64 replies to this topic

[Barrrister]

One must not shadow the Woke or they might stop voting for you.

[aastra]

 

Council knows it gets more votes from James Bay than it does from Rockland.

 

Yeah, but those James Bayers have long been notorious for complaining about the negative impacts of wider/bulkier massing. In this case they could have had the alternative: a slimmer tower with a short podium.

 

I've said it before many times: politics couldn't exist if not for short memories. Sometimes the politics of today depend on people forgetting all about the previous day, the previous hour, even the previous sentence.

[G-Man]

I am not sure that you all have the politics of Rockland vs James Bay down correctly.

[Victoria Watcher]

No monster towers in quiet neighbourhoods

Re: “Proposed 17-storey James Bay tower deemed too high, sent back for redesign,” July 29.

 

What a delight it was to read that Victoria council has vetoed the 17-storey ­monstrosity proposed for James Bay.

 

I shook my head in disbelief at the news since we have all been convinced that there is nothing we can do to stop yet another incursion into our quiet neighbourhood.

 

James Bay was meant to be an enclave of “human proportions” — of buildings of no more than six storeys on green, leafy and mostly quiet streets.

 

As Coun. Stephen Hammond pointed out: “James Bay is already punching over its weight for density” and 112 units on the already busy Quebec and Kingston corridor toward Dallas Road would be disastrous.

 

Surely an attractive row of townhomes like some that have recently risen in the area would provide enough density as well as profit for the developer while retaining the human proportions of a city we can enjoy living in?

 

So bravo to council for thinking of the future. Build up your density in the high rise areas of downtown and by doubling up on larger city lots, not by throwing up monster towers into quiet family neighbourhoods.

 

Mari Peepre

James Bay

 

 

 

 

When city councillors ignore the planners

Re: “Proposed 17-storey James Bay tower deemed too high, sent back for redesign,” July 29.

 

My neighbours and I attended Victoria City Hall to observe the majority of ­council dismiss the planning department’s recommendation to decline a rezoning application for a 17-storey, 112-unit apartment complex on a parking lot at Kingston/Quebec/Montreal Streets in James Bay.

 

The location’s current zoning is R-K (missing middle style housing). The ­Official Community Plan (OCP) — ­created in 2012, with a vision 30 years into the future — suggests three to six storeys.

 

Instead, council opted to invite the developer to “take another kick at the can” (as Coun. Jeremy Caradonna said), and find a way to squeeze that same excessive density into a few less storeys.

 

Coun. Chris Coleman rationally pointed out that a more reasonable build of 80 suites would still be a huge gain. Once again, councillors Coleman, Marg Gardiner and Hammond seemed to be the voices of reason, defending the value of urban planning over spot zoning.

 

We left the meeting asking ourselves, why do some councillors have such avid inclination to dismiss the informed advice of city planners?

 

Soressa Gardner

Victoria

 

 

 

 

 

Massive structure would cut off the vista

Re: “Proposed 17-storey James Bay tower deemed too high, sent back for redesign,” July 29.

 

Referring to the proposed condo development on the Kingston/Montreal/Quebec St. parking lot in James Bay, this article states that “council directed staff to work with the developer on a modified proposal that would likely include a shorter tower, but ideally have the same number of housing units.”

 

Later in the story, Victoria Coun. Stephen Hammond is quoted as saying that “at 112 units, this is too many units.”

 

So what council wants regarding density in the project’s revised proposal remains unclear, but it makes a huge difference. If municipal authorities truly prefer “the same number of housing units” in a significantly lower tower, the outcome will be disastrous for surrounding residences with respect to their views and sunlight (not to mention traffic, parking and safety).

 

This is because if the building’s height is reduced by half to more closely approach that of the neighbouring Har bourside condo towers (seven and nine storeys above street level, respectively), then its “footprint” will have to be doubled in the amount of area covered.

 

The resulting massive structure would permanently cut off the eastern vista for most of the Harbourside units currently enjoying that prospect, an outcome that the proponent’s originally proposed narrow tower largely avoided.

 

Council needs to get its act together on this density issue before sending the proposal back for revision, and it would do well to proactively engage local residents in these deliberations.

 

Robin Farquhar

Victoria

[aastra]

 

...if the building’s height is reduced by half to more closely approach that of the neighbouring Har bourside condo towers (seven and nine storeys above street level, respectively), then its “footprint” will have to be doubled in the amount of area covered.

The resulting massive structure would permanently cut off the eastern vista for most of the Harbourside units currently enjoying that prospect, an outcome that the proponent’s originally proposed narrow tower largely avoided.

 

Robin Farquhar gets what I was saying in post #42 above.

Edited by aastra, 01 August 2023 - 10:59 AM.

[aastra]

Dare I suggest it, but why not simply chop the tower down to 15 stories and call it a day?

[Nparker]

...why not simply chop the tower down to 15 stories and call it a day

Would that actually appease the height NIMBYs?

[Victoria Watcher]

Who buys in the Harbourside condos and chooses an east view?

[Nparker]

Who would want a west facing unit in 205 Quebec Street if all you saw was the east facade of the Harbourside building?

[aastra]

To hear you guys tell it, "buildings of human proportions" present some problems.

[Victoria Watcher]

Exactly. Stand-off.

[Nparker]

...buildings of human proportions" present some problems

Only to humans.

[aastra]

 

Would that actually appease the height NIMBYs?

 

 

Why not? We're all reasonable people here, aren't we?

 

Seriously though, if you take the image in post #15 of this thread and chop the height down to ~14 stories, it ends up looking like a pretty typical neighbourhood-style junior highrise building, rather than a nightmare-fuel downtown-style skyscraper monster.

[Barrrister]

I think that this should be a new 32 story building. This council got a lot of support in James Bay so it is only fair that James Bay gets to live with the result along with the rest of the city. Ten or fifteen really large towers in James Bay would be a start in addressing the housing council. James Bay is not special.

[Biro]

This one is spicy. Enjoyed reading everyone’s contributions.

Regarding narrow streets in James Bay, how do other cities with big buildings work with density? Any chance the city enacts full on no parking portions of the roadways - or would this send the homeowners into a wild frenzy?

[lanforod]

Why not? We're all reasonable people here, aren't we?

Seriously though, if you take the image in post #15 of this thread and chop the height down to ~14 stories, it ends up looking like a pretty typical neighbourhood-style junior highrise building, rather than a nightmare-fuel downtown-style skyscraper monster.

They don't want that. They want max 6 storeys.

[aastra]

^But Robin Farquhar's letter to the editor would seem to indicate that at least one of them does not want that.

[aastra]

Anyway, I don't really have a dog in this fight (beyond the fact that I think it would be a silly wasted opportunity to build something lame on a high-profile site that's been an unsightly parking lot for decades). A high-quality building in the 6-10 story range could be great from where I'm standing. But lest we forget, this is the same Victoria/James Bay where you'll still get all kinds of bitter complaints if you build something blocky and short as versus something taller and slimmer.

 

I think I'd also say something a bit taller than the buildings along the water's edge would be preferable in terms of the esthetics of the view from Fisherman's Wharf or from the Vic West side. The view of the Songhees improved mightily when those layers of new buildings were added behind the foreground buildings. It just helps to diminish the flatness of the scene, if you get my meaning.

[Victoria Watcher]

Bring back that pyramid proposal!

[Nparker]

...something a bit taller than the buildings along the water's edge would be preferable in terms of the esthetics of the view from Fisherman's Wharf or from the Vic West side...

Agreed.