1225 replies to this topic

[sebberry]

These trees must surely cast a bigger shadow?

 

[KEN ROUECHE]

no

[Nparker]

 

 

Sebberry, on 20 Jan 2016 - 4:08 PM, said: These trees must surely cast a bigger shadow?

no

Please explain Ken. If a tree is taller than any nearby structure, how does it not cast a longer shadow than the buildings to which it is adjacent?

[Mike K.]

You know what? I believe the Official Community Plan actually allows for MORE height than what is being proposed here. Doesn't it allow buildings up to six floors?

[VicHockeyFan]

no

 

I think you are wrong.  The trees cast  larger shadow.

[Mike K.]

It would appear as though the last Cook Street Village Plan was drafted in 1985. It was updated in 2003, but I don't know what about it was updated.

[KEN ROUECHE]

Time for a field trip.  Anybody interested?

[LJ]

Mike K., on 20 Jan 2016 - 4:15 PM, said:

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]

Why not just go up to the top of 1050 Park with your altimeter and get the height ASL. Surely HB has keys for this building.

[Rob Randall]

You know what? I believe the Official Community Plan actually allows for MORE height than what is being proposed here. Doesn't it allow buildings up to six floors?

I think under certain circumstances, like a spectacular design, amazing amenities and wide support, six storeys is possible, absolutely.

Don't put too much stock in the guidelines, these things are always considered on a case-by-case basis.

[timw11]

Density is exactly what Cook St corridor needs. 

 

I think 6 stories would be a great start, and I don't see see why everyone is up in arms about the height. 

[Kapten Kapsell]

Unfortunately council has opted to punt this back to the design panel rather than take it forward to a full public hearing.

 

Article with comments from councillors:

 

http://www.timescolo...-plan-1.2161631

[Nparker]

Unfortunately council has opted to punt this back to the design panel rather than take it forward to a full public hearing...

If it fits the Large Village guidelines I don't see why it needs a public hearing (that will only turn into another St. Andrew's fiasco). If tent cities can be allowed to exist with no citizen input and housing for crackheads can get inserted into a residential neighbourhood (potentially without a public hearing) I am not sure why a decent residential/commercial proposal requires such scrutiny.

[Kapten Kapsell]

If it fits the Large Village guidelines I don't see why it needs a public hearing (that will only turn into another St. Andrew's fiasco). If tent cities can be allowed to exist with no citizen input and housing for crackheads can get inserted into a residential neighbourhood (potentially without a public hearing) I am not sure why a decent residential/commercial proposal requires such scrutiny.

 

In this context the design panel review strikes me as a delay tactic... the "full public hearing" would simply mean that it would be on a regular council agenda, people could speak for or against, and it would then go to an up/down vote by council during the meeting. 

[Mike K.]

Is anyone aware of whether or not the Fairfield Community Association has updated its materials to reflect the mistakes identified in their literature concerning the heights of 212-220 Cook and its neighbour to the south?

[Coreyburger]

Is anyone aware of whether or not the Fairfield Community Association has updated its materials to reflect the mistakes identified in their literature concerning the heights of 212-220 Cook and its neighbour to the south?

Not sure. I can ask, as I sit on the Fairfield Gonzales Planning & Zoning Committee.

[Mike K.]

Please do, if you're able.

[AllseeingEye]

I lived in the CSV neighborhood for almost 6 years and IMHO it definitely qualified as a NIMBY haven, nine times out of ten, re: virtually any new proposal. I walked the village weekly, sometimes daily in the summer, and it was rare not to overhear someone barking about "too modern", "not in keeping with the neighborhood" and the inevitable "too tall". Regular as clockwork....

 

Re: the comments a few pages back about a possible CU, IMO although anything is possible it is unlikely.

 

I worked for Coast Capital for 5 years; like any other business the CU's expend considerable time, effort and budget planning their strategic competitive footprint; CCS is the 900-pound CU gorilla in Victoria and already has branches in James Bay and Oak Bay (not to mention the Bay Center) thus making an outlet in CSV unlikely in the extreme. Van City is still quite new to this market - which is considered "CCS territory", just as downtown Vancouver is VC's "turf" - and unlikely to expand in that neighborhood. Their demographic target is mostly young professionals and they typically look to high and dense population growth areas for new branches - hence the focus on the Lower Mainland, Squamish etc - locally the West Shore would be my bet for another VC branch.

 

Island Savings might've been a good bet however they formally merged with First West Credit Union as of January 1 last year and as such corporately their sights are set primarily on the BC Interior and the Malahat "north" on the island, considering their admin HQ is in Duncan.. 

Edited by AllseeingEye, 29 February 2016 - 08:00 PM.

[Glen]

Does anyone know when this proposal will go before city council?

 

Thanks

[Sparky]

^ Welcome to vibrantvictoria Glen.

[Glen]

Any updates with an approval or start date?