117 replies to this topic

[Nparker]

....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...

Actually 40 storey buildings should be erected around all available sides of View Towers in order to block the view of it as much as possible.

[jonny]

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

 

You can't plan for every conceivable potential situation. Let the growth happen organically, man.

 

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.   

 

Agree to disagree then. Cities around the world have buildings close to each other, but that's too much for Victoria. Victoria has it all figured out, apparently.   

 

The interests of the landowners  - the people who are putting up their own capital to generate economic activity and provide housing to a region that desperately needs it - are also important. We shouldn't stifle growth over an argument over whether or not two buildings may or may not be too close together.

 

I think if Harris Green was jam packed with quality mid-rise buildings like the one proposed for Fort/View as the plan calls for, it would be a much more desirable neighborhood than it currently is.

[jklymak]

Agree to disagree then. Cities around the world have buildings close to each other, but that's too much for Victoria. Victoria has it all figured out, apparently. 

 

We can stop the discussion if you like, but I would be interested to know what cities you think are good examples?  It'd be more credible in my eyes if you kept it to cities with under 3 million people, just to make the density pressures within the same order of magnitude.  

 

I am aware that Manhattan packs buildings in (though you'll also note most of their streets are wider than ours), but I think we can worry about accommodating Manhattan-style density after something gets built in all our empty parking lots.  

[jonny]

Check out this image of beautiful downtown Calgary. Lots of similar height buildings packed in close together there.

 

[VicHockeyFan]

Hartford, CT.

 

 

Raleigh, NC

 

[Nparker]

San Francisco:

[aastra]

Nobody is going to object to packing commercial buildings close together. Victoria was doing this like crazy up until the 1930s.

 

When we're talking about 21st-century residential buildings it's a totally different game.

[Mixed365]

People forget that Urban Planners don't necessarily decide that is the best urban form, rather they are People Planners. I know it sounds silly, but any community or urban plan is made to represent the ideals of the neighbourhood or area. 

Long story short, blaming an urban planner is in correct, as they are just merely trying to represent the community they are planning for. 

[jklymak]

Nobody is going to object to packing commercial buildings close together. Victoria was doing this like crazy up until the 1930s.

 

When we're talking about 21st-century residential buildings it's a totally different game.

 

Right - most of the big buildings you see on any of those skylines above are office buildings.  Are there even any high-rise condos in all of San Francisco?  I know there are a few in Calgary, but in which neighborhood are they densely packed?  

 

Vancouver has one of the densest populations outside of Manhattan, and most buildings there have more space than we seem to want to put between buildings here in Victoria.  It doesn't make sense to me, and I think its bad planning.  

[jonny]

When I lived in Yaletown, the neighboring building was pretty damn close. Easily could have tossed a football to my neighbor in the next building (these were 30+ floor buildings).

 

[jklymak]

^ I'd take a look at those buildings on Google maps  to see just how far apart they actually are (and how much gasp green space there is directly adjacent to them.

[jonny]

Jeez Louise, when did I ever say anything about green space?

 

These three high rise residential buildings are about 20-30m apart.

 

[Mike K.]

I think the issue jklymak is alluding to is the incredibly close proximity of residential buildings in Victoria. The Wave, 960 View and the social housing building between the 800 blocks of Yates and View are ridiculously close to each other. And Chard's rental tower will just add to that congestion (not to mention when Capital 6 gets redeveloped Chard's building will get closed off from the west).

 

And that's what you get when you push developers to max out density and limit height, you get relatively thick, short buildings that minimize privacy for residents.

 

And what's worse is this problem will only occur more often as more and more parking lots get built out. Soho and the Palladian are another example. 1075 Pandora, Mondrian and Sutton Place is as well. Citypark(?) and Parkside on Humbuldt and Fairfield, and if CGS chooses to build what they can build on the McCall lot expect the Alpha tower on Yates to have very close neighbours.

[jklymak]

^^ Sure, 34 m or so according to Google Earth.  But, they are about 1.5 building widths apart.  How far apart were View Towers and the proposed building going to be?  About 5 m if I remember correctly.  That is what I object to. 

 

The Wave and 860 View are about 20 m apart.  But in terms of how wide each of them was, it is silly how close they are built. Conversely, I'd say the other side of View (The Chelsea and the pink building I always forget) were spaced about right (though even those buildings are a bit too close).

 

I can accept that you need some height to allow buildings to be spaced out, but we shouldn't allow tall buildings jammed far less than a building width apart.  

Edited by jklymak, 04 December 2014 - 09:41 AM.

[jklymak]

And that's what you get when you push developers to max out density and limit height, you get relatively thick, short buildings that minimize privacy for residents.

 

 

Right.  It is also what happens when you allow lots that are too small to be developed.  I think the city should allow taller buildings, stop giving out bonus density, but allow density to be traded between property owners.  You build at 10:1, you have to buy the rights so that your neighbors are knocked down to 2:1.

[jonny]

Yes Mike, if height limits were relaxed (my original point that was objected to), we might end up with fewer short, fat buildings.

[jonny]

I can accept that you need some height to allow buildings to be spaced out, but we shouldn't allow tall buildings jammed far less than a building width apart.  

 

Sometimes in life you take what you can get, rather than wait around for the perfect situation. What happened with the Fort/View project was we had what looked like a quality proposal that was beaten to death due to one potentially negative aspect. Are we really better off having this parking lot in perpetuity? A downtown isn't supposed to be micro-managed to perfection like a Butchart Garden.

[Mr Cook Street]

Right.  It is also what happens when you allow lots that are too small to be developed.  I think the city should allow taller buildings, stop giving out bonus density, but allow density to be traded between property owners.  You build at 10:1, you have to buy the rights so that your neighbors are knocked down to 2:1.

 

I like this idea. Cap and Trade system.

[Mike K.]

But cap and trade artificially raises the value of one property and forces the residents or commercial tenants to carry the financial burden of several properties.

This isn't New York City where wealthy millionaires can afford such dings, this is a government town with most residents earning an average Joe income.

Furthermore, having to bring several land owners on board just to build one tower would be a horrendously complicated, controversial and lengthy process. What we really need is to relax heights and thin out our buildings, but since that won't happen we'll continue to see the chimeras that our blocks are turning into. And the problem is most planners don't even live downtown, and I wouldn't be surprised if most don't even live in the City of Victoria. Seeing a project on paper is what got us the tragedies like Soho where the balconies of several units back onto the Palladian.

[Mr Cook Street]

But cap and trade artificially raises the value of one property and forces the residents or commercial tenants to carry the financial burden of several properties.

This isn't New York City where wealthy millionaires can afford such dings, this is a government town with most residents earning an average Joe income.

Furthermore, having to bring several land owners on board just to build one tower would be a horrendously complicated, controversial and lengthy process. What we really need is to relax heights and thin out our buildings, but since that won't happen we'll continue to see the chimeras that our blocks are turning into. And the problem is moat planners don't even live downtown, and I wouldn't be surprised if most don't even live in the City of Victoria.

 

Good points.