Jump to content

      



























BUILT
The Dalmatian
Uses: rental, civic
Address: 1025 Johnson Street
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Downtown Victoria
Storeys: 11
The Dalmatian is an 11-storey mixed-use affordable rental tower in the 1000-block of Johnson Street in downtow... (view full profile)
Learn more about the Dalmatian on Citified.ca
Photo

[Harris Green] The Dalmatian | Victoria No. 1 Firehall | Rentals, office space | Completed - Built in 2023


  • Please log in to reply
785 replies to this topic

#221 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 16 February 2019 - 10:08 AM

The DRA just doesn't want this area to be developed and they found a way to push it. They should be honest and just say that.
  • Nparker likes this

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#222 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,390 posts

Posted 16 February 2019 - 10:14 AM

NIMBYs become very adept at hiding their true intent in more altruistic disguises.



#223 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 20,971 posts

Posted 16 February 2019 - 10:24 AM

The DRA just doesn't want this area to be developed and they found a way to push it. They should be honest and just say that.

 Really? The DRA has been one of the most progressive community associations in Victoria and supportive of the vast majority of developments in town. 

 

Lets lay the blame squarely where it resides. The Mayor, yet again, tried to push a project through without consultation and behind closed doors. By doing so she forfeited the opportunity to work with the community and gain consensus on this project. Don't blame the DRA for asking basic questions and trying to hold people accountable to a process.



#224 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher

    Old White Man On A Canadian Island

  • Member
  • 52,293 posts

Posted 16 February 2019 - 12:00 PM

the dra board are no slouches.

 

https://victoriadra..../board-members/

 

they have the skills to understand the agreement.  now do i suspect at least one of them lives very close?  yes.



#225 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 20,971 posts

Posted 16 February 2019 - 12:08 PM

the dra board are no slouches.

 

https://victoriadra..../board-members/

 

they have the skills to understand the agreement.  now do i suspect at least one of them lives very close?  yes.

 

The TC article states that the City has not been willing to share the full agreement with the DRA.



#226 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 16 February 2019 - 05:30 PM

Really? The DRA has been one of the most progressive community associations in Victoria and supportive of the vast majority of developments in town.

Lets lay the blame squarely where it resides. The Mayor, yet again, tried to push a project through without consultation and behind closed doors. By doing so she forfeited the opportunity to work with the community and gain consensus on this project. Don't blame the DRA for asking basic questions and trying to hold people accountable to a process.

Please. DRA was progressive in its way of working with developers like five years ago. This new DRA is turning into just your run of the mill neighbourhood association that doesn't want change. Their position on the Northern Junk Buildings have shown that much more clearly than the opposition here. The opposition here just solidifies my opinion.
  • Greg, jonny and DougG like this

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#227 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher

    Old White Man On A Canadian Island

  • Member
  • 52,293 posts

Posted 16 February 2019 - 05:40 PM

it does appear the makeup of the dra has changed*.   all the nas should be judged somewhat on the size of their following.  the dra also opposed the casino btw.

 

*from the bios it also appears most of the board are seniors.  many retired. maybe all but one or two.  not too representative of the downtown population as a whole i'd say.


Edited by Victoria Watcher, 16 February 2019 - 05:48 PM.

  • Nparker and Greg like this

#228 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,390 posts

Posted 16 February 2019 - 07:16 PM

...[The DRA's] position on the Northern Junk Buildings have shown that much more clearly than the opposition here...

This.  :mad:


  • jonny likes this

#229 baconnbits

baconnbits
  • Member
  • 235 posts

Posted 17 February 2019 - 07:46 AM

it does appear the makeup of the dra has changed*. all the nas should be judged somewhat on the size of their following. the dra also opposed the casino btw.

*from the bios it also appears most of the board are seniors. many retired. maybe all but one or two. not too representative of the downtown population as a whole i'd say.

I think the DRA is upset they weren’t involved in the process and that’s that. Given some of the other densities supported in the more recent past i am a bit confused as to the objection here and to me it appears to be a case of being upset they weren’t asked to opine in it. Anyways. Isn’t that what a public hearing is for? Didn’t they have a CALUC here too?

#230 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher

    Old White Man On A Canadian Island

  • Member
  • 52,293 posts

Posted 17 February 2019 - 07:59 AM

it's obviou what the general problem here is. all the details have been negotiated between city staff and the developer and city staff are telling the politicians they have done what's best for the city and what the politicians wanted them to negotiate. as far as staff are concerned they have a great deal for the city.  now politicians have to say yes or no. 



