Jump to content

      












UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Oaks at Bellewood Park
Use: condo
Address: 1201 Fort Street
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Urban core
Storeys: 6
Condo units: 51 (sub-penthouse, penthouse, 1BR + den, 2BR + den, junior 2BR)
Sales status: pre-sales
Bellewood Park offers a unique opportunity to experience nature – a place from which one can engage with the... (view full profile)
Learn more about Oaks at Bellewood Park on Citified.ca      Official website: https://goo.gl/ZzVyg4
Photo

[Rockland] Oaks, Cypress and Townhomes at Bellewood Park | Condos, townhomes | 6 and 4-storeys | Under construction


  • Please log in to reply
501 replies to this topic

#61 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 30,115 posts

Posted 18 July 2017 - 09:15 AM

Someone who understands that you can't go on about a so-called housing "crisis" while maintaining the NIMBY stance on new development.

Ted Litman with Victoria Transport Policy Institute and a member of Cities for Everyone says the "NIMBY" approach can't happen if the housing crisis is going to be fixed “A lot of people support the idea of accommodating more people; they just want it somewhere else.” Litman is pointing to the weekend protesting of a development of land in the Rockland area as a classic example of the "not in my backyard approach."...Litman says it's better for everyone if housing is built in an area like the one proposed for the parcel of land on Fort Street as it is walking distance from downtown...


http://www.iheartrad...risis-1.2865393

 



#62 Rob Randall

Rob Randall

    BIG TEXAS FORUMER

  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 18 July 2017 - 09:23 AM

^Note to C-FAX: it's Todd Litman, not Ted.


  • Nparker likes this

“I mean I just don’t understand the big Texas part, like maybe he’s from Texas? I want to know the back story.”


#63 sdwright.vic

sdwright.vic

    Burnside-Gorge

  • Member
  • 6,574 posts

Posted 18 July 2017 - 11:07 AM

Was on Moss St. for the paint in. The number of heritage houses destroyed by stucco should be the real concern.
  • VicHockeyFan, Nparker, jonny and 1 other like this
Predictive text and a tiny keyboard are not my friends!

#64 Munch

Munch
  • Member
  • 1 posts

Posted 21 July 2017 - 08:39 PM

Neighbours are right, it should be smaller. 



#65 Glen

Glen
  • Member
  • 274 posts

Posted 04 August 2017 - 11:50 AM

Housing shortage affordable or not. Supply needs to meet demands.


  • Nparker and sdwright.vic like this

#66 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 3,209 posts

Posted 15 September 2017 - 03:33 PM

I'm not sure if this article captures all neighbourhood sentiment accurately- it makes it seem as if opposition is universal?

https://www.vicnews....street-project/

#67 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 15 September 2017 - 03:59 PM

On the matter of trees, speaker Nancy McGregor gave the proponents a history lesson, pointing out that the seeds that would become some of the largest trees on the property came from Britain with one of the earlier white settlers in the area.

 

 

Invasive species!


  • Rob Randall, Nparker, Daveyboy and 1 other like this
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#68 Mixed365

Mixed365
  • Member
  • 1,039 posts

Posted 16 September 2017 - 01:46 PM

"On the matter of trees, speaker Nancy McGregor gave the proponents a history lesson, pointing out that the seeds that would become some of the largest trees on the property came from Britain with one of the earlier white settlers in the area. Other neighbourhood speakers brought up concerns over possible changes to the water table in the area given that concrete would cover much of what is now green space, and the potential for blasting on the site to affect nearby homes and older residents’ health."

 

Paragraph of the day. 


https://www.vicnews....street-project/

 


Edited by Mixed365, 16 September 2017 - 01:46 PM.

  • G-Man likes this

“To understand cities, we have to deal outright with combinations or mixtures of uses, not separate uses, as the essential phenomena.”
- Jane Jacobs 


#69 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 3,209 posts

Posted 21 October 2017 - 07:36 AM

This is going to the CotW on Thursday October 26. Staff are recommending that the city move this project forward and are satisfied with the design changes made since April.

City staff report: https://victoria.civ...1050 Pentre.pdf
  • Nparker likes this

#70 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 17,284 posts

Posted 21 October 2017 - 09:23 AM

This point has been made before, but might as well make it again:

 

 

Without being imitative, the form and character of the design draws on the traditional character of the Rockland neighbourhood with the use of brick as a predominant building material...

 

I actually like the brick as shown in the prior rendering, but nevertheless this idea that Rockland has some tradition re: the use of brick is quite cuckoo bananas. Again I beat my poor dead horse re: Victorians really need to make an effort to define their terms. The word "traditional" would mean a thousand different things to a thousand different people.

 

Meanwhile, I bet a donut that you would run into mucho resistance if you tried to build a new building or house with a lot of brick coverage in Fernwood. Out of character, too harsh, too downtown-ish, etc.



#71 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 21 October 2017 - 01:14 PM

This point has been made before, but might as well make it again:

 

I actually like the brick as shown in the prior rendering, but nevertheless this idea that Rockland has some tradition re: the use of brick is quite cuckoo bananas. Again I beat my poor dead horse re: Victorians really need to make an effort to define their terms. The word "traditional" would mean a thousand different things to a thousand different people.

 

Meanwhile, I bet a donut that you would run into mucho resistance if you tried to build a new building or house with a lot of brick coverage in Fernwood. Out of character, too harsh, too downtown-ish, etc.

