_D.C.
<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>

#33 SamCB

SamCB
  • Member
  • 665 posts
  • Locationvictoria

Posted 01 August 2012 - 11:20 AM

^Going to demand my money back for that course :)

Thanks for looking up the goods.

#34 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 01 August 2012 - 12:33 PM

The Washington Monument is much taller than your typical 14-story residential building, indeed. Which confirms a point that I've made before, about how most people really have no idea how tall anything is (or how old anything is, but I digress).

I assume Victoria's limits were based on the height of the north wing of the Empress Hotel? It's roughly the same height as a typical 15-story residential building, so when the 1960s/1970s highrises started exceeding that height by a fair bit, it must have concerned some people.

#35 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 01 August 2012 - 01:11 PM

What an over the top reaction. Disagree with one vote (without bothering to find out the reasoning behind it) and this councillor is unworthy of your votes ever again? We are entering Tea Party purity test territory here.


For me, this was just the latest issue that confirmed to me that Gudgeon's vision for Downtown differs from mine. There have been other surprising disappointments. I'd like to hear someone else's take on the meeting and hope there's some media attention.

1. The OCP has to be approved by Council whom we elected to do just that. They are empowered to make amendments because sometimes changes need to be made. That is part of their job and making a minor change like this is in no way an attack on the public process.


No, this is a major move. Demanding a restriction no-one asked for throws a wrench in the process very late in the game without any chance for debate or comment. There was no "need" for this.

2. The height restriction imposed would be subject to the same exemptions as any other development issue and an exemption could be granted. What a limit does is indicates that a developer needs a good reason to go higher than 15 levels. Convince the council of the day and you are good to go.


Then why the need for a new bylaw if it can be waived?

I see no problem saying that in general we don't need buildings over 15 stories high in Victoria.


How about a sixteen storey building with 8 foot ceilings? Or a 10 storey building with 15 foot ceilings? Is a squat 15 storey building a better enhancement to the street than a slender, tapering 19 storey building? What if it's on a hill, or a valley? Maybe that fatter building blocks more sunlight or interferes with a view corridor in a way a slender tower doesn't. Storey count is a small piece of the puzzle.

Why on earth are people getting so worked up about this?


Imposing restrictions on building form without public consultation is wrong. I'd also be upset if the proposed bylaw banned buildings below 15 storeys!

We will not solve homelessness or whatever by building higher than that and frankly, given the complaints about poor transportation management, the last thing I think we need is a 30 story skyscraper downtown.:rolleyes:


I don't follow this.

#36 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 01 August 2012 - 01:28 PM

You don't think that proposing an arbitrary height limit and then trying to ram it through after extensive public consultations have already ended is kind of indicative as to what kind of Councillors they are? Are you suggesting that this is a one-off and that they will be completely reasonable when it comes to other tenets of urban planning?


No, I'm pretty horrified by it, if the motion was really as presented here. I'm just not sure what the motion said, or what the arguments for it were. I'd like to hear more.

#37 Barra

Barra
  • Member
  • 592 posts

Posted 01 August 2012 - 01:35 PM

Some previous posters on this thread have asked what is the big deal about 3 Councillors making one off the wall suggestion.

There are two big concerns for me. Firstly, as Rob has outlined, the consultation process on the OCP has been extensive. I don't expect councillors just to rubber stamp recommendations, but they do need to respect the amount of time, effort and knowledge that have been put in to the process both by staff and by citizens. Any questions or suggestions by them at this point should reflect their understanding of the history and knowledge that have gone in to the recommended OCP.

Second - the suggestion of an arbitrary height limit shows how unaware these councillors are of the land use management system used by the city, and of the contents of the previous or the proposed OCPs. There are a lot of factors that go in to determining the allowed height, the floor space ratio being the primary tool. The various neighbourhood plans (I assume that they will carry on in the new OCP) also provide direction re. height. The Downtown Plan at one time - and maybe still - had a lower height allowance in old town (with specific parameters given to define the boundaries of that area). Since so many of council's decisions have to do with development proposals, it is extremely important that ALL councillors understand concepts like density, fsr , setbacks, the difference between development variance requests and re-zoning requests etc. This move suggests to me that halfway in to their mandate these councillors do not understand these concepts. To me, this is very alarming.
Pieta VanDyke

#38 Candarius

Candarius
  • Member
  • 81 posts

Posted 01 August 2012 - 05:28 PM

Disclaimer: I'm one of those people who thinks everything has been working really well re: building heights. The various lowrise projects in the old town indicate that developers get it. They're playing ball. Meanwhile, highrises and junior highrises are being built where they really fit, in the company of existing buildings of similar height and/or in areas that need an injection of life. I just don't understand why anyone would be alarmed.


I vote for aastra in place of the other Councillors!

(Even if it is your disclaimer!)

#39 dasmo

dasmo

    Grand Master ✔

  • Member
  • 15,239 posts

Posted 01 August 2012 - 09:31 PM

"We will not solve homelessness or whatever by building higher than that and frankly, given the complaints about poor transportation management, the last thing I think we need is a 30 story skyscraper downtown."

Couple of notes on this one:
Higher density in Victoria can help homelessness. We don't qualify for certain funding options for instance because we are a city of 70,000 with a homeless problems of 350,000....the added tax revenue couldn't hurt either...
A 30 story skyscraper downtown is exactly what we need to alleviate traffic problems...Not a bunch of 30 story towers in the west shore...

#40 D.L.

D.L.
  • Member
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 02 August 2012 - 01:10 AM

There's little to no difference in overall density between a 30 story building and two 15 story buildings on the same site.

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