1095 replies to this topic

[dasmo]

It's a design thing. The complex I lived in in Rotterdam had a large shared yard space in the center overtop parking. Had a playground, garden, chill space and the ground floor two level town houses had a little outdoor spaces on the second floor that connected to it but everyone had access. If there was passion for providing this it would happen but people have to stop snapping up micro lofts with pullout couches for the market to serve this. There is less profit in it.... 

Perhaps there should be a push to rezone this area. Close to parks, shopping, downtown etc. 

[PPPdev]

uproot the overall livable and beautiful tree-lined subdivision of character homes that exists right now by some sort of drastic measure. A general up-zoning to duplex would be fine IMO since that would fit within the structure that is there now. Zoning that simply reflected the plan that is there already would make sense to me.

 

This statement is the problem.

 

Fairfield was once a forest, image they said "stop" then, dont "uproot" the trees. Only one cabin every 5 hectares would "fit within the structure that is there now."

 

Who gave anybody the right to claim that the current iteration of a neighbourhood is the best one? Who gives anybody the right to say adding apartments or townhouses is "drastic"? Perhaps the version of Fairfield with townhouses all over is the best version?

 

Go to Montreal, Portland, Copenhagen, Paris, Philadelphia, even Walkerville and you'll beautiful tree lined streets with townhouses in a highly livable neighbourhood. 

 

When is a block, neighbourhood, or city done? Who gets to decide?

[MarkoJ]

Personally, I would love to see a blanket re-zone to R2 in all of Vic for all lots with 50' of frontage and no minimum lot size. Keep the size yard setbacks at 15' combined. Leaves you with a 17.5' wide duplex each side. Do three levels with a drive down garage so about 1,800 sq/ft finished plus garage. You still have a 25' wide yard. You would increase the density but not the airspace inbetween structures.

 

and yea busier streets and corners 4-5 story condos and townhomes.

[RFS]

 

and yea busier streets and corners 4-5 story condos and townhomes.

 

Residential neighborhoods interspersed with little dense 4-5 storey nodes with some retail are awesome, like Kits/broadway area

[dasmo]

This statement is the problem.

 

Fairfield was once a forest, image they said "stop" then, dont "uproot" the trees. Only one cabin every 5 hectares would "fit within the structure that is there now."

 

Who gave anybody the right to claim that the current iteration of a neighbourhood is the best one? Who gives anybody the right to say adding apartments or townhouses is "drastic"? Perhaps the version of Fairfield with townhouses all over is the best version?

 

Go to Montreal, Portland, Copenhagen, Paris, Philadelphia, even Walkerville and you'll beautiful tree lined streets with townhouses in a highly livable neighbourhood. 

 

When is a block, neighbourhood, or city done? Who gets to decide?

Fairfield is growing organically as it should. As I said, there are areas that can absorb Apartments and town-homes. The right was passed down through property ownership and stewardship. Those that are living there now out-way the rights of your potential customers....  

[PPPdev]

Those that are living there now out-way the rights of your potential customers....  

 

I do not agree and this has nothing to do with my day job. I believe future residents have the same rights as those that currently live here. It's the only philosophy that isn't based on the drawbridge argument. 

 

My dear Dasmo, what would you say if somebody who lived in Fairfield said "enough!", the day before you arrived? How then can somebody block townhouses and future residents by saying "enough!"?

 

On a final note, there are no property rights in BC. The closest thing you do have is based on your owned title, not your neighbours. You buy a property, not a neighbourhood.

Edited by PPPdev, 27 September 2018 - 10:05 AM.

[dasmo]

My dear PPP, After living in Fairfield as a renter for years, I saved all my life and eventually bought a house in Fairfield and lived there just fine! I never complained once along the way that I couldn't afford it and wished someone else would do something about it.  I even had plans to redevelop my property it into a duplex as it was the crappiest house in Fairfield. I bought a section of my neighbours yard to help facilitate that. ( I sold it and built elsewhere instead)  So... I am far from anti development. No one says enough to anyone doing just the same. Our Gov, neighbours, community associations fight for the rights of those living there and create a balance. I'm not calling for the drawbridge to raise. We have lots of space without having to destroy what we already have. There is no need to strawman me here.... 

 

Great architecture and urban development should have a sense of place. Fairfield is an amazing place. Let it grow organically. It doesn't demand a total leveling and rebuilding! Look at the pockets that need something and simply do it bit by bit. If in 200 years its packed with row houses so be it....

[PPPdev]

Since things are getting a bit deeper, I should say that to me, this is a flowing conversation and chats like this aren't happening enough which is why I think the larger dialogue gets stuck and the result is big flare ups.

 

I'm genuinely happy for you that you were able to buy when you did and now enjoy your home/neighbourhood. This is where the conversation gets generational and often derails. So lets agree on 85.67% and disagree on the balance and still get a beer someday.

[dasmo]

I don’t live there anymore. Never take my posts as an attack even if they have assh*lick overtones. It’s about the topic not the person. This is an interesting topic to me because I love Victoria. I see it as very nuanced with not simply two sides. Even if you feel I jab at the greedy developer, keep in mind my dad was a developer in this town and I loved home dearly. He even named a street after me :-)

Edited by dasmo, 27 September 2018 - 04:36 PM.

