Jump to content

      













Photo

Building tall in Victoria


  • Please log in to reply
151 replies to this topic

#141 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,957 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 09:59 AM

 

...what does this possibly have to do with having a "right to a view"?

 

It should be self-evident that such notions are absurd. If every view were guaranteed then it wouldn't be possible to build anything, anywhere. Somebody's view would always be impacted, whether building big or small, whether building short or tall, and whether viewed from nearby or afar. And what constitutes a preserved view as versus an altered view as versus a ruined/eliminated view? We've talked about it countless times, how things like the Empress Hotel, the legislative buildings, the RBCM etc. were all massive view blockers that stole harbour views from huge numbers of homes and businesses. So did those buildings ruin the view or didn't they?


Edited by aastra, 16 May 2019 - 10:00 AM.

  • Nparker likes this

#142 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 50,553 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 10:01 AM

If you’re looking out from within, certainly not!

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#143 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,675 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 11:06 AM

A good illustration as to why no one has (or will ever have) a view in downtown Victoria.

flat top-1.JPG

flat top-2.JPG
 



#144 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 10,221 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 11:12 AM

Here's the James Bay mudflats in 1893. Nobody has a view here.

 

13043468_10153395920685740_2768949170865761391_n.jpg


"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#145 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,675 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 11:14 AM

Not even the renters? I hope they were compensated for that.



#146 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,957 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 11:14 AM

Cookie-cutter architecture, too.


  • Nparker likes this

#147 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,957 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 11:16 AM

Hang some towels to dry over your balcony railing today and see what the reaction is.


  • Rob Randall likes this

#148 tjv

tjv
  • Member
  • 2,403 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 11:41 AM

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.

Where I think it becomes misgiving is the amount of illegal basement suites, if a house has one then that entire house is counted as a renter household even thou the owners live there too?

 

17,500 rental apartments still seems high, but I guess I will believe it



#149 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 10,221 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 12:05 PM

I know a house that is occupied by the owners and it also has a rental suite and an airbnb room. How is that counted?


"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#150 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,675 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 12:33 PM

The owners are allowed to have a view, but the renters and Air BnB guests must wear blindfolds.



#151 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,957 posts

Posted 16 May 2019 - 12:50 PM

I suppose we'd need to read up on their definitions re: what a household is, what a dwelling is, etc.



#152 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,957 posts

Posted 07 August 2019 - 08:51 AM

A comment and a reply re: "The need for granularity in urban design". If developers can't build tall in the air then they'll build long around the ground:
 

 

Isn't course-grained urbanism inevitable when land costs are high and height is limited by zoning? On a high-priced piece of land, a landowner must build a lot of units to make a profit. And height limits prevent the landowner from doing this by building tall,thin buildings- so the only alternative is the kind of long, coarse-grained buildings seen above.
 
*****
 
It may be that our economic functions have scaled to such a degree that granular urbanism is outdated - i.e. the market isn't calling for a bunch of small businesses doing small things, but a bunch of large businesses doing large things. And this inevitably will be reflected in the build pattern. As you say, if these large corporations can't build long, stand-alone entities vertically, they'll do so horizontally.


 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users