234 replies to this topic

[Torrontes]

95 story condo tower to be built in downtown Toronto.

 

https://dailyhive.co...ronto?auto=true

[Bernard]

For some reason in our region tall buildings are considered an obstruction on the skyline, whereas in most cities they form the skyline.

I have never seen the tall buildings in town as problem with the skyline or views from the city.  

[Nparker]

From a letter in today's Times Colonist:

Modest low-rise apartments are being replaced with expensive new highrise condos and apartments...

https://www.timescol...cars-1.24076283

Can anyone think of an example of this happening recently in Victoria? It seems to me the vast majority of highrises are being built on former empty lots and surface parking. Why this myth is allowed to be perpetuated is beyond me.

[Mike K.]

We will see a small rental replaced by a tower at Harris Green Village, but I can’t think of any other scenarios where this is true.

[Nparker]

Yes 22 rental units replaced by 1500. This seems like a pretty good deal to me.

Edited by Nparker, 14 February 2020 - 09:39 AM.

[Bernard]

Even if small rental buildings are being replaced by new one high rise condos, the net number of units goes up.  Older condos are more likely to become rentals.  It is all a knock on effect though it takes time.   I can not think of an example where adding more housing units is a bad thing other than government social housing that was being built from the 1950s to 80s in major western cities (Grenfell tower in London as only one example)

[Nparker]

It seems as though a not insignificant, or at least vocal portion of locals want developers to build nothing but 3-floor walk up rental apartments for the same cost as 50-60 years ago.

[aastra]

Like I say, it happened a few times back in the 1970s (but those formerly new-and-evil luxury buildings are now old-and-wholesome non-luxury buildings, so it all worked out). But in the 21st-century it's been an extremely rare thing thus far. There was that proposal for a junior highrise on Douglas Street near Beacon Hill Park several years ago, but it ended up getting built as a short lowrise (so no housing gain, in other words).

 

That letter hits everything. A strip mall in downtown Victoria is going to be replaced, so therefore housing is somehow being lost, so therefore wealthy non-Victorians are ruining Victoria (um, London Drugs? We're not talking Tiffany's here), so therefore the medical system is being stretched (those wealthy non-Victorians don't pay taxes?), so therefore driving will get worse, so therefore lines will get longer, etc.

 

Methinks it's ironic enough to be fretting about the environment while defending the worst strip mall surface parking lot in Victoria, but to be fretting about the stress levels of drivers while defending the worst strip mall surface parking lot in Victoria is off the charts. There is simply no way the parking situation on that block won't be significantly improved by redevelopment. Victorian drivers who masquerade as environmentalists don't need to worry one bit about that aspect, I bet a box of donuts on it.

 

We're also seeing that misconception yet again that Victoria's appeal is related to its supposedly low density. Victoria's appeal (the CoV) is related to its much higher density as compared to other Canadian cities of its size. (I'm not saying this confirms that more and more density is necessarily better, but I am saying it confirms that Victoria-style density is NOT the antithesis of Victoria's charms. Without its Victoria-style density, Victoria would be generic. Just a bigger version of Nanaimo or some such place.)

 

 

Now landlords can jack up the rent as much as they want after a tenant leaves, artificially increasing the market value for all rentals.

 

I'm certainly no fan of high rents -- in my life I've probably complained about them as much as anybody, even back when they weren't actually high -- but trying to get as much as people are willing to pay would seem to be a straightforward/undisguised manner of doing business. What's artificial about that? Obstructing new rental construction to further aggravate the decades-old rental shortage... now that seems artificial to me.

[Nparker]

Well said aastra. You should send this to the TC letters to the Editor.

[aastra]

Obviously a redevelopment was going to happen eventually. This shopping centre was an odd fit downtown from the very first day. But I understand why people who frequent LD or the Market or whatever would be bummed about the disruption. I sure hope the Market stays downtown, although I'm not sure where it could go in the interim. Any rumours about that?

 

Anyway, we've all lived through these sorts of disruptions many times. You'll adjust your routines and forget all about what it used to be like. It sure was a big disruption when Safeway vacated Hillside Mall, remember that? (Dude, there was never a Safeway at Hillside Mall.) Or when Town & Country was redeveloped? (Town and what? Are you making stuff up now?)

 

For me it's all about the form that the redevelopment takes, the granularity and the variety, etc. I sure don't want a heaping pile of block-monster monotony, crowned by some generic spandrel-tastic towers. As long as they go the extra half-mile to give it some personality and sprinkle it with more than just one flavour it should be a huge improvement.

[Nparker]

 

I sure hope the Market stays downtown, although I'm not sure where it could go in the interim. Any rumours about that?

Since the project will be phased there's a good chance the MoY will be able to stay where it is through much of the redevelopment. There's even a chance they will get a new home in the Harris car dealership section.

[Nparker]

I sure don't want a heaping pile of block-monster monotony, crowned by some generic spandrel-tastic towers. As long as they go the extra half-mile to give it some personality and sprinkle it with more than just one flavour it should be a huge improvement.

I think what we have seen with the Hudson redevelopment should allay most fears about monotony in the Harris Green project. I realize we are talking about different developers, but I think the Hudson is a decent local example of a large scale redevelopment that has mostly got things right, although I do have some concerns about the final tower's aesthetics.

[Rob Randall]

Orchard House, 1975:

 

[Victoria Watcher]

but does it still have the putting and bowling greens?

[Rob Randall]

That's what I was wondering. If you look at the old ads for the "high end" apartments and condos they always list a variety of wild amenities, most of which disappeared over the years. 

[Mike K.]

Still has the pool!

Man, there are some wild, wild apartments in that building.

[Victoria Watcher]

i think maybe 647 michigan replaced their greens with higher-exhilaration activities like a climbing wall of balconies.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 18 April 2020 - 06:45 AM.

[Rob Randall]

^^Wild as in layouts and view or wild as in swinging stewardesses and nurses?

[Victoria Watcher]

no sign of those greens.  they've really let the back lawn go.

 

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 18 April 2020 - 06:49 AM.

[Mike K.]

^^Wild as in layouts and view or wild as in swinging stewardesses and nurses?

Well, I was thinking more the decor of some of these places, but tell me more about the latter!