117 replies to this topic

[Mr Cook Street]

I definitely think there is merit to zoning the stretch along Douglas, from Herald to Hillside as an 'anything goes' zone. Taller the better, more unique the better. Get some 300 unit condo towers shoehorned in there.

[jonny]

Setting arbitrary height and density limits is so bizarre. Why should we care? Why 72m? Why not 75m? What about 80m? If the most beautiful and perfectly designed 90m building in human history came along, would we deny it because it is 18m too tall?

 

As aastra has hammered into our heads, we should care about good, thoughtful design.

 

What we are doing is limiting developers to a certain build-form because we have preconceived notions that large buildings are bad. They destroy views, are "too capitalistic", they are "too much like Vancouver", etc. While we are ending up with decent buildings, at the end of the day we have limited our chances that something bold will ever be built. 

 

A funny aspect is that the city recently increased the allowed height to 72m in between Douglas and Blanshard downtown, but 90%+ of that land is already developed and not likely to be redeveloped anytime soon so really it was a pointless exercise anyway. 

 

As far as good design goes, I would argue that the Atrium is a bold design (the interior is fantastic but the exterior is very ugly). Shutters is bold and very nice. Sussex at least tried to be something different (it succeeded, but in a Disney Land sort of way...it's pretending to be a big building but isn't). The CIBC building is one of my favorites, but went up nearly 50 years ago.

 

Most of the condo towers that have gone up are decent but pretty cookie cutter-esque. That's largely the same for Vancouver, so this isn't merely a Victoria issue. Astoria is nice, but is a safe design. The Juliet is a beautifully designed building. Sadly, Chard has gone boring since then. The Falls is very nice, IMO.

[jklymak]

^ Why have urban planning at all?  

[Mr Cook Street]

^ Why have urban planning at all?  

So you don't end up with block long dead zones because of a solid wall that deters street activity. So you don't end up with raised highways cutting your city in half. Just a couple off the top of my head.

[jklymak]

Sure, but you also try to space large buildings out, and fill the spaces with infill.  Also if you don't have any height limits then you end up with more empty lots because the market is saturated by one building.

[jonny]

^ Why have urban planning at all?  

 

You missed my point. An urban plan is fine. Prescribing low height and density limits is self defeating. Why are we limiting ourselves to a certain mid-rise build form?

[jklymak]

^ There are lots of good reasons to limit height.  Beyond aesthetics, the objective reason is that if you build a tall building it lessens the development potential for other empty lots, and they stay empty longer.

 

I'm not saying 12 storeys is a good height - I'd be fine w/ higher, but I don't think it is "self-defeating" to impose some reasonable limit.

 

As for building tall being cheaper, I am not sure I would take Mike's word for that.  You build a 36-storey building with 300 units there are a lot of extra excavation and engineering costs associated with that versus building three 12-storey structures. Similarly, if 36-storey buildings were allowed, it would just jack up the land values (at least for the first few lots, until the market saturated).  So, where does the cost/benefit curve get maximized assuming your goal is as much new square footage as possible?  

 

As for small units - developers are trying to sell those because they think they get a door premium for them.  However, the fact that they are having to rent those units out rather than sell them makes me think the market doesn't agree. (I'm not talking the micro lofts which were so cheap that a lot of folks bought them as vacation rentals or downtown pied-au-terres, but I'd think that market would saturate very quickly).  

Edited by jklymak, 03 December 2014 - 09:19 AM.

[29er Radio]

Density is a bigger factor in that regard. We seem to be encouraging 250 sq ft units in this city over giving developers the freedom to go bigger and higher.

If we could attract more jobs to this town which could pay decent wages then perhaps affordable for Victoria could be a 500 sq ft
unit.

[jonny]

^ There are lots of good reasons to limit height.  Beyond aesthetics, the objective reason is that if you build a tall building it lessens the development potential for other empty lots, and they stay empty longer.

 

And height limits lessen the development potential of each individual property. We should be making it as attractive as possible for the owners of these sites to develop those properties. Instead, we are restraining development by introducing barriers to market entry.

