Jump to content

      



























Photo

Bear Mountain controversy and urban sprawl in the CRD


  • Please log in to reply
120 replies to this topic

#21 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 21 February 2008 - 08:35 PM

Re: aastra: Sure they knew what they were doing, but that's because the didn't realize the value of the things like density, etc that they were leaving behind.

Check out BM in person. None of these pics that have been posted do it justice. You make some valid points, but I wonder if your philosophy will change once you see it.

#22 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 7,116 posts

Posted 21 February 2008 - 10:01 PM

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.

When I said drainage system under the golf course, I meant the drainage system under the golf course. Apparently it's state-of-the-art. I don't know of anything else that could be marketed as "green," environmentally friendly, etc.

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

But who knows? Maybe that's why it will be and already is successful?

Depends on what you mean by that. It definitely doesn't look like it was built at a time when it wasn't so easy to just blast things out of the way, move land, build huge conspicuous retaining walls, etc etc. Back in those days the designers didn't have much choice except to work with/around whatever nature gave them. If that's what you mean then there's nothing old-fashioned about Bear Mtn. Bear Mtn & the Uplands couldn't be more different in that respect imho. If you mean the buildings & houses, etc it's definitely possible to have it both ways (high-end + eco-friendly). I guess the Bear Mtn crew just isn't marketing their product to the kinds of people who really care about that sort of thing though, and it's as simple as that. It doesn't look like they're losing any business because of it though.

#23 jack

jack
  • Member
  • 29 posts

Posted 21 February 2008 - 11:14 PM

MS. B. Havin,

Quigg project is using geo thermal heating.

gumgum - I have been to bear mountain numerous times and love it. One thing you have to see when you are there is the future and not the present. The center market should be up and running this summer which will give it another sense of vibrancy.

Same stuff was said when whistler village was being built.

#24 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,570 posts

Posted 21 February 2008 - 11:15 PM

...but I wonder if your philosophy will change once you see it.


It's not my philosophy, really. More a case of "I'm not saying, I'm just saying."

#25 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 12,685 posts

Posted 21 February 2008 - 11:59 PM

Russia, China, Cuba all have housing for the masses. Tall highrises with thousands of occupants. Totally unattractive, depressing, yet sustainable from an environmental viewpoint.

Anyone want to go take a tour of them - not a chance. Anyone strive to live in one- only by necessity - not by choice.

Worst case of environmental, non-green housing - Castles, great big edifices to house one family. Yet milliions want to have a look at them each year.

I will take Bear Mtn. and other subdivisions that offer something pleasing to the eye, and people desire to live there over the alternative.

Sure - trees have to be cut down, roads have to be built, but the end result is something a lot more attractive than just another communal highrise.

Finally on this site there are a few kindred spirits, thank god, I was so tired of the whiners and complainers who wanted developers to spend their money building something that was commercially non-viable. And of course the luddites that wanted nothing to be touched or changed if it involved cutting down a tree or killing a frog or building over top of an Indian garbage dump.

#26 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 12,685 posts

Posted 22 February 2008 - 12:12 AM

All the downspouts are connected to a secondary system - not the storm sewers. The water from this goes to holding ponds that can and are being used for irrigation.

The on site power generation is a total non-starter. Solar power is next to useless, it would provide less than 1% of requirements and you get those oh so attractive (and expensive) solar panels on the roof. Wind power could indeed be harvested - to supply less than 5% of the required power, at great expense and great ugliness.

The developers have nothing to do with what you put in your house except that you are required to follow a set of guidelines. They are in the business of selling lots. If you choose to build a super efficient house with all the energy saving devices and equipment you can go ahead and do it.

There are walking trails throughout the development, you can walk from the top of Skirt mountain over to the top of Mt Finlayson and around every neighbourhood in the area, and down to the village square which is now under construction. You can also bike these trails if you so choose.

Can you name me one existing development that has a sewage treatment to deal with grey water, I'm not saying there isn't one I just don't know of it.



Ms B Havin

You got a short memory.

#27 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,570 posts

Posted 22 February 2008 - 12:27 AM

I heard a rumour that they're killing frogs up on Bear Mountain. Can anyone confirm?

#28 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 12,685 posts

Posted 22 February 2008 - 12:54 AM

I heard a rumour that they're killing frogs up on Bear Mountain. Can anyone confirm?

Yes - I'm killing everyone I come across.

#29 Rorschach

Rorschach

    Truth is my bitch!

