Jump to content

      



























Photo

Bear Mountain controversy and urban sprawl in the CRD


  • Please log in to reply
120 replies to this topic

#1 ressen

ressen
  • Member
  • 539 posts

Posted 04 February 2007 - 04:15 PM

In an other thread someone lamented the loss of trees for the sake of development, indicating that everyone should live concentrated in the city to save the forest. Some people feel that Langford is the scourge of an urban core and the worst that suburbia has to offer. Mountains, trees, and ALR land have all fallen under the developers buildings in Langford, but there is yet more land beyond her borders that are threatened even as you read this. The time to act is surely now before more tree-farm licences are removed, allowing the forest companies to sell the land to the highest bidder, to do with it what they will. The most threatened land that I can think of at the moment is the land that runs on the East side and parallel to the Sooke River and some land near Glinz Lake. When Langford is finished building out to its edges look for more suburban sprawl. Langford is doing a good job of adding density in the core, similar to what Sidney has done. So you can keep the wall at McKenzie/Admirals and discourage the Westerners from coming in to the big city, but know that the Westshore will only grow in population and is here stay.

#2 ressen

ressen
  • Member
  • 539 posts

Posted 04 February 2007 - 04:26 PM


The red stars are tree-farm and private the blue stars are tree-farms and private. Have you contributed to the TLC ( The Land Conservancy) lately?

#3 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,786 posts

Posted 04 February 2007 - 04:57 PM

Thanks for starting this thread Ressen and I should qualify a couple of my statements. I think that the the Western Communities do now and will continue in th efuture to play a vital role for the capital. But we need to fous on redeveloping and intensifying those areas already in Langford rather than continuing to spread it out.

Also the tree farm license is a big issue right at this moment especially if the Provincial Government continues to allow the negative use of these lands rather than being used as they are meant, as a tree farm.

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#4 ressen

ressen
  • Member
  • 539 posts

Posted 04 February 2007 - 06:11 PM

All of Langford including Bear Mountain was indeed at one time a brownfield area. The forest and lumber was first harvested in these areas to help build early Victoria. Every development today is cutting second or third growth trees, as there are very few if any old growth trees on the South Island. I'm not advocating that trees be cut down but just arguing that what looks pristine today had already been logged before.

#5 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,786 posts

Posted 04 February 2007 - 06:21 PM

And I would argue that having it remain a tree farm, meaning that it does get logged every 30 or forty years is of more benefit than continuing to spread suburbia.

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#6 ressen

ressen
  • Member
  • 539 posts

Posted 04 February 2007 - 06:22 PM

See also article "GREEN DREAMS" in 'Out Door Recreation' CRD Park in the Sooke Hills, top of page two.

#7 ressen

ressen
  • Member
  • 539 posts

Posted 04 February 2007 - 06:27 PM

Langford is a lost cause as far as protection is concerned. All land is fair game for the developer. There may be a few pockets that will be protected but no large tracts of land. We need to look further afield at the sooke hills as the next area worthy of protection.

#8 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 04 February 2007 - 06:39 PM

Anyone care to speculate on what happens 50 or even 100 years from now assuming a large increase in population?

A)Sprawl extends unbroken westward--Victoria begins to look more like the Vancouver.

B)Sprawl leapfrogs over a forested urban containment boundary/park and creates a distinct new urban area somewhere around Jordan River/Port Renfrew--a companion city to Victoria and Duncan on the South Island.

C)Present CRD boundaries more or less contained--new development in the South Island occurs in the Cowichan Valley
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#9 ressen

ressen
  • Member
  • 539 posts

Posted 04 February 2007 - 06:44 PM

Excellent Question. And with that I am going to start a new topic.

#10 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 04 February 2007 - 09:36 PM

So glad someone started this thread. It's important to educate people, myself included, on details of what's happening to the wilderness in our backyard. As depressing as it is.

#11 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 04 February 2007 - 10:47 PM

This seminar might be relevant:

http://www.selkirk-m...opwithcare.html
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#12 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 11 April 2007 - 03:05 PM

Please be advised that the Consultation Period for the amendment of the
Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) has been extended from April 25, 2007
until May 9, 2007. The CRD will continue to accept comments on the
consultation draft of the proposed amendment until this later date.
Comments may be submitted online, by fax, or by standard mail:

- Online submissions:

http://www.crd.bc.ca... ... nt/comment

The CRD will be holding a Public
Information Session on the proposed amendment this evening (Wednesday,
April 11, 2007), from 7-9 PM at the CRD Building, 625 Fisgard Street.
All interested parties are welcome to attend.