 

Demand is also not constant. Once more and more of these vacant properties become developed, I'd wager the demand for housing downtown will only increase as these areas become more attractive places to live.

 

I'm not saying 12 storeys is a good height - I'd be fine w/ higher, but I don't think it is "self-defeating" to impose some reasonable limit.

 

Land use controls, and in particular height limits are absolutely self-defeating They lessen the supply of housing, which in turn increases the cost of housing. It's supply and demand.

 

Do we want to be like Washington DC with extremely high housing and office rental costs, and a flat top "skyline"? Paris (one of the most expensive places in the world) is often quoted as an example Victoria is trying to emulate. I think we should be doing what we can to make rates more affordable. Instead, we are perpetuating the cycle that has gotten us to this place where people can't afford to buy property unless they get help from their parents or want to be crammed into a 500 square foot condo.

 

From an aesthetic point of view, Victoria BC absolutely needs taller buildings.

[jklymak]

So you are advocating for no urban planning!

 

Seriously, if there are no restriction on building, then you get pretty crappy land use as well. There are any number of SE Asian cities you could look at where building was a free-for-all, and the results are not what I'd want for Victoria.

 

Now, does our council do it right?  I don't think so - the rentals on Pandora right next to the Mondrian are a terrible development, based on the "they built one, so you can build one next door" philosophy of urban planning. Packing all the mid-rises onto a single block is dumb.  

 

I'd rather a 15-25-storey buildings properly spaced out.  I'd like to see density set for blocks, and developers acquire the density rights from their neighbors.  I'd like to see fat scrapers actively discouraged, and empty lots taxed as if they were developed to discourage underuse.  

[lanforod]

I don't think anyone wants to see all the buildings downtown suddenly becoming 25 stories. What we need is varied heights. Everything going in now is under 20 stories, so you get a wall of buildings, nothing to break up the skyline. I've said it before, we should have at least one distinctive tower here. One where people can tell with a glance at the skyline, that this is Victoria. Paris has the Eiffel tower, where is ours?

 

For Vancouver this was Harbour Centre, which is now getting lost among the other 40 story buildings. Now its more like the Living Shangri-La. Still, I watch a lot of TV shows filmed in Vancouver (Arrow, The Flash, Continuum, Supernatural), and it is Harbour Centre that really picks things out when a pan of the city is done, especially in Continuum where you see both past and future (2077) shots.,Last night's episode of The Flash showed it as well. I love having that recognizable look.

[jonny]

So you are advocating for no urban planning!

 

No, I'm advocating for fewer inane constraints like this property's max height is 45 meters, but right across the street it's 50 meters. Who the hell cares about 5 meters? The City of Victoria's planning department, apparently.

[Mixed365]

I'd rather a 15-25-storey buildings properly spaced out.  I'd like to see density set for blocks, and developers acquire the density rights from their neighbors.  I'd like to see fat scrapers actively discouraged, and empty lots taxed as if they were developed to discourage underuse.  

Aaand we have one for Vancouverism! 

[Mixed365]

As for building tall being cheaper, I am not sure I would take Mike's word for that.  You build a 36-storey building with 300 units there are a lot of extra excavation and engineering costs associated with that versus building three 12-storey structures. Similarly, if 36-storey buildings were allowed, it would just jack up the land values (at least for the first few lots, until the market saturated).  So, where does the cost/benefit curve get maximized assuming your goal is as much new square footage as possible?  

It is true. Building higher doesn't necessarily mean it is more profitable for developers and the units become cheaper. There are costs that increase substantially the higher you go - engineering, building code changes, safety requirements etc. 

So, it isn't as simple as saying, "build higher, that will increase supply and reduce price."

That being said, I don't entirely agree with the City of Victoria's rules and regulations. They need to streamline the process if they are to allow these restrictions. Time is money for developers. Here is a great article by the Chamber of Commerce, profiling two of the largest developers downtown, Dave Chard and Ken Mariash on their thoughts of the process. It is incredibly insightful and I recommend reading it. 

http://issuu.com/vic...vember_2014_web

Speaking of not liking the City of Victoria rules and regulations, don't get me started on the Bonus Density Program. 

