278 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

25-storeys at Cook and Yates, the tallest building in that area by far, received support from planning, and was approved by council yesterday, 9-0

A 23-storey tower, opposite an approved 32-storey tower and beside a 19-storey tower, is too tall, described as “deviation from policy.”

Here is the report: https://pub-victoria...ocumentId=94578

I’m not sure how to square this.

[aastra]

 

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.

 

Back when the Jetsons concept was proposed we were all making essentially the same observations, but 2007-style.

 

Methinks this particular saga makes for an informative illustration of how being a stinker today can have all kinds of miserable consequences later on, or even much later on. Seriously, right now we could easily be celebrating the ~15th anniversary of a sharp residential tower and some terrific Fort Street infill. Dozens of much-needed homes, etc. But instead we're still debating.

[Nparker]

Implode View Towers and develop the 4 lots adjacent to Fort-Quadra-View.

[Mike K.]

When the lots were part of a consolidated design, the concept wasn’t good enough, now planning is saying consolidate the lots.

Was there an interim proposal between the Jetsons tower and 937 View under Nelson?

[aastra]

The following boilerplate text from the community plan was also highlighted during the controversy re: 1010 Fort Street. Methinks terms like "cohesive design", "historic context", and "sensitive and innovative interventions" are even more inscrutable re: 937 View than they were re: 1010 Fort.

1010 Fort was innovative. The Jetsons concept for the Fort/View parking lot was innovative.

They always seem to be pushing for lot consolidation. Lot consolidation isn't innovative or sensitive. Lot consolidation is a recipe for diminishing granularity and natural variation in the streetscape.

Here's the boilerplate text:

 

 

The proposal does not achieve a more cohesive design nor enhance the appearance along an arterial road (as visible from Fort Street) through high quality architecture, landscape and urban design responsive to its historic context through sensitive and innovative interventions.

Edited by aastra, 08 December 2023 - 07:55 PM.

[aastra]

 

When the lots were part of a consolidated design, the concept wasn’t good enough, now planning is saying consolidate the lots.

 

Yesterday's problem is today's solution, yesterday's solution is today's problem.

[Mike K.]

Height has dominated this landscape for generations.

A significant highrise is, and has been for time immemorial, the dominant visual presence of the 900-block of Fort. View Towers’ massing is iconic, it’s the landmark of its neighbourhood, for sure. No other building could be drawn on paper from memory by the general public along that entire block. I mean there is that newer office building but could the average person correctly draw its massing? View Towers absolutely is the dominant form there.

But here’s the thing, lowrises along Fort will block View Towers, and 937 View. Neither will be visible from the street, from either side, once 4-6 storey buildings are eventually built where the little buildings stand today.

So in essence, if we’re worried about the urban realm along there and how it’s impacted by highrises, that’s only because there are single storey buildings or no buildings along that block buffering their impact.

[aastra]

Yep, View Towers represented the city's definitive "ugly highrise" controversy way back in the early 1970s, and ever since then we've done anything and everything we can possibly do to safeguard its prominence, preserve views of it, etc.

[aastra]

 

But here’s the thing, lowrises along Fort will block View Towers, and 937 View. Neither will be visible from the street, from either side, once 4-6 storey buildings are eventually built where the little buildings stand today.

 

We've talked about these things so, so many times. Do city planners understand? Does the downtown residents' association understand?

[Nparker]

...lowrises along Fort will block View Towers...

Not nearly enough of it.

[HarrisonGreene]

They ought to fire all the nimby planners who are still concerned with height in a city during a housing crisis. Let’s not forget this is a decaying Robin’s parking lot that reeks of piss. Also, it’s across the street from the tallest development in Victoria’s history!?

[Mike K.]

Yes it is (across from the future tallest buildings on Vancouver Island), and that aspect is missing from the staff report. It should have been referenced. Going from 32, 29, and 27 to 19 storeys (View Towers, with its huge width) is not a smooth transition as described by staff as a visual desire for the immediate area. 23 is just right. 17 on Fort Street is just right, too, for a smooth taper.

[LJ]

Yep, View Towers represented the city's definitive "ugly highrise" controversy way back in the early 1970s, and ever since then we've done anything and everything we can possibly do to safeguard its prominence, preserve views of it, etc.

Was it purpose built as "affordable" housing or was it market housing at the time?

[aastra]

Check it out:

 

 

Daily Colonist
September 19, 1969

Midtown Project Double-Towered

One apartment tower of 17 storeys will face on View Street and the other of 19 or more storeys will face on Quadra...

The first tower to be built, 17 storeys facing on View, will contain 358 suites and cost something in the neighborhood of $3,750,000.

LIMITED DIVIDEND
It will be unique in Victoria construction, in that it will be built under the limited-dividend section of the National Mortgage and Housing Act.

Under this approach, which is designed to provide reasonable-priced housing, the builder, in exchange for money on favorable terms and over a longer period than is usual under private enterprise, must agree to certain provisions.

The enterprise must be financially self-sustaining, but the builder must in effect consent to having his rents controlled by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This is done by holding annual revenue down to a certain level.

Annual dividend on capital for the builder is limited to 5 per cent for 15 years.

There are certain controls on administration of the building, and the "pitch" is made toward low-income families.

...under the limited dividend approach, apartments could be put on the market at a rental at least $20 less than the prevailing rate.

It was earlier stated that rentals would start in the neighborhood of $84 to $90...

The second tower, which could rise to 20 storeys and contain 250 suites (aastra says: but which never happened, because of the subsequent controversy), will be financed through arrangements made by Mr. Mulek and will not be different from any similar private enterprise in the city.

Mrs. Catharine Horne, director of Silver Threads Services, said Thursday that she was pleased with the Mulek development.

"It will particularly benefit what we call the grey groups -- the people who can invest from $100 to $150 a month in rental and this will, in turn, free cheaper homes for old people who can pay less," Mrs. Horne said. (aastra says: but shortly thereafter we all agreed to abandon the idea that new homes and apartments might "free up cheaper homes". These days there's even a $45 fine just for thinking about it.)

[Nparker]

View Towers is a perfect example of how a government housing program (the limited-dividend section of the National Mortgage and Housing Act) seems good on paper, but often produces terrible results in practice.

[Mike K.]

What a find, aastra.

I had previously been told the tower completed in 1969. So what was it really, a 1972 build?

[Nparker]

1969 or 1972 - it has still been 50 years of ugly.

[aastra]

This 1972 article describes View Towers as "completed last year".

 

 

Daily Colonist
March 2, 1972

The grey, unfinished look of the first building, completed last year, has brought considerable criticism from the city.

Edited by aastra, 09 December 2023 - 10:52 PM.

[Victoria Watcher]

So this is going to council this week, eh?

 

After seven years they should have gotten this right by now. It’s everything this council has ever wanted. No parking. 269 rentals. Pet friendly.  No gas just electricity (Mike K’s favourite).

 

Replacement of a surface parking lot.  Am I missing something? There is not a chance a pro-housing, anti-car council could ever not support this project.  It would undermine their pro-housing platform.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 12 December 2023 - 06:11 AM.

[Mike K.]

Yes, in two days.

 

It's the biggest, single-building infusion of rentals since View Towers, I think? Poetically, right? With VT being right beside this building.

 

In the report, the biggest variance would be the height, eight storeys above the DCAP vision of 15 floors for that property. Odd for it to be that low, adjacent to 19-storey View Towers, and (now) across from a future 32-storey tower.

 

Chard just got approved for a 25-storey tower on Yates at Cook.