Municipalities can’t help themselves, growing the list of zoning.
Edited by Victoria Watcher, 07 May 2022 - 01:46 PM.
![]() | APPROVED Oak and Stone Uses: condo, commercial Address: 3226 Shelbourne Street Municipality: Saanich Region: Urban core Storeys: 6 Condo units: (1BR, 2BR, 1BR + den, junior 1BR, junior 2BR) Sales status: pre-sales |
Posted 07 May 2022 - 01:45 PM
Edited by Victoria Watcher, 07 May 2022 - 01:46 PM.
Posted 07 May 2022 - 02:03 PM
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
Posted 07 May 2022 - 03:10 PM
Posted 07 May 2022 - 06:40 PM
So what would you prefer to see? Maybe something more like those newer three-story projects that are along Shelbourne closer to Haultain?
How about a "Sorry, We're Closed" sign at the city entrance.
People want to move here because of what it was, not what it is about to become.
Build all the infill projects, build more high rises, stuff more people into the same space and soon people will want to be moving out.
Build more cities and communities.
Posted 07 May 2022 - 07:01 PM
The more people that move into a place, the more people that will want to move out of a place? That sounds like a self-correcting situation.
Posted 09 May 2022 - 10:13 AM
It feels very, very silly to me that the SVAP caps out at four stories along one of the municipality's very few major roadways. We were building four storey lowrises the last time there was an actual big push for apartment building in the 70s, and we're not aiming any higher 50 years later? In the middle of a well-acknowledged housing crisis? Like if not along Shelbourne, then where?
Posted 09 May 2022 - 10:18 AM
Yeah, it's sort of backwards, isn't it?
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
Posted 09 May 2022 - 10:19 AM
^ Read that in a tone of resignation, not outrage, since I don't actually expect better of Saanich. Still, from the perspective of this trained planner, 4 storeys seems like a pathetically low ask, particularly when you factor in the beating of public opinion that every project is going to take that will almost inevitably reduce its size.
4 storeys along this corridor just recreates the built form of the strip just north of Cook Street Village, which is hardly disruptive to the neighbourhood, backs right onto single family homes and, again, is old and established as hell.
Edited by corvus, 09 May 2022 - 10:20 AM.
Posted 09 May 2022 - 10:21 AM
You're not wrong, Corvus. The SVAP feels like a plan that started with great intentions, then was created in such a way as to make its mechanisms difficult to implement. I do think, though, that these plans can sometimes take a form that requires the developers to bring more goodies to the table in order for council to accommodate the viable project.
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
Posted 09 May 2022 - 10:28 AM
"sometimes" lol
Yes, plans are typically systemically designed such that developers have to bring a whoooole lot to the table, generally through unpredictable one-off negotiations, in order to build an actually profitable project. Whether this is because planners just aren't trained to account for the economic realities of development or as an intentional strategy to wring more out of developers while still retaining neighbourhood goodwill, the end result is an unpredictable and frustrating development process while you try to figure out exactly which "goodies" council wants this time.
Posted 09 May 2022 - 10:50 AM
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
Posted 09 May 2022 - 12:08 PM
I don't think this is an intentional or malicious conspiracy by any means - I'm confident that most individuals involved are generally well intentioned and trying their best.
Still though, the outcome pattern is noticeable.
Posted 09 May 2022 - 04:47 PM
It is debatable if Shellbourne counts as a “major roadway”. Most is only two lanes, and the planners are trying to reduce the remaining 4 lane section to 2 lanes.
Posted 09 May 2022 - 05:15 PM
Posted 10 May 2022 - 05:20 AM
Posted 12 May 2022 - 10:56 AM
Edited by Victoria Watcher, 12 May 2022 - 10:57 AM.
Posted 10 July 2022 - 01:14 PM
Edited by Victoria Watcher, 10 July 2022 - 01:14 PM.
Posted 10 July 2022 - 01:58 PM
Pure NIMBYism is the only reason to object to this proposal.
Edit: eventually all the properties along Shelbourne between Hillside and McKenzie will be multi-family housing.
Edited by Nparker, 10 July 2022 - 02:04 PM.
Posted 10 July 2022 - 03:09 PM
Pure NIMBYism is the only reason to object to this proposal.
There is the official plan, agreed to after extensive public consultation, which limits that location to 4 storeys.
Or was the consultation and plan merely a sham?
Posted 10 July 2022 - 03:12 PM
There is the official plan, agreed to after extensive public consultation, which limits that location to 4 storeys...
A well designed 6-storey building can be barely noticeably taller than a 4-storey building. The OCP underestimated the need for MFDs along Shelbourne.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users