Jump to content

      













Photo

[Victoria] Grace Lore | 2018 council candidate


  • Please log in to reply
166 replies to this topic

#141 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,984 posts

Posted 22 June 2018 - 07:42 AM

Can't our administrators take all of the discussions on density and neighborhoods and move them (cut/paste?) to a different topic so this one CAN be for discussion re Grace Lore?

I guess the admins have decided to leave this thread off-topic permanently.


  • nagel likes this

#142 Freedom57

Freedom57
  • Member
  • 81 posts

Posted 22 June 2018 - 07:44 AM

 

You cut out Rockland and paste it just outside Duncan; how many of the residents who so vehemently keep new development out would still care about "character" and "community"? Wouldn't it be nice for them that the rezoning applications would stop coming? Ha.

 

 

I bought a 1920's character (heritage) home in Rockland at the end of 2013 before the prices skyrocketed.  I would happily have bought the same house.... in Duncan - or anywhere on the island if there had been such quality homes & neighborhoods there.  We bought in Rockland because that is where the fantastic character homes are.  So sure - pick up Rockland and paste the whole neighborhood somewhere else (similar weather and proximity to the ocean) and I think most residents would love to be away from downtown Victoria and the current craziness.  Our neighborhood is fantastic in its own right - not because it is near downtown.  We avoid downtown like the plague.

 

.....and it took me 37 years of working, as well as a bit of luck to find myself being able to purchase this home.  I started out sharing rentals with 5 other people, saving money and being frugal until I was able to get into the real estate game.  I also had a family along the way.


Edited by Freedom57, 22 June 2018 - 07:52 AM.


#143 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 51,405 posts

Posted 22 June 2018 - 07:45 AM

Nparker, please.
  • Matt R. likes this

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


#144 grantpalin

grantpalin
  • Member
  • 557 posts

Posted 22 June 2018 - 09:43 AM

So the protection of the housing character is resulting in the destruction of the people character.

So well put. Your perspective as both a developer and as a person is valuable input to this conversation.



#145 Casual Kev

Casual Kev
  • Member
  • 508 posts

Posted 22 June 2018 - 09:47 AM

Thanks for your perspective, Freedom, cool to hear from someone who's enthusiastic about vintage homes and worked hard to buy where he really wanted. But I hope your enjoyment of Rockland isn't partially derived from keeping other kinds of residents away. :P

#146 Freedom57

Freedom57
  • Member
  • 81 posts

Posted 22 June 2018 - 12:05 PM

Thanks for your perspective, Freedom, cool to hear from someone who's enthusiastic about vintage homes and worked hard to buy where he really wanted. But I hope your enjoyment of Rockland isn't partially derived from keeping other kinds of residents away. :P

 

Rockland is filled with renters as well as owners.  We also have transient with all of the BnB's.  It's a great neighborhood.   (Not sure what "other kinds of residents" you are referring to.) However, there is no need to add further density or it will no longer be as pleasant.  Density certainly does not add happiness.  There's been lots of press lately on that subject.  Here's one I easily found:   https://www.huffingt...ns_a_23440876/ 

 

We generally don't need an increase in residents.



#147 Casual Kev

Casual Kev
  • Member
  • 508 posts

Posted 22 June 2018 - 12:47 PM

Welp, in your last post you said the location of Rockland didn't particularly matter. Now you're saying you don't want any more people moving in, even though the location and amenities of the neighborhood obviously makes it a highly desirable location in a growing city.

I'm not going to comment on what are obviously subjective definitions of a "pleasant" neighborhood and people are entitled to whatever notions they have. But if preventing more people from moving in is what it takes to preserve your notion thereof, then you'll obviously be trampling on other people's property rights while preventing people from actually having enough housing at their disposal.

Yet again, neighborhoods don't live in isolation. If your main pleasure in life is being insulated from big city things, while being very close to the city centre then by definition you will have to shit on people to keep what you want.

#148 Bob Fugger

Bob Fugger

    Chief Factor

  • Member
  • 3,176 posts
  • LocationSouth Central CSV

Posted 22 June 2018 - 12:57 PM

I bought a 1920's character (heritage) home in Rockland at the end of 2013 before the prices skyrocketed.  I would happily have bought the same house.... in Duncan - or anywhere on the island if there had been such quality homes & neighborhoods there.  We bought in Rockland because that is where the fantastic character homes are.  So sure - pick up Rockland and paste the whole neighborhood somewhere else (similar weather and proximity to the ocean) and I think most residents would love to be away from downtown Victoria and the current craziness.  Our neighborhood is fantastic in its own right - not because it is near downtown.  We avoid downtown like the plague.

 

.....and it took me 37 years of working, as well as a bit of luck to find myself being able to purchase this home.  I started out sharing rentals with 5 other people, saving money and being frugal until I was able to get into the real estate game.  I also had a family along the way.

 

Oh man, I thought I saw here a kindred spirit, the Rockland "me," as it were.  You had me until...

