66 replies to this topic

[dasmo]

but it might be a nicer site with one 30 story and much more green space...plus how many sites in victoria can have two 15 story buildings on it in a well designed fashion?
Preserve Nature, Preserve old town, Let uptown go up!

[jklymak]

I think we should probably decide on a floor-space ratio on a multi-block basis, make a minimum that a site can't lose, and then let land owners sell the air rights to adjoining developers. I think its bad city form to build many towers cheek and jowl. But its not fair to say to owner x that because their next door neighbour built a 20 storey tower, you can't. Allowing trading of extra density would help equalize that process.

[dasmo]

Thats more like it jklymak (although land titles might not like it the lawyers would). We need a better vision. A blanket cap of 15 stories is not visionary at all. A varied skyline is attractive and that could be a way to get it. A city with more people in it is also attractive, and vibrant. You could also step allowable height up as you move away from the water front. A site line behind the Parliament buildings should be maintained. An old town zone should be limited in height. R1B zones should be maintained. The borders of OakBay and Saanich should have the highest allowable height ;-)

[G-Man]

I think we should probably decide on a floor-space ratio on a multi-block basis, make a minimum that a site can't lose, and then let land owners sell the air rights to adjoining developers. I think its bad city form to build many towers cheek and jowl. But its not fair to say to owner x that because their next door neighbour built a 20 storey tower, you can't. Allowing trading of extra density would help equalize that process.

I think this is okay but that actually gets pretty complex over time. So does this go on your actual title? If you sell to developer A in 2012 you air rights and they build a building 20 storeys high but then it is taken down in 2045 do the extra storeys stay on title? Do they revert to the previous owners of them? What if a future OCP says that buildings can be 20 storeys high and air rights sold over that point.

The one example that we currently have is the 711 site on Yates and Quadra whose air rights are limited by agreement when the Manhattan was built I am not sure what the terms were but the Courtnall brothers had wanted to build something there a few years ago and were too constrained by that agreement.

Times and attitudes change we need to make sure our built form is organic and receptive to those changes.

[ZGsta]

What a joke. I've been relatively supportive of Isitt in the past. Anyone who makes claims that he's concerned with making the area sustainable and more environmentally friendly and then pulls reactionary crap like this is a complete fraud.
He talks about benefits of density in the urban core all the time! I guess he doesn't actually mean any of it when it comes to satisfying the same old conservative view that Victoria is a quaint small town tourist exhibit.

People need to contact the counsellors who tried to make this happen and let them know what a horrible decision this is. I'll be writing them later.

[rjag]

I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist and with that in mind I wonder if there was some behind the scenes dealing with these 3 councillors where someones agenda is supported in exchange for support of the others agenda.

Regardless they failed and thats a good thing for the City.

[Mike K.]

C's Isitt and Gudgeon make strange bedfellows, but then this is politics for ya.

The duo were also behind the much-ado-about-nothing ploy to rile up residents about Point Hope's offer to purchase City-owned land as a means of freeing themselves of the complexities of a lease before a major investment at their facility.

[Bob Fugger]

C's Isitt and Gudgeon make strange bedfellows, but then this is politics for ya.

The duo were also behind the much-ado-about-nothing ploy to rile up residents about Point Hope's offer to purchase City-owned land as a means of freeing themselves of the complexities of a lease before a major investment at their facility.

I believe that they shared supporter lists, at some point. Because that is the only way in hell I can figure that I started getting emails from him. **** privacy, too, eh Shellie? I am so pissed at Gudgeon! :mad:

[Mike K.]

You can certainly write a letter and ask Councillor Gudgeon if she shared your contact information. Unless she did this in private any communication she would have had with Councillor Isitt via the City's email system is open to FOI requests.

[Rob Randall]

[Isitt] talks about benefits of density in the urban core all the time! I guess he doesn't actually mean any of it when it comes to satisfying the same old conservative view that Victoria is a quaint small town tourist exhibit.

People need to contact the counsellors who tried to make this happen and let them know what a horrible decision this is. I'll be writing them later.

Remember, you can have density without height and height without density. This is the core of Madoff's argument against height. The debate is about form, not population. However, a taller building might have more expensive penthouses, which contribute more to the tax base. Expensive penthouses also make socialists very upset.

I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist and with that in mind I wonder if there was some behind the scenes dealing with these 3 councillors where someones agenda is supported in exchange for support of the others agenda.

