121 replies to this topic

[Victoria Watcher]

I say move it forward. It’s cool.

[Nparker]

In the way only ugly, rectangular boxes that thumb-their-noses at local heritage can be cool.

[aastra]

 

The City is trying to avoid delays and costs associated to public hearings where the design meets the OCP/DCAP. We get bogged down so often by the minutiae, that ends up costing us so much time for approvals that are ultimately granted.

 

 

I suppose it's just a tremendous coincidence how incredibly convenient this all is re: the CoV's forked-tongued attitude about heritage preservation.

 

Seriously, does nobody see the patterns? If you want to preserve & restore Northern Junk then you should get a long battle. If you want to delete a quintessential neighbourhood character building in North Park then you should get a fast pass. If you want to redevelop an irrelevant parking lot then you should get a long battle. If you want to build generic bunker-style supportive housing then you should get a fast pass. If you want to preserve & restore Mount St. Angela then you should get a long battle.

[PPPdev]

We started this project in April 2020...if that's a free pass then we are all totally screwed.

[aastra]

I'm not sure if you're joking or not. Yes, in Victoria that would be a fast pass. Read up on Northern Junk and Mount St. Angela and many other projects over the years if you don't believe me.

[aastra]

Everything is upside down and backwards. Pro-development fanboys are the only ones who seem to care about neighbourhood character and heritage preservation anymore, and anti-development curmudgeons are the ones promoting contempt for heritage and a generally laissez-faire attitude re: modern architectural design.

 

Did y'all read the Citified article? Check it out:

 

 

Staff say that while the proposal is within the boundary of the North Park neighbourhood, the development is also guided by the Downtown Core Area Plan (DCAP), in addition to North Park’s OCP. The DCAP calls for a building of up to 15-storeys at The Abbey’s location, well within the OCP’s 20-storey height limit, although permitting a lower density of 4.5:1 compared to the OCP’s 5:1.

 

Here's the thing: if the CoV has no issues with approving highrise buildings on sites like the Abbey, because the CoV is all about helping people who desperately need housing (don't ya know), then why not give the developer a fast pass to build several stories taller than the current proposal in exchange for preserving the frickin' ground level facade?

 

But aastra! Are you crazy? 20-stories on that site would ruin the neighbourhood! What about heritage? What about neighbourhood character? You deserve a long battle if you try to do something like that! etc.

Edited by aastra, 13 September 2023 - 11:34 AM.

[aastra]

Whoops: I edited the above to clarify what I was trying to say.

[PPPdev]

Apples to oranges, both MSA and NJ are designated buildings. The Abbey has nothing, it's not even on the 'interested' list. The building has been chopped so many times, its not even The Abbey, the original capstone was Hong Yuen & Co.

 

We throw the word "heritage" around so liberally that it literally has one meaning: "old" 

[Nparker]

If it was faux heritage, why were you initially trying to preserve it?

[GaryOak]

A decade long battle for a dozen story building is a luxury of low interest rates. In today's world we no longer have that luxury. And to add on to that we have people Victoria born and raised being evicted with no place to go other than the streets. Right now we need to enter triage mode for this housing crisis and stop pretending we have the luxury of time.

[PPPdev]

If it was faux heritage, why were you initially trying to preserve it?

 

Where did I say it was "faux"? That word has meaning.

 

I'd truly like to explain to you the design history but every single post you make is an attack on Aryze so there is little incentive. Feel free to read our iterations of the application brief posted on the development tracker, it explains everything is detail.

[aastra]

 

Pro-development fanboys are the only ones who seem to care about neighbourhood character and heritage preservation anymore

 

 

The Abbey has nothing, it's not even on the 'interested' list. The building has been chopped so many times, its not even The Abbey, the original capstone was Hong Yuen & Co.

 

Sigh.

 

You know, back in the day if you had a generally pro-development attitude in Victoria then you were a social outcast. In many situations you were deemed unworthy of even being allowed to speak. But in the 2000s the appealing new developments were starting to loosen up those old attitudes, and there was even a brief period when developers were reaching out to people like us to speak up and voice our support, so that public hearings and such weren't so artificially slanted against them as per the old political formula.

But now here we are in the 2020s and it's as if some developers are trying to alienate people who would otherwise be their natural supporters. Instead of trying to court the people who would naturally be inclined to be receptive to their work, it's as if they're trying to antagonize them and blow them off. It's just such a peculiar dynamic right now.

Politics is always flirting with insanity even at the best of times, as we all know. Methinks this is a good example of it in the development sphere.


 

[aastra]

 

2023:
And to add on to that we have people Victoria born and raised being evicted with no place to go other than the streets. Right now we need to enter triage mode for this housing crisis and stop pretending we have the luxury of time.

 

--

 

 

Daily Colonist
September 7, 1969

"There's No Place to Go in City"

Rent increases, apathy, shortage of housing hit pensioners, Indians, people with children

"Landlords are becoming extortionists, helped by the housing crisis, the tearing down of older houses..."

