144 replies to this topic

[Nparker]

...it's probably the only time I'll say it, it needs some brick.

I agree, and I am known for my anti-red brick stance.

[mbjj]

I love brick.

[Nparker]

I love brick.

Then you're in the right city.

[Kapten Kapsell]

The design has changed again, here are new renderings from the latest iteration submitted to the city on 10 October:

 

 

[Nparker]

It's getting better.

[Jackerbie]

I still think that corner tower projection needs more emphasis! The tower is such a strong architectural feature of the existing church, and it's clear that they're drawing some inspiration from it, but right now it fades into the rest of the building.

[Kapten Kapsell]

This is coming to the CotW this coming Thursday; staff are in favour of the development.

[Kapten Kapsell]

As part of this approval process the designation of this site in the OCP is being proposed to change to "Large Urban Village":  http://fairfieldcomm...blic-Notice.pdf .

[Nparker]

As part of this approval process the designation of this site in the OCP is being proposed to change to "Large Urban Village"...

I imagine the neighbours will consider this request a slippery slope to significantly more development in the area and will urge the city to reject it.

...The City is considering an application to amend the Official Community Plan (OCP) Bylaw for 1303 Fairfield Road to change the urban place designation from Small Urban Village to Large Urban Village. This amendment would only apply to the subject property...

http://fairfieldcomm...blic-Notice.pdf

Have we seen a request to amend an OCP designation in this way to accommodate one property?

Edited by Nparker, 26 February 2018 - 03:21 PM.

[Kapten Kapsell]

I imagine the neighbours will consider this request a slippery slope to significantly more development in the area and will urge the city to reject it.

Have we seen a request to amend an OCP designation in this way to accommodate one property?

 

I'm a "neighbour" (i.e. my home is close enough to the church site that I received the OCP notice in the mail last week) and I'm not planning to urge the city to reject it...

[Nparker]

I'm a "neighbour" (i.e. my home is close enough to the church site that I received the OCP notice in the mail last week) and I'm not planning to urge the city to reject it...

I'd like to think you hold the majority opinion, but this is Victoria, where NIMBY-ism has been developed into a fine art.

[Kapten Kapsell]

These posters have gone up on poles throughout the neighbourhood...

 

I'm actually a big fan of historic preservation and adaptive reuse of older structures, but the poster critiques the pricing of the planned market rentals in the proposed Unity Commons.  The irony is that an adaptive reuse of the existing building would be so expensive that the units would likely need to be luxury condos to cover the cost of the renovation...

Edited by Kapten Kapsell, 12 March 2018 - 07:28 AM.

[Jackerbie]

^ I'm curious if the poster is from a member of the church who doesn't like the direction their congregation is going, or just someone in the community who enjoys the church being there but has no stake in it.

[Hotel Mike]

Hmm. Could Sid Tafler's fingerprints be on this one?

[Kapten Kapsell]

 

These signs have started going up in Fairfield and they reference the new website http://www.fairfieldsfuture.ca .  The site itself mentions 'concerned citizens' but does not actually identify a leader/committee behind the 'concern'.

 

This text is on the site:

The Proposed Rezoning of 1303 Fairfield to Large Urban Village Will Mean:

- 4 storeys at the 5 Corners at Moss and Fairfield Rd.
- Demolition of historic buildings
- No commitment to creating affordable, family-friendly housing
- Increased density in excess of the Official Community Plan and Fairfield Draft Neighbourhood Plan

 

I should note, however, that the implied goals of the site organizers are contradictory:  to both retain the existing historic structure *and* create "affordable, family-friendly housing" would be virtually impossible without a massive cash infusion from a third party.  The building needs substantial seismic upgrading and, whilst it would be cool to see an adaptive reuse here, the cost of a 'loft conversion' would require the units to be aimed at the higher end of the market and not 'affordable' at all. 

[lanforod]

'affordable, family-friendly' is not a part of this development at all, whether is a restoration or goes in as proposed with smallish market rental apartments. These aren't three bedroom apartments with capped rental rates.

[Mike K.]

Fairfield/Gonzalez is a rapidly aging neighbourhood and young families are being squeezed out of the community. Enrolment decline at Margaret Jenkins is approaching 10% despite the fact that our region is experiencing an increase in children and school boards are expanding educational spaces.

 

The "family-friendly housing" argument is being posited to oppose this development knowing that the Unity project is comprised of small to medium-sized apartments. By infusing the "family-friendly" narrative into the debate challenges the developer to explain why there are no provisions for three-bedroom plus-den homes at $900/month.

 

Fairfield is in desperate need of a greater balance of housing and these groups are working hard to stop it from happening.

[lanforod]

There would be lots of demand for 3bd+ den 900/mo (or even 1500/mo) rentals. Until these groups pony up the cash to allow developers to actually make a profit building those, they need to shut-up.

Edited by lanforod, 15 May 2018 - 08:02 AM.

[Jackerbie]

Fairfield/Gonzalez is a rapidly aging neighbourhood and young families are being squeezed out of the community. Enrolment decline at Margaret Jenkins is approaching 10% despite the fact that our region is experiencing an increase in children and school boards are expanding educational spaces.

 

The "family-friendly housing" argument is being posited to oppose this development knowing that the Unity project is comprised of small to medium-sized apartments. By infusing the "family-friendly" narrative into the debate challenges the developer to explain why there are no provisions for three-bedroom plus-den homes at $900/month.

 

Fairfield is in desperate need of a greater balance of housing and these groups are working hard to stop it from happening.

 

Yup. In this case, the argument could be made that building smaller apartments will potentially free up the "family friendly housing" currently occupied by empty nest seniors.

[Bob Fugger]

These signs have started going up in Fairfield and they reference the new website http://www.fairfieldsfuture.ca .  The site itself mentions 'concerned citizens' but does not actually identify a leader/committee behind the 'concern'.

God, I am so tempted to join the group as a mole.  I own a heritage-like fourplex a stone's throw from here and a massive rental operation on my doorstep impacts my own business.  Notwithstanding, I am still For redeveloping the site.  That said, I can't really say that I recognize the legitimacy of designating that one corner of the Five Corners small urban village as a Large Urban Village.  It seems like they're gaming the system and I've never seen this done before.  Is it just getting creative with zoning & the OCP?  Why not just spot zone the damn thing and stop confusing the discussion; though, I'm open to being persuaded that the Large Urban Village designation is the right move for this site.