The Public Information Session will include a general presentation of the Regional Growth Strategy, and a detailed presentation of the proposed amendment. The session will be structured as an informal dialogue between CRD staff and the public. Questions and comments are encouraged.


Additional information on the RGS and the proposed amendment may also
be obtained through the CRD's Growth Management website:

http://www.crd.bc.ca...planning/growth

#13 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 21 February 2008 - 06:48 PM

So we should keep doing what we've been doing for the past fifty years because that's the way it's been done?
How well are these car oriented neighbourhoods working for us so far?
No one should criticize them because developments like BM are using the same technology and city designs that were being used in the fifties?


But how can you say "and rightly so"? Uplands is no more right or wrong than Gordon Head or Oak Bay or Broadmead or Cordova Bay or Triangle Mountain or any other residential area of Victoria. Are you saying that it would be right to oppose all of those areas, too?

If these neighbourhoods, were being designed and built today I would most certainly have a lot to say about it. Take Gordon Head for example. I'm willing to bet that 95% of people have to drive to pick up a carton of milk. Broadmead the same. At least Cordova Bay actually has a walkable village center, even though most in that neighbourhood people can't catch a bus to get to it and it's too far to walk. All of these existing neighbourhoods are jammed packed with huge faults and should have been designed more intelligently. Trouble is, when they were created, we didn't know what we do now. Density, smartgrowth, green technologies, etc. But the fact is they are here now and we have to work on improving them. Whereas BM was starting from scratch and still chose a route that's easy, profitable, destructive and unimaginative.

Once again, the mistakes of our past should not be justifying the mistakes of today.

#14 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 7,116 posts

Posted 21 February 2008 - 06:55 PM

The Uplands was a planned residential community (and upscale, too) from the start, no farming. I believe it was in fact Victoria's first planned neighbourhood (of that type -- well-off, an enclave), but I could be mistaken. Anyone have that history at their fingertips?

Cattle Pt got its name because there was a cattle farm there owned by HBC. Boats would go up to the shore & push the cattle overoard & they would swim/wade to shore. Whether it was the first planned neighbourhood I have no idea. It was only planned out in ~1910 (?) so maybe not. Maybe Fairfield or Rockland is older. Fairfield was James Douglas' land at one point & Rockland was Dunsmuir's.


I still think Bear Mountain could have done a much better job in terms of building in green technologies (or rather: done a job, any job, because it's still my understanding that there's nothing forward-thinking in any of the infrastructure up there). Had it done that, it could truly lay claim to being a modern Uplands that still turns people's heads decades from today. But its disregard of environmental design might well mean that it'll feature negatively in an Atlantic article 50 years hence.

BTW, if anyone can prove me wrong regarding my assumption that Bear Mountain is an utterly conventionally-built development, I'm eager to hear it. I haven't seen anything anywhere that says otherwise, and if it did have unconventional, forward-thinking environmental design features, I'm sure the developer would be shouting it from ...well, from the bare mountain top.

I don't know how something like that could be proven true or false??? The drainage under the golf course is apparently top-notch. Other than that I don't know of anything either.

#15 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 21 February 2008 - 07:06 PM

I thought the cattle was driven from somewhere closer to the core along Fort St, hence the reason it's wider.

#16 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 7,116 posts

Posted 21 February 2008 - 07:22 PM

I thought the cattle was driven from somewhere closer to the core along Fort St, hence the reason it's wider.




#17 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,568 posts

Posted 21 February 2008 - 08:02 PM

All of these existing neighbourhoods are jammed packed with huge faults and should have been designed more intelligently. Trouble is, when they were created, we didn't know what we do now. Density, smartgrowth, green technologies, etc.

I don't think it's valid to claim people didn't know this or that. They knew exactly what they were doing. And you'll find plenty of people in Gordon Head today who would defend its sterile suburban form to the death. It's exactly what they want.

How can you read the following and think they didn't know what they were doing? They didn't want density! They wanted expensive houses in a suburban setting that was nevertheless close to the city.

