I don't think it's any secret that Songhees residents are not typically 25-year-old construction workers. It's a retirement community.
The Songhees Neighbourhood in Vic West
#61
Posted 20 November 2016 - 05:24 PM
#62
Posted 20 November 2016 - 05:27 PM
The major problem of the Songhees, is it went from an industrial wasteland to an urban wasteland. With so many landowners and developers there was no clear overall design. My understanding was it was entirely owned by the city but they sold parts of it to different land developers. Its too bad, that it ended up to what it is today.
Edited by UrbanRail, 20 November 2016 - 05:34 PM.
#63
Posted 20 November 2016 - 05:35 PM
I don't think it's any secret that Songhees residents are not typically 25-year-old construction workers. It's a retirement community.
Which I am pretty sure wasn't the original intention of the development.
- Nparker likes this
#64
Posted 20 November 2016 - 05:36 PM
I don't think it's any secret that Songhees residents are not typically 25-year-old construction workers. It's a retirement community.
It feels like a cemetery where everyone is not quite dead yet.
#65
Posted 20 November 2016 - 05:41 PM
It feels like a cemetery where everyone is not quite dead yet.
Kind of like Ross Bay
Edited by UrbanRail, 20 November 2016 - 05:42 PM.
- Nparker likes this
#66
Posted 20 November 2016 - 05:49 PM
Which I am pretty sure wasn't the original intention of the development.
Not one commercial or retail tenant west of the hotel and south of the railroad tracks. If it weren't for joggers and walkers passing through on Westsong Way, you might think the entire development was vacant.
- Bernard and tedward like this
#67
Posted 20 November 2016 - 05:50 PM
Kind of like Ross Bay
Only with less vitality.
- Bernard likes this
#68
Posted 20 November 2016 - 06:05 PM
the new marina should put some life into the area. supposed to have a restaurant and a coffee shop if I remember.
let's hope the residents don't complain and restrict the hours of oparation.
#69
Posted 21 November 2016 - 08:46 AM
Which I am pretty sure wasn't the original intention of the development.
Developers followed the precise guidelines as outlined by the City. Nothing here was done without close scrutiny and support of the city.
The culprit here is the City of Victoria, not developers. They took prime real-estate and tried to turn it into a faux heritage-meets-the-bizarro-Jetsons-plus-Port Alberni-chic and we have what we have.
- Nparker, Bernard, Bingo and 2 others like this
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#70
Posted 21 November 2016 - 09:22 AM
Yes. The provincial government owned all the land and were talking about an "Expo lands" type of redevelopment, with a mix of residential, commercial, and marine activity. I believe Grace McCarthy was in charge. In the götterdämmerung of the Social Credit Party, they handed over the Songhees to the City of Victoria. Gretchen Brewin and her crew squeezed all of the vitality out of the original plan. Instead they kept approving condo after condo development. Any time there was a proposal for something other than pure residential, the NIMBYs came out in force to quash it. The new marina will be a big help, as will the Roundhouse if it ever gets going.
- Nparker and SusanJones like this
#71
Posted 21 November 2016 - 10:22 AM
Any time there was a proposal for something other than pure residential, the NIMBYs came out in force to quash it.
Who were the NIMBYs? It wasn't exactly in anyone's backyard at the time. It's really too bad that such a prime location for a vibrant neighbourhood was developed in this way.
#72
Posted 21 November 2016 - 02:37 PM
Developers followed the precise guidelines as outlined by the City. Nothing here was done without close scrutiny and support of the city.
The culprit here is the City of Victoria, not developers. They took prime real-estate and tried to turn it into a faux heritage-meets-the-bizarro-Jetsons-plus-Port Alberni-chic and we have what we have.
Oh I am not saying its the developers fault, just observing that the City could have done better in taking a stronger stance in developing a more vibrant community.
- SusanJones likes this
#73
Posted 21 November 2016 - 02:50 PM
It is so dead in there - nice and neat and clean but dead. Compare it to the Railyards area as the life that is on the streets there
- SusanJones likes this
#74
Posted 21 November 2016 - 05:29 PM
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#75
Posted 21 November 2016 - 10:30 PM
It would seem that a lot of these projects are either just residential (with some commercial) or without and projects that are just commercial with some residential like say Uptown.
#76
Posted 22 November 2016 - 06:44 AM
On the water yet the life sucked out of it. I wonder how the residents feel?
#77
Posted 22 November 2016 - 07:42 AM
Railyards is pretty dead, too. It helps having the longest cycling route in British Columbia running through their community, though, but as a community it's not exactly gushing with activity courtesy of the residents.
I think that in 20 years the Railyards will look like the slums.
#78
Posted 22 November 2016 - 11:03 AM
I think that in 20 years the Railyards will look like the slums.
Or the living heart of a vibrant community. Some commercial activity is what that area needs.
- AllseeingEye, thundergun and SusanJones like this
Lake Side Buoy - LEGO Nut - History Nerd - James Bay resident
#79
Posted 22 November 2016 - 11:29 AM
I think that in 20 years the Railyards will look like the slums.
It will if they do not keep up a decent contingency to properly maintain the exteriors. But that rarely happens. Multi-family just seems to get uglier as time goes on.
For example:
#80
Posted 22 November 2016 - 12:02 PM
Other than that "Circus-Circus" inspired awning, is the Savoy really that ugly?
Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users