234 replies to this topic

[Nparker]

I couldn't say "like" to your Council photo Mike, lest people think I support the subject matter and not the message behind it.

[Mike K.]

Because Victoria fears admitting it is a city and Kelowna embraces it.

 

Which is so bizarre. Some Victorians continue to refer to the region and its downtown as "quaint." How can you call some place like Victoria "quaint?" Oak Bay Village just might be, but downtown Victoria and the whole south Island region? 

[jonny]

"The tower will be capped with a "glowing beacon structure that will locate this downtown landmark on the night skyline," the company's release says."

Why are we being bested by Kelowna in the skyline game

 

Interior people are more like Calgarians than west coasters. They dream about growth, prosperity, change and achievement, while we dread it. They’re also a lot less likely to get into somebody else’s business, while we have this mentality that everything has to be master planned and agreed upon by umpteen slightly impacted stakeholders.  

[aastra]

"Quaint" isn't actually a bad word. Any city that doesn't have at least a few quaint areas would surely be a very bland and homogeneous place. The center of Fernwood is quaint. Victoria's old town is quaint for a large part of it. Gastown is quaint. But Greater Victoria as a whole isn't quaint.

[aastra]

 

Interior people are more like Calgarians than west coasters. They dream about growth, prosperity, change and achievement, while we dread it.

 

If there are no glories in your past then you're always looking to the future. This is Victoria's major hang-up, the idea that the glories must remain in the past.

[Mike K.]

That's a good one. Reminds me of those 'heritage buildings of the future' comments.

But then everybody knows heritage can only be something old. You can't just build future heritage buildings, for gosh sakes.

[aastra]

 

...Greater Victoria as a whole isn't quaint.

 

Didn't somebody on here once tell that story? An acquaintance was driving into the city for the first time and becoming increasingly concerned because there was no trace whatsoever of quaintness for the first ~15 miles?

[RFS]

If there are no glories in your past then you're always looking to the future. This is Victoria's major hang-up, the idea that the glories must remain in the past.

Not sure if that's entirely fair to the interior or Calgary. They have their own historicL glories of railways and pioneer towns etc.

[Mike K.]

Yeah, but do they have the Northern Junk?! No? Exactly.

[aastra]

I'm just being a stinker, every place has its own past(s), present, and future(s). Being a fur trade fort or a gold rush town or a lakeside resort etc. is no less legitimate than anything else. I'm just saying some places get hung up on one era over all others. Some places turn their backs on the past, some places turn their backs on the future.

[shoeflack]

Interior people are more like Calgarians than west coasters. They dream about growth, prosperity, change and achievement, while we dread it. They’re also a lot less likely to get into somebody else’s business, while we have this mentality that everything has to be master planned and agreed upon by umpteen slightly impacted stakeholders.  

 

Kelowna for sure, but you'd be surprised how much NIMBYism there is in the interior. In Vernon it basically took a corrupt Mayor to push through the NIMBYism and get things built. The whole commercial district at the north end of town, new arena, new performing arts centre, etc...all was a result of one guy basically battling the notion that development wasn't necessary for prosperity. Even the ski hill at Silver Star took a long time to battle through that BS before they could really convince locals that new high speed lifts and skiiable terrain was a good thing, despite it turning the "local mountain" into something of a global attraction. Hell they're just now going ahead with a gondola that should have been there years ago.

Edited by shoeflack, 24 August 2017 - 01:48 PM.

[aastra]

I wonder, when Victoria's politicians see proposals like this in a smaller place like Kelowna or a very small place like Nanaimo do they get outraged? They should, right? Because Nanaimo "is not a metropolis"?

 

(I'm not suggesting that this proposed building will certainly get built, since we all know there's a good chance that it won't, but at a glance it seems much more credible than Nanaimo's other phantom projects.)

[Nparker]

I wonder, when Victoria's politicians see proposals like this in a smaller place like Kelowna or a very small place like Nanaimo do they get outraged?...

"Victoria is special".

