166 replies to this topic

[Cassidy]

Perhaps it is not so much a "bad thing", as it is unrealistic. Cities change and grow. That is just a fact. 

I believe what might be even more unrealistic is to expect that such densification would ever be welcome in these older established Victoria neighborhoods to begin with.

 

Residents of Fairfield, Gonzales, Rockland and James Bay can easily look at Google Maps to see that the entire North End of town is a bunch of dumpy old single story warehouses with huge surface parking lots ... ripe for development.

A quick look at what they're doing at the old Hudsons Bay demonstrates how receptive and effective development of the North end of town actually is.

Why would residents of these single family home neighborhoods ever bless tearing their blocks apart when they can see a far better location to develop, even closer to the downtown core?

 

That large scale apartment and condo developments won't ever be welcomed by residents in the single family home areas of Victoria is a given (if you've lived here long enough - you already know that).

 

The North end of the COV awaits development ideas ... indeed it could not only solve the massive affordable housing crisis in the CRD, it could also be quite spectacular.

 

Forget about Fairfield and James Bay ... they're non-starters in terms of large scale development (and I currently own a home in Saanich, so I've no horse in this particular race).

[Nparker]

To be fair to those who would like to know more about all aspects of Ms. Lore's civic election platform, perhaps messages regarding densification and development in established CoV neighbourhoods could be moved to a more appropriate thread? Perhaps here?

[Baro]

James Bay and Fairfield have been naturally growing over generations,  but the neighbourhood is suddenly done and must be encased in amber because this current generation has decreed it.  It wasn't done when it was a forest.  It wasn't done when it was farms.  It wasn't done when those farms were subdivided into smaller farms.  It wasn't done when the last farms turned into housing, no one stood up and said "why not just build elsewhere and let James Bay retain its rural charm?", or if they did they were correctly ignored.  Generation after generation the lots got smaller, the houses got bigger and eventually gave way to some multi-family.  The region keeps growing, the demand to live in these core neighbourhoods is there, but suddenly after over a century of letting neighbourhoods evolve and grow naturally we need to put on the breaks.  All those iterations of James Bay over the last 100+ years were works in progress, but clearly right now, James Bay of this exact moment is the penultimate final form?  I don't know if it's the short-sightedness or entitlement I find more shocking.

 

I think there's just something about the current generation of home-owners.  Previous generations understood a neighbourhood was always evolving, and a growing city grew.  But something changed and suddenly there's this sense of entitlement that seeped into the current generation of owners that when they buy a house they aren't just entitled to own the house, but they're entitled to the neighbourhood remaining exactly as the day they bought their home.  I think we need to do away with this mentality as it's absolute cancer for cities and leads to demographic stagnation, housing shortages, and sprawl.

[Jackerbie]

That large scale apartment and condo developments won't ever be welcomed by residents in the single family home areas of Victoria is a given (if you've lived here long enough - you already know that).

 

That's not what Grace is supporting in her vision, though. Yes, she explicitly mentions three-bedroom condos, which would have an impact on the huge number of large scale apartment developments that Victoria has seen recently. But she's also talking about laneway houses, duplexes, townhouses, and co-ops. Once upon a time you were allowed to build a duplex in Fairfield. There are even small lot apartments in Fairfield, and not even on the main roads! You cannot do that anymore under current zoning, and any proposal for rezoning would probably be shouted down at the Public Hearing if it even made it through staff and Council.

 

So many people who live in "established single-family neighbourhoods" don't know that there was a time where you could do more with your lot than a single house, and I think it is important that we go back to that time. Vancouver is moving in that direction, first with the successful implementation of the laneway regulations and now with a new conversation on duplexes in single-family zones.

Edited by Jackerbie, 20 June 2018 - 09:17 AM.

[Mike K.]

People want to live in established, mid-to-high income neighbourhoods because they’re attractive, they have character, but first and foremost there’s an unseen hand guiding upkeep and image. All of that stuff costs money, and heaps of it.

Who wouldn’t want to live in Rockland? Beautiful houses, neighbours who respect each other’s enjoyment of their homes and an appreciation of upkeep/maintenance of ones property.

I mean there’s a reason why people go for a cruise through the Uplands and not Burnside, right?

So naturally the desire is to build density in established neighbourhoods over investing into a clean slate with the promise of it some day, maybe, maturing into something desirable and not merely practical or affordable. Or the other option is building where the ambiance of the neighbourhood could use some fresh investment and an influx of residents, but that means marketing the potential and the value over lifestyle and charm.

But ...is that demand pressure great enough to offset the defensive measures of the residents who created the attractive neighbourhoods in the first place? That’s what this fight is all about and individuals like Ms. Lore represent that offensive.

[RFS]

All those iterations of James Bay over the last 100+ years were works in progress, but clearly right now, James Bay of this exact moment is the penultimate final form?

That's right, and so it shall remain right up until the heat death of the universe 

[Jackerbie]

That's not what Grace is supporting in her vision, though. Yes, she explicitly mentions three-bedroom condos, which would have an impact on the huge number of large scale apartment developments that Victoria has seen recently. But she's also talking about laneway houses, duplexes, townhouses, and co-ops. Once upon a time you were allowed to build a duplex in Fairfield. There are even small lot apartments in Fairfield, and not even on the main roads! You cannot do that anymore under current zoning, and any proposal for rezoning would probably be shouted down at the Public Hearing if it even made it through staff and Council.

 

I don't want to put words in a candidate's mouth, but I have a hard time believing that someone who is currently renting a home in Fernwood would advocate for the mass redevelopment of Victoria's single-family neighbourhoods.

[spanky123]

I don't want to put words in a candidate's mouth, but I have a hard time believing that someone who is currently renting a home in Fernwood would advocate for the mass redevelopment of Victoria's single-family neighbourhoods.

