278 replies to this topic

[Barrrister]

Give it ten years and this is likely to turn into a problem.

[Mike K.]

It is highly unlikely to turn into a problem, in ten years.

[Mike K.]

I think this project will be headed for Committee of the Whole this fall. Could we see approvals, finally, after seven years?

If you want to write council to discuss your thoughts on the project, now is a good time: mayorandcouncil@victoria.ca

[Nparker]

...If you want to write council to discuss your thoughts on the project, now is a good time: mayorandcouncil@victoria.ca

I am not sure my thoughts matter much when 2/3 of council will base their decision on philosophical rather than practical reasons.

[Mike K.]

I hope that building 269 rental apartments is considered practical, for this council. I imagine it will be.

 

We'll have to wait and see how the planning department views this proposal. It's not seeking a rezoning, just a height variance.

[Nparker]

I hope that building 269 rental apartments is considered practical, for this council. I imagine it will be...

With zero consideration given to esthetics, massing or site context. All that will matter is unit count. A 2023 version of View Towers will be erected directly next to the city's ugliest high-rise. We've literally learned nothing in half a century.

[Victoria Watcher]

[aastra]

 

We've literally learned nothing in half a century.

 

We've learned livability should be the top concern. However, we've also learned there are a thousand different definitions of livability, and the definition that we're subscribing to right now on this particular site might be very different than the definition we'll be subscribing to five minutes from now on some other site (or the definition that we'll be subscribing to five minutes from now on this exact same site).

[Mike K.]

For the last 20 years, so many people have wanted something, anything, to block View Towers. That’s starting to come to fruition now. Finally.

[G-Man]

This project is going to be great if built. There is even a mid-block walkway! And also some commercial at the bottom. Council will see lots of units and no cars. I think this is going to proceed. I personally like the look of it myself. 

[Nparker]

This is the version that should have been approved.

Now it's just Hudson House redux.

[Mike K.]

What if the planning department chooses not to support the proposal? How much do you think that would weigh on the current council?

[Nparker]

None.

[Mike K.]

But let’s think this through.

There may be four voices of support that we can assume will back the project based on their engagement thus far, but that’s not enough to pass. You need five votes.

Council also sent the Geric proposal in James Bay back to be re-envisioned.

So from a letter writing campaign POV, this project could use as much support from the public as is possible, if the public wants to see a no-parking project deliver 269 units of mostly entry-level rentals. And based on public sentiment I think that’s what the public wants. But does council know that?

[Nparker]

A zero parking rental? This one will easily get 5 votes on council.

[Mike K.]

Sounds like this is heading for council in December.

This is likely the best time to write to council, if you’d like to voice your support. mayorandcouncil@victoria.ca

[Banksy]

Didn't this project go to council last year or something like that?

 

I want to think Victoria council will support it because it has no parking and that would be what council said it wants to see downtown.

[Mike K.]

Yes, it went before council in the summer of 2022, and council opted to send it for further revisions. It has taken a year and half to come back to council with those revisions.

 

Letters of support can be sent to Mayor Alto and council under one email, mayorandcouncil@victoria.ca

[Mike K.]

Staff have issued their report now.

Concerns over height, which is so curious, considering the tallest building on Vancouver Island has been approved immediately across the street at 32 storeys. Adjacent to it are 27 and 29-storey towers, the future third and second tallest, or at least among the top 5 when Bayview builds its towers (not yet approved, though).

The report also speaks to how this proposal will impact the lot facing Fort where formerly a 13-storey tower was approved but that proposal has since been cancelled, while planning says it wants to taper heights towards Fort. Staff recommend lot consolidation to overcome their setback concerns towards Fort. The last council approved a 20-storey tower on Fort at Blanshard. Now Christ Church is considering a 23-storey tower behind the cathedral.

I mean seven years at City Hall, major housing challenges dominating our social issues, and there is a concern of a 23-storey tower rising across the street from 32-storey, 29-storey and 27-storey towers, and adjacent to a 55-year-old 19-storey tower with 70 more units than the proposal’s 269.

[aastra]

 

Staff recommend lot consolidation to overcome their setback concerns towards Fort.

 

Sigh. I sure hope we're not advocating for another widescraper running from View to Fort.

 

I would much prefer to see two separate and distinct buildings on this lot, with a shorter Fort-Street-style building on the Fort Street side.

 

Anyway, let's be mature about this and not recall that earlier proposal which would have put a Jetsons tower on the View Street side and a very spiffy little lowrise on the Fort Street side (version 1 here, version 2 here). You know, that earlier proposal that was rejected because it was all wrong. Except we're now saying it wasn't so wrong after all. I guess these things happen. There's no way to prevent these things from happening. Over and over again.

 

Any kind of sensible consistency has gone out the window. It's as if the illogical insanity at the political level has fully invaded the staff level.