[Nparker]

If this strip along Quadra Street isn't an appropriate location for "up-zoning", where is?

...Victoria city council cancelled a public hearing before considering the final draft of Zoning Bylaw 2017 Thursday (Dec. 14) evening after receiving a letter from the Downtown Residents Association (DRA). Had the bylaw been approved without amendments, eight lots along Quadra Street between Yates Street and Pandora Avenue, would have been up-zoned from a 1.5:1 to 3:1 density...

https://www.vicnews....anket-upzoning/

 

[VicHockeyFan]

Ya I kind of laughed. But you know the City, if there is an upzoning they want to get some money out of it.

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 18 December 2017 - 10:19 AM.

[Nparker]

Freedom57, on 11 Feb 2018 - 10:59 PM, said:

...Don't ruin downtown Victoria. We'll just become another American city if we build "up" in downtown Victoria...

What does this even mean? I thought the "fear" was becoming another Vancouver. Now having even moderately tall buildings (and the hint of an interesting skyline) will turn us into an American city? I guess it's a good thing then that brilliant minds of the past had enough sense to rid downtown Victoria of these monstrosities before we turned into another Chicago or NYC.

 

[AllseeingEye]

So after brunch yesterday we decided to take a 'family drive' through my old neighborhood including UVic and Mt Tolmie. Drove up the latter to the parking lot at the top of the hill which I haven't done in at least 3-4 years.

 

Looking toward the downtown core - in spite of what some Change Haters decry as the "Vancouverization" of this town - the city core today really looks little different from that vantage than the view you would've seen in 2008, 1998 or even 1988. Aside from some modest densification the only "new" structures that stand out are the Promontory and the new Songhees tower under construction immediately beside it, the SoFC mainly due to to its white roof and, oddly enough, the new bcIMC building not because its tall (which it certainly isn't) but also because of its light-colored cladding.

 

Beyond those four structures I was actually quite struck by the lack of apparent (change) locally in spite of the pace of new construction over the past few years. Those new additions aside the Victoria "skyline" is still much like a flat tabletop when viewed from any distance. 

[aastra]

Victorians don't like to admit it but the downtown core is large, so it would take an extreme amount of new construction (or, an extreme amount of height) to change it in a dramatic way. It's like when someone from out of town asks for aerial pictures that show the impact of recent construction (because on paper they know there has been a lot of recent construction). The impact in photographs is always much less obvious than they expect. You have to take pains to point out a new building here and a new building there. Unlike in a place like (for example) Kelowna, where a couple of significant new buildings can make for a huge visual change because the downtown is so small and not built up at all.

 

I've said this many times: Victoria's formula is working. Not only do you get a unique cityscape, you also get more cityscape (because you're building two or three shorter buildings instead of just one taller building). The only thing you don't get is a taller cityscape, but then that's why it's unique.

[RFS]

Victorians don't like to admit it but the downtown core is large, so it would take an extreme amount of new construction (or, an extreme amount of height) to change it in a dramatic way. It's like when someone from out of town asks for aerial pictures that show the impact of recent construction (because on paper they know there has been a lot of recent construction). The impact in photographs is always much less obvious than they expect. You have to take pains to point out a new building here and a new building there. Unlike in a place like (for example) Kelowna, where a couple of significant new buildings can make for a huge visual change because the downtown is so small and not built up at all.

I've said this many times: Victoria's formula is working. Not only do you get a unique cityscape, you also get more cityscape (because you're building two or three shorter buildings instead of just one taller building). The only thing you don't get is a taller cityscape, but then that's why it's unique.

I would agree with this, but i feel like NOW we are ready for a real bonafide sky scraper. Promontory, hudson place, 1515 douglas, the new bridge, they are all a bit of a catalyst and I think have primed us for soemthing iconic, say 30-40 storeys

[Mike K.]

Nah. We just tried 30-storeys and were shot right back down to the approved height of 25 ...approved in 2006.

 

Bayview's 26-storeys will push the floor height count higher but the building's total height won't match HP1's 85 metres.