785 replies to this topic

[baconnbits]

I wonder if that view reflects the actual downtown residents?

[Rob Randall]

^I doubt it, only because this is kinda inside baseball.

[Nparker]

Only in Victoria would a "downtown" residents group be against density.

[Rob Randall]

They're pro-density but is someone getting a special deal here?

[Jacques Cadé]

Statement from the Downtown Residents Association:

 

Where was this posted?

[Rob Randall]

On their Facebook page. 

[baconnbits]

I feel like the city has been pretty transparent on the process.
Applicant went through RFP.
Identified as best site that came forward.
Agreement struck to build fire hall, plus affordable plus office.
Affordable and fire hall needed and not highest and best use
Granted ability to apply unutilized density onto balance of site.
Overall density in line with what allowed.
Going through Propert public approval process

Shocking....

[Nparker]

They're pro-density...

That didn't seem to be the DRA's take on the earlier Northern Junk proposals.

[baconnbits]

If this group is pro density......This group is pro their agenda which hardly seems to be determined by broad consultation with the downtown residents.

[G-Man]

They are not at all pro-density.It has been taken over by some strange faction. On this one I just assume some of them must live in those buildings along the north side of Johnson Street and are looking for any reason to stop firetrucks from being across the street.

[Victoria Watcher]

is any of the public complaining about the high Hudson density? Is fernwood of all places felling some type of pressure from this proposal? why is that even mentioned?

[DavidSchell]

IT is shocking that a Unelected special interest group can yield so much power?

 

Counsel needs to understand they are the elected ones and they have a responsibility for the greater good of the entire city and not be swayed by people who don't want it in their back yards.    

[Kapten Kapsell]

IT is shocking that a Unelected special interest group can yield so much power?

 

Counsel needs to understand they are the elected ones and they have a responsibility for the greater good of the entire city and not be swayed by people who don't want it in their back yards.    

The prior council approved at least two major developments opposed by their respective neighbourhood CALUCs:  the Bosa 4 Rent project at Pandora/Vancouver and Abstract's Bellwood Park in Rockland.  

 

I also could see the current council supporting more social housing in Burnside-Gorge, even though that neighbourhood has asked for a moratorium on it.

[shoeflack]

The sense I've gotten sitting on a downtown strata near this project is that while there are a group of dissidents on the DRA and on other downtown stratas that vehemently oppose this project (for whatever reason), those in opposition essentially believe this has been a green lit project from the City since day one, so are basically just trying to raise a stink as high as they can knowing that it's going to get approved regardless.

[aastra]

 

They're pro-density...

 

 

That didn't seem to be the DRA's take on the earlier Northern Junk proposals.

 

You guys don't get it. They're pro- the right density. Northern Junk would have been way too low and the firehall redevelopment would be way too high.

[aastra]

Or as I like to say, I've tried 500 different restaurants but I'm still searching for a decent meal. Why is it so difficult to find a decent meal?

[Nparker]

You guys don't get it. They're pro- the right density...

Presumably, the density of the residences in which DRA members live are just the right balance.*

*even if they are more dense than the buildings that came before them

[aastra]

 

The new city Fire Hall is going to Council on Thursday but it is just a small part of a massive ½ city block development that is 24% higher in density than the maximums set by the Official Community Plan (OCP). This will be 30% denser than the Hudson District and inappropriately placed at the edge of Harris Green on the Fernwood Border. The contract with the developer to build the Fire Hall was obtained through an FOI by the DRA and shows Council must approve the entire development at these nonnegotiable densities even though the Fire Hall is just a tiny part of the overall scheme. Council is now a conflicted partner in this OCP busting development, not an impartial adjudicator.

 

Remind me, how does the DRA feel about the massive, 1/2 block, two-tower Regent Park complex? Is it too dense? Inadequately placed? (I won't even mention the surface parking.)

 

Here's the thing that always bugs me when stinkers claim the exact numbers are the issue: if they're being sincere when they say it's way too dense then would they be pleased if it were knocked back a bit? Two levels off the top of the Cook Street side and two levels off the top of the Johnson Street side? (that long Johnson Street side would be my biggest issue by far if I lived in Harris Green)

 

A quick and dirty Photoshop suggests it would be an improvement (greater variation in building heights typically is an improvement, as we should all know very well by now). But methinks the complaints would be exactly the same, regardless.

Edited by aastra, 01 August 2022 - 02:35 PM.

[aastra]

Whatever happened to that game of proposing too much and then scaling it back a bit?

 

 

The contract with the developer to build the Fire Hall was obtained through an FOI by the DRA and shows Council must approve the entire development at these nonnegotiable densities even though the Fire Hall is just a tiny part of the overall scheme.

 

Okay, if that's the case then don't approve it. I wouldn't shed any tears. I'm not in love with the style of it and for some reason the new firehall seems to be much less of an urgent need today than it was just a few years ago.

 

But like I say, when they come back with a revised version that addresses the "it's way too dense" concern, you can't complain that it's still way too dense, or switch gears to some other issue.

[aastra]

This might also be a good project for demonstrating how raising the height of the tall tower but lowering the heights of the other sections could nevertheless change impressions mightily re: density concerns. Yes, the density would remain basically the same, but the overall look and feel would be very different. Concerns about the whole thing seeming overwhelming could be mitigated.