1225 replies to this topic

[LJ]

Well I'm glad you guys gave a blow by blow on the other thread so I didn't have to listen to their drivel.

 

I'm happy the project got approved.

[aastra]

One thing that we do need to keep in mind: as you slowly but surely increase density you'll (probably) also slowly but surely increase the appeal of the neighbourhood. Maybe not true back in the old days, but it's almost always true today. The neighbourhood can continue to become increasingly unaffordable despite (or even because of) the additional homes.

 

This is no unusual occurrence, to put it mildly. This exact thing has happened in several neighbourhoods in Victoria. This exact thing has happened in numerous areas of Vancouver and Greater Vancouver. That's why I'm not keen on banging the density-for-affordability drum. As is often the case, people want to boil everything down to crude numbers and in doing so they overlook qualitative considerations and thus miss the essence of what's really happening.

 

Consider the north end of downtown. If you extend the Hudson-esque mission onto additional properties around there will the value of a condo in that neighbourhood increase or decrease over the long term? Will the rent for an apartment in that neighbourhood increase or decrease over the long term? We're talking about making an area much more desirable than it used to be. It's not going to get cheaper to live there as it becomes more and more appealing to live there.

 

The major misconception here is this idea that increased density -- sometimes even tiny little increases -- will improve affordability at the expense of desirability. It's a trade-off. Increased density is likened to a medicine that tastes foul but heals what ails you. In the year 2016 it's simply not true. The days of View Towers and similar such residential projects are long over. Dense urban neighbourhoods that are pleasant and attractive are very desirable. They draw people. People will pay top dollar to be part of them.

 

So if anyone out there regards this CSV development as the noble sacrifice of a chunk of CSV's goodness in order to stick a lance in the affordability dragon... what can I say? They don't get it. They don't understand the processes and what's really happening.

 

Suffice it to say, Cook Street is only going to get more desirable as the village gets spiffied up a bit and gains a little more variety.

Edited by aastra, 09 December 2016 - 07:57 PM.

[grantpalin]

How do you say, with a straight face, that Victoria has a housing or affordability problem (which pretty much every CoV Councilor has stated or acknowledged at some point) while opposing a modest 5 floor apartment building?

This. Can't have it both ways.

[nerka]

I am guessing most of these self-proclaimed socialists in council (Isitt and Helps) genuinely do not believe (or understand) how supply and demand work.

 

Much the same way as some conservatives don't subscribe to the "theory of climate change," these councillors probably don't subscribe to the "theory of supply and demand."

 

It's the only explanation I can see that accounts for their decrying lack of affordable housing on one hand, and then turning down projects that increase supply on the other hand. The mind reels.

Let's keep some perspective here. This project was approved with Helps voting in favour. Lots of stuff has been approved in the two years Lisa Helps has been mayor.

[nerka]

One thing that we do need to keep in mind: as you slowly but surely increase density you'll (probably) also slowly but surely increase the appeal of the neighbourhood. Maybe not true back in the old days, but it's almost always true today. The neighbourhood can continue to become increasingly unaffordable despite (or even because of) the additional homes.

...................

 

Suffice it to say, Cook Street is only going to get more desirable as the village gets spiffied up a bit and gains a little more variety.

Several councillors touched on the point that approving developments like this isn't going to make Fairfield RE cheap again. What it does do is open the door to more folks living here that can't afford a SFH in the neighbourhood. And that's a good thing, a very good thing.  And those new folks are going to contribute to and add to the vibrancy and variety that makes CSV great.

 

I also totally agree with you that the density should not be framed as a sacrifice we have to make. "Here take some density for the team." A couple councillors seemed to be using that framing , which is unfortunate.

[aastra]

 

Lots of stuff has been approved in the two years Lisa Helps has been mayor.

 

People do seem to overlook this.

[RFS]

yeah but you get the feeling it is in spite of helps not becuase of helps

[jonny]

yeah but you get the feeling it is in spite of helps not becuase of helps

I'm not convinced of this. I do think Helps wants to make Victoria better. I do think she sees the need for change, and I think she understands the role of construction and development in forming communities.

[aastra]

When I complain about the usual suspects and the forces of eternal opposition and the rest, I really don't think of Mayor Helps.

 

When a new development comes along do you feel like she's going to be automatically negative or anything like that? I don't get that vibe.

[RFS]

no but her determination to turn downtown victoria into DTES 2.0 is definitley NOT helping development in the core

[Mike K.]

^yeah, and that's the unfortunate thing,

 

During Helps' term we've seen buildings approved that fit within the 2012 OCP. They're not outrageous nor should they be controversial, but they're positioned that way by groups of protestors.

 

St. Andrew's should have been a shoe-in. Instead it was a drawn out mess of an approvals process and multi-year planning period.

 

Cook Street, ditto. Much ado about nothing but needlessly drawn out by protestors.

 

1515 Douglas is textbook.

 

Legato is textbook.

 

989 is textbook.