Regardless they failed and thats a good thing for the City.

I really doubt that scenario, as dramatic as it seems. I don't think those three are that co-ordinated.

This was Ben's baby. Like Sonya Chandler, Ben has a tendency to react to things without really thinking through all the ramifications. He doesn't do his homework, as one City Hall inhabitant said to me today.

Gudgeon jumped on board as it's appearing she has a strong dislike of tall buildings. Madoff is more of a puzzle on this one. A veteran who knows the planning process inside and out, I believe she knew Ben's plan was poorly thought out but voted yes to send a message to the others after doing a head count and knowing the motion would fail--even with Coleman absent. Don't forget, Madoff has in the past brought forward motions to approve some of Downtown's highest buildings so it's not like she's a militant anti-height nazi.

You could also step allowable height up as you move away from the water front. A site line behind the Parliament buildings should be maintained. An old town zone should be limited in height. R1B zones should be maintained.

These issues are covered in the OCP, including good and bad places for extra height and important views to protect.

[dasmo]

Yes, but added height and density along the OakBay and Saanich border isn't!

[jklymak]

Remember, you can have density without height and height without density. This is the core of Madoff's argument against height. The debate is about form, not population. However, a taller building might have more expensive penthouses, which contribute more to the tax base. Expensive penthouses also make socialists very upset.

I'd argue low dense buildings make for a poorer streets cape than well-spaced tall buildings with 1-2 story infill between. The complaint about penthouses is pretty asinine - a new unit is a new unit, and one downtown is one less millionaire commuting from the suburbs. Rich people need to live somewhere too.

Madoff is more of a puzzle on this one. A veteran who knows the planning process inside and out, I believe she knew Ben's plan was poorly thought out but voted yes to send a message to the others after doing a head count and knowing the motion would fail--even with Coleman absent.

So what message could she have been meaning to send to the "others"?

[Rob Randall]

I'd argue low dense buildings make for a poorer streets cape than well-spaced tall buildings with 1-2 story infill between. The complaint about penthouses is pretty asinine - a new unit is a new unit, and one downtown is one less millionaire commuting from the suburbs.

Well, that was my point, that limiting height can backfire and negate the enhancements the OCP was meant to foster.

And there was no complaint about penthouses, only pointing out the obvious, that all things being equal, including density, a building with luxury view penthouses are taxed pretty high.

Rich people need to live somewhere too.

We've said this before. There's a perception that people that can afford luxury units are somehow less virtuous

So what message could she have been meaning to send to the "others"?

I think Madoff wanted to remind everybody that this new OCP doesn't mean a skyscraper free-for-all and that any tall buildings will continue to go under the microscope and that there are a few of us on City Council that feel the same. A little slap to those she perceives to be rubber-stampers.

[jklymak]

^ yeah, sorry, I meant the socialists being upset by penthouses was asinine, not your point about taxation.

[Nparker]

I don't even know where to begin to dissect the crazy in this letter to the T-C.

When you start out by saying you "think Lisa Helps is doing a good job as mayor of Victoria" I'm afraid anything else you might have to say will fall on my deaf ears. How is that so many of these kind of whack jobs have found their way to Victoria? Maybe there IS something in the water here, although I'm certain the billion-dollar-boondoggle won't fix this either.

[zoomer]

David Drinkwater has been actually drinking the anti-density coolaid.

 

He references Washington DC eh..

 

Satellite maps shows explosion in paved surfaces in D.C. region since 1984

 

Washington Post article

Edited by zoomer, 24 April 2016 - 10:04 AM.

[Rob Randall]

Oh, the wind turbulence argument. That's a great nostalgia throwback. We haven't talked about that since about 2009.

[Nparker]

Oh, the wind turbulence argument. That's a great nostalgia throwback. We haven't talked about that since about 2009.

Despite his name, I suspect Mr. Drinkwater has been hitting the "cool-aid" pretty hard since 2009.

[aastra]

 

...a significant concern is the increasing height of these buildings.

 

That should be "building" singular, right? Promontory is the only 21st-century building in Victoria that dared to be taller than the old highrise towers from the 1960s & 1970s, and really just by a bit.

 

I wonder what inspired him to come to the erroneous conclusion that buildings are being built taller today than in decades past?

[aastra]

Maybe he's anticipating the tall tower on the Hudson's back lot?