3521 replies to this topic

[Victoria Watcher]

She’s a super big piece of steaming refuse.

[Jacques Cadé]

^ With such comments, you say more about yourself than you do about anyone else. Can we stick to the "missing middle"? It seems to be missing from the politics on this forum as much as it is from Victoria's zoning.

Edited by Jacques Cadé, 10 May 2022 - 04:25 PM.

[JimV]

The move to density seems to rest on the unspoken assumption that at some time we will reach a point when everybody is adequately housed and then everything will be fine.  There is no reason whatsoever to imagine this will be the case.  The population continually grows through both births and immigration.  “If you build it they will come.”  It is impossible to accommodate that growth in one narrowly bound urban area, particularly Victoria.

 

The logical result of densification is a massive cluster of high rise towers resembling the suburbs of Pyongyang.  Or if you prefer, Vancouver’s West End.  At that point the charm and beauty of the original city is irretrievably lost.

 

The better alternative is, as Mike K has often suggested, to encourage the development of satellite cities that can house a substantial number of residents while still maintaining a modest scale and the preservation of natural spaces.

[Victoria Watcher]

Nobody is going to do that though. The new cities would require infrastructure like roads, water and sewage treatment. Nobody is going to offer up that money, for new cities.

[Mike K.]

It’s happening everywhere.

Jordan River is going bananas right now. It’s adding a commercial area, a brewery, etc. So is Port Renfrew. We don’t necessarily need “new” cities but there are a lot of currently tiny communities on the map with huge potential for growth.

The only thing holding things back is a political system stuck in 2000 on work trends, and 1980 on singular central cores as the only places of employment.

I also foresee a lot of development occurring wherever First Nations are situated that we would currently consider remote.

[Victoria Watcher]

You can't have new "cities" without sewage treatment plants.

[Mike K.]

Plenty of septic fields getting built all over the place.

[JimV]

New “cities” don’t have to be carved out of the wilderness.  There are many existing communities that already have infrastructure which could be expanded for a larger population.  That would be costly but probably much less than upgrading the services to accommodate high rise towers in the more expensive urban areas.  
 

There has already been some movement to smaller towns within a 100km or so of Victoria.  It has its problems, of course, but so does trying to cram everybody into vertical beehives downtown.

[Victoria Watcher]

The public will have a chance to weigh in on the City of Victoria’s proposed “missing middle” housing initiative after council’s committee of the whole voted Thursday to advance the project to a public hearing.

 

An open house will be scheduled before the hearing on the initiative, which proposes to change bylaws and land-use regulations to allow new forms of housing, and to give staff the power to approve permits for some developments.

 

Council was split 5-4 on whether to go ahead with the change, with councillors Charlayne Thornton-Joe, Ben Isitt, Sharmarke Dubow and Geoff Young voting against.

 

 

 

 

https://www.timescol...ictoria-5364040

 

 

 

 

At 5-4 already there is a decent chance this gets watered down appropriately.  I think it should be pilot-projected on Fernwood, Oaklands, and/or Vic West.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 13 May 2022 - 12:56 AM.

[spanky123]

^It was watered down. I didn't listen to all 4 hours of discussion but my understanding is that the affordability housing requirement was removed and the development fees were reduced (as opposed to increased as the TC reported). The argument was that developers won't make any money as it is so we don't want to increase costs. In the original proposal is stated fees of $10K to $70K a site and now it is $5K - $13K if I understand things correctly.

 

I credit Stephen Andrew for asking a lot of good questions of staff. Of note was his questioning on parking fees. Staff replied that there were no "current plans" to implement parking fees (of course there might be a plan to do so tomorrow) but to emphasize space for car shares, accessible parking while allowing for deliveries. etc (so much for that one spot for every 6 homes!). One question I didn't hear asked though is whether anyone has actually spoken to BC Assessment about the impact of upzoning. City staff seem convinced that upzoning land has no impact on property values and thus developers should not have to contribute to any amenity funds. Ultimately if land becomes more valuable as common sense would seem to imply, then the cost of these new units will increase and be less affordable for folks. 

 

I also noted that prior to the vote, a number of councilors like Stephen, Jeremy and CTH tried to get clarification from the Mayor on the impact of the motion, what exactly they were voting on and whether there was more opportunity for further discussion and consideration. In my opinion the Mayor basically railroaded everyone into a vote by declaring that if the motion was defeated she would not be inclined to allow it to be reviewed (despite having resubmitted defeated motion on several occasions during her term when it suited her) and preventing CTH from making any further amendments to the motion. 

Edited by spanky123, 13 May 2022 - 05:49 AM.

[Victoria Watcher]

One question I didn't hear asked though is whether anyone has actually spoken to BC Assessment about the impact of upzoning. City staff seem convinced that upzoning land has no impact on property values and thus developers should not have to contribute to any amenity funds.

 

This is a good question.

 

If your SFH sits on property zoned for a 6-plex, isn't that the "highest and best use" that the assessment people base it on?

[Mike K.]

Yes, values will increase. Obviously they will increase.

And obviously the city is moving towards paid street parking. It’s not a current plan because they haven’t yet passed the zoning change and developers haven’t yet begun building multi-plexes without parking.

[spanky123]

^ My take was that by the time they started lopping off space for car shares, delivery, accessibility, etc there won't be any spaces left to charge for!

[Mike K.]

Any way you slice it, they’re coming for your parked car.

But unlike prior OCP changes and these municipal initiatives, never before has the public been empowered to discuss and learn about these initiatives through social media. If a councillor says paid parking is a consideration, it absolutely is, and now the entirety of Victoria knows that along with the benefits of such a plan will come drawbacks if you appreciate some aspects of the status quo.

[G-Man]

People should pay to park their car on public roads. I mean it is a shared public resource and so there should be some sort of minor permit fee to keep your car there especially in residential areas. Residential parking only is theft of a public good in my opinion and the worst sort of parking system.

[Nparker]

People should pay to park their car on public roads...

People do pay, it's called property taxes.

[Mike K.]

People should pay to park their car on public roads. I mean it is a shared public resource and so there should be some sort of minor permit fee to keep your car there especially in residential areas. Residential parking only is theft of a public good in my opinion and the worst sort of parking system.

Why is the city encouraging an under-supply of parking on private land, then? Shouldn’t it require developers to supply a ratio closer to 1:1 per unit?

[Tom Braybrook]

 

The public will have a chance to weigh in on the City of Victoria’s proposed “missing middle” housing initiative after council’s committee of the whole voted Thursday to advance the project to a public hearing.

 

An open house will be scheduled before the hearing on the initiative, which proposes to change bylaws and land-use regulations to allow new forms of housing, and to give staff the power to approve permits for some developments.

 

Council was split 5-4 on whether to go ahead with the change, with councillors Charlayne Thornton-Joe, Ben Isitt, Sharmarke Dubow and Geoff Young voting against.

 

 

 

 

https://www.timescol...ictoria-5364040

 

 

 

 

At 5-4 already there is a decent chance this gets watered down appropriately.  I think it should be pilot-projected on Fernwood, Oaklands, and/or Vic West.

 

surely North Park would be a better choice ;-)

[Victoria Watcher]

Victoria residential rezoning proposal aims to keep families in the city

Missing middle initiative seeks to advanneighbourhood townhomes, houseplexes


https://www.vicnews....es-in-the-city/

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 13 May 2022 - 04:04 PM.

[Nparker]

On the plus side, violent youth won't have to travel as far to wreak havoc downtown. They can probably make the trip on their bikes.