15 replies to this topic

[Holden West]

Builders reach for Victoria's skies
With an 18-floor building underway, more highrise plans keep pouring in

Carolyn Heiman
Times Colonist

Saturday, December 09, 2006

Does the sky have a limit when it comes to building height in Victoria? It used to be 10 and 14 storeys, depending on what part of the city you were in. But recent developments -- both approved and in the works -- show the line in the air is less defined.

And while traditional opposition to higher buildings continues, there are also voices encouraging the opposite.

The city has opened the playing field, said Victoria architect Peter de Hoog. "[Council] can say all they like that they haven't, but they have."

Construction has started on The Falls, an 18-storey luxury building at Douglas Street and Burdett Avenue. Winding through the planning process are projects such as The Hudson, hitting 24 storeys for one tower, and The Well, last envisaged as 14 storeys. Buildings in the Humboldt Valley, a 10-block area of the Fairfield neighbourhood, have been nudged as high as 15 and 19 storeys on the basis that the slumping landscape is a foil for the height.

City council grappled this week with a 20-storey building proposed for the parking lot east of the Empire Capitol Six Theatre. As an enticement for higher density and height than permitted at 819 Yates St., Peerless Properties Ltd. offered 80 more parking spaces than required, and seven dwellings to be turned over to the Capital Regional District Housing for management.

Council members didn't like the offer, sending the proposal back to the drawing board, but falling short of planning staff's recommendation to decline the building designed by de Hoog.

Mayor Alan Lowe said, "People are starting to look at what we have approved in the past and they are going higher and more dense. I have a huge problem with this."

Lowe said taller projects such as The Hudson (the former Bay building) are being entertained on a site- specific basis, and the need to save the historic Bay building is factored in.

Coun. Geoff Young cautioned there wasn't a dollar figure in the architect's report on the Yates Street proposal establishing what value the concessions had for the city.

Coun. Dean Fortin went further, saying the city needs a way of valuing the amenities developers are offering -- such as parking, affordable housing, public art -- in exchange for higher buildings and greater density. The City of Vancouver does this through its real estate department. Fortin would like the city to inquire about contracting the service from Vancouver.

Coun. Pam Madoff labelled Peerless Properties' proposed building a "21st-century version of View Towers," the 16-storey apartment building at 1147 Quadra St. Madoff particularly doesn't like the above-ground parking.

Only Coun. Helen Hughes offered support saying that the city should keep the door open on a proposal that offered rental housing and more parking. "We have been begging for rental housing. ... We should pursue this."

The chairman of the Downtown Residents Association land-use committee offered his support for a high-density residential on the site. Robert Randall went on to applaud changes, made from the original proposal, that didn't block views of St. Andrew's Cathedral.

De Hoog will return with a new proposal that "will likely have less stuff" for the building that will have units to be sold at a range of prices under a half-million dollars.

"We got a pretty clear message from council that they're not interested in extra parking. We will put it underground and give fewer spots," he said, resulting in a building three or four storeys shorter.

He added that everyone talks about having more people live downtown and density is one of the ways to do that. "But no one wants the buildings."

But de Hoog said that in the absence of any clearcut limits, the reality is if one developer gets 24 storeys other developers will come in with the same request.

"Either you say no to anything over 18 storeys or you open the game up."

Mike Kozakowski, a spokesman for a web-based forum on development issues in Victoria, said he senses a growing acceptance for taller buildings as people become aware of tall buildings already in existence including Orchard House in James Bay and many of the hotels in the Humboldt Valley. "We already have these buildings. We're not pushing the envelope by that much."

Ultimately the goal should be to have more people living downtown, Kozakowski said, representing the views of many on the website.

De Hoog estimates that the city has lost 850 surface parking spots in recent years as developers take advantage of hot market to build on empty places.

The city is hiring a consultant to look at downtown parking.

While Colwood and Langford have given taller buildings a warmer public reception, active construction hasn't started for buildings over 14 storeys.

mailto:cheiman@tc.canwest.com
© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2006

[aastra]

A good effort by Ms. Heiman but alas, I can't give her more than a B- for it.

Coun. Pam Madoff labelled Peerless Properties' proposed building a "21st-century version of View Towers," the 16-storey apartment building at 1147 Quadra St.

As we all know, View Towers is taller than 16 stories.

Buildings in the Humboldt Valley, a 10-block area of the Fairfield neighbourhood, have been nudged as high as 15 and 19 storeys...

Yep, they were nudged that high...back in 1964, when the Executive House Hotel was built. But we ALWAYS forget about the Executive House and the Chateau Victoria (1974), don't we? I should get a T-shirt made or something.

Mayor Alan Lowe said, "People are starting to look at what we have approved in the past and they are going higher and more dense..."

I know he's the mayor and all, but if he says something that's incorrect, shouldn't it be pointed out to the readers? The only building so far that's "going higher" is the tallest proposed Bay tower. Nothing else has ventured out of the established height range. Once again, we're confusing legislation (height restrictions) with physical reality (how tall Victoria's existing buildings actually are).

[aastra]

He added that everyone talks about having more people live downtown and density is one of the ways to do that. "But no one wants the buildings."