The bitter comment came Saturday from a 70-year-old pensioner who can either leave his housekeeping room or pay a $5 a month rent increase.

"Please don't use my name, or I shall get an eviction notice, and there's just no place to go in the city," he added.

The pensioner was just one more victim of a housing crisis which hit Victoria about three years ago, and is still awaiting a solution.

...rent for apartments, duplexes, houses and housekeeping rooms is being increased two or three times a year, while older houses are being torn down to make way for expensive apartment blocks.

"I don't quite know who they're going to put into the new apartment blocks," said Susan Talbot of the Community Action Group, who handles four or five emergency appeals for housing every week.

"The pensioners can't afford to go in, and people with children wouldn't be allowed, even if they could pay the rent."

The destruction of older houses that have been used as suites for families and housekeeping rooms for pensioners distresses both the elderly and those who work in housing.

"There just aren't enough houses now, and these people who are moved out to make way for apartments have no place to go," said Mrs. Talbot.

[Nparker]

...every single post you make is an attack on Aryze so there is little incentive

When Aryze proposes something worthy of my approval, they will get it. To date, there has been, as you say, "little incentive".

[PPPdev]

Nparker:

 

We house people and love the work we do and your approval means little in the context of helping people love their home, neighbourhood, city.

 

Aastra:

 

I'm sorry you feel that why, I'm not trying to alienate you. The trouble is there is no consensus anymore. Nothing even close. We meet thousands of people annually through our outreach efforts and what we've learned is that society is very pluralistic. It's full of positive and negative freedoms in PoliSci101 speak. So our trouble as a developer is how do you navigate all these interests while still trying to achieve a broader community objective.

 

This project is a case study in that. Community Consultation overwhelmingly loved the first design. Fine, the hardcore VV'ers of course didnt but the people who responded to the mailers and attended CALUC's sure did. Staff did not at all. We had meetings and meetings to try and convince and it wasn't happening. So. Do we take forward a project staff will recommend decline but the community likes or do we pivot to get staff support. 8 times out of 10, we'd stick to the design and go forward with no staff support. Now we're "alienating" people for just trying to build some friggin rental housing.

 

I'm signing off, so thanks for the discussion, but these decisions are never binary. They are full of analysis, angst, and trade-offs. There is no consensus. 

Edited by PPPdev, 13 September 2023 - 12:15 PM.

[Victoria Watcher]

Agree with your last sentence.

Do what you will here, it’ll be cool.

Plus it’s pretty much the least impactful development on neighbours. Let it be whatever it wants to be!

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 13 September 2023 - 12:37 PM.

[Vin]

A decade long battle for a dozen story building is a luxury of low interest rates. In today's world we no longer have that luxury. And to add on to that we have people Victoria born and raised being evicted with no place to go other than the streets. Right now we need to enter triage mode for this housing crisis and stop pretending we have the luxury of time.

 

Bring back the heritage portion and we talk. It's not that hard, and wouldn't waste any time because the original concept already had that element included.

[lanforod]

I don't get the desire to keep this old building. It's old, but special? eh. meh.  I'm not crazy for the current proposed design, I think a simple change of making those balconies 2 feet less depth would help a lot. That said, taste is personal, there's probably folks who like it, and it'll rent out without any problems, of course.

[Nparker]

Bring back the heritage portion and we talk. It's not that hard, and wouldn't waste any time because the original concept already had that element included.

The first two iterations included the existing structure. It was then allegedly deemed too expensive to retain even the facade of the historic building and thus was borne the third design. The current proposal "celebrates" the site's history through demolition or, as it is euphemistically referred to by the developer, "material memory" .

[Mike K.]

I suppose it's just a tremendous coincidence how incredibly convenient this all is re: the CoV's forked-tongued attitude about heritage preservation.

Seriously, does nobody see the patterns? If you want to preserve & restore Northern Junk then you should get a long battle. If you want to delete a quintessential neighbourhood character building in North Park then you should get a fast pass. If you want to redevelop an irrelevant parking lot then you should get a long battle. If you want to build generic bunker-style supportive housing then you should get a fast pass. If you want to preserve & restore Mount St. Angela then you should get a long battle.

Over six years -so far- for 937 View Street.

269 rentals that could have been completed by now, but are still moving through the process.

I do think that under this council that won’t happen any more. These guys aren’t interested in nitpicking, and just want to get on with it. Developers and the public are tired and worn down by the pick-apart style of scrutiny that involves staff (an ever changing make-up of staffers), CALUCs, special interest groups, the general public and eventually council. If a project meets the OCP objective, it shouldn’t get mired by years of controversy.

I agree with your sentiment regarding heritage and modernity. The classical urbanist of Victoria appreciated the lengths developers went to preserve heritage facades, whether or not a building was registered. Here we could have solved that, if the City granted more density.

But on the flip side, does that incentivize the replacement of functional older buildings because the City will give you 30 extra units? Over the span of a building’s life that’s a very lucrative proposition.