  • Member
  • 758 posts

Posted 22 February 2008 - 05:55 AM

I heard a rumour that they're killing frogs up on Bear Mountain. Can anyone confirm?


It's a good thing, not animal cruelty:

The Bullfrog Project

#30 Maverick

Maverick
  • Member
  • 129 posts

Posted 22 February 2008 - 06:12 AM

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?

If I am correct which I believe I am ,all of the surface water runoff on the golf course is collected in a man made lake with a state of the art pumping system that is used to irrigate the golf course.

#31 Ms. B. Havin

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

Posted 22 February 2008 - 07:36 AM

Ms B Havin

You got a short memory.

Not really, LJ, I was thinking specifically of you and that comment when I wrote "prove." Point me to a link or some bit of literature that explains the environmentally innovative aspects of BM. That's what I'm asking for. Maverick, if what you write about the storm water going to a man-made lake to irrigate the golf course is correct, that's impressive. Is there a link or something in the literature that confirms this?

If BM is doing any of this and it's progressive, it must be part of their marketing or their selling points. Admittedly, I haven't scoured their literature (online or print), but I'd like to see these aspects, if they exist, explained by the BM folks in their own printed/ online materials. That's all.
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#32 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 22 February 2008 - 08:26 AM

There is another big difference between Bear Mountain and the Uplands: one is 5 km from downtown, the other is 15 km. Its not just the character of the development, it is the suburban sprawl. If it really was self contained, they wouldn't need two interchanges for it.

#33 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,570 posts

Posted 22 February 2008 - 10:43 AM

Another article which corrects an error/myth that I repeated above:

http://ring.uvic.ca/99feb19/roots.html

#34 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 22 February 2008 - 04:31 PM

From the article above...

"Olmsted designed a suburban plan that harmonized with natural conditions, creating a park-like atmosphere for all to enjoy."


I am not convinced his plan was very successful. When do you see anyone strolling around Uplands (except a smattering on Beach Drive)? Its pretty, but sterile, and not the kind of place to go for a walk.

Olmsted and his company went on to develop prestige neighbourhoods such as the British Properties in West Vancouver, Mount Royal in Calgary, and Tuxedo Park in Winnipeg. "John Olmsted's ideas had a clear impact on suburban design, and local and provincial town planning legislation across Western Canada," says McCann. "His designs and policies were imitated because they were so excellent. The Uplands area is distinct, and Oak Bay has chosen to maintain that distinctiveness."


Unfortunately, the imitations have significantly deteriorated in quality over the last 75 years. The 70s and 80s style subdivision are the inbred grandchildren of these original efforts. Victoria has actually been relatively spared - visit the Toronto suburbs sometime. Because these rich people had these cul-de-sacs and crescents everyone wanted crescents. I think it is a terrible way to lay out a real town.

#35 Maverick

Maverick
  • Member
  • 129 posts

Posted 22 February 2008 - 04:48 PM

Not really, LJ, I was thinking specifically of you and that comment when I wrote "prove." Point me to a link or some bit of literature that explains the environmentally innovative aspects of BM. That's what I'm asking for. Maverick, if what you write about the storm water going to a man-made lake to irrigate the golf course is correct, that's impressive. Is there a link or something in the literature that confirms this?

If BM is doing any of this and it's progressive, it must be part of their marketing or their selling points. Admittedly, I haven't scoured their literature (online or print), but I'd like to see these aspects, if they exist, explained by the BM folks in their own printed/ online materials. That's all.


I had a chat with the nice folks at BM and had a bit of a tour of the irrigation and water works for the area,it is very impressive.
I would recommend that you make an attempt to talk with someone that has some authority there.
I was impressed and I am sure you will be too.:)

#36 Ron

Ron
  • Member
  • 9 posts

Posted 22 February 2008 - 08:33 PM

This is an interesting discussion about BM and its predecessors. I don't see it designed in the same spirit as Uplands.

Uplands itself was built on hilly farmland and became much more heavily treed as the neighbourhood was completed. A drive through Uplands' serpentine, undulating streets fitting with the natural curves of the lansdcape with rich foliage (including garry oaks) contrasts sharply with bareness of BM. Similarly with Broadmead where the existing Douglas Firs and Cedars were preserved as carefully as possible. On BM, the whole forest was deliberately clear cutted and the mountain blasted. It isn't a question of age either. The paved lots, golf courses, closely packed monster homes and open lawns on BM are not conducive to maintaining a future treed environment characteristic of the classic "garden suburb" such as Uplands. Contrast the wildness of Uplands Park with Bear Mountain.

