664 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

I ran into the architect this morning and he confirms the tower is 17 floors.

[Urbanistco]

If the design is completely within zoning, the city MUST approve a building permit.

 

Not totally true... This project falls within a DP area which means that must be approved first. The stratification of units is a subdivision and the approving officer has discretionary authority aside from Council. Last but not least, if there is environmental factors, sea level rise (not likely) or geotechnical concerns, the building inspector can refuse to issue a permit... not saying any of these are likely, just that approvals are never a guarantee...

[Mike K.]

Do we have any inkling on whether or not this will be a rental?

[jonny]

FWIW, the rezoning application signage on the property indicates that the zoning change requests 18 floors.

[Mike K.]

I spoke with the architect and it's 17 floors. I do wonder if there is an 18th floor that is mechanical but still referred to as the "18th" by officialdom. The building will have an enclosed elevator shaft which could be the reason for this.

[jonny]

^ Maybe. That's as good a guess as any. Just stating what the zoning application signage says.

[Layne French]

I spoke with the architect and it's 17 floors. I do wonder if there is an 18th floor that is mechanical but still referred to as the "18th" by officialdom. The building will have an enclosed elevator shaft which could be the reason for this.

 

 

wouldn't be the first time i've seen a mechanical floor being included on the application

[Baro]

Usually mechanical penthouses are not included in a lot of zoning regarding to heights or densities.  It's often to the highest HUMAN (?!) inhabited floor.  Like all those 4 story apartments that have a 5th floor mechanical penthouse or even a little rec room or something.  All depends on the wording of the zoning.

[Linear Thinker]

This goes to Planning and Land Use on Thursday Feb 19 at 9am.

It's still proposed at 18 total storeys including the mechanical room and 2.2m taller than the maximum of 50m.

Edited by Linear Thinker, 14 February 2015 - 11:23 AM.

[Rob Randall]

Reminder on this one. If anyone has a free morning to go and report back it should be interesting. Planning and Land Use is more entertaining than regular council meetings for development because PLUC is where things really get hashed out. By the time it gets to regular council it's mostly figured out. This meeting will be significant--will it be a lovefest like Douglas/Pandora or a bloodfest like Cook St. Village or St. Andrews? Tune in tomorrow.

[Nparker]

...This meeting will be significant--will it be a love-fest like Douglas/Pandora or a blood-fest like Cook St. Village or St. Andrews?...

It should be the former, but something tells me it will be more like the latter.

[Mixed365]

Reminder on this one. If anyone has a free morning to go and report back it should be interesting. Planning and Land Use is more entertaining than regular council meetings for development because PLUC is where things really get hashed out. By the time it gets to regular council it's mostly figured out. This meeting will be significant--will it be a lovefest like Douglas/Pandora or a bloodfest like Cook St. Village or St. Andrews? Tune in tomorrow.

Where and what time?

[Nparker]

Where and what time?

https://victoria.civ...t.aspx?ID=77008

 

https://victoria.civ...960-962_REZ.PDF

 

Here is one comment from a local NIMBY:

A resident of the 12th floor of the Manhattan building at 930 Yates expressed the height should be reduced as his view would be obstructed. 
Must I repeat: NO ONE OWNS A VIEW!!!!

Edited by Nparker, 18 February 2015 - 06:33 PM.

[Coreyburger]

Here is one comment from a local NIMBY:

A resident of the 12th floor of the Manhattan building at 930 Yates expressed the height should be reduced as his view would be obstructed. 
Must I repeat: NO ONE OWNS A VIEW!!!!

 

People pay a lot of money for views. The City of Vancouver has realized this, hence why they have view corridors protected through the planning process.

[Mike K.]

Those are specific to views from specific locations in the city, not from buildings. Nothing in Vancouver's bylaws or planning guidelines protects the views from individual buildings.

They do, however, encourage taller, thinner designs which provide slots for views but one's view of the ocean, as an example, is not perpetually protected.

[Nparker]

Exactly Mike.

[sdwright.vic]

People pay a lot of money for views. The City of Vancouver has realized this, hence why they have view corridors protected through the planning process.

Yeah, if there is a empty lot in front of you, you're only renting the view. You do not own it. It's nieve to think that if there are six parking lots between you and your view, those properties will always remain parking lots so you get to keep your view. If you got sold on a view, looked out and saw a parking lot and didn't research the who what when and how of that lot, it's your lost money.

[Nparker]

Parking lot, 2-storey building, small house, it doesn't really matter; all can be re-developed. Unless you plan on buying all the properties around your own for some distance, you really have no rights to impede development that affects your view. Does Mr. 12-storey above realize that his building likely blocked someone else's view when it was built?

[Rob Randall]

People pay a lot of money for views. The City of Vancouver has realized this, hence why they have view corridors protected through the planning process.

 

Think about it: a building's views extend 360 degrees. To protect their view,  nothing could be built anywhere.

 

Any time a resident has complained that a tower will block their view they get the standard speech from council: as said above, nobody owns a view. Even Pam Madoff will say, we'll protect public views but not private views.

[aastra]

Way back when we saw the first concepts for extremely tall residential buildings at Uptown, didn't somebody complain in the TC about how his view from View Royal would be ruined because he would be able to see the towers? Also, remember the rec centre waterslide controversy out on the peninsula? Some people would sort of be able to see part of the new structure, hence their properties several KM away would now be worthless?

 

It's such a loaded word, "view". One person sees decades of new construction/destruction out his window and believes that his view hasn't been impacted at all, whereas another person sees colourful new trim on a house three blocks away and believes that his view has been absolutely ruined.

 

 

Even Pam Madoff will say, we'll protect public views but not private views.

 

Public views of the historic JSB don't count, of course.