1225 replies to this topic

[jklymak]

Oh boy. Stock NIMBY Answer #402 - but there's already vacant retail space around the corner so there is no need for any more retail space less it sit vacant for all of eternity. 

 

Why are NIMBYs always so concerned with the commercial sale and lease-ability of projects? Why do NIMBYs think they know the real estate market better than real estate developers? Why are NIMBYs always so up in errbody's bidness?

 

I think this could have been phrased w/o the ad-hominem implication.  Maybe Mr Rouech would come back for more discussion if not dismissed as belonging to a semi-reviled group.

 

FWIW, I think this proposal is butt ugly and too big relative to anything around it.  If you are going to make something this big here, I think it needs to be high quality.  

[dasmo]

A better design would probably have gotten less resistance.

[Mike K.]

A different design has not been part of the community's narrative, so I wouldn't put faith in something better being received in a different light. And quite frankly better is subjective.

 

What has been part of the narrative, at least according to the reaction as indicated by materials submitted to media or the public from the community have revolved almost exclusively around the following:

- too large for Cook Street Village, which should not be a "large" village, but a "medium" village (despite being the largest village in the City of Victoria

- too much retail for Cook Street Village

- a home for the rich

- empty homes

- not in keeping with the community's vision for the village

 

What has been absent from the community's narrative:

- the development conforms exactly to the City of Victoria's design guidelines for Cook Street Village

- it is one storey taller than neighbouring buildings

- all displaced rental housing will be included as part of the project in perpetuity

- there is demand for quality retail space in Cook Street Village

- Fairfield is an expensive area where supply of housing is severely restricted, leading to high housing costs

- purchasers of Victoria condominiums are overwhelmingly locals who plan to live in the homes as their primary residence

 

And we have not yet seen finalized designs. We've seen relatively rough renderings of what the building will look like but we also know that the architects responsible for this project are known for high quality work. They won't be designing a lemon. We also know that community opposition of development is high and has been a major obstacle in the past with the same tactics used then reappearing now. Nothing is considered in isolation, we can draw conclusions from past events and apply them here.

[nagel]

Are the rental units below market rates?

 

Also I'm not happy it seems to have enough parking spots.  I like it when there's insufficient parking.  This runs contrary to my personal beliefs so I oppose the project.

 

[Mike K.]

Yup, there you go. And you're free to voice those objections/concerns. But are they reasonable?

 

That's the question we ask. Is the opposition reasonable? Does it hold up? Is it veiled?

 

The community's concerns about this project are tried-and-true concerns that have been echoed for time immemorial in our region. It's worn.

[KEN ROUECHE]

The applicant will be filing revisions this week, so keep your powder dry.  However, a bit of fact checking:

 

-the proposal does not conform to the 2003 Cook Street Village Guidelines

-the proposal is substantially taller then 1050 Park Boulavard

-the 9 rental units are market rates and will only be reserved for rental for 10 years

-quallty retail space is needed but why at this location?

[Kapten Kapsell]

I wonder if the city's bike lane plans for Cook Street Village (and subsequent loss of street parking) will increase pressure on developments like this one to provide more parking ?  http://www.timescolo...spots-1.2154626

 

Personally, I suspect that- in the long term (10-30 years from now)- there could be less demand for parking in the CSV (and other areas).  People with self-driving automobiles will be able to have their cars "drop them off" in CSV, tell the vehicles to wait for them in a less-congested nearby area, and then "summon" their vehicles to pick them up when it's time to leave...

[Mike K.]

The applicant will be filing revisions this week, so keep your powder dry.  However, a bit of fact checking:

 

-the proposal does not conform to the 2003 Cook Street Village Guidelines

-the proposal is substantially taller then 1050 Park Boulavard

-the 9 rental units are market rates and will only be reserved for rental for 10 years

-quallty retail space is needed but why at this location?

 

Good to hear that those revisions are coming.

 

The proposal conforms to the recent village design plans and the plan for that part of the City of Victoria. The 2003 plan is out of date and is no longer a viable plan on which to base present-day development.

 

The proposal is not substantially taller than 1050 Park Boulevard. In fact they are nearly identical in height due largely to 1050 Park's first floor sitting well above the sidewalk along Cook Street. Using the word "substantial" implies a height difference of several floors, more even, whereas here we're talking about the difference of a single storey, just barely (if that; it's been a while since I've seen the comparison diagrams).

 

The 9 rental units are displacing rental apartments currently rented at market rates.

 

Regarding retail space, the "why at this location" is a bizarre statement/question. "Why not" at this location? Cook Street Village is in need of modern retail space as evidenced by the market's response to modern retail space fronting onto Cook Street.

 

[Edited]

[Rob Randall]

Personally, I suspect that- in the long term (10-30 years from now)- there could be less demand for parking in the CSV (and other areas).  People with self-driving automobiles will be able to have their cars "drop them off" in CSV, tell the vehicles to wait for them in a less-congested nearby area, and then "summon" their vehicles to pick them up when it's time to leave...

 

Is that what residential street signs will look like in east Fairfield in ten years? "NO autonomous car storage--patrolled by drone".

 

-the proposal does not conform to the 2003 Cook Street Village Guidelines

 

 

Maybe, but all that old stuff is out the window, replaced (or at least overshadowed) by the new OCP's call for a new Cook Street Village Plan.

