1660 replies to this topic

[spanky123]

Victoria city councilors opposed to a large rental development? Has that ever happened before?*

 

*yes, many, many, many times

 

I think that they are in favour of the development, the comments have been that a "local developer" should be doing it however.

[aastra]

I assume it will pass because it would be the perfect irony, the perfect icing on the cake re: those many years of political resistance to smaller projects. Smaller projects met hard resistance because they would have been too big, too disruptive, too transformative, too impactful. So therefore one of the largest projects ever should be no problem. It would nicely close the loop on all the hypocrisy and political insanity.

[downtownlurker]

It's too big/tall and will block my uncompromised view of View Towers. 

[baconnbits]

I assume it will pass because it would be the perfect irony, the perfect icing on the cake re: those many years of political resistance to smaller projects. Smaller projects met hard resistance because they would have been too big, too disruptive, too transformative, too impactful. So therefore one of the largest projects ever should be no problem. It would nicely close the loop on all the hypocrisy and political insanity.

I agree
I don’t like the devekopment at all. I think it will
Ultimately look cheap and age poorly. The podium is going to result in a poor street interface. Not enough public space etc etc but the crisis of housing fueled by no’s to smaller projects that would’ve made a difference to supply will probably see it get approved

[Nparker]

Updated website: https://www.harrisgr...OQD3jw5vKuS45co

[aastra]

 

but the crisis of housing fueled by no’s to smaller projects that would’ve made a difference to supply will probably see it get approved

 

This is what I'm saying. Here's the thing: we knew the London Drugs "strip mall" format was overdue for redevelopment pretty much from the day it was built. And I personally don't have a problem with high density on that block. But I'm just saying this is yet another example of how an uncompromising anti-everything attitude against smaller & more gradual redevelopment tends to produce the circumstances that justify (or even necessitate) larger and more extreme redevelopment. What might have seemed outrageous before now seems perfectly reasonable, and it's all because of the policies and attitudes that created today's pressures.

 

I'd also suggest the "missing middle" baloney is the inevitable payoff re: Victoria's insincere guff about preservation. Many potentially fine old houses and much appealing neighbourhood character is going to go into the trash bin. But if Victoria had been pro-active in the past about encouraging and incentivizing restoration of those old houses then they wouldn't be so vulnerable now. Everything pays off eventually. None of these outcomes are surprising.

[aastra]

I'd happily chip in some of Mike K.'s salary if it would motivate them to go the extra mile and make the tallest London Drugs tower look half-decently different from the other two towers on that block. Having three tall towers of the same basic design on the same block would be very lame.

[Citified.ca]

Feb 9th public hearing will determine future of 1,500-unit downtown rental dev with new spaces for London Drugs, Market on Yates

https://victoria.cit...arket-on-yates/

[Nparker]

I sent my letter of support to council on the weekend. I encourage others to do the same.

[Kapten Kapsell]

The DRA has written to council expressing their opposition to the project in its current form: https://www.victoria...opments-project

Mike, does it make sense to update the citified article to reflect this opposition…?

[Nparker]

Why does the DRA hate the downtown so much?

[Mike K.]

“The DRA acknowledges the pressing need for additional rental housing in Victoria — especially affordable rentals — and supports and encourages development of additional and affordable rental housing within the Downtown Neighbourhood. The DRA also recognizes the critical need to develop all housing in a way that promotes and fosters the livability of the City, especially the neighbourhood in which the housing is located.

But…”

I added the “but.”

I don’t know what to say. The DRA is not the organization it was when it formed. It’s hard to understand why it is so often so much against the public sentiment on issues of development. What they appear to want can never be achieved economically and politically.

[aastra]

You guys are just jealous because they're fighting the good fight re: climate change. Yes, they're doing the exact opposite of what you would actually be doing if you actually believed in man-made climate change, but still...

[Victoria Watcher]

The neighbourhood associations need to be de-funded if they do not meet certain participation metrics.

[Mike K.]

This Developer has not provided any independently tested, reliable evidence to prove a hardship that would make the variances requested in this proposal a necessity.

Why does it have to be a necessity based on hardship? There’s some social engineering going on here.

[Victoria Watcher]

I think one of the tenets of good variances is proving a hardship. That’s sort of in the rules.

But it can certainly be a financial hardship. “We can’t make the numbers work at the prescribed density/height/whatever so we request this variance to remove that hardship.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 07 February 2023 - 01:24 PM.

[aastra]

 

What they appear to want can never be achieved economically and politically.

 

Methinks the key phrase is "appear to want". It's the eternal pursuit of an ambiguous, indescribable, and unreachable ideal. We used to see this all the time back in the day when particular reporters were giving particular councilors a huge amount of press re: their development complaints. The Northern Junk saga was also heavy with this. And now the torch has been passed to the DRA.

 

The DRA's language has also become increasingly political (as in, worthless), full of vacuous phrases like "meaningful public consultation". Considering all of the issues in Harris Green and downtown, the following line suggests a pretty severe disconnect from reality:

 

 

- the amenity contribution should be in cash, so the City can decide what amenities are needed.

 

The CoV knows what's best for Harris Green. Who could possibly argue with that?

 

And then there's the following, which just blows my mind. Victorians always want to wipe things out and clear things away. Gotta open things up, right? It never seems to work, but maybe that's because we've never really done it in the right way. Exactly where in Harris Green do we think it would even be feasible to wipe out enough buildings to create a half-decently worthwhile park? And why oh why are we still acting as if the neglected boulevard green itself does not exist? If you want to spend public money then spend it on making existing things better.

 

 

The City should commit to acquiring land for additional green space in our neighbourhood.

 

[Nparker]

If CoV council rejects this application I will never be convinced there is a local housing crisis. I told them as much in my recent letter of support. Furthermore, if they reject it on the basis of affordability it makes the recently pushed-through MMHI policy even more laughable, since they've already demonstrated that affordability is not a paramount concern.

[corvus]

I think they make a fair point about using the requested increased density as a mechanism to ensure more of the project is affordable - as someone who works in affordable housing development I can guarantee that 10% below CMHC market for 10% of the units is easily doable. Requesting proof of hardship (??) is excessive. 

[aastra]

 

The City should commit to acquiring land for additional green space in our neighbourhood.

 

Are they thinking of the parking lot between Fort and View? If so, then I take it back. I admit that site could possibly be made to work.