97 replies to this topic

[G-Man]

There is some mention about this in the Dream City book I think.

[G-Man]

Policy option Number 3 -

Increasing density in the existing multifamily areas adjacent to Downtown. This will reduce pressure to rezone land in the lower density residential neighbourhoods that are near downtown.

[VicHockeyFan]

[m0nkyman]

Policy number two raises my hackles. This nonsense about commercial only areas is a sure fire way to create a dead zone in an area of town after 5pm. The entire world is trying to fix that mistake, and they are trying to recreate it?

[G-Man]

Perhaps zones would be a bad idea but certianly designating specific sites so that only office can be built would be beneficial. The problem as this document outlines if that if you are given the option between building office and building residential, residential will always win.

[VicHockeyFan]

[m0nkyman]

Or we could insist on mixed use buildins, for example insisting the first five to ten stories must be commercial, and then allow residential above.... with retail or public amenity on the main floor.

[VicHockeyFan]

Policy number two raises my hackles.

There is wonderful new medications to cure that - now available over-the-counter.

[Ms. B. Havin]

When I first heard about Coriolis, I wondered whether they got the Victoria gig because of their June 2006 consultation for Vancouver called "Strategy for Increasing Residential Densities." From that project:

The Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) has asked Coriolis to explore strategies for increasing housing capacity in low density residential neighbourhoods without significantly changing their character. A very large share of the region's residential land is occupied by low density (mainly single family) housing. Residents generally want to retain the character of their neighbourhood and are not sympathetic to redevelopment at high density. In order to increase housing capacity, there is a need to make more use of infill, secondary suites, row houses and other housing forms that increase density while retaining the image of a low density area. Coriolis is examining the market and financial regulatory obstacles to densification and suggesting strategies for adding residential capacity.

Emphasis added. That part struck me as something that would appeal to Victoria... The link for this page (it has moved to the archives since I first saw it) is [url=http://www.coriolis.ca/uparchive.htm:9b9ad]Archive 2006 Items[/url:9b9ad]

On the subject of "commercial only," there's an interesting blog post by [url=http://www.wowflutter.com/2007/01/17/can-vancouver-avoid-the-16-hour-downtown/:9b9ad]an affair with urban policy[/url:9b9ad], about Vancouver having a 16-hour downtown. The blog entry is in reaction to a New York Times article about Vancouver that appeared yesterday (I'll put in the RSS link so non-subscribers can read it:) [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/realestate/commercial/17vancouver.html?ex=1326690000&en=688b70f777c35df1&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss:9b9ad]The Zoning Policy That Worked Too Well[/url:9b9ad]. Incidentally, re. population figures (in reference to West End's density/ pop. #s and what Vancouver population must be up to now), the Times claims that it's 80K for the downtown (out of a city population of 600K), but expected to go to 120K by 2030. No idea if those figures are accurate, though.

I don't know that we really want commercial-only areas, unless we're talking about half a block of buildings or something. A commercial-only area is an 8-hour downtown. At least the "danger" (and oh, all D/Ts should be so endangered!) of a residential-mainly D/T is that it's 16-hours. So what, it's not 24-hours. But 16 is twice as good as 8.

[G-Man]

Monkeyman, That is a possibility but than how do you dictate percentages of office vs residential. Also the U/G parking may be a contentiuous issue.

Still a good point that the city should be thinking about. I am not to worried that Victoria will have a true business only area. It is too small in land size and basically any addition of residential will be an improvment.

Also should say that it won't be in Harris Green

[G-Man]

Also if you look at the required "need" for residential and office there is so much more residential that it will vastly outmatch the office so it would doubtful that it would be a large area of town. Total office build-out based on this report would be about 12 buildings. That hardly constitues a vast area of downtown and certainly not enough to make the city feel less animated.

Thanks for posting those pages VHF!!!!

[VicHockeyFan]

[Icebergalley]

Policy number two raises my hackles. This nonsense about commercial only areas is a sure fire way to create a dead zone in an area of town after 5pm. The entire world is trying to fix that mistake, and they are trying to recreate it?

Dead zone after 5 pm... if that zone was developed... but

But, how much of the downtown would be "sterilized" for many years while waiting for commercial market demand...

We already see a # of "prime" sites sitting and waiting for what ever..

Look how long Victaria had to wait until the market heated up to build on the CG block.. the Y Lot... former car museum site...

Mixed use is a must!

[VicHockeyFan]

[G-Man]

Perhaps the city had to wait but a lot of the delay was caused by the civic process not lack of demand.

[G-Man]

I am trying to think. Do we have any mixed use buildings besides 910 Government? By mixed use I mean office residential.

[Icebergalley]

Perhaps the city had to wait but a lot of the delay was caused by the civic process not lack of demand.

I think we're talking different scale of delay here...

Civic process is just a bit of sandpaper on the projects that finally got built...

It sure didn't take long for the St. Joseph's (Fairfield)site to get moving once the market heated up... City Place got going quickly...

The Chelsea is moving now that it's in a deep pocketed developer's care...

Are there ongoing delays on the Railyards?

[Icebergalley]

I am trying to think. Do we have any mixed use buildings besides 910 Government? By mixed use I mean office residential.

You are excluding The Vogue and Monaco?

Chatham Street.. The Traditional Chinese Medical School with residential over... Some of the Herald Street LeFeueve rentals..

[VicHockeyFan]

[aastra]

85,000 seeems to be the most popular internet estimate for the current population of Vancouver's downtown peninsula. CBC News, the Vancouver Courier, and various magazine articles ([url=http://www.vulcanrealestate.com/content/Docs/0906_Alaska_Airlines_Designing_Downtowns.pdf:3f090]including a good one in Alaska Airlines Magazine[/url:3f090]) have quoted that number. The Alaska Airlines article also tells us that 4,400 children were living in downtown Vancouver in 2001.

“We talked to our citizens about what that experience would be like. They said they wanted the waterfront accessible to citizens, so our waterfront is open to all. People said they wanted green spaces, so we developed a high park requirement, and have put in 65 acres of new parks downtown over the last 15 years. They wanted streets that weren’t just [lined with] towers sitting in unsafe, anonymous plazas, but were lined with interesting things, so we aspired to a domesticity of our streets and developed almost 1,000 row houses that line the streets and provide a sense of graciousness and accessibility. And they wanted to enjoy the views, so we built tall buildings but kept them far enough apart so we could see the mountains and the water, and we have view corridors that extend over all development. We now have views that are protected, even though hundreds of buildings have been built, so there’s a sense of spaciousness.”Creating neighborhoods with a high density of population and an elegant, spacious appearance required a delicate balancing act, but the combination is one of the hallmarks of Vancouver’s Living First approach.