21 replies to this topic

[Phil McAvity]

The argument against taller buildings in Victoria:

-Taller buildings cast longer shadows, thus creating a slightly darker, colder downtown.

-Some people like the small town look of Victoria.



The argument for taller buildings in Victoria:

Building them creates construction jobs.

Increases the housing stock by providing homes thus driving down the cost of condos/rent.

Increase in commercial space increases the number of jobs available.

Lets wilderness stay that way by increased density.

Creates more pedestrian traffic thereby lowering crime rate and increasing vibrancy.



Thoughts?

[Holden West]

Con:

Some think tall buildings

- clash with heritage structures
- makes Victoria resemble large cities like Vancouver
- merely an opportunity for speculators to get rich
- are 'undemocratic'--only the rich can afford the upper floors
- block certain views
- lack intimacy with the street and are oppressive
- create a aircraft flight risk or are terrorist targets


Pro:

Some think tall buildings

- make for a varied skyline
- create landmarks
- create density while allowing open space at ground level
- provide spectacular views
- provide more light and air for residents than squatter buildings

I think that about covers it.

[aastra]

Holden's talking about tall building's but Phil's talking about taller buildings.

So what does "taller" really mean? Taller than Victoria's tallest building? Taller than the average 1970s Victoria highrise? Taller than a surface parking lot?

[Holden West]

I assume we're talking about the buildings people are complaining about--ones above the 14 storey height limit although I'm sure there are those that would prefer to see a "heritage sized" height limit of about 8 to 10 storeys.

The wind tunnel effect is mentioned often by the Axis of Airspace but I limited my list to complaints unique to tall buildings. As has been pointed out before, one of the worst wind tunnel offenders is the short, squat old Union Club.

[Baro]

Don't tall buildings cast LESS shadow since its a long thin shadow that moves rather than a brick that permanently shadows the area?

[m0nkyman]

Don't tall buildings cast LESS shadow since its a long thin shadow that moves rather than a brick that permanently shadows the area?

You're assuming a point tower. I know of a few massive footprint buildings that are 20-30 stories.

[Mike K.]

Tall buildings might tear a hole in Heaven. Can't have that happen.

[gumgum]

More for the pros:

-larger tax base for the city
-more opportunity for affordable housing to be provided
-more density = more vibrancy

[Holden West]

^I didn't account for those aspects because technically you could acheive those benefits without going high.

Yes, Derf--for every floor above the height limit, God also kills a kitten.

[G-Man]

While it does kill a kitten they do provide habitat for racoons.

[Ben Smith]

I don't find theres any reasoning AGAINST it.

Its a little chilly in the shadows downtown, and it doesnt look "small town".
If anyone was to open their eyes, they would see we ARENT a small town anymore, and its time this child got potty trained.

[gumgum]

^I didn't account for those aspects because technically you could acheive those benefits without going high.

Not to the same degree though.
The higher the building, the higher the potential profit margin for the developer, the greater the opportunity for social and economic benefit.
There are limits with lower buildings with regards to this, no matter how dense. Whereas with taler buildings, the sky is the limit - no pun intended.

[Phil McAvity]

Apparently i wasn't clear enough when i said taller building. I figured it was pretty obvious that i mean't taller than what we have now. I guess i should have said, "The argument for creating buildings that will, in the very near future, eclipse Victoria's current five to ten tallest buildings:" :smt102

gumgum, your point about the larger tax base is a good one-one that i didn't think of, and one that Holden is wrong about, because the taller the building, the more the tax revenue, be it a commercial or residential building. Holden's points aren't all wrong though, although i would replace his word "speculators" with "developers". Many pinkos are jealous of the money that developers make. In fact, the 43.5 metre height limit in this city could easily be seen as a socialist attempt to extort money out of developers by forcing them to provide public amenities to circumvent that bylaw, thereby really cutting into their profit because the taller the building, the greater potential for profit, thus the larger the amenity package required.

Ben, i liked your potty-training analogy. :tup: The only problem is, that like the young child, many people that oppose taller buildings are both the least intelligent and the loudest. :smt088

[aastra]

Aria's first incarnation included a 19-story tower. CFAX tackled the issue like so:

"The debate over tall buildings in Victoria may intensify after a local development company filed plans for a 19-storey condo building downtown. Are you ok with taller buildings?"

Note the misuse of the word "taller." The implication of CFAX's question is that 19 residential stories represented some sort of uncharted altitude for Victoria, when in fact -- as we all know -- it didn't.