...developed it into an exclusive suburb called simply Uplands. Divided into roughly half-hectare lots, houses were to have a minimum price of $5,000.00 and no multi-family or commercial buildings were allowed.

I'm going to say Bear Mountain might just be an enlightened 21st century version of an old suburban neighbourhood like the Uplands. By upping the density a bit and by not excluding commercial uses, methinks they're trying to address the various concerns you raise.

#18 integracious

integracious
  • Member
  • 102 posts

Posted 21 February 2008 - 08:17 PM

The development of Oak Bay / Uplands post contact was following in the footsteps of other colonial missions in that Indigenous peoples were moved off their territories and "settlers" moved in to clear land and establish food and live-stock. Little did the settlers realize that Songhees First Nations had established a viable trading relationship with other First Nations communities in the form of Camas, with Victoria as it is known today as one of the northern most habitats for the valuable food source. Wildlife and fish were in abundance. As referenced in the above post with the Archives photos, several men can be seen disturbing a burial site. This was apparently quite common. Though the developer of today's Bear Mountain believes that there has been no disturbance to any burial grounds, one wonders if this is in fact the case.
In terms of disturbing / destroying a cave that many First nations hold sacred near the top of Skirt (Bear) / Spaet mountain, I think most intelligent people would agree that it was indeed held sacred by many First Nations elders, including the ones present when Mr. Barrie stated he would save the cave ( "The Cave will be protected") in the Tsartlip longhouse November 17/06. Aboriginal Affairs Minister Dejong and his deputy Minister Brownsey as well as Les Bjola and Bear Mountain Public relations representative Deirdre Campbell were also there. Many elders have been interviewed in the mainstream press about this very issue and they are still wondering how it happened that the cave was destroyed.
Another parallel between the development of Uplands/Oak Bay that comes to my mind is this: Back in the day when Songhees was being stripped of her lands and food sources the settlers would likely not have known better and unknown at the time was the introduction deadly European strains of illness.
I think that it may not have been the intention of today's developers to harm the traditional lands and resources of the
Songhees/Esquimalt/Tsartlip peoples but in fact they have. Changing watercourses, sucking up a subterranean lake and blasting an aquifer with her cavern empty, blasting her down over 20 feet and still thay can't find the bottom of her. Again stuffing her with tires and geo tech tarp. Her porous sponge like filters exposed for all to see. I have seen it and it makes me nauseous.
All this destruction on one man's word. I for one don't buy it and I think a lot of others don't either. This is not over by any stretch. As sprawl encroaches ever closer to Goldstream we are ever nearer the birthplace of Woman as told by Tsartlip elders. Let's show ourselves that we actually care about something and join together to stop this insanity we call progress. Park the remotes and get off the couch. Our ecosystems deserve and need us to protect, defend them and restore them. The fish at Goldstream will thank you and so will our children.

#19 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 21 February 2008 - 08:28 PM

I don't know how something like that could be proven true or false??? The drainage under the golf course is apparently top-notch. Other than that I don't know of anything either.


A top-notch storm drain system is one thing, but it could be better described (by the developer). For example, an environmentally forward-thinking system would be something far above & beyond "top notch" -- say, one that collects storm drain water for gray water re-use, or for irrigation. That's what I mean. Does the BM storm drain system do that? If BM were using that water to irrigate the golf course, for example, I'd be impressed. If it's just super-good at draining the water away, without re-using it, then .. pffft. I'm not impressed.

Ditto home design. Open plan design is really nice, but what about heating and cooling of those open spaces? Heat pumps? Recirculating air to heat & cool? Radiant floors, to keep warmth where it's needed in winter? Individually zoned rooms? Smart computer technology? Any solar technologies in those homes?

Storm drains are one thing, but what about soil sewers? Anything innovative in that department?

That's the sort of thing I'd be interested in hearing about. BM is a big development. There are scalable economies there -- how much would it have added to the cost of each individual home to add just some of these innovations? If it hadn't been more than $50K, would that really have turned buyers off? Or would it not have made quite a marketing strategy?

Just wondering, just wondering. BM seems terribly old-fashioned, somehow.

But who knows? Maybe that's why it will be and already is successful?
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#20 ressen

ressen
  • Member
  • 539 posts

Posted 21 February 2008 - 08:35 PM





These lots are above Hidden Valley trailer park and Florence Lk.

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.
 



1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users