 

All the other activity was approved by the previous mayor and council.

[LeoVictoria]

I think you have to consider that they are politicians too.  You can be sure that a LOT of Madoff's and Young's votes come from that part of town.

 

Isn't that a bit odd?  Isitt the socialist is pandering to the elderly wealthy landlords?   

[LeoVictoria]

I am guessing most of these self-proclaimed socialists in council (Isitt and Helps) genuinely do not believe (or understand) how supply and demand work.

 

Much the same way as some conservatives don't subscribe to the "theory of climate change," these councillors probably don't subscribe to the "theory of supply and demand."

 

It's the only explanation I can see that accounts for their decrying lack of affordable housing on one hand, and then turning down projects that increase supply on the other hand. The mind reels.

 

Just like Isitt was against that subdivision because it would produce million dollar homes.  He just doesn't understand how supply and demand works at all.   More million dollar homes is still more homes.  It will ease the supply crunch and do just as much for affordability as increased supply anywhere else*.

 

* as long as those homes are bought to live in and not bought up as a speculative investment to leave empty.

[VicHockeyFan]

Isn't that a bit odd?  Isitt the socialist is pandering to the elderly wealthy landlords?   

 

Comrade Isitt votes the way he does, because... I don't know sometimes.  You will note I did not include him in the list of people that Fairfield homeowners vote for.

[LeoVictoria]

What does "an increased number" mean? What does "higher density developments" mean? Heck, what does "your community" mean?

 

Does "an increased number" mean more than the yearly average or more than the 5-year average or some such thing? Or does it mean more than currently exist? A choice between zero and more than zero?

 

"Higher density developments"... higher than what currently occupies a particular property? Higher than the highest density in the same neighbourhood? Higher than the average density in the same neighbourhood?

 

It's an online poll not rocket science.  

Your community means the community you live in.

An increased number means more than currently exist.

Higher density developments means higher density than the norm in your community.   

 

Sheesh.

[Mike K.]

Comrade Isitt votes the way he does, because... I don't know sometimes.  You will note I did not include him in the list of people that Fairfield homeowners vote for.

 

This has more to do with the fact that the project is for profit. If this were a 10-storey homeless shelter, he'd be all over it.

 

What private development has Isitt supported? 1515 Douglas? 989? Legato?

[Nparker]

This has more to do with the fact that the project is for profit. If this were a 10-storey homeless shelter, he'd be all over it....

I believe I said something to this effect on here yesterday. 

Nparker, on 09 Dec 2016 - 09:38 AM, said:

If the developer had proposed building 1000 individual houses and then planned to give them to Victoria's homeless to use as SCS/SIS it might start to meet Ben's concept of social license.

[Mike K.]

And while we can't put words in someone's mouth, Isitt falling back on "social license" because a series of individuals came out to a hearing and made outrageous comments about a project that falls well within the OCP, is another way of saying he objects private housing, period.

[aastra]

 

Your community means the community you live in.

An increased number means more than currently exist.

Higher density developments means higher density than the norm in your community. 

 

Thanks for the laugh. Or were you actually serious? If so, you completely missed the point.

 

So what's the community that you live in? Sutlej Street? CSV? Fairfield? Victoria (pop. 80,000)? Victoria (pop. 350,000)? Something else?

 

More than currently exist = one more? You seriously believe that a reasonable and useful poll would ask people if they want one more of something? There are hundreds or even thousands of that same something now, but we really want to know if you think there should be one more? Would one more be unacceptable?

 

Higher density than the norm. Good gravy. What's the norm? The norm for the site? The norm for Fairfield? The norm for Victoria?

 

Come on, folks. Some critical thinking, please. That's why I pose these sorts of questions. I'm trying to snap people out of their trances and make them realize how murky their own personal definitions are, never mind how murky our collective definitions are.

[LeoVictoria]

Thanks for the laugh. Or were you actually serious? If so, you completely missed the point.

 

So what's the community that you live in? Sutlej Street? CSV? Fairfield? Victoria (pop. 80,000)? Victoria (pop. 350,000)? Something else?

 

More than currently exist = one more? You seriously believe that a reasonable and useful poll would ask people if they want one more of something? There are hundreds or even thousands of that same something now, but we really want to know if you think there should be one more? Would one more be unacceptable?

 

Higher density than the norm. Good gravy. What's the norm? The norm for the site? The norm for Fairfield? The norm for Victoria?

 

Come on, folks. Some critical thinking, please. That's why I pose these sorts of questions. I'm trying to snap people out of their trances and make them realize how murky their own personal definitions are, never mind how murky our collective definitions are.

 

Holy moly you are taking this way too seriously.  All online polls are for entertainment purposes only.  This is not the census.

 

It's trivial for me to answer this question.   Do I support more density in my community?  Yes.  I live in Gordon Head, the norm is single family houses.  Therefore I support more townhouses and condos in this community.    Apply a little common sense and the question is simple.