212 replies to this topic

[aastra]

 

That article is really funny. Not approving the project in front of you since it contradicts the vision of spreading residential growth across the city.....presumably across projects that aren't materializing? Come on now.

 

You don't believe that the CoV would be enthusiastic about this project if it had been proposed a few blocks further into the neighbourhood? You know what? I don't believe it either, because Christ Church already DID propose an excellent project of this same scale a few blocks further into the neighbourhood, and the CoV's response was exactly the frickin' same as their response to this one.

 

It's always bugged the heck out of me whenever opposition plays that card: "We appreciate the effort and we desperately want new housing but unfortunately this proposal isn't quite in the right spot. We wish it was more over here a bit. Thus, rejected."

[Mike K.]

I don’t recall. Was the Christ Church proposal also a development permit proposal?

[aastra]

 

The staff report said the ^­proposal for a 27-storey ­building in that location goes against the Official Community Plan vision of spreading residential growth across the city instead of ­concentrating it in the core.

 

If only the developer had proposed this project for Fernwood or Rockland or Oaklands or North Park or Jubilee or...

 

But aastra! We don't mean we wish the developer had proposed a downtown-style three-tower project in the neighbourhoods! That would be stupid! We mean we wish the developer had proposed twenty lowrise apartment blocks in the neighbourhoods! What's so hard about that?

[aastra]

 

I don’t recall. Was the Christ Church proposal also a development permit proposal?

 

Zoomer summarized as follows:

 

 

• November 26, 2025 Advisory Design Panel (ADP) meeting followed by a revised Heritage Advisory Panel (HAPL) meeting on December 9, 2025 to discuss proposal.  ADP recommended to Council the rezoning application be approved with minor changes including considering "shifting height from 8 storey buildings (B2 and B4) to the 18 storey building to provide a height contrast between the cathedral and the 18 storey building and improve the relationship to the street."  

HAPL recommended to Council the rezoning application be declined due to excessive height/density and lack of detailed financial analysis indicating the project scale was required to fund the seismic upgrades for the cathedral and other heritage buildings on site (which the developer stated would cost $30 - 50 million dollars).

The developer indicated they will submit revised plans with more detail for the development permit phase.

 

[aastra]

^Off topic but $50 million for the cathedral's seismic work strikes me as an implausibly low price tag, if you evaluate the work done on just about any other heritage building of comparable size just about anywhere else.

[Mike K.]

Ok.

So there’s the rub. The proposal would forward refined design post-approvals. Normally when you’re pursuing something of this magnitude, a development permit for at least one phase of the project indicates a dedication to the proposed design. Otherwise you can ride out the approvals based on amazing design, but not be held to it down the road.

[Mike K.]

^Off topic but $50 million for the cathedral's seismic work strikes me as an implausibly low price tag, if you evaluate the work done on just about any other heritage building of comparable size just about anywhere else.

Sounds about right, actually.

[lanforod]

^Off topic but $50 million for the cathedral's seismic work strikes me as an implausibly low price tag, if you evaluate the work done on just about any other heritage building of comparable size just about anywhere else.

 

The others get the government pork treatment.

Edited by lanforod, 21 May 2026 - 02:34 PM.

[Victoria Watcher]

Developers behind a proposal for a three-building, mixed-use project at the corner of Fort and Quadra streets will have to work with city staff to bring the ­project in line with city ­guidelines.

City of Victoria staff had ­recommended outright rejection of the project, which includes buildings ranging in height from 10 storeys to 27, but council voted 7-2 to keep the proposal alive.

It asked staff to work with Pacific Arbour Six, which is affiliated with PARC Retirement Living, to revise the proposal to better align with city policy, and referred the project to its ­advisory design panel.

Coun. Matt Dell said he didn’t mind the size of the project and suggested it represented a vote of confidence in the city’s ­downtown.

“Any building that’s going to put people downtown to ­support our coffee shops, to support our stores downtown is badly needed,” he said.

“I don’t think work-from-home workers are coming back, so this is the kind of thing that’s going to solve that problem.”

Mayor Marianne Alto said there is an appetite for a ­landmark project on the site.

“My only real hope is that it does not take a very long time,” she said, noting an earlier and much smaller version of the ­project went to council in 2017.

 

 

https://www.timescol...r-plan-12312328

 

 

Councillors Marg Gardiner and Stephen Hammond voted against the motion to have staff work with PARC on revisions.

Hammond initially wanted to decline the project outright, and when that motion was defeated, he voted against having the city work with the developers, saying they were being given too much latitude.

Gardiner said there was much to like about the project, from the seniors housing to the ­child-care facility and mixed use, but it involved too much density and height for the site.

“Breaking form with the OCP in this extreme way will not be acceptable to the general ­public,” she said.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 21 May 2026 - 07:15 PM.

[LJ]

“Breaking form with the OCP in this extreme way will not be acceptable to the general ­public,” she said.

 

You mean like plunking missing middle housing anywhere you feel like?

[aastra]

 

Sounds about right, actually.

 

For purposes of comparison:

 

-a 2017 CBC article claimed "past estimates" had put the seismic retrofit of BC's provincial legislature at "somewhere between $700 million and $900 million"

 

-Pasadena city hall's retrofit back in 2008 cost north of $120 million USD

 

-in a 2016-17 report, BC's provincial government put the following price tags on seismic upgrades to various schools:

 

Wellington Secondary – Nanaimo – ($22.6 million) seismic upgrade
Dunsmuir Middle – Sooke – ($11.8 million) seismic upgrade
Cloverdale Elementary – Greater Victoria – ($3.1 million) seismic upgrade
Cortes Elementary Junior Secondary – Cortes Island – ($2.3 million) seismic upgrade
Pinecrest Elementary – Campbell River – ($2.8 million) seismic upgrade
Lochside Elementary – Victoria – ($1.6 million) seismic upgrade

Sir Charles Kingsford-Smith – ($11.6 million) seismic upgrade
Lord Strathcona Elementary – ($25.6 million) seismic upgrade
Queen Mary Elementary – ($19.1 million) seismic upgrade
Dr. Annie B. Jamieson Elementary – ($13.1 million) seismic upgrade
Windsor Secondary – North Vancouver – ($5 million) seismic upgrade
Alpha Secondary – Burnaby – ($27.2 million) seismic upgrade
Montecito Elementary – Burnaby – ($3.8 million) seismic upgrade
l’École Côte-du-soleil – Powell River – ($2.8 million) seismic upgrade
Langley Secondary – ($26.2 million) – seismic upgrade
Yale Secondary – Abbotsford – ($9.8 million) seismic upgrade

[aastra]

^Apparently Salt Lake City LDS temple just completed a $125 million USD seismic upgrade.

[aastra]

Christ Church Cathedral at Burrard and Georgia: multi-year work completed in 2016 to the tune of more than $20 million for seismic upgrades, new roof, etc.

 

St. Andrews-Wesley United Church at Burrard and Nelson: full seismic upgrade, roofing replacement, etc. to the tune of $30 million in 2021.

 

~$50 million for future work on Victoria's Christ Church Cathedral in the 2030s would seem to be an extremely hopeful and optimistic rock-bottom estimate, fingers and toes crossed, etc.