 

We all know that brick buildings are seismically unsafe even if the building is three feet of solid concrete with a brick facing. There is a traditional Victoria thinking that if a brick looks like a brick, feels like a brick and tastes like a brick it must be a very old brick on a very old building. Most brick buildings built on Rock Land are probably safer because they are on rock, whereas Fern Wood be be less safe...but I think you can get a donut over there.



#72 PPPdev

PPPdev
  • Member
  • 368 posts

Posted 26 October 2017 - 08:09 PM

Back to the boards...

 

http://www.vicnews.c...ack-for-review/



#73 AllseeingEye

AllseeingEye

    AllSeeingEye

  • Member
  • 5,019 posts
  • LocationGorge-Selkirk

Posted 26 October 2017 - 08:24 PM

Back to the boards...

 

http://www.vicnews.c...ack-for-review/

I stopped reading when I got to this ludicrous statement in about paragraph two:

 

"....with the six- and four-storey condominium towers"....

 

In what galactic realm of reality or existence - even in the Bubble of Un-Reality (stealing a phrase from Monty Python) that is more often than not the case in Greater Victoria, is a four or six story structure a "TOWER"....??????????????????????


  • Nparker likes this

#74 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 30,115 posts

Posted 26 October 2017 - 09:10 PM

...The density for the 94-unit project was also considered a problem...

http://www.vicnews.c...ack-for-review/

But as we all know, the housing affordability problem can be solved by building low density projects in the core. I keep forgetting how garden suites are going to make everything better.  :whyme:

 

 



#75 nagel

nagel
  • Member
  • 5,751 posts

Posted 27 October 2017 - 07:35 AM

At least you have to respect the diversity of the opposition as portrayed in the photo from the article.



#76 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 17,284 posts

Posted 27 October 2017 - 10:02 AM

 

"....with the six- and four-storey condominium towers"....

 

We'd probably have trouble finding it now but back when Concert's Chelsea building was proposed (remember the whole "heritage wall" thing?) there was a neighbourhood newsletter or whatever it was that played the same "tower" card.

 

Towers that are actually towers are bad, but towers that aren't actually towers are even worse, apparently.

 

 

...that the development will change the heritage character of the neighbourhood...

 

It bothers me that we would be so willing to overlook the glaring fact that the centre's buildings have never done anything to enhance the heritage character of the neighbourhood. We're romanticizing bland and starkly out-of-character buildings, a swath of pavement, and a fair number of unexceptional trees (some of the trees on the property are indeed worth preserving, I can't disagree on that point).

 

Anyway, this brings us back to that Chelsea project. There was much hysteria, much doomsaying, etc. So in the end did the Chelsea change the heritage character of the neighbourhood? Yes, it actually did. It enhanced the heritage character of the neighbourhood, because it's a very fine lowrise project.

 

Pic...

 

Another pic...

 

There have been innumerable past uproars and innumerable grim prognostications that have never come to pass. Methinks people wouldn't be nearly so anxious if they'd just start to honestly consider the long list of attractive 21st-century projects, and how those projects ultimately made their respective neighbourhoods better.

 

 

“We don’t need more luxury condos. We don’t need luxury, three-storey townhouses with elevators, and we don’t need all the underground parking. We desperately need more affordable options.”

 

What's the message here? We're saying fancy & expensive homes have no place in Rockland? Is that really how you honour a neighbourhood's distinctive identity and history... by subverting it?


  • Nparker likes this

#77 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 17,284 posts

Posted 27 October 2017 - 10:12 AM

 

Methinks people wouldn't be nearly so anxious if they'd just start to honestly consider the long list of attractive 21st-century projects, and how those projects ultimately made their respective neighbourhoods better.

 

Bad developments can and do still happen, of course. But people act as if disasters are the rule rather than the exception. Like I say, they just need to take a break and do some honest evaluations of various recent projects. Nothing that we've seen of this project so far should raise any red flags re: a potential disaster in a making.



#78 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 30,115 posts

Posted 27 October 2017 - 10:18 AM

 

“We don’t need more luxury condos. We don’t need luxury, three-storey townhouses with elevators, and we don’t need all the underground parking. We desperately need more affordable options.”

So these same Rockland naysayers would be happy to see a proposal for a 10-storey box as long as it had surface parking, was cheaply built and only catered to low-income people?

Veiling your NIMBYism in alleged concern for affordability is pretty tacky and demonstrably false.


  • VicHockeyFan, zoomer, aastra and 2 others like this

#79 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 27 October 2017 - 10:23 AM

Veiling your NIMBYism in alleged concern for affordability is pretty tacky and demonstrably false.

 

Yup.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#80 Glen

Glen
  • Member
  • 274 posts

Posted 05 November 2017 - 06:39 PM

So we wonder why the costs to build become more and more?

 

Keeping developers in a run around with arguments that are truthfully about NIMBY issues (4 floors a TOWER) is only further driving up the costs to build.  These projects will get built and then these added costs will be translated into yet a new high price per sq. ft.   These same objectors then ask for affordable options from the same developers.

 

Let's not forget builders require investment backers and these investors require returns on investment to make these projects viable. Additional housing and new densities further add to the cities tax base, offsetting potential tax increases.

 

Should developers walk away form a potential development site due to unreasonable expectations, perhaps we should direct the city to purchase these lands and build government supported housing on the scale these objectors want to see built.  Should the costs to build these smaller buildings/density be more costly they should be subsidized by tax dollars.  Win Win


  • VicHockeyFan likes this

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users