 

They might if their goal is to stop renting and be able to afford purchasing in one of these developments. 

[Cassidy]

..... I think we need to do away with this mentality as it's absolute cancer for cities and leads to demographic stagnation, housing shortages, and sprawl.

I'd not argue with this sentiment ... but I would say it only becomes legitimate when your city or region has got nowhere else to develop.

 

Here in the CRD, there are hundreds of locations left to develop ... and there's absolutely no reason to raze the single family homes in James Bay or Fairfield in order to undertake future development.

 

So although calling failure to raze blocks in these old single family neighborhoods "a cancer" makes for great alarmist language ... it's just that "language". It has no basis in the reality of the current situation.

[Cassidy]

So many people who live in "established single-family neighbourhoods" don't know that there was a time where you could do more with your lot than a single house, and I think it is important that we go back to that time. Vancouver is moving in that direction, first with the successful implementation of the laneway regulations and now with a new conversation on duplexes in single-family zones.

I would have no issue with small laneway homes (which are really no different than laneway garages), or with duplex's or a loosening of the ability to suite large, existing single family homes.

 

That's very different (at least to my eyes) than tearing down single family homes and building 8 story condo/apartment buildings on residential blocks.

[Cassidy]

 That’s what this fight is all about and individuals like Ms. Lore represent that offensive.

In this town ... I believe that's a losing strategy for any politician to try and move forward with.

 

Love her or hate her ... Pam Madoff is the decades long expert in blending the desire to  maintain the history and heritage of the COV, while still trying to participate (albeit the most hesitant on COV Council) in advancing new housing projects for purchase or rent ... but not doing so at the expense of single family homes which have any sort of heritage value.

[Mike K.]

They might if their goal is to stop renting and be able to afford purchasing in one of these developments.

Last night I gave a speech before a group of real-estate investors about the widening gap between the home ownership class and the rent-for-life class. Strong words, a dark subject, but its becoming a reality here as it has in European cities.

We need to build massive volumes of single family homes on the West Shore or the current equation will intensify to the point where owning such a property anywhere on the south Island will be reserved for the wealthy or those fortunate enough to land an inheritance.

Our region has collectively allowed the “crisis” to come about and these gentle nudges with a few units here and a few units there that Ms. Lore advocates won’t achieve a goal of making housing “affordable” to someone who can’t afford to buy real-estate in today’s market, but it will allow individuals to enter neighbourhoods where there’s no inventory to buy under the status quo. Yes, gentle density will provide opportunities to buy, but those opportunities won’t be $350,000 3BR townhomes in Fairfield or James Bay.

[spanky123]

^ I agree Mike but I think that many people believe that the $350K 3BR townhome still exists as an option. All we have to do block foreign buyers, eliminate absentee owners, lessen restrictions and incent developers to build 'affordable' homes. I am not a real estate expert but I think that ship has sailed and it is never coming back.

 

The key to having 'affordable' homes is building an economy that supports well paying jobs by enticing larger companies to operate in the region and existing ones to hire more employees and market their goods and services outside of the region. Our politicians don't do that however. Instead they focus on giving handouts to the bottom of the market which has the effect of driving out or discouraging the very people they need to build the City.

[Mattjvd]

^ I agree Mike but I think that many people believe that the $350K 3BR townhome still exists as an option. All we have to do block foreign buyers, eliminate absentee owners, lessen restrictions and incent developers to build 'affordable' homes. I am not a real estate expert but I think that ship has sailed and it is never coming back.

 

The key to having 'affordable' homes is building an economy that supports well paying jobs by enticing larger companies to operate in the region and existing ones to hire more employees and market their goods and services outside of the region. Our politicians don't do that however. Instead they focus on giving handouts to the bottom of the market which has the effect of driving out or discouraging the very people they need to build the City.

Citified Victoria has published a number of articles showing foreign buyers and empty homes are a very small number of units in the CRD

 

https://victoria.cit...tistics-canada/

 

https://victoria.cit...tate-purchases/

https://victoria.cit...ia-real-estate/

 

I think high wages generally contribute to high housing prices. It's just shifting the demand curve up, which does nothing for affordability without a change in supply as well.

 

I certainly agree on lessening restrictions and allowing developers to react to changes in demand faster. 

[Nparker]

[Mike K.]

Yes, the foreign buyer boogeyman has never been higher than 5% in this market. The real “foreign buyer,” lol, is a poor sap from Alberta who thought he could buy a vacay home a decade ahead of retirement and who now has to pay a whopping tax to hang on to it.

[Casual Kev]

I doubt foreign money is much of a problem in Victoria but it's a huge issue in Vancouver, which in turn drives incumbent residents there to find cheaper grounds here. Considering the market there is magnitudes bigger than ours the trickle effect is probably quite significant. And yes, I think we've steered past discussing Lore's vision.

[Mike K.]

Vancouver buyers accounted for 7% of the market back in 2015, or roughly 600 purchases.

[Mattjvd]

I doubt foreign money is much of a problem in Victoria but it's a huge issue in Vancouver, which in turn drives incumbent residents there to find cheaper grounds here. Considering the market there is magnitudes bigger than ours the trickle effect is probably quite significant. And yes, I think we've steered past discussing Lore's vision.

 

 

Vancouver buyers accounted for 7% of the market back in 2015, or roughly 600 purchases.

That number is as high as 10% to 12% in Richmond and Burnaby in the summer of 2017.  (the highest months from the municipalities with the highest amount of foreign buyers).

While i wouldn't call it a "huge issue", it's still nothing to sneeze at. 

[Nparker]

I am curious about Ms. Lore's stance on desserts; multi-layer cakes specifically.