Jump to content

      



























Photo

HBC Building on Douglas Street


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

Poll: What do you think of the City Council approving Bay Building Project? (1 member(s) have cast votes)

What do you think of the City Council approving Bay Building Project?

  1. Great, it is exactly what Victoria needs. (21 votes [95.45%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 95.45%

  2. Bad idea, council missed mark entirely, project wrong for area. (1 votes [4.55%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 4.55%

  3. Not sure, at least something is being done with HBC building. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  4. Something needed to be done with building but something involving retail not condos. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  5. I still liked the original public library idea best. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  6. I will wait and see but I am not holding my breath I will like the finished project. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Jeffamartin1970

Jeffamartin1970
  • Member
  • 21 posts

Posted 24 February 2007 - 08:50 AM

Are happy with Victoria Councils approve of a condo project for the HBC Building on Douglas(Old Bay Building)?

I am not tottally in favour of the approved project. I think a new reatil development, library, museum or something would be better then a condo development. The condos will not help homeless or low income people because prices of units will be high. It will just raise real estate values for city of Victoria.

Alan Lowe should focus more attention on helping the homeless rather then mega projects that will just make Victoria more expensive to live.

#2 m0nkyman

m0nkyman
  • Member
  • 729 posts

Posted 24 February 2007 - 09:11 AM

Victoria has spent the last fifteen years focussed on the homeless, and managed to create a whole lot more of them. Let's try something different for a while.

Those of us who work for a living deserve some of the focus.

#3 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,162 posts

Posted 24 February 2007 - 11:38 AM

If the demand is there there is no reason why a developer shouldn't charge market values for quality housing. There is only so much society can do for the homeless and other individuals dependent on social programs if the tax base is small and constricted. The 500-plus condo units in this development will boost the City's coffers and allow it to fund more programs and services, be they social or what have you.

Those individuals who oppose market housing and support social housing must realize that their anti-market-housing efforts are inadvertently part of their social housing dilemma.

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


#4 NMP

NMP
  • Member
  • 134 posts

Posted 24 February 2007 - 03:15 PM

How exactly adding considerable amount of condos will "raise real estate values for city of Victoria"? One would think shortage of supply that increases demand pressure is a serious factor in prise increases.

Isn't it a bit of a stretch to evaluate any project from the point of view of "how it's going to help homeless"? And even if take it as a criteria, how would any of listed alternatives ("a new reatil development, library, museum or something") fit? Not that I am partonizing museums on a daily basis so I may have missed something, but in those instances when I did visit I haven't encountered too many homeless in there.

#5 D.L.

D.L.
  • Member
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 24 February 2007 - 03:38 PM

I think a new reatil development ... would be better then a condo development.

There is a considerable retail component included in the development.

The condos will not help homeless or low income people because prices of units will be high

New residential development helps take pressure off the existing housing stock, freeing up older buildings for the lower classes. If we do not build new residential as the cities population increases it's the lower class who get squeezed out of housing.

#6 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 25 February 2007 - 12:25 PM

as jane jacobs very convincingly wrote, it's a inefficient and poor idea to build new housing stock specificly for the poor. You get either huge "projects" style housing that functions in a way that keeps the poor poor and isolated, or you get super super expensive housing that depends on large subsidies.

Buildings have life cycles, the older a building gets, generally the lower the rents. Having a gradiant of housing styles and ages in a city, constantly cycling , ensures that all 'levels' of society have access. This is not just true for housing the "poor" but for also providing cheap breeding grounds, incubators for new businesses that couldn't afford the rents of a shiny new building in a popular area.

The Hudson can not and should not directly provide housing for the poor, but it's an important part in the over all housing cycle that we've been sadly neglecting downtown. What it can also do is give a fair amount of money from bonus density to groups and agencies that fix up older buildings to offer fair cheap housing.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#7 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 25 February 2007 - 06:49 PM

Which is exactly why it is so important that we don't let crap get through city council which will start to mold or leak or otherwise deteriorate in 20 years. When we settle on wood frame or corners cut in return for a couple less stories or a setback that may not be a big problem for the wealthy who move in this year. But the question is, will it still be decent and sturdy in 50 years or even 100 for the poor people who move in to this old stock?
Nowadays most people die of a sort of creeping common sense, and discover when it is too late that the only things one never regrets are one's mistakes.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891

#8 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 26 February 2007 - 11:33 AM

I don't know about concrete buildings, because like, they last like 100 years, and I don't know about that...

haha.

Good point, so many buildings in north america are like the disposable camera's of housing.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#9 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,162 posts

Posted 26 February 2007 - 11:36 AM

Didn't our green party councillor vote against the Juliet because it was built with concrete? She said something to the tune of the decision of approving this building would impact downtown for decades. She said it as though it would be a negative impact on downtown hence her decision not to vote for it. :smt102

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


#10 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 26 February 2007 - 12:33 PM

Yet she voted for the Hudson... I would have more respect for her if she had voted against this project. It just goes to show you that she is just following a particular lead.

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users