For a prime example of a low density affluent older suburb in harmony with nature, I urge the readers to take a drive through Ten Mile Point. This area is a virtual urban forest. Sure the densities are very low, but the large properties are filled with natural forests and wildlife is abundant. Abundant beach access is maintained for public use. Flying over Bear Mountain by air versus Ten Mile Point by air gives a contrast between a forest and a giant rock quarry with massive concrete monstrosities. Bear Mountain seems almost proud to thumb its nose at nature rather than celebrating nature. The residents of both Uplands and Ten Mile Point, I would argue are much "closer" to nature than in Bear Mountain. While the residents may be at least as or more affluent than those in Bear Mountain, I would argue the world view of the residents in the older suburbs would be more in harmony with caring for the environment simply because they are living among nature.

Uplands itself is much closer in to town than Bear Mountain. I agree that the city was smaller than but for many decades since inception, Uplands had a street car line right to Downtown Victoria and now is a short bus or car ride into the heart of the city. Bear Mountain relies on freeway systems, a complex interchanges and stuffs cars onto already crowded roads for a long trek into town. BM is already pressing for a second interchange. This will result in more pressure from the residents of BM to expand Highway 1 into a six lane river of concrete and pollution with all of the associated environmental and social costs. The ecological (and financial given the massive public works that will be needed to support it and the other nearbyprojects) footprint will be much heavier from BM than from Uplands.

The boosters of Bear Mountain love to talk about the "complete commercial" facilities including restaurants, stores, pharmacies unlike older suburbs such as Uplands. I would argue that's actually a bad thing in this case because it prevents the residents of BM from mixing with the rest of their community. Why should any resident of BM shop in Downtown Victoria when they have their own facilities and big box stores a short drive away? The result is not good because it weakens business downtown and restricts the growth of the central city as a desirable place to live. What is even worse is that it detaches BM from the community. The residents of Uplands may be elite/upper crust but they are by and large active (probably prominent) members the Victoria community - many sit on symphony boards, raise money for charity etc. etc. and most important of all, they shop downtown often. I don't see BM as being integrated with Victoria in that same way - it is much more detached and must be because of its isolated mountaintop location far from the city centre. Ultimately, I see BM as a danger mostly in terms of the outlook of its residents - indifference about the natural world and the greater Victoria community (in fact, much of BM is marketed to people who won't even be living there). In fact, so far, BM seems to be at odds with the greater part of Victoria with the freeway expansion lobbying, more water use, the urban containment lobbying by that community etc.

I believe that one's environment shapes one's outlook/worldview. The environment of Bear Mountain will shape a worldview that is not conducive to protecting our environment or strengthening our community.

When I criticize Bear Mountain, I'm not saying that the older suburbs are not without problems or have no negative environmental impact. What I'm saying is that Bear Mountain is nothing innovative and, in fact, probably magnifies the problems seen in any older suburb in Victoria on a far, far grander scale. It certainly makes city planning for Greater Victoria much more difficult.

#37 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,570 posts

Posted 22 February 2008 - 10:53 PM

Indeed.

#38 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 12,685 posts

Posted 22 February 2008 - 11:44 PM

"The boosters of Bear Mountain love to talk about the "complete commercial" facilities including restaurants, stores, pharmacies unlike older suburbs such as Uplands. I would argue that's actually a bad thing in this case because it prevents the residents of BM from mixing with the rest of their community. Why should any resident of BM shop in Downtown Victoria when they have their own facilities and big box stores a short drive away? The result is not good because it weakens business downtown and restricts the growth of the central city as a desirable place to live."


This is beautiful - now Bear Mtn. is a failure because people will shop locally instead of getting in their car and driving downtown to support the economy there.

Before, Bear Mtn was a failure because the residents would have to get in their car and drive downtown to go shopping.

You guys are a hoot; give it a rest, thousands of people are going to live there and enjoy living there and while you are arguing amongst yourselves why it is a failure it will be a stunning success.

HAND

#39 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 23 February 2008 - 08:05 AM

If you don't like people writing about how much of a mess BM is, you don't have to read it. As long as there's a BM thread on this forum, people will criticize.
The internet is filled with information you don't want to hear; which is one of its perils as a technology.

#40 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 23 February 2008 - 08:12 AM

^^ That's great, so long as in 10 years they don't whine about traffic and lobby for the highway to be widened, more overpasses added, etc, so they can get to work faster.

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