324 replies to this topic

[Victoria Watcher]

It received unanimous council approval.   I think it just found the right way to get the green light.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 23 January 2022 - 07:26 AM.

[dkuitu]

Rents dropped throughout the 90s and stayed quite flat, when the economy really lagged here.

We still had plenty of new rental supply from the 80s. Then the major NIMBY era began, and construction of rentals was detested by councils. Our own minister of transportation, who was once a Victoria councillor, voted against a lot of rental housing and his fellow councillors kept it from being built.

But the region kept growing. And today there is so much new wealth coming here, that even secondary suites that were once regularly reliable sources of rental housing are no longer being offered for rent. Certainly not with the new rental regulations that same minister’s current government has established.

 

 

It's interesting how the city went from "We can't have apartments and condos" to  "Let's experiment with cramming as many people into a tall building as possible." I don't think this building is a bad idea though. If I was still 20 years old I'd probably try this style of housing for a year or two.

[Mike K.]

Yes, and up-zoning every property currently zoned for single or duplex housing while not being able to describe how that will benefit, or not, the municipality.

[Barrrister]

It will benefit the developers and they will be appropriately appreciative to all the outgoing council who are not running.

[G-Man]

^ Who cares if developers benefit really? Why do we have no concern about any other occupation and how much they make except for developers... I mean you think developers have a good margin, let me tell you about lawyers...

[Mike K.]

Ouch! G’s got you there, B!

[corvus]

Wait, I thought this was a pro-housing forum. You guys don't like upzoning?

[Mike K.]

Up-zoning /= pro housing. Victoria planners can’t define what it means, they just want politicians to support it.

If they can’t define the outcome, we have no business supporting the means. Don’t forget, it all started with affordability as the driver, now it’s attainability. What will it be once adopted? City Hall can’t tell us.

[G-Man]

I am massively in favour of upzoning. It just has to be done well. I think that there is a sweet spot somewhere between the ideologues on both sides of the issue. Problem is no one wants to talk anymore outside of their information bubbles.

[Mike K.]

Isn’t there just the one ideology? Status quo is just a desire to not enact major change.

Victoria politicians historically agreed to a policy of concentrating density in downtown Victoria, parts of Vic West and along major thoroughfares. Residents participated in OCPs, the documents were signed, and the visions solidified.

Along comes 2019, and suddenly the mayor of Victoria says every SFD property must be up-zoned, and it’s racist not to do it.

This is a historic bait and switch attempt, for our region. You can campaign on these changes, not thrust them onto an unaware public that was nearly forbidden from even discussing the changes before council, and right at the last moments of a four year term council reluctantly yielded residents the floor, and will vote on the feedback this week. This, by definition is bad optics and disingenuous politics, and it serves to weaken the relationship between taxpayers and officialdom.

[Nparker]

The so called "Missing Middle" concept lost my support when Lisa Helps declared single family housing as racist. After this, there was no way I could support this initiative or its proponents.

[Mike K.]

It was truly epic, wasn’t it.

[Nparker]

If by epic you mean disgusting on the part of the mayor, then yes it was epic.

Victoria can't be rid of our local left wing Trump a moment too soon.

[G-Man]

No there is also the "if it is proposed by the current council we are not listening" side. Both sides are a problem IMO

And that is not what the OCP says actually. It proposed raising densities in neighborhood hubs as well.

Anyway we are off topic.

[Mike K.]

No there is also the "if it is proposed by the current council we are not listening" side. Both sides are a problem IMO

I don’t know if I can blame them.

They are collectively so disliked, they are all* fleeing the coop.

But this idea that houses and traditional neighbourhoods are racist constructs, that people worried about their personal safety are haters, and business operators complaining about crime are in fact promoting crime by talking about it, is a corrupt ideology, and it has swung the pendulum so far that it can swing no further. *Now gravity is taking over.

[Nparker]

Excavation is now underway on this project.

Maybe the title of this thread should be updated as it's well beyond 'proposed'?

 

Interesting side note. Right after I took this photo the safety manager from the worksite came over to me and asked why I was taking a picture. I'm not sure what he thought I was doing. I explained that I was just interested in tracking local development and that seemed to satisfy him.

[aastra]

That's happened to me before. One guy told me he assumed I was documenting workplace violations.

[Nparker]

I imagine that's what this fellow thought as well.

[Mike K.]

Yeah, it still happens. Some of these guys are not the most social people on the planet, and can get in your face very quickly.

So long as you’re standing on public property you’re not doing anything wrong.

And what if you were documenting safety violations? Does the safety manager think the safety violation guy will dismiss his safety violations if he asks him to violate his protocols and not record the safety manager’s safety violation oversights?

[Nparker]

He was cool once I explained my interest in the project.