Edited by Rob Randall, 20 January 2016 - 09:33 AM.

[Mike K.]

Yes, exactly. The 2003 plan is being injected as an obstacle. It is disingenuous to resurrect old plans when an updated plan no longer fits a specific narrative.

 

The problem with the Internet is that people can very quickly look up information and verify data for themselves. I don't understand how community associations can continue to present issues with bias and expect not to be challenged on over their statements or positions. I suppose the immediate reaction is that challenging equates to being intolerant and/or relegating opposition to NIMBYism, but that's not the case at all.

[nagel]

Yup, there you go. And you're free to voice those objections/concerns. But are they reasonable?

 

That's the question we ask. Is the opposition reasonable? Does it hold up? Is it veiled?

 

The community's concerns about this project are tried-and-true concerns that have been echoed for time immemorial in our region. It's worn.

It's not fun anymore if you have to say it was sarcasm.

[KEN ROUECHE]

According to city zoning documents 1050 Park Boulvard is 39 feet, the proposal is 66 feet.  That would be about 28 feet taller than the utility pole on the corner.  All storeys are not created equal.

 

The 2003 Cook Street Village Guidelines are referenced in the 2012 Official Community Plan and are therefore relevant.  In addition work is beginning, in cooperation with city planning, on a Local Area Plan which will hopefully update some aspects of the 2003 Guidelines and provide more certainty for all concerned.

[Mike K.]

According to city zoning documents 1050 Park Boulvard is 39 feet, the proposal is 66 feet.  That would be about 28 feet taller than the utility pole on the corner.  All storeys are not created equal.

 

So let's dissect this for a moment. We know that 212's 66 feet refers to the height from the sidewalk to the top of the mechanical floor, a component of the building on the roof that nobody other than residents in similarly sized buildings (or taller) will see. It's about 10 feet tall, perhaps even higher. Information passed on to Fairfield residents at one point (maybe that's still the case, I don't know) implied that this proposal was six-storeys tall (sidestepping that every building has a mechanical floor component).

 

We also know that commercial ground floors necessitate more height, which bumps up the ground floor height of a mixed-use building (what planning guidelines want) more-so than a purely residential building.

 

Regarding the 39 foot height of the 4-storey 1050 Park building, that height does not include the rise upon which it sits, which is nearly a floor in height, and we do not know whether it includes the mechanical roof. Would you happen to have that information available, Ken?

 

[Rob Randall]

Someone's dreaming if they think the new CSV will tamp things down or embrace status quo. The whole massive OCP overhaul is built on the foundation of preserving residential neighbourhoods by densifying and possibly enlarging major village centres like CSV.

[KEN ROUECHE]

THe 66 feet is what it is.  The development tracker defines it as 6 storeys and also starts that the top floor will be a terrace, including the mechanical room.  66 feet throws off a considerable shadow if you live on Oliphant.

 

The 39 foot height for 1050 Park Boulevard is specified in the zoning.  As to "actual" height, I understand that a member of the community had a surveyor measure the height from Cook Street and it was 41 feet.

[sebberry]

Remember that the mechanical floor isn't the entire floor plate but rather a small percentage of it.  You probably won't be able to see much of it from the street, and the shadow cast is likely to be minimal. 

[Mike K.]

Thank you for the figures, Ken.

 

Using the diagram of 212 Cook posted above, I am able to calculate a fairly accurate height of the structure minus the mechanical floor, which as sebberry has said is tiny and will literally cast no shadow. The building is just under 56' tall to the roof.

 

Using a combination of Google Earth and Google Maps I was able to approximate a fairly accurate height of 1050 Park. From the entrance of the building on Park to the roof, the height I calculated was 37' (fairly close to 39', but of course Google earth is not a scientific means by which to measure building heights). This means that the 39' height listed in planning documents is the height of the building from the entrance (minus the rise) without the mechanical floor. In other words, 39' (I may be wrong but I think the Google Earth approximation is reliable enough) does not include the mechanical floor or the rise.

 

So in reality the 39' building, for the purposes of being compared to a 66' building, is actually 5.5' (approximately for the rise on the northeast corner) and 10' (approximately for the mechanical floor) taller than the community association is letting on, more or less standing at a height of just under 55 feet if we're being fair and comparing it to a 66' building next door.

 

Of course 39' vs. 66' makes opposition far more marketable to a far wider audience.

 

[Edited]

[KEN ROUECHE]

I do not believe there is a mechanical room at the top of 1050 Park

 

The shadow effect of the proposed project can be found on development tracker and it is not "no shadow"

[sebberry]

I do not believe there is a mechanical room at the top of 1050 Park

 

There's a small structure on the roof at the top of the elevator shaft.

[Mike K.]

Every building casts a shadow and every building has a mechanical floor (unless the elevator is pump driven in which case the pump is subterranean) or it does not have an elevator.

 

Note the elevator shaft atop 1050 Park in this Google satellite photo. This box atop the roof is what the community association is calling the "sixth floor" on 212 Cook, albeit 212 Cook's shaft will be wider to accommodate two elevators and the space between them.

 

 

I believe a note to the community association members is in order, as is a correction published to inform the community at-large that the 39' vs. 66' comparison needs to be updated to 55' (approximately) vs. 66'.