2544 replies to this topic

[Belleprincess]

I’m hoping Andrew reeve will run. He will have my vote

[Kapten Kapsell]

Wondering if a deterrent to any type of moderate candidate is that they and G Young will still end up getting outvoted by the Helps/Isitt/TV folks?

 

I've mentioned the difficulty in applying the traditional political labels at the municipal level, and this is especially true of Geoff Young.  He's been called a 'moderate' or 'conservative' voice, but he frequently votes against development proposals; two prominent 'market rate' proposals he voted against in the last 3 years are 1008 Pandora (Bosa 4 Rent / Save on Foods) and Bellwood Park in Rockland.  So even though he may seemed to be the ideological opposite of Isitt, he seems to mimic Isitt's voting patterns when it comes to developments...

[Mike K.]

Yes, he’s definitely of the opinion that density belongs in downtown.

[Belleprincess]

I've mentioned the difficulty in applying the traditional political labels at the municipal level, and this is especially true of Geoff Young. He's been called a 'moderate' or 'conservative' voice, but he frequently votes against development proposals; two prominent 'market rate' proposals he voted against in the last 3 years are 1008 Pandora (Bosa 4 Rent / Save on Foods) and Bellwood Park in Rockland. So even though he may seemed to be the ideological opposite of Isitt, he seems to mimic Isitt's voting patterns when it comes to developments...

He’s really not that moderate, he’s just not a communist/Marxist/ hardcore socialist. So along with looking sane - he looks moderate compared to the other yahoos.

[Victoria Watcher]

it's not unreasonable to oppose high density in the traditionally sfd neighbourhoods of victoria.  just like saanich has this area that's all sfd and also has virtually zero commercial.  (maps are same scale).

 

 

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 25 November 2019 - 06:02 PM.

[Mike K.]

Right. I take him to be quite moderate when it comes to density in the downtown core where he believes it belongs. Of course the batty thing now is we have downtown residents living in highrise towers opposing highrise towers.

[DavidL]

it's not unreasonable to oppose high density in the traditionally sfd neighbourhoods of victoria.  just like saanich has this area that's all sfd and also has virtually zero commercial.  (maps are same scale).

 

screenshot-www.google.ca-2019.11.25-20_57_30.png

 

screenshot-www.google.ca-2019.11.25-20_54_37.png

 

Well except that Saanich is 103 sq km while Victoria is merely 17 sq km, so a bit of a false analogy there.

[Victoria Watcher]

just because Victoria is small should it mean they must allow high density into Fairfield or rockland? I say no.

[Kapten Kapsell]

just because Victoria is small should it mean they must allow high density into Fairfield or rockland? I say no.

You're too late when it comes to Fairfield.  Per census data, Fairfield actually has the highest population density of any neighbourhood on Vancouver Island.  Much of that density comes in the form of 4-storey apartment blocks, secondary suites, and former SFHs converted into mutli-unit stratas; small lot sizes for the SFHs are likely a contributing factor too. 

 

It's possible that Fairfield will be surpassed by Harris Green / Downtown in the near future, but the neighbourhood continues to densify (primarily through small projects)....

[Rob Randall]

^aastra has a Fairfield density chart handy for clipping and saving.

[DavidL]

just because Victoria is small should it mean they must allow high density into Fairfield or rockland? I say no.

 

 

You're too late when it comes to Fairfield.  Per census data, Fairfield actually has the highest population density of any neighbourhood on Vancouver Island.  Much of that density comes in the form of 4-storey apartment blocks, secondary suites, and former SFHs converted into mutli-unit stratas; small lot sizes for the SFHs are likely a contributing factor too. 

 

It's possible that Fairfield will be surpassed by Harris Green / Downtown in the near future, but the neighbourhood continues to densify (primarily through small projects)....

 

And that's the thing, density isn't just SFD vs apartment buildings, or "high" density.  Density hasn't killed Fairfield, and it won't kill any other neighbourhood if properly applied.  To tie this back to the topic I would strongly support anyone who understands that density across the board in all neighbourhoods will be the way forward.  One very simple policy would be to allow duplexes in all SFD zones.  This was done in Vancouver, relatively quickly, and the sky hasn't fallen.  What they did do was double their ground oriented development land base overnight.  