 

Rockland is filled with renters as well as owners.  We also have transient with all of the BnB's.  It's a great neighborhood.   (Not sure what "other kinds of residents" you are referring to.) However, there is no need to add further density or it will no longer be as pleasant.  Density certainly does not add happiness.  There's been lots of press lately on that subject.  Here's one I easily found:   https://www.huffingt...ns_a_23440876/ 

 

We generally don't need an increase in residents.

 

I say, "Boo-urns to you, sir.  Boo-urns."


Edited by Bob Fugger, 22 June 2018 - 12:58 PM.


#149 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 51,405 posts

Posted 22 June 2018 - 01:04 PM

Let’s keep things above board, please.

No one person’s wants or needs outweigh another’s. The folks who live in the neighbourhoods have as much right to keep their neighbourhoods unchanged as do the people who want more density have a right to propose and further their visions. That discussion/fight is obviously on and it’s not going away.

WRT Rockland, though, there’s actually a lot of unseen density there with mansions converted to 5/6/10/12-unit apartments. There’s a lot of them, and they appear to mix perfectly into the charm and character of the neighbourhood so that raises the question, if Rockland can handle that density and few bat an eye, why can’t Fairfield?

Personally, though, I do think that SFD’s along major thoroughfares of these neighbourhoods are fair game for development. Opposition to projects like 200 Cook is tough to stomach considering the built environment that’s already set a precedent.
  • Baro, nerka and Freedom57 like this

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


#150 Freedom57

Freedom57
  • Member
  • 81 posts

Posted 22 June 2018 - 01:06 PM

Welp, in your last post you said the location of Rockland didn't particularly matter. Now you're saying you don't want any more people moving in, even though the location and amenities of the neighborhood obviously makes it a highly desirable location in a growing city.

I'm not going to comment on what are obviously subjective definitions of a "pleasant" neighborhood and people are entitled to whatever notions they have. But if preventing more people from moving in is what it takes to preserve your notion thereof, then you'll obviously be trampling on other people's property rights while preventing people from actually having enough housing at their disposal.

Yet again, neighborhoods don't live in isolation. If your main pleasure in life is being insulated from big city things, while being very close to the city centre then by definition you will have to **** on people to keep what you want.

 

It's not the location that makes it fabulous.  In fact the location is a problem since we are too close to downtown. 
 

And yes - increasing density in an already dense neighborhood makes it less desirable.  From what I understand we have a much lower percentage of single family homes (occupied by single families) than elsewhere in Victoria.   Most of the large homes you see are multi-unit.  Many are rentals and many are condos.



#151 Freedom57

Freedom57
  • Member
  • 81 posts

Posted 22 June 2018 - 01:43 PM

My last comments on the density subject…..

 

Increasing density does not create more affordability.  On the contrary.  There are oodles of folks waiting to move into the desirable neighbourhoods once there is space.  A lot of people have lots of money.

 

Since when did people get to move somewhere just because they want to.  You live where you can afford.  That’s nothing new. 

 

Greater Victoria is the best place to live in Canada.   People will always want to move here.



#152 PPPdev

PPPdev
  • Member
  • 213 posts

Posted 22 June 2018 - 03:03 PM

Cassidy:

Let's be honest with ourselves here, people's housing desires and preferences are not like a new iPhone that we want but don't need but lets use that analogy for a second. Rockland, Gonzales, and Fairfield people have new shiny iPhones, some because they worked really hard, some because they inherited them, and some because of sheer damn luck they were born in a time when housing prices were not stratospherically disconnected from incomes. The rub is that all taxes payers and members of the region are paying for their cell phone plans at Rogers, Bell, and Telus monopoly rates. Even worse, because of this cell phone subsidy is outpacing appreciation of other plans (aka housing types), the monthly rates go up and up and up.

 

Freedom57:

Rockland 45 year population change (1971 - 2016): -17 people (decrease is 0.39% per year)

Rockland zoning: 90% single family (2nd place behind Gonzales at 98% and third place goes to Oaklands at 87%)

Rockland development: 17% of new units were built on existing MF lands (50% of MF is apartments, major density imbalance)

Rockland density increase (2011 - 2016): 4.8% compared to the city average of 9.4%

Rockland Density: 40 people per hectare (lowest in the City, City average is 90 ppl/ha)

Rockland seniors/kids ratio (2006-2016): 1.9 to 2.6 (City avg: 1.4 to 1.8)

Rockland working age population: down 10% (2011 to 2016)

Rockland households: second lowest share of millennial head of households in the City (Gonzales is first)

Rockland dwelling mix: unchanged over last 10 years

 

This notion that Rockland is pulling its weight and is a balanced community is not reflected in real life  :whyme:


  • Baro and lanforod like this

#153 Casual Kev

Casual Kev
  • Member
  • 508 posts

Posted 22 June 2018 - 03:29 PM

My last comments on the density subject…..

Increasing density does not create more affordability. On the contrary. There are oodles of folks waiting to move into the desirable neighbourhoods once there is space. A lot of people have lots of money.

Since when did people get to move somewhere just because they want to. You live where you can afford. That’s nothing new.

Greater Victoria is the best place to live in Canada. People will always want to move here.


So the wealthy folks buy anyways because they're wealthy, and the not-so-wealthy have a lot fewer choices before them. Strangling supply does not deter demand, hence prices go up.

