1225 replies to this topic

[VicHockeyFan]

How about this comment from the piece:

 

Patrick Mark Venton · 

Victoria High

one sided or the other. The real matter is the health of the area. Too many people fitting into the space will trigger more and more health problems, aka, disease. Population density along with the attractions will make the area a stink hole like the downtown core. More cops . Infiltration of crime. Drugs. And people just coming in to hang out that dont live in the area. Small village, safe and sound....."living well together"..... lol.

 

 

[aastra]

 

 

* The Friends of Cook-Oliphant are not anti-development; we would welcome a development at Cook-Oliphant in a style consistent with the citizen preferences expressed at the LAP forums, including a lower height and larger setbacks from the street.

* We believe the negative impacts of this proposed development far outweigh its very modest net contribution to housing supply. 

 

 

I could have written this for them. The only missing bit is "it's not a bad development but it's a bad development for this location."

 

Again with this misconception about setbacks. Arbitrarily increasing a setback does not automatically make a development better. If your intention is to preserve the current flavour of the CSV then you should demand setbacks that are consistent with the established format. You shouldn't be asking for larger setbacks than what you already have. (Unless I'm misunderstanding and the proposed setbacks are actually much narrower than the prevailing setbacks in CSV... but I have a hard time believing that this could really be the case.)

 

Re: the lower height, if they give in and reduce it to four stories* then what? Do we then claim that four stories is also too tall for Fairfield?

 

*I really wish they would reduce it to four stories. Anybody who opposes an attractive 4-story building in a neighbourhood that contains literally hundreds of 4-story apartment blocks is just opposing by default.

[VicHockeyFan]

God, setbacks.

 

People love this building in Fairfield, no setbacks.

[Nparker]

How about this comment from the piece:

...Too many people fitting into the space will trigger more and more health problems, aka, disease...

I'm presuming the writer is OK with the density of a 4-floor building, therefore all the health problems will originate from the 5th-floor. I wonder how RJH, VGH and other hospitals manage their 5th-floor pestilence problems?

[sebberry]

Patricia Jean Preston·
 

The sort of fair comment we're coming to expect from the Mayor. Let me add a little texture:
1. Most people want development in the Village, but not a building that is about 20% too large. So the difference between the two sides is only about 10 housing units, mainly on the top floor.

 
I'd say it's about 21.75% too small.  But this begs the question - how do we define what's an appropriate size?  How do we scale it appropriately?  Does this size include everything inside of it as well?  20% smaller appliances, taps and toilets?  I don't know if they even make 80% sized light switches.  Or is it just parts of it that are 20% too big?  I must say, it would look a bit silly if the building was left the same size and just the doors and windows were shrunk down.

Edited by sebberry, 06 December 2016 - 07:03 PM.
Still learning to quote...

[Nparker]

I wonder if this might affect the turnout at Thursday's meeting

 

[VicHockeyFan]

Yes, it will have some effect.  In fact it might even cancel it.  I'm sure nobody wants to go out at 1am after the meeting to an uncertain amount of snow on the ground.

[Nparker]

Yes, it will have some effect.  In fact it might even cancel it....

That was my thought. And the CoV council buys at least another week of not having to make a decision.

[sebberry]

If people really do dislike the development as much as they say they do, they'll trudge out in the snow and voice their concerns at City Hall. 

[VicHockeyFan]

That was my thought. And the CoV council buys at least another week of not having to make a decision.

 

Oh, I think this would maybe be the last meeting of the year, no?  They are the 2nd and 4th Thursday each month.  I suspect they will not have one for the 22nd.

[Nparker]

Oh, I think this would maybe be the last meeting of the year, no?

Possibly, so if this project doesn't get the go ahead this week, the developer has to wait until the new year. Again, I must add, THIS is another one of the reasons we have a housing crisis in this city.

[johnk]

First, canyons. Now, disease. What next?

[sebberry]

First, canyons. Now, disease. What next?

Solar storms.

[Nparker]

Solar storms.

A building of such incredible height should protect the CSV residents from too much solar activity dontcha think?

[Bingo]

 I'd say it's about 21.75% too small.  But this begs the question - how do we define what's an appropriate size?  How do we scale it appropriately? 

Does this size include everything inside of it as well?  20% smaller appliances, taps and toilets?  I don't know if they even make 80% sized light switches. 

Or is it just parts of it that are 20% too big?  I must say, it would look a bit silly if the building was left the same size and just the doors and windows were shrunk down.

 

You don't need more that a microwave or more than one bathroom, all you need is a common area.

But I could never live like that but some people can. Some of the independent living buildings for seniors are like that and they love it.

[Mike K.]

I would imagine that 220 Cook's component won't start until around 730-8PM.

[aastra]

 

First, canyons. Now, disease. What next?

Solar storms.

 

Every VV forumer should know the first three albums by Tinto Rocks. Solar Storms is probably their most underrated.

[Rob Randall]

Mayor and Council,

 

This letter is in support of the proposal for 212-220 Cook Street. 

 

My name is Robert Randall and I am former Chair of the Victoria Downtown Residents' Association.  At the time I was very involved in helping craft the guidelines Planners and Developers use in evaluating building proposals.  My goal was to ensure needed density went where it was best suited and in a way that preserved the character of Victoria's residential neighbourhoods.

 

I have met with the developer of this project and have looked over the plans and am satisfied the height and density are a good fit for Cook Street Village. 

 

Reducing the height to four storeys would be a terrible decision, one that rejects the years of careful study of this area. The purpose of enhancing our special village urban centres is not only to provide a wider array of residential opportunities that would enhance the vibrancy of the Village but to ensure that this prominent corner is visually distinctive compared to the adjacent residential area of Fairfield. The vital thing to avoid is chopping down key urban buildings to the same height or lower than the large houses and four-storey apartments in the immediate residential areas outside the urban village. Our urban villages should visually stand out from the surrounding neighbourhood, not blend in to them.

 

Some critics have suggested increasing the setback to this project. I am not convinced this would do anything to enhance the visual appeal to this project. In the past, it was commonly thought large setbacks were desirable but it has been determined that in an urban context, large setbacks can be off-putting and detrimental to creating an intimate urban village feel. In any case, if the setback results in a reduction in density here it is unacceptable.

 

I urge mayor and council to embrace projects that bring visual variety to our attractive and vital urban villages, of which Cook Street Village is the most prominent.

 

Sincerely,

 

Robert Randall

Former Chair, DRA, former member Downtown Advisory Committee, Downtown Service Providers

[VicHockeyFan]

^ Very good.

[Rob Randall]

I hope it's not too wordy. Council already will have a lot to take in that evening. 

 

This is part of a larger rant I have about the visual rhythm of the city and the the puzzling trend to make commercial buildings look like houses in the bizarre hope that they "blend in". Churches, shopping centres, warehouses, all look like bloated houses on steroids. This fear that something new won't "fit in". 

Edited by Rob Randall, 07 December 2016 - 03:31 PM.