1984 replies to this topic

[Linear Thinker]

This project is on the Thursday May 2 PLUSC agenda.
Lengthy reports included.
Staff report recommends proceeding to public hearing.

[Holden West]

^Thanks for keeping us updated. It will be an interesting meeting, I hope the turnout is good.

[29er Radio]

Blue Sky Properties' development project at St Andrews on Pandora is falling foul of the same by law a site I am working on along Douglas St. http://bit.ly/12JvwlG It is a badly thought out by law, where clearly no one thought about the implications of denying access to main roads when a new development is proposed. Look forward to see how this plays out.

[D.L.]

What's so bad about having access from Mason Street? Make the west end of this block of Mason two-way traffic and everything will be fine.

I think it is the preferred street really. Parking garage entrances are unsightly IMO and having it on Pandora would make it visible to everyone.

[Mike K.]

Agreed. The City should see this as an opportunity to have full commercial frontage along a busy street without a massive parking entrance messing things up. Most developers and architects would love to be in this situation.

[VicHockeyFan]

Make the entry off Mason near Vancouver, and block Mason 1/3 of the way up, so it's dead-end from Cook. Everyone is happy except maybe the first two or three homes on Mason. The developer should just buy those homes and make a little townhouse block that has parking in the rear, off the dead-end part of Mason.

[aastra]

Committee members said they couldn’t support access off Mason...

...they don’t want to turn tiny, residential Mason Street into a driveway for hundreds of cars and trucks...

Silly question, but is the traffic issue even worth worrying about? In every instance that I can recall, the massive increase in vehicle traffic related to a new building (or new buildings) has failed to materialize. Consider the Y-lot and Aria. Has there been some massive increase in vehicle traffic down there? It's pretty damn quiet in terms of automobile activity, even though all of the vehicle entrances for those large buildings (including a large hotel) are on the same block! How about the entire Selkirk neighbourhood or the entire Songhees? Again, very little vehicle traffic.

In this particular neighbourhood, methinks the Cook Street Castle building makes for a very good comparison with the proposed building. So what's the vehicle traffic like at Cook Street Castle? Is it a nightmare? Maddening, dangerous traffic? Maybe it is, but I've never noticed nor have I ever heard anyone mention it. And if the traffic situation at Cook Street Castle is NOT a nightmare, then why should anyone be worried about the proposed building and its impact on Mason Street?

THIS proposal is ALL wrong. Yes, it is the WRONG location for high-density residential...

I just don't understand how people are making these determinations re: appropriateness. There's a 5-story shelter on the next block. There's an 11-story apartment building across the street. Right next door there's a 4-story apartment block. Across the street on the northwest corner there's a 4-story apartment block. Across Cook Street there's a 4-story apartment block... and so forth.

Residential buildings in the immediate area that are 4-stories or higher:



There's also a mixed message in the criticisms, that the neighbourhood is good and awful at the same time, and that a quality building will only accelerate the degeneration from good-and-awful to exclusively awful. So what are the residents of these various existing buildings like? Are they generally good or generally awful? Are they contributing to the degeneration of the neighbourhood or are they resisting the degeneration? Or neither?

It just seems like the easiest way to generate outrage in Victoria is to propose to build something decent. Crappy stuff always gets a free pass but decent or better stuff always gets put through the wringer.

[D.L.]

If the parking access is put on Pandora Ave. then there will be limitations to the travel to and from it because Pandora is a one-way street.

Mason St. provides much better access if the west portion of it is made two-way traffic

[29er Radio]

in my mind it is about being forced to put access on Mason, and having a choice about where you put access to a site, IF there is already access on to streets that will be restricted. I cant see what they are trying to protect

[amor de cosmos]

what about 10+ stories on the pandora side next to the existing apartment building, stepped down to the corner (somewhat determined by the old school building), & rowhouses on mason. vehicle access & garages for the houses in the middle, off vancouver more or less in line with that other section of mason st. wouldn't everybody still be happy then? no driveway on either pandora or mason, no 6 stories on mason (which is inconceivable imho), the pandora side could still be built up...

edit: after reading the TC story about that bylaw, subdivide the big L-shaped lot fronting mason & vancouver, still put rowhouses on mason with one driveway on mason for all of them & still garages in the back. or a 1-way lane with entrance on mason & exit on vancouver if possible? access to the others off pandora, at the eastern end (a path to the park could go there also). that way there would be two lots, each facing only two streets rather than one lot facing three & having to use mason for access to the whole thing.