#231 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 20,971 posts

Posted 17 February 2019 - 05:34 PM

I think the DRA is upset they weren’t involved in the process and that’s that. Given some of the other densities supported in the more recent past i am a bit confused as to the objection here and to me it appears to be a case of being upset they weren’t asked to opine in it. Anyways. Isn’t that what a public hearing is for? Didn’t they have a CALUC here too?

 

The DRA wrote a letter to council outlining their concerns. Not being informed was one of many. As far as density is concerned, I am not aware of anything at 6.8 in that area.


  • Victoria Watcher likes this

#232 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,155 posts

Posted 17 February 2019 - 06:09 PM

The DRA of today is no longer the DRA in its first decade. The way objection regarding Northern Junk has been handled, and now Johnson Yates Block makes me wonder if the forces at work in Fairfield/James Bay/Rocklamd/North Park are slowly influencing the DRA.

Ten years ago density would have never been an issue, neither would have construction in and of itself. The DRA wanted density, it wanted housing and it wanted surface lots developed. All three are checked here.
  • Nparker and jonny like this

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#233 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 17 February 2019 - 06:42 PM

Really any density less than what is being proposed here should be illegal within downtown boundaries. We have a housing crisis afterall and climate crisis. High density downtown living works to help both these things
  • Nparker, jonny, DavidSchell and 1 other like this

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

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#234 Mattjvd

Mattjvd
  • Member
  • 1,046 posts

Posted 17 February 2019 - 07:26 PM

Really any density less than what is being proposed here should be illegal within downtown boundaries. We have a housing crisis afterall and climate crisis. High density downtown living works to help both these things


Downtown zoning should have FSR minimuns, not maximums.
  • Nparker, sdwright.vic and Casual Kev like this

#235 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,390 posts

Posted 17 February 2019 - 07:40 PM

Really any density less than what is being proposed here should be illegal within downtown boundaries...

If anything, Harris Green needs to be more dense rather than less dense then current zoning allows. In the future we'll regret the restrictions that have been imposed on this section of the CoV.


Edited by Nparker, 17 February 2019 - 09:17 PM.


#236 Casual Kev

Casual Kev
  • Member
  • 794 posts

Posted 17 February 2019 - 08:45 PM

If anything, Harris Green needs to more dense rather than less dense then current zoning allows. In the future we'll regret the restrictions that have been imposed on this section of the CoV.

When developers are churning out 30+ stories buildings from Vancouver to Ottawa, it makes no sense to arbitrarily put a ceiling at a fraction of that. Height restrictions means more land will have to be used to fulfill the same demand for condos and what do you know - more whining and grinding of teeth over land use. 

 

I'd say the "flattening" of downtown development would lend an opportunity for other neighborhoods and municipalities to step up but you have to go as far as Langford to find anything that resembles a willingness to build upwards.


  • jonny and grantpalin like this

#237 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,211 posts

Posted 18 February 2019 - 08:43 AM

Really any density less than what is being proposed here should be illegal within downtown boundaries. We have a housing crisis afterall and climate crisis. High density downtown living works to help both these things


Exactly. Once this lot, the Harris Dodge and Audi lots are redeveloped there won't be many more large parcels in HG to redevelop.

It's a housing crisis, but heaven forbid we deal with the inconvenience of housing construction.
  • Nparker and grantpalin like this

#238 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 20,971 posts

Posted 18 February 2019 - 10:01 AM

Exactly. Once this lot, the Harris Dodge and Audi lots are redeveloped there won't be many more large parcels in HG to redevelop.

It's a housing crisis, but heaven forbid we deal with the inconvenience of housing construction.

 

We could fill every square inch of downtown real estate with 30 story towers and rents would not be the $750 a month that people seem to expect to pay. There are nearly 1,000 places to rent in Victoria on Craigslist and the vacancy rate is now higher then it has been in years. The issue is high land prices and construction costs alongside a low productivity workforce in a largely service oriented market. Building more floors on a tower won't solve that.



#239 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 18 February 2019 - 10:42 AM

I think the DRA's issue is not the density, it's that they feel the developer is getting a sweet discount for their rezoning that other developers aren't getting. And that it appears the developer and the City got this all figured out long before it was presented to the public and that all they want now is the community's rubber stamp to get this under way.



#240 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 20,971 posts

Posted 18 February 2019 - 10:53 AM

I think the DRA's issue is not the density, it's that they feel the developer is getting a sweet discount for their rezoning that other developers aren't getting. And that it appears the developer and the City got this all figured out long before it was presented to the public and that all they want now is the community's rubber stamp to get this under way.

 

Agreed. The other issue is that the community is getting very little, if anything, in the way of community amenities for this discount.


Edited by spanky123, 18 February 2019 - 10:53 AM.


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, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Bing (1)