Jump to content

      



























Photo

Bear Mountain controversy and urban sprawl in the CRD


  • Please log in to reply
120 replies to this topic

#41 ressen

ressen
  • Member
  • 539 posts

Posted 23 February 2008 - 08:30 AM



If I had to choose between living at Bare Mountain and this relatively high density Surrey type SFD, I would choose BM every time.

#42 Ron

Ron
  • Member
  • 9 posts

Posted 23 February 2008 - 10:39 AM

Bear mount may not be a failure for its residents but it certainly is for the Capital Region. The location is wrong for this type of development. High density should go close to Downtown. High density in the middle of a pristine forest a long way out of town is just stupid. Any taxpayer not living in Langford or Colwood will be subsidizing the Bear Mountain residents just so they can live the high life detached from the community and thumb their noses at nature. The price the rest of Victoria pays is not only in taxes and increased burdens on the infrastrustructure but loss of wild areas which are the "lungs" of the city. As far as developments are concerned, rather than constrasting BM with some crummy Surrey cookie cutter subdivision with a project that does work. Look at Coal Harbour in Vancouver for a pleasant, new, upscale very high density project that has little environmental impact. In Coal Harbour the upscale residents can walk to work or to rail systems. The high density did not take out any green space but the residents can walk to Stanley Park. The wealthy residents are not sheltered from the rest of the city as they are in fortress like BM. In fact, there is social housing right in the heart of Coal Harbour. Why don't you compare BM to that? And as far as the quality of the housing, the subdivisions leading up to Bear Mountain look pretty much like standard tract housing to me much like the photo. BM is encouraging all sorts of development next door to it, most of which is hardly inspiring and environmentally very destructive.

#43 jack

jack
  • Member
  • 29 posts

Posted 23 February 2008 - 12:42 PM

Ron,

One thing you have not mentioned is what Bear Mountain is created around. The reason for the location is that it is going to be home to two Jack Nicklaus designed golf courses as well as a golf academy. It is going to be the first one in Canada to accomplish this designation. It will drive many tourists to the location and this is not to take away from downtown. Many people who will be visiting to play on Canadas only 36 hold nicklaus core will not doubtedly visiting downtown to spend some money.


One thing that BM has capitalized on is the amount of land that there is to develop and not just have a two golf courses out in the middle of nowhere. They have created a golf community in a setting that is one of the best in canada. They have also tried to address the issue of transportation by their trolley (bus) system, retail space, etc. Also, if the LRT comes to fruition that will be a big step for these suburban areas.

BY THE WAY, cannot compare Mixed Development (SFH, Hotels, Condos) Density to COAL HARBOUR (condo living).

As for being enviromentally destructive, I mentioned this before, prove it with facts and not rhetoric. There is a big difference between saying something and proving something. Just as with the protesting going on for the interchange. Studies have been done to say that "supposedly" nothing will happen to the areas of concern. However, people do not want to take the word of the city but yet do not want to pay to get a second opinion and have actual facts to prove them wrong.

#44 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 7,116 posts

Posted 23 February 2008 - 01:02 PM

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.


lmao awesome :P:D

#45 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,568 posts

Posted 23 February 2008 - 03:24 PM

...while you are arguing amongst yourselves why it is a failure it will be a stunning success.


This is the Victorian way, because it's win-win. If the development in question is a failure, then everybody who complained in advance looks very clever. If the development in question is a success, then everybody who complained in advance gets to enjoy it along with everyone else.

Lest we forget some of the projects that were going to ruin Victoria forever but didn't: the Eaton's Centre, the new arena, Shoal Point, the Y-lot...

#46 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,568 posts

Posted 23 February 2008 - 03:26 PM

Bear Mountain is supposed to be golf's Whistler, yes? You can't really expect something like that to be built in the city.

#47 Ron

Ron
  • Member
  • 9 posts

Posted 23 February 2008 - 03:54 PM

Clearcutting an entire forest to be replaced with pavement, houses and golf courses is environmentally destructive. Forcing the rest of the city to pay for the burdens such as greater useage on the reservoirs, freeways etc. is not in the community's best interests. Deciding to put 30 story towers and SFH 16 Km from town in a forest rather than redeveloping the city centre does increase sprawl and destroys green space. It is a fact! I suppose though that we are all supposed to forget about the destruction and externalities (costs) because the golf course is Jack Nicklaus designed.