[spanky123]

And that's the thing, density isn't just SFD vs apartment buildings, or "high" density.  Density hasn't killed Fairfield, and it won't kill any other neighbourhood if properly applied.  To tie this back to the topic I would strongly support anyone who understands that density across the board in all neighbourhoods will be the way forward.  One very simple policy would be to allow duplexes in all SFD zones.  This was done in Vancouver, relatively quickly, and the sky hasn't fallen.  What they did do was double their ground oriented development land base overnight.  

 

Yeah but won't increasing population increase CO2 emissions? 

[Kapten Kapsell]

Yeah but won't increasing population increase CO2 emissions? 

Increasing population *density* will likely lower emissions on a per-person basis.  US data shows that New York City (the most densely-populated city in the US) has that country's lowest per-capita emissions, largely because it's generally more efficient to house people in multi-unit buildings *and* New Yorkers have good access to transit, walking, and cycling infrastructure ...

 

By contrast, Vermont- despite its 'green' image- is the most rural state in the US and has high per-capita emissions.

[Mike K.]

Now that being said, according to Lung.org NYC is the most polluted city along the eastern seaboard, and is the only city among America’s top-10 most polluted (by ozone) outside of a warm climate.

Vermont’s towns do not make any of Lung.org’s top-25 (or in this case worse 25) lists.

[shoeflack]

So what's worse...a highly densely populated metropolis where everyone contributes a little bit of CO2 emissions to an overall massive sum, or a sparsely populated rural area where everyone contributes a large amount of CO2 emissions to an overall small sum?

 

Kind of sounds like Victoria is the best of both worlds here...some (Mike's car) contribute little to none, others (Mike's truck) contribute a lot...overall we don't look so bad though! Besides, isn't most of that stuff just blown over to the Olympic peninsula along with our sewage by wind and currents anyways?

[Coreyburger]

Now that being said, according to Lung.org NYC is the most polluted city along the eastern seaboard, and is the only city among America’s top-10 most polluted (by ozone) outside of a warm climate.

Vermont’s towns do not make any of Lung.org’s top-25 (or in this case worse 25) lists.

 

A bunch of that might simply due to lack of air pollution monitoring stations. Rural air pollution can actually be quite bad and sometimes worse than cities.

[Kapten Kapsell]

Now that being said, according to Lung.org NYC is the most polluted city along the eastern seaboard, and is the only city among America’s top-10 most polluted (by ozone) outside of a warm climate.

Vermont’s towns do not make any of Lung.org’s top-25 (or in this case worse 25) lists.

Yes that's true, my original post referred simply to CO2 emissions in response to Spanky's question.  Ozone and particulate matter pollution are problematic in cities, and pollution levels along major arterial roads in Canadian cities are at unhealthy levels (per a recent article in the Globe and Mail).  Hopefully the growth of electric vehicles will make it better for people living on busy thoroughfares...

[Mike K.]

So what's worse...a highly densely populated metropolis where everyone contributes a little bit of CO2 emissions to an overall massive sum, or a sparsely populated rural area where everyone contributes a large amount of CO2 emissions to an overall small sum?

 

High-density apartment buildings can be incredibly inefficient, especially those that offer 'free' hot water and heat. This gets abused, a lot.

 

Even modern condos have heated parkades, 24/hour lighting, 24/hour fans and ventilation equipment, etc. They suck up energy like nobody's business. I've never once had to use a/c to cool my house, but I had a/c on standby in my highrise unit from May until late September, and when it ran it would spool up in the AM and turn off in the late PM given my southeast->northwest exposure.

[Coreyburger]

Yes that's true, my original post referred simply to CO2 emissions in response to Spanky's question.  Ozone and particulate matter pollution are problematic in cities, and pollution levels along major arterial roads in Canadian cities are at unhealthy levels (per a recent article in the Globe and Mail).  Hopefully the growth of electric vehicles will make it better for people living on busy thoroughfares...

 

Except for one problem: non-tailpipe emissions are now worse than tailpipe emissions for particulate matter. Which means e-vehicles aren't going to do a damn thing about it. Those particulates are a mixture of tire bits, brake bits, and suspended dust from the road

[lanforod]

Except for one problem: non-tailpipe emissions are now worse than tailpipe emissions for particulate matter. Which means e-vehicles aren't going to do a damn thing about it. Those particulates are a mixture of tire bits, brake bits, and suspended dust from the road

 

What does this mean? Got some source material? Does that affect our climate?