[Mike K.]

Building higher does reduce the cost per unit overall, provided the building isn't meant to be a luxury offering with a unique exterior, etc.

Victoria built it's tallest buildings 50 years ago precisely because economics dictated that the higher you go, the more feasible the building became (within reason), then height restrictions appeared. Once you break into the 40-50 floor range things change, but 20-30 is standard fare all over the world.

[Mixed365]

Building higher does reduce the cost per unit overall, provided the building isn't meant to be a luxury offering with a unique exterior, etc.

Victoria built it's tallest buildings 50 years ago precisely because economics dictated that the higher you go, the more feasible the building became (within reason). Once you break into the 40-50 floor range things change, but 20-30 is standard fare all over the world.

 

It definitely can, but not in all cases. Example:

Building a 6 storey wood frame condominium will have a lower per door cost then that of a 7 storey concrete building. It is highly unlikely that the increase in the number of units you get from the extra storey will offset the exorbitant cost of building with concrete. 

The building code has now changed for wood frame buildings to be build up to 6 storeys. Anything taller than that must be concrete. Previously, there was a four storey limit. 

[jonny]

So you are advocating for no urban planning!

 

The kind of nit-picking I hate with these burdensome plans and guidelines contributed heavily to killing the View/Fort project (which IIRC you strongly disliked).

 

That parking lot sure has held up well over the years. I sure am glad that beautiful building never went up because it was "too tall" and "the massing was all wrong" for precious View Tower!

[jklymak]

^ I disliked the View street side because it was exactly the same height as View Towers, right next door to View Towers.  Put the same tower right against Vancouver in the same block and it'd have been great.  My whole point is that towers like this should be spread out and the rest infilled.  

 

Sadly, CoV and you seem to be in agreement, that all the towers should be crammed together: see Yates/View between Blanchard and Quadra and now Pandora/Johnson at Cook.  The right way to do it is the Y lot, where the towers have some decent space between them.  

[jonny]

Sadly, CoV and you seem to be in agreement, that all the towers should be crammed together: see Yates/View between Blanchard and Quadra and now Pandora/Johnson at Cook.  The right way to do it is the Y lot, where the towers have some decent space between them.  

 

But that's what the urban plan says we should do!

 

Do you mean to tell me that having an urban plan with guidelines and limits isn't the end all be all when it comes to having a vibrant downtown?

 

 

I agree that bunching buildings together can be unattractive, but I do think the bunched up buildings on View or Johnson would look a heck of a lot better if one of those buildings was significantly taller than the others. Our height and density limits will never allow that.

 

I think cities should be grown somewhat organically. The free market should have input, as well as the city's planning department. This isn't Sim City where we can drag and drop buildings. A great building like the Fort/View building shouldn't be kiboshed because of one potentially negative aspect, IMO. That's too much bureaucracy for me.

Edited by jonny, 03 December 2014 - 02:05 PM.

[jklymak]

But that's what the urban plan says we should do!

 

 

A great building like the Fort/View building shouldn't be kiboshed because of one potentially negative aspect, IMO. That's too much bureaucracy for me.

 

So because we have a bad urban plan, then urban planning is bad?  I don't agree with that logic.

 

The main complaint about View Towers is that it is far too wide.  There is similarly crappy architecture in town that people don't complain about as much.  I think making it 50% wider is a lot more of a problem than "one potentially negative aspect".  I think urban planning is supposed to stop mistakes like that (and in this case succeeded).  Frankly, in my opinion the owners of that lot are SOL, and should be encouraged to develop it as low-rise infill.  

 

I think the zoning of individual lots should take into account the nearby lots.  Next to VT?  Sorry, you are not going to build a 20 storey building there.  A block away? Sure.

 

The problem with letting the free market dictate land use is that there is no way to protect the interests of everyone else in the city.  Some might think those interests are trivial, but I don't.