#48 Ron

Ron
  • Member
  • 9 posts

Posted 23 February 2008 - 04:02 PM

I for one do not want one dime of my tax dollars to fund freeway expansion for Bear Mountain, new water systems or even a rail line. The people of Langford and the new owners of Bear Mountain should shoulder the ENTIRE BURDEN. A redevelopment in the centre of the city is far less destructive to the environment, the downtown business community and public finances. I don't care how much of a god Jack Nicklaus is but why should the entire community and the environment for good golf?

#49 Ron

Ron
  • Member
  • 9 posts

Posted 23 February 2008 - 04:05 PM

Jack - you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Coal Harbour is a mixed use community with commercial, hotel and strata units. It is certainly of more mixed use than Bear Mountain as there is subsidized social housing and schools in Coal Harbour. The development of Coal Harbour did not require freeway expansion, new water and sewer lines or clearcutting of forests. So you want a golf course? Why don't you go to Pebble Beach and leave our forests alone!

#50 ressen

ressen
  • Member
  • 539 posts

Posted 23 February 2008 - 06:48 PM

Bare Mountain was built on private land. Its fine to say that it should have stayed green and be a park but that means that we as a tax payers would have had to come up with the money to buy it. If you want to keep more green space in the future then donate some cash to the Land Conservancy so that they can buy the land that lies to the South West of Langford.

#51 jack

jack
  • Member
  • 29 posts

Posted 23 February 2008 - 08:15 PM

Jack - you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Coal Harbour is a mixed use community with commercial, hotel and strata units. It is certainly of more mixed use than Bear Mountain as there is subsidized social housing and schools in Coal Harbour. The development of Coal Harbour did not require freeway expansion, new water and sewer lines or clearcutting of forests. So you want a golf course? Why don't you go to Pebble Beach and leave our forests alone!


Ron,

I owned in Coal Harbour three years ago and still have a place in Yaletown. Coal Harbour cannot sustain SFH therefore you cannot compare it to Bear Mountain. If BM was only retail and condo then the master plan would have been laid out much differently as well as more concentrated.

As for schools there is one planned in BM as well as Ronal Mcdonald retreat and not to mention the sports complex up there. I did purchase at BM but sold my place last year.

By the way, as for your forest it does not belong to you. I guess that is what many people forget. From what I have heard only about 300-400 acres of the 1300 acres is being developed.

#52 integracious

integracious
  • Member
  • 102 posts

Posted 24 February 2008 - 12:03 AM

Hey Jack: Nice to know you have bought and sold at Bear Mountain and Coal Harbour too. If you have heard that only "only about 300-400 acres of the 1300 acres is being developed" I would disagree with that, as I consider the 36-hole golf course development also to be development as well. How many trees have been pulled out by their roots and cut down to make way for hockey players and the corporate elite to flaunt their slices, bogeys and glad-handing business deals. Trees process and filter co2 and they have been removed to lay the land over with grass that requires regular watering and chemicals. This is not without consequence to the land / animals/birds/karsts/reptiles/water tables/springs/streams/or ponds either.
One wonders about the altruism of a developer who stages a photo op with Ben Mulroney announcing a Ronald MacDonald house from the same breathing/speaking apparatus as the one who said "the cave will be protected." (Times Colonist November 2006). I guess it would be more accurate to have said .....Ronald MacDonald House will be protected, as we all know Ronald has been here since contact in one form or another.
I also note that you take exception to the word of the City (Langford) in relation to the tree sit protesters, and state "However, people do not want to take the word of the city but yet do not want to pay to get a second opinion and have actual facts to prove them wrong."
Constituents should expect their elected officials to perform due diligence when entering into agreements with the Provincial Capital Commission, The province, The Ministry of Transportation, The Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations, The Arch Branch, The Municipal Finance Authority, The BC Lottery Corporation and the RCMP. If all this were done above board, transparent, with visible process then we could all see what has been going on. These are public bodies, accountable to the Citizenry and should be remembered in the upcoming Municipal and Provincial elections. As Pacheedaht Nation Elder Harriet Nahanee once said before going to jail for saying prayers for the blue listed red legged frogs at Eagle Ridge Bluffs.
“As the last of the red legged frogs go; so goes humanity.”
http://www.flickr.co...@N00/751993125/
Red legged frogs are going to die in the Spencer Road pond and what does this say about humanity?

#53 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 12,685 posts

Posted 24 February 2008 - 12:34 AM

Red legged frogs are going to die in the Spencer Road pond and what does this say about humanity?[/quote]


Ummm - we are not really keen about frogs????

#54 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 12,685 posts

Posted 24 February 2008 - 12:38 AM

I would disagree with that, as I consider the 36-hole golf course development also to be development as well.

I (and thousands of others) consider it to be very attractive green space - don't forget those blades of grass are breathing too.