[zoomer]

Hmm, never heard of Dasmo Street...

Not sure I’d use the drawbridge analogy PPPDev as taken to its logical extreme that means open borders and free movement of people. Another extreme just for fun and not realistic is this: 100 years from now - yes, we got the Fairfield all duplexed now! No wait, that’s not fair to future residents we need all 40 storey condos! Wait, that’s not fair to future residents who can’t afford that, we need a sea of 80 storey buildings filled with thousands of micro sleeping pods! Just one sec..let’s expand Fairfield by building islands off Ross Bay (whoops, sorry those who lost their unblocked ocean views!). Not that any of those things really exist in this world right...

Eventually even you would draw a line in the sand; Dasmo and others are just drawing it sooner, actually they haven’t even drawn it yet!

If I had a magic wand or a few billion dollars I’d buy PPPDev a new neighbourhood to develop and see what he came up with. Deal PPPDev? To avoid my wrath however I’d advise you go for extreme density right off the bat!

[Mike K.]

I don’t live there anymore. Never take my posts as an attack even if they have assh*lick overtones. It’s about the topic not the person. This is an interesting topic to me because I love Victoria. I see it as very nuanced with not simply two sides. Even if you feel I jab at the greedy developer, keep in mind my dad was a developer in this town and I loved home dearly. He even named a street after me :-)

No kidding!

[aastra]

 

He even named a street after me

 

 

*just a joke, I have nothing against dasmo. Not nearly as much as I have against certain other forumers, anyway.

Edited by aastra, 27 September 2018 - 09:28 PM.

[aastra]

^That seems very Corner Gas-ish.

 

Anyway, here's a still frame from a YouTube video. From this angle it doesn't look like Fairfield is putting too much emphasis on SFDs:

 

 

Watch the full video by DroneCrazy here...
 

Edited by aastra, 27 September 2018 - 09:25 PM.

[Nparker]

...*just a joke, I have nothing against dasmo. Not nearly as much as I have against certain other forumers, anyway.

You're gonna hate one of my, self-serving, egomaniacal soon-to-appear posts.

[aastra]

You piss me off at regular intervals, for sure, but it's that patronizing punk Mike K. who really grinds my gears.

 

And Oxford Sutherland always seemed a bit standoffish.

[Casual Kev]

^That seems very Corner Gas-ish.

 

Anyway, here's a still frame from a YouTube video. From this angle it doesn't look like Fairfield is putting too much emphasis on SFDs:

 

 

Watch the full video by DroneCrazy here...
 

 

Fairfield west of Cook St. and specially north of Fairfield Rd. is a good example of accommodating lots of people without towers. Tons of low-rises in the area, and no one is inconvenienced by it. Density obviously gets low once you go east and south which aren't captured in the shot (as it look north of the bowling club).

 

Pretty cool video btw, love drone and HD technology.

Edited by Casual Kev, 27 September 2018 - 09:51 PM.

[aastra]

Tourism Victoria would strike advertising gold if they'd just take the best shots from the various drone vids and put them together.

[nerka]

Who gave anybody the right to claim that the current iteration of a neighbourhood is the best one? Who gives anybody the right to say adding apartments or townhouses is "drastic"?

Blame it on Pierre Trudeau.

 

Constitution Act, 1982 - Section (2):

 

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

[nerka]

This statement is the problem.

 

Fairfield was once a forest, image they said "stop" then, dont "uproot" the trees. Only one cabin every 5 hectares would "fit within the structure that is there now."

 

Who gave anybody the right to claim that the current iteration of a neighbourhood is the best one? Who gives anybody the right to say adding apartments or townhouses is "drastic"? Perhaps the version of Fairfield with townhouses all over is the best version?

 

Go to Montreal, Portland, Copenhagen, Paris, Philadelphia, even Walkerville and you'll beautiful tree lined streets with townhouses in a highly livable neighbourhood. 

 

When is a block, neighbourhood, or city done? Who gets to decide?

 It's pretty accepted in our society that when changes are made, the people affected by those changes should be consulted.  If bike lanes are proposed downtown, affected businesses should be consulted. If big changes are proposed to a neighbourhood, residents should be consulted and their voices heard.  That's not to say that current residents should have a boycott on new development. For one thing there are other stakeholders - such as the potential future residents you mention.

 

You are also creating a straw man. While there are some folks that literally want to pull up the drawbridge in Fairfield and other neighbourhoods, that is not who you are discussing with here.

 

Finally, what have you got against duplexes, character conversions and garden suites as a broad-based way to increase density within an established area? Are you actually against those?

 

What do you think about the draft Fairfield neighbourhood plan?  Seems to allow lots of scope for development and population increase?

 

As far as when a city is "done". It actually is within the democratic rights of the citizens to elect a local government that essentially says "this city is done - no new developments". I don't support that, but you questioned whether people even have the "right".  In fact they do.

[aastra]

It's interesting how James Bay and Fairfield are the neighbourhoods that have done the most to accommodate density and to offer a mix of housing types, and yet they're also the neighbourhoods that haven't done enough.