[G-Man]

This building is going to have a lot less impact on traffic than the current school. Just try driving down mason at school pick up time or drop off. Seriously 200 units will have almost no noticeable traffic.

[sdwright.vic]

I think people are forgetting that entrances and exits on roads that are major through routes create traffic problems. The reason cities are trying to remove these issue are to keep traffic flowing. Eventually, with redevelopment HOPEFULLY all entrances to development will be of side roads with major through roads free of driveways and building entrances and exits.

[29er Radio]

the cars have to get onto the main drags somehow. so we have a few long lines ups or we have many short line ups. Perhaps the "measure" should be, if the lot was land locked and the developer had to provide an access road to get on/off the site, how big would that have to be. That establishes a minimum road size and then we would know if Mason, or any other side street was "fit" to handle the development proposed.
This by law laid out a desire without considering the consequence to some of the "small" streets out there.

[sdwright.vic]

^ so how about part of the land be used to increase the capacity of Mason? Improvements are done to the intersection to help better control that capacity? Because a street may or may not be able to control an increase in capacity does not prohibit the ideal that access to properties need to start being removed from the major through roads to help traffic flow. Imagine how much better Douglas or Blanshard would be if access to them was only through controlled intersections of feeder roads?

[amor de cosmos]

This by law laid out a desire without considering the consequence to some of the "small" streets out there.

more likely it was to take out any sort of thoughtful, human element to the decision-making process, sort of like a zero-tolerance policy. anyway I think subdividing the big lot, so that the lot with the school & yard would be on only one corner rather than two, so when that bylaw is applied, the smaller of the two streets that has to provide access to the northern lot becomes mason, and for the one on the other corner it would become vancouver (so I guess I was wrong earlier). it wouldn't apply to the third one on pandora, since it isn't a corner lot. also mason has a completely different character than pandora, & even vancouver. It's so narrow it's one-way & there's parking on only one side! I can't see 6 stories there at all. better to have most of the units on the pandora side & just townhouses/brownstones on mason. plus the view over harris green to the city beyond would be pretty nice from the upper floors.

after looking a bit more closely, I can see an extension of mason park (rather than residents-only courtyard), proper parking bays along mason park, and the midblock pathway to pandora, something like this:

[HB]

.

Edited by HB, 18 November 2014 - 01:43 PM.

[Rob Randall]

When City Hall has meetings and public hearings on the rezoning of this site why not invite or in the very least involve all of the residents of the area such as all of the people that live in the apartments at the our place complex.

Yes believe it or not they are residents and should be included but that probably wont happen will it. Why would a bunch of recovering people and those trying to restart their lives be included? They have nothing to offer at all...or do they?

When a rezoning is planned, City Hall sends out letters signed by the neighbourhood's community association to every address, including rental apartments and businesses within a certain radius. Memory fails but I think the radius was 200 or 300 metres from the development. The letter details what the rezoning is all about and has an invitation to a formal meeting where residents can ask the developer questions. Now, I'm not sure if a letter goes to every bed at Our Place or if they get one notification for the whole building because it's considered a single operation. But basically, if you have a Canada Post mailbox you'll get a letter. I will try to get clarification on Our Place for you.

[Mike K.]

concorde recently mentioned in another thread that this proposal may now be canceled.

[G-Man]

I really hope not. This would have changed North Park for the better forever.

[Nparker]

I haven't posted on here in ages, but since this is MY neighbourhood I had to speak up. If the NIMBYs kill this project I serioulsy hope the developer holds onto the land and lets it fall into total ruin. Then when the derelict shell of the school, by then a needle-filled flop house, burns to the ground some night the NIMBYs will get exactly what they deserve.