If a guy who was 5'11'' moved into town, we wouldn't be asking ourselves if we were comfortable with "taller" people living in Victoria. If the guy was driving a Honda Civic we wouldn't be asking ourselves if we were comfortable with "longer" automobiles in Victoria. But somebody proposes a 19-story highrise and we're asking ourselves if we're comfortable with "taller" buildings.

Thus, it's never really obvious what somebody in Victoria means when they use the word "taller."

[Holden West]

So much time has elapsed since the cereal box apartment era people tend to not think of them when considering new highrise construction. Those old commie blocks are scattered far and wide randomly outside the downtown core so that, unlike West Van's dense cluster, Victoria's plus-15s are practically invisible.

I think when people say "taller" in regular conversation they're referring to to taller than the height limit, not necessarily Orchard House or Roberts House etc.

gumgum, your point about the larger tax base is a good one-one that i didn't think of, and one that Holden is wrong about, because the taller the building, the more the tax revenue, be it a commercial or residential building.

I said "technically" and I probably should have also said "practically", since height is not automatically a guarantee of higher tax rates in Victoria. We all know of plenty of squat sub-43 metre buildings that have higher densities than some of the taller highrises. Generally, the higher the building, the lower the lot coverage so I would assume density stays fairly stable until you get well past 20 storeys or so.

So, to clarify I'd say you can't really make the higher tax revenue argument in Victoria. Vancouver, definitely!

[Icebergalley]

^ Hope that you're talking about net revenue... as there is only one residential tax rate applied to the assessed value...

Yes, the property tax revenue goes up as one densifies:

But, so do the cost of infrastructure and other municipally funded services to the property...

And, so do the cost of services to people unless there is lots of "slack" in the system...

I am one who turns a deaf ear to arguments based on "we get more taxes" unless I hear net of cost...

[gumgum]

Generally, the higher the building, the lower the lot coverage so I would assume density stays fairly stable until you get well past 20 storeys or so.

Over 20 stories. That's what I thought we would be theoretically talking about.
I'm a bit different in this view, but I don't have any concern with buildings over 30 in Victoria. It could be done and it could be done right.

^Yes, the higher/ denser, the greater demand on infrastructure, but it's like adding tenants in your house... you'll be paying more for things such as hydro, etc, but you wouldn't do it unless you did your homework, if it was profitable and if it helped pay off the mortgage.
Besides, you can't separate one benefit from another. Even if a city breaks even on a new highrise, one would hope the benefits would outweigh the negatives, fiscally or not.

[Ben Smith]

Apparently i wasn't clear enough when i said taller

Ben, i liked your potty-training analogy. :tup: The only problem is, that like the young child, many people that oppose taller buildings are both the least intelligent and the loudest. :smt088

Hahaha, well heres another one.

Right now we are a bratty teenager whos growing up. Many of our different opinions and thoughts are clashing, but the stupid, least intelligent, loudest and rebellious opinions are leading the way.

There is simply no arguement AGAINST tall buildings.

[Caramia]

There is an argument against taller buildings though. To many people in Victoria this changes the urban experience (which is subjective) for the worse. For thousands of our neighbours, it makes the city feel less friendly, cozy and accessible. If you listen to what they are saying they are trying to tell us that it errodes the charm that they were enjoying. While people on this forum may not agree with that sentiment, by openly mocking it in such a contemptuous and dismissive way we are guarenteed to alienate fence sitters who see both sides.

Personally, I like taller buildings, as long as they are quality. I also like shorter buildings as long as they are quality. Actually, I just like quality. I can see the rational reasons for wanting density in the core, and I agree with them. I am totally on side in any respectful debate about building height, and I have had that debate many times, and I think changed a few people's point of view.

But, I have many friends and relatives who feel that the taller buildings are fundamentally altering the downtown they love. And when I read sneering, catty comments about those people's sense of loss of what they appreciated about Victoria, I feel defensive for them. After all, people who are passionate about our city have more in common with me than those who don't care about it at all... even if the reasons for our passion differ.

[G-Man]

^ I agree Caramia.

Though I like to add quality AND density. As you don't necessarily need to have a tall building to produce density but you do need density to achieve basic principles of new urbanism.

I too have many friends that think that tall buildings will ruin Victoria but I think that a lot of that fear is media driven and when I get into conversations about why they feel that way many do not have a solid basis.

These same friends are the ones that say they hate the tourists in town and when you point out that most of us would be out of a job if they disapeared they quickly change their tune.

Anyways I have lost my point here but I agree that if you ever want to convince somebody of anything you have to fully uinderstand their perspective rather than just dismissing them as wrong. Of course you also have to be open to the possibility that you are wrong. Of course I could be wrong about this which would make this even more interesting or bizarre. I think I am having a semantic argument with myself I had better go...