234 replies to this topic

[lanforod]

Someone oughta push for a 100 metre building that is 25 storeys . Sneak that past!

[aastra]

News item from 1968, "Bonus Plan Allows Tall Tower":
https://archive.org/...1214/1968_12_14

 

 

...he expected the two projects "will really spark redevelopment of James Bay" and city planners indicated they regard them as a turning point in the renewal of the area.

Edited by aastra, 09 October 2018 - 05:19 PM.

[aastra]

So the current issue of the TC's "Capital Home" magazine tells me that Shellie Gudgeon lives in a Shutters penthouse. Nothing wrong with that, of course. But I'm just wondering how it jibes with her record for supporting such condo developments. Although I suppose somebody could always make the case that 9 or 10 floors on the harbour in Vic West is "good" tall as versus "bad" tall, and that formerly obscene luxury becomes much more wholesome after it ages a few years and has some maintenance issues, etc.

 

Anyway, I'd file this as yet another example of how a formerly inappropriate and/or threatening development eventually becomes an established and wholesome part of the urban fabric.

[Rob Randall]

^Could be like the vegetarian that  is ok buying a leather jacket from the used clothing store. No big deal because the damage has already been done.

[aastra]

 

...I'm just wondering how it jibes with her record for supporting such condo developments.

 

FYI, I was actually asking the question. What was her attitude in this regard?

[Nparker]

I wish our region would adopt more of this idea

Two Gilmore Place, at the corner of Gilmore Avenue and Lougheed Highway, at least 214 metres when built, would be taller than Vancouver’s two tallest buildings...“We didn’t plan for it to be (the tallest building),” said Johannes Schumann, assistant director of current planning for Burnaby...The city doesn’t restrict building height as long as the overall density is within its limits, he said...

https://vancouversun...-tallest-in-b-c

 

[aastra]

The current "tall for the sake of tall" fad hasn't been working much magic in my opinion. The very tall buildings going up around the lower mainland often look very out of place and for the most part the buildings themselves aren't beauties. They tend to be half-decent (but not great) ~20 story designs just stretched and repeated to be two or three times taller. Don't ask me what I think about the supertall residential buildings in Manhattan.

Edited by aastra, 03 May 2019 - 12:24 PM.

[Nparker]

Quel surprise!

[aastra]

Offended skyscraper fanboys should note that I have eyes in the back of my head.

[aastra]

And I carry a pit bull with me at all times. Mike K. and his toughs might want to think twice before they come after me, is my point.

[Nparker]

A laughable letter in today's TC.

...As a renter, I chose my apartment because of the view. I think this should be considered when the municipal government allows towers higher than the treeline. Rental units constitute about 60 per cent of dwellings in the city. We pay taxes, too (included in our rent), so we should have a say on what affects our well-being. Perhaps renters should be compensated due to obstructed views from new developments...

https://www.timescol...lers-1.23824122

So many things wrong with this.

First of all, how tall is the treeline? 3 meters? 6 meters? 12 meters? It seems to me trees grow to all sorts of heights. Perhaps all the ones that block someone's view should be cut down.

Since when have renters not had a say when it comes to development proposals? They seem to come out in significant numbers at any public hearings I have attended.

How many of those "skyscrapers" are filled with renters? I bet at least 60%. Are these people complaining about their views?

I wish I could be compensated for living in a community where this kind of nonsense is given any sort of credence. 

[Mike K.]

As the adage goes, you don’t own the view. You do, however, pay for location.

[Rob Randall]

Or be like Paris where everything is six storeys and nobody has a view.

[aastra]

 

Perhaps all the ones that block someone's view should be cut down.

 

Cut down trees for frivolous reasons? In the CoV?

 

Seriously though, trees grow. In a few short years the same tree that was once well below your 6th floor window is now well above your 6th floor window. If we really want to use the treeline as some sort of municipal benchmark then are we saying taller buildings should be allowed with each passing year because the treeline gets higher with each passing year?

 

 

Perhaps renters should be compensated due to obstructed views from new developments...

 

For sure, but it should be retroactive, no statute of limitations. Every building was new once. When the writer's building was new it blocked views for homeowners and renters in the vicinity and impacted their well-being. The pain, suffering, and resentment doesn't ever go away. Maybe Victoria needs a "blocked views" tax? It would be a brilliant way to ratchet up the housing crisis yet another notch. The older the property, the higher the rate (because of all those years and decades that the building was blocking views for free).

[Nparker]

...If we really want to use the treeline as some sort of municipal benchmark then are we saying taller buildings should be allowed with each passing year because the treeline gets higher with each passing year?.

Works for me. 

[tjv]

...As a renter, I chose my apartment because of the view. I think this should be considered when the municipal government allows towers higher than the treeline. Rental units constitute about 60 per cent of dwellings in the city. We pay taxes, too (included in our rent), so we should have a say on what affects our well-being. Perhaps renters should be compensated due to obstructed views from new developments...

https://www.timescol...lers-1.23824122

This is wrong on so many levels.  First if you are unhappy that something will be obstructing your view, its super simple, give your notice and MOVE to another rental

 

towers taller than the treeline? perhaps you should move to Sooke, Duncan, etc

 

Rental units constitute about 60 percent of the dwellings in the city?  I don't believe that for a second

 

You do have a say, you are allowed to vote, attend council meetings, run for office, etc.  All the same rights as a property owner for a tiny fraction of the cost

 

Compensated due to obstructed views????  You own nothing you are entitled to rent for 30 days.  Homeowners don't get compensated when they lose a view why should you.  You don't own/rent a view.  Consider yourself lucky that you can move for nothing, whereas a homeowner has to pay realtors fees, property transfer taxes, etc, etc

[Nparker]

I agree with tjv's post, but just to be clear the quote in his/her post was not written by me. I was merely quoting from a letter in today's TC.

[Jackerbie]

...

 

Rental units constitute about 60 percent of the dwellings in the city?  I don't believe that for a second

 

...

 

It's a misquote by the author of the letter. According to CoV, approx. 60% of the population lives in a rented dwelling, but this does not mean that 60% of dwellings are rented. I assume CoV gets their data from CMHC, but I can't confirm.

[aastra]

 

Rental units constitute about 60 percent of the dwellings in the city?  I don't believe that for a second

 

Statistics Canada says there are ~46,000 private households in the city proper, and ~28,000 of them are renter households (which is a bit under 61%, so methinks we can assume this is what the writer was referring to).

 

The rental market report says there are ~17,500 rental apartments in the city proper.

 

Edit: Statistics Canada also says occupied dwellings of 1-4 rooms account for 60.x% of the private dwellings in the city proper.

Edited by aastra, 16 May 2019 - 09:51 AM.

[Nparker]

Even if 100% of residents in the CoV rented, what does this possibly have to do with having a "right to a view"?