I applaud the inclusion of this quote. Spot on, as they say.

Good quote by Mr. Kozakowski. As the article proves, however, just because we're becoming aware of Victoria's old highrise buildings (buildings like View Towers) doesn't mean we realize how tall those buildings actually are.

[G-Man]

Yeah there were a couple of factual errors in there. Again all we are talking about is height. Why anyone cares about this one point of view and nothing else is beyond me.

[Phil McAvity]

^because controversy sells papers, but why there is any controversy about this issue is what baffles me. I have yet to hear one good reason why skyscrapers shouldn't exist, while there are myriad reasons for them.

I don't blame Carolyn Heiman for her errors, either. At least you can see she's done some work, unlike the editors at that third-rate rag.

[Scaper]

That entire list of projects that was posted in the paper was taken directly off Vibrant Victoria with no reference to the site or for the material stolen of VibrantVictoria.ca. This list took months and months to compile and yet the T.C. scams it off VibrantVictoria with no reference!!! Can you say...possible lawsuit???

[Mike K.]

Caroylyn Heiman has been contacted about the issue.

The list, ([url=http://www.vibrantvictoria.ca/development/mcp.htm:4594e]here[/url:4594e]), which appeared in its entirety in the Dec 09 edition of the Capital section (C1) of the Times Colonist represents intellectual property owned by VibrantVictoria.ca. This list even includes a disclaimer explaining how the media should proceed with the use of the data.

Apparently what had happened was the credit was cutoff by someone at the TC, and this also occured with the renderings shown in the article. At this point VibrantVictoria.ca has not chosen a course of action but that will be decided on shortly. It is obvious that this website is now a premier source for Victoria's development information and VibrantVictoria.ca must protect what is rightfully it's property.

For those who may not be aware, CH Television aired a story yesterday (Dec 08) that showed a screenshot taken of the Gateway Green page on the Major Construction List with no credit. In two days copyright infringement took place twice.

Edit: the comment about responsibility has been edited to reflect more recent information.

[gumgum]

Mike Kozakowski, a spokesman for a web-based forum on development issues in Victoria, said he senses a growing acceptance for taller buildings as people become aware of tall buildings already in existence including Orchard House in James Bay and many of the hotels in the Humboldt Valley. "We already have these buildings. We're not pushing the envelope by that much."

Seems to me VV's credit was perposefully edited out here as well.

[Holden West]

City has lost out with developer deals

Times Colonist
Published: Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Re: "Builders reach for Victoria's skies," Dec. 9

Victoria has no policy regarding consistent and fair awarding of bonus density from one project to the next. Vancouver, for example, has strict guidelines that require independent financial analysis of development proposals, which quantifies requested relaxation of zoning bylaws to be traded with proposed benefits to the city.

The Downtown Victoria Plan 1990 has building height guidelines in place with the intention to design the skyline of the city and protect view corridors. But these guidelines have in the past few years been consistently ignored in favour of project-by-project awarding of height and density bonuses.

The scale of the awards to recent projects is large. For five recent projects that have been approved or are under review, the total net profit attributable to the bonus awards is in the ballpark of many tens of millions of dollars. Proposed benefits to the city have been worth much less.

Charles C. Gurd,

Victoria.

=====================

Chuck is right in that the rules on bonus density can be clarified but his claim about using the downtown plan to "protect view corridors" is ridiculous as he's known to be anti-height. The one thing that protects view corridors obviously, is tall, slender buildings.

[Mike K.]

Those tens of millions of dollars must first be invested to build that extra density. And say, doesn't council want more density downtown and, according to the 1990 downtown plan Mr. Gurd refers to, extra residential development is considered reason enough for increased density. So what exactly is the problem, here?

Mr. Gurd is the fellow who keeps stepping over his duties as a member of the APC panel and asking for developers to reveal their proformas when they present their projects.

[G-Man]

The city does also benefit by these people moving downtown and you know paying taxes or something...

[Holden West]

I think what he's trying to say is that under the bonus density rules the developers are only giving the city a few thousand dollars in return for building suites worth millions of dollars.

[G-Man]

But the residents keep on giving for all the years the building is habitable. Getting bogged down on this stuff is actually slowing growth and impeding the vibrancy. I as a property owning taxpayer in Victoria would like to see more people less dithering.

[zoomer]

exactly G-Man. Perhaps the thinking should be that the benefit to the city is the extra density itself. Perhaps if a developer proposes density above the current limit...get this: they should be rewarded with even more density!! :shock: Ok, perhaps a bit tongue in cheek, but really people, we're getting a good thing, yet we're not happy unless we gouge the developer for a kickback to the city? You know those extra dollars for amenities paid to the city won't be taken out of the developer's pockets, nope they get tacked on to the unit price, and thus the purchaser, and then we'll have city politicians complaining about the lack of affordable housing. :roll:

[Galvanized]

There is a great letter to the editor in regards to this article in today's TC. It's locked on the website so I can't post it.

[Ben Smith]

Question:

Does a block wide, 5 story building block more views that a 20 story, slender, glass highrise with a nice cafe or shopping area around the base?

Take View Towers, cut it in threes and place them over a block. View corridors! Yay, you can now see a special tree with yellow leaves in the fall!