#55 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 12,685 posts

Posted 24 February 2008 - 12:44 AM

How many trees have been pulled out by their roots and cut down to make way for hockey players and the corporate elite to flaunt their slices, bogeys and glad-handing business deals.

OK - were they pulled out by their roots or were they cut down??

If they were cut down I don't have a problem - but if they were pulled out by their roots, well thats just plain mean.

#56 jack

jack
  • Member
  • 29 posts

Posted 24 February 2008 - 10:53 AM

Intergraicous said "Constituents should expect their elected officials to perform due diligence when entering into agreements with the Provincial Capital Commission, The province, The Ministry of Transportation, The Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations, The Arch Branch, The Municipal Finance Authority, The BC Lottery Corporation and the RCMP. If all this were done above board, transparent, with visible process then we could all see what has been going on. These are public bodies, accountable to the Citizenry and should be remembered in the upcoming Municipal and Provincial elections"

The fact is the study was done. Let it be behind closed doors or not it was still done. The gov't/city council being transparent is a wish. When a study is done and facts have been produced the only way to discredit the facts are with providing facts agains them. This has not been proved by the tree sitter snor anyone else because they would rather talk the talk, instead of do the work. Saying that the city/gov't is not transparent is a cheap way out of not doing the due dilligence.

If I truly believe in something I would prove the facts, go to the public, and I would throw whatever money I had to prove my cause. In this case, the tree sitters, just keep talking and talking but nothing else.

As for the development of B.C here are some facts:
The size of California is 411,000 km2
The size of B.C. is 948'191 km²

California's population is over 25 million in a place that is half the size of B.C. Our population is 4.3 million. We do not do much development at all considering the population. Not saying we need to do more but I believe B.C., and its citizens do a good job when it comes to giving green lights for certain developments. When certain areas get a go I do not believe people should protest against the majority without facts.

#57 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,221 posts

Posted 24 February 2008 - 12:28 PM

California's population is over 25 million in a place that is half the size of B.C. Our population is 4.3 million.


I am not a particular fan of the Bear Mtn development, but your population figures for California seemed a little low to me, so I checked. US Census figures from 2006, adjusted for growth in 2007, indicate the population for the "Golden" state to be 37,700,000, or larger than all of Canada (33,191,110).

I am not sure we necessarily want to use California as our model, but I wanted the numbers to be up-to-date.

#58 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 7,116 posts

Posted 24 February 2008 - 12:33 PM

I would disagree with that, as I consider the 36-hole golf course development also to be development as well.

I (and thousands of others) consider it to be very attractive green space - don't forget those blades of grass are breathing too.


golf courses are agriculture aren't they? at least as far a zoning is concerned?

#59 integracious

integracious
  • Member
  • 102 posts

Posted 24 February 2008 - 05:16 PM

Every year I wait anxiously in my local grocery store for the new crop of Grass coming off of the BM golf course. It is a delicacy but gets stuck between your teeth.

#60 Ron

Ron
  • Member
  • 9 posts

Posted 24 February 2008 - 06:28 PM

Ron,

I owned in Coal Harbour three years ago and still have a place in Yaletown. Coal Harbour cannot sustain SFH therefore you cannot compare it to Bear Mountain. If BM was only retail and condo then the master plan would have been laid out much differently as well as more concentrated.

As for schools there is one planned in BM as well as Ronal Mcdonald retreat and not to mention the sports complex up there. I did purchase at BM but sold my place last year.

By the way, as for your forest it does not belong to you. I guess that is what many people forget. From what I have heard only about 300-400 acres of the 1300 acres is being developed.



I LIVED at Coal Harbour for two years and now in Victoria. You are right that you cannot compare the it with BM. Coal Harbour did not require freeway interchange expansion, new transit, new sewer/water lines or clearcutting of forest land. Coal Harbour was far less of a burden on the city/environment because it took an already urbanized area to a higher degree of urbanization. BM took pristine,forested land and converted into condos and SFH's.

As for the forest not belonging to me, correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to recall the BM land was given to a forest company by the same Crown I pay taxes to which was means that WAS my land (forgetting for a moment the native peoples who owned the land before any of us). The forest company then with the help from Provincial politicians I paid their salaries for gave the developers of Bear Mountain a real sweetheart deal. Of course, in the future, I'll still be paying for the freeway expansion, reservoir expansion etc. etc. so in reality I am paying for the developers of BM to cut down trees.

I also wonder why the developers of BM couldn't preserve more trees. If you look at older developments like Broadmead, way more trees were kept. But I suppose the poor trees had to make way for the golf crew.

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