785 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

We were also told by Mayor Fortin the Johnson Street Bridge would be unusable unless immediately replaced.

[aastra]

 

...the DRA has taken a position against the proposal because it is attempting to move unused theoretical density from one site (parking lot in this case) and apply it to another site to boost what would normally be permitted. The concern being the precedent this would set for other sites.

 

Any truth to the rumour that the DRA will be officially changing its name to "Downtown Resentment Association"?

[Victoria Watcher]

as is often the case the dra has been taken over by people that aren’t the typical downtown resident profile. so they are now obstructionist. seriously these neighbourhood groups should be defunded if they only have small numbers. 5 or 10% attending their agm should be a minimum.

when the caluc just says this or that to a proposal without showing what kind of neighbourhood numbers saw or discussed or were polled on it that’s not enough.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 29 August 2019 - 07:29 AM.

[Jackerbie]

My understanding of the issue (which is mostly based on what I have read in Focus and in staff reports) is that Pacifica has submitted a proposal for affordable housing, but the developer has no obligation to build any affordable housing (or firehall for that matter). As a result, Ben, Jeremy and TV are reluctant to approve any rezoning which would potentially allow the developer to proceed without any contribution. Staff reports state that the City is trying to negotiate a "site specific rezoning" which would limit the site density if the firehall and affordable housing were not built. I can understand why that process might be a little contentious.

 

Aside from the issue of affordable housing and the firehall, the DRA has taken a position against the proposal because it is attempting to move unused theoretical density from one site (parking lot in this case) and apply it to another site to boost what would normally be permitted. The concern being the precedent this would set for other sites.

 

It's a rezoning application, Council can ask for anything the want. Throw a Section 219 covenant on there that obligates the developer to provide whatever benefit the City wants before receiving occupancy of any other buildings. We do it all the time in Richmond for affordable housing, community centres, City-owned daycares, community policing offices.... 

[Mike K.]

Right, I don’t see how the City’s hands are tied here. The developer also wouldn’t dare play games.

[G-Man]

Aside from the issue of affordable housing and the firehall, the DRA has taken a position against the proposal because it is attempting to move unused theoretical density from one site (parking lot in this case) and apply it to another site to boost what would normally be permitted. The concern being the precedent this would set for other sites.

That sounds like a good precedent that could be used to ensure we are not under building in the city core. Housing crisis and all that, you know.

[Nparker]

That sounds like a good precedent that could be used to ensure we are not under building in the city core. Housing crisis and all that, you know.

Agreed.

[aastra]

 

Housing crisis and all that, you know.

 

News to me.*

 

*reference to 60+ years of news coverage re: Victoria's housing crisis

[shoeflack]

Dave Jawl is pretty responsive over email if any of you actually want to ask him directly what's up as opposed to assuming stuff.

[spanky123]

as is often the case the dra has been taken over by people that aren’t the typical downtown resident profile. so they are now obstructionist. seriously these neighbourhood groups should be defunded if they only have small numbers. 5 or 10% attending their agm should be a minimum.

when the caluc just says this or that to a proposal without showing what kind of neighbourhood numbers saw or discussed or were polled on it that’s not enough.

 

If I recall, the DRA had more than 120 people show up to state their views on this development. 

[spanky123]

It's a rezoning application, Council can ask for anything the want. Throw a Section 219 covenant on there that obligates the developer to provide whatever benefit the City wants before receiving occupancy of any other buildings. We do it all the time in Richmond for affordable housing, community centres, City-owned daycares, community policing offices.... 

 

I think that this case is a little unique as the Mayor entered into a development agreement with the developer. I think that the Jawls are responsible, professional developers. After the property is rezoned anyone could wind up developing it.

Edited by spanky123, 29 August 2019 - 06:40 PM.

[spanky123]

That sounds like a good precedent that could be used to ensure we are not under building in the city core. Housing crisis and all that, you know.

 

It would certainly make parking lots more valuable! 

[G-Man]

But really who cares is people make some money off their parking lots. If it encourages them to turn them into buildings with people living in them that is the win for the city. Having lots downtown remain surface parking or worse, severely under-built is borderline criminal. 

[spanky123]

But really who cares is people make some money off their parking lots. If it encourages them to turn them into buildings with people living in them that is the win for the city. Having lots downtown remain surface parking or worse, severely under-built is borderline criminal. 

 

No issues at all as long as the newly found wealth (created by rezoning) is shared with the City as required. As I have pointed out before, the previous term was a very good one for developers. I am not a fan of TV but in this case they are holding the development community to the rules and bargains that have been establish for community contributions and amenities. In a recent rezoning application the developer OFFERED more in the way of contributions then every other developer in the City combined last year. 

[aastra]

 

The concern being the precedent this would set for other sites.

 

We certainly wouldn't want more Harris Green-style developments in Harris Green. That would ruin Harris Green.

[Victoria Watcher]

If I recall, the DRA had more than 120 people show up to state their views on this development.

out if how many residents? sutton east and west have about 50 units each. i’d expect concern there. they never signed up to live across from a fire hall. so 120 is peanuts really.

[Mike K.]

The mindset of "we're done now, thank you" appears to be emerging among vocal downtown residents. We've seen a transition from suburban living to urban living in recent years, and suburban attitudes towards change/development are becoming more prevalent.

[Nparker]

The mindset of "we're done now, thank you" appears to be emerging among vocal downtown residents...

Perhaps I am in the minority, but as someone who has lived adjacent to the edge of the official downtown boundaries for more than 20 years, I welcome the growth and densification of Victoria's core. I'd be totally OK if Canadian Linen on my block were replaced with a mid or high-rise building - although I know that will likely never happen, at least not in my lifetime. Heck, although they are great neighbours, if Sands Funeral Chapel were slated for a dense residential/commercial redevelopment, it wouldn't upset me either.

 

Edit: I guess the point I am trying to make is if you don't like seeing growth and change, choosing to live in the downtown core of a city isn't the right place for you.

Edited by Nparker, 30 August 2019 - 10:08 AM.

[aastra]

 

The mindset of "we're done now, thank you" appears to be emerging among vocal downtown residents.

 

This mindset seems to be hardening but I'd say it's nothing new. For years I've made fun of that "every new building will surely be the last new building" attitude, whenever people act like they expected some adjacent surface parking lot to remain empty in perpetuity.

 

Remember that letter-to-the-editor from somebody who had purchased a unit in Astoria? Astoria wasn't even ready for occupancy yet, and yet the writer was upset because a new building had been proposed across the street, and the new building was surely going to ruin the neighbourhood (this proposal eventually morphed into *gasp* *horror* Aria).

 

The new building that you move into yourself is never a bad building. Never. It's always the other new buildings that ruin the neighbourhood. And the ruination that everyone dreads is always looming in the future, but it never seems to materialize. We continue to dread ruination today just like we did yesterday, or five years ago, or 20 years ago, etc.

[Nparker]

...The new building that you move into yourself is never a bad building. Never. It's always the other new buildings that ruin the neighbourhood...

Is this true everywhere or do residents of the CoV have special brand of hypocrisy all their own?