Victoria being a relatively desirable place to live is not a justification for runaway housing prices. At the end of the day there are so many jobs for people to allow them to move, a such amount of money retirees and investors have to take with them. And Victoria doesn't exist in a vacuum, people weight whether to move or stay in relation to all other options, whether it's moving up island or to Toronto or South Florida. The present affordability situation is not the norm, and all these low rise wood frame rentals were not here when the British founded Victoria.

#154 sdwright.vic

sdwright.vic

    Burnside-Gorge

  • Member
  • 6,525 posts

Posted 22 June 2018 - 04:38 PM

Has Grace every come back on here? Curious if her coffee invite was just hyperbole.
  • Bob Fugger likes this
Predictive text and a tiny keyboard are not my friends!

#155 Freedom57

Freedom57
  • Member
  • 81 posts

Posted 22 June 2018 - 04:52 PM

Cassidy:

Let's be honest with ourselves here, people's housing desires and preferences are not like a new iPhone that we want but don't need but lets use that analogy for a second. Rockland, Gonzales, and Fairfield people have new shiny iPhones, some because they worked really hard, some because they inherited them, and some because of sheer damn luck they were born in a time when housing prices were not stratospherically disconnected from incomes. The rub is that all taxes payers and members of the region are paying for their cell phone plans at Rogers, Bell, and Telus monopoly rates. Even worse, because of this cell phone subsidy is outpacing appreciation of other plans (aka housing types), the monthly rates go up and up and up.

 

Freedom57:

Rockland 45 year population change (1971 - 2016): -17 people (decrease is 0.39% per year)

Rockland zoning: 90% single family (2nd place behind Gonzales at 98% and third place goes to Oaklands at 87%)

Rockland development: 17% of new units were built on existing MF lands (50% of MF is apartments, major density imbalance)

Rockland density increase (2011 - 2016): 4.8% compared to the city average of 9.4%

Rockland Density: 40 people per hectare (lowest in the City, City average is 90 ppl/ha)

Rockland seniors/kids ratio (2006-2016): 1.9 to 2.6 (City avg: 1.4 to 1.8)

Rockland working age population: down 10% (2011 to 2016)

Rockland households: second lowest share of millennial head of households in the City (Gonzales is first)

Rockland dwelling mix: unchanged over last 10 years

 

This notion that Rockland is pulling its weight and is a balanced community is not reflected in real life  :whyme:

 

Thank you for this detail.  What is the source?  (Not questioning the source - just curious as it is interesting.)


Edited by Freedom57, 22 June 2018 - 04:55 PM.


#156 PPPdev

PPPdev
  • Member
  • 213 posts

Posted 22 June 2018 - 05:02 PM

StatsCan Census data and City of Victoria open data
  • Freedom57 likes this

#157 PraiseKek

PraiseKek
  • Validating
  • 415 posts

Posted 22 June 2018 - 06:48 PM

I don't think she'll be back on this forum personally other than to lurk. That's fine. I just wish there was no social media scrub. You're a hardcore leftist that's fine. Don't hide it. I don't hide my right wing views with anyone. This is supposedly a democratic country although many want to outlaw that in the name of wrongthink (disagreeing with a liberal).


  • Bob Fugger likes this

#158 Cassidy

Cassidy
  • Banned
  • 2,501 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 22 June 2018 - 08:03 PM

 

This notion that Rockland is pulling its weight and is a balanced community is not reflected in real life  :whyme:

The folks that live in Rockland definitely feel it's balanced, and has been for well over 100 years. ... that's really all that matters.

Who cares what somebody who lives elsewhere feels about whether Rockland is "balanced" enough for their taste?

 

In other words, if I'm sitting in my paid off home somewhere in Rockland - I don't owe anybody anything ... I've got no weight to pull.

 

A developer looking for someplace to develop, and someplace that will command top dollar for their development would love to get their hands on Rockland ... that's certainly no surprise - but it's got nothing to do with the people who actually live in Rockland, people who have strong opinions about what is, and what isn't "OK" in their neighbourhood.


  • rmpeers and Freedom57 like this

#159 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,984 posts

Posted 22 June 2018 - 09:12 PM

I don't think she'll be back on this forum personally other than to lurk...

Don't take this as my endorsement of her candidacy, but based on most of the messages in this thread, why would she come back?



#160 Casual Kev

Casual Kev
  • Member
  • 508 posts

Posted 22 June 2018 - 09:26 PM

The folks that live in Rockland definitely feel it's balanced, and has been for well over 100 years. ... that's really all that matters.

Who cares what somebody who lives elsewhere feels about whether Rockland is "balanced" enough for their taste?

 

In other words, if I'm sitting in my paid off home somewhere in Rockland - I don't owe anybody anything ... I've got no weight to pull.

 

A developer looking for someplace to develop, and someplace that will command top dollar for their development would love to get their hands on Rockland ... that's certainly no surprise - but it's got nothing to do with the people who actually live in Rockland, people who have strong opinions about what is, and what isn't "OK" in their neighbourhood.

 

>have no weight to pull

>telling people exactly what to do with their property or else

 

Pick one.



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.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users