Jump to content

      



























Photo

Managing density / urban development


  • Please log in to reply
1095 replies to this topic

#801 Brantastic

Brantastic
  • Member
  • 924 posts

Posted 12 September 2019 - 05:17 PM

What's absurd to me is the way the author thinks that low density housing near the downtown core is how we can best mitigate climate change. How is it more environmentally friendly to ensure that fewer people are able to live in one of Victoria's most walkable neighborhoods? Clearly this "environmentalist", as she calls herself, is misinformed as to how cities need to change to reduce CO2 emissions. 


  • Nparker, tedward and Danma like this

#802 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,390 posts

Posted 12 September 2019 - 05:36 PM

She's no environmentalist. A NIMBY in hemp clothing is still a NIMBY.


  • Danma and Awaiting Juno like this

#803 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 20 September 2019 - 10:19 AM

TC Comment: We need greater density to deal with housing shortage:

 

 

I understand the concerns of longtime Fairfield residents who may be worried about the effects of new development in their neighbourhood. It’s one of the most desirable neighbourhoods in the city to live in due to its proximity to downtown and relative quietude compared to other areas nearby.

 

Fairfield is also one of the most desirable areas in the city due to its higher density. People NEVER mention this, because they just can't get their heads around it. They refuse to come to terms with it. If a higher density neighbourhood is convenient, comfortable, and quiet then why should anyone worry about higher densities? Density is not the antithesis of desirability. Never was, never will be. Density can be done poorly, sure. But if everybody likes Fairfield then isn't that strong evidence that density has been done well in Fairfield? Just continue to follow the Fairfield model and there should be no problem.

 

 

...the concerns of residents who are already in a comfortable position of homeownership should not trump those of residents who are struggling to survive in a city that is becoming increasingly inhospitable to the renting population.

If you are a homeowner in Victoria and have been for several years, take a moment to think about what it would be like if you moved to Victoria now. With housing prices entirely unaffordable for new graduates and an almost zero per cent vacancy rate for rental units, there is a dire need for change.

 

Sigh. For almost 60 years we've been saying this. We'll be saying it 60 years from now, I'm sure. Every day is the first day all over again.

 

Seriously, these are the headlines almost exactly 50 years apart:

 

 

Daily Colonist
September 14, 1969

"Squeeze Is On: High Density Inevitable"

 

 

Times-Colonist
September 20, 2019

"We need greater density to deal with housing shortage"


Edited by aastra, 20 September 2019 - 10:27 AM.

  • Nparker, Coreyburger and Danma like this

#804 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,390 posts

Posted 13 December 2019 - 03:30 PM

It's nice to see NIMBYs are alive and well in other jurisdictions too. They even use exactly the same language to oppose densification projects.

...a 63-unit project proposed for 1805 Larch St. in Kitsilano, has already faced significant community backlash. ..Most identified themselves as having owned homes in the area for decades, who opposed the project. Of the first group of speakers, only one, who was noticeably younger than the other speakers and identified herself as a Kits renter, spoke in support...The proposed five-storey rental building, directly across the street from Hovan’s four-storey condo building, has caused him “sleepless nights,” he said, “worrying about how this massive development … is going to infringe on my privacy and property rights.” The neighbourhood, he said, has been “thrown into enormous upheaval.” Following Hovan’s remarks, NPA Coun. Sarah Kirby-Yung asked him if he thought there might have been neighbourhood opposition to his four-storey condo building when it was built 22 years ago...“When we bought that place,” Hovan replied, “the real estate people said: ‘There is no way they could rezone west of Larch. … I guarantee it.’” “Now, I can’t go back and sue the real estate agent. It’s too late,” Hovan said. “But no, nobody was upset that my building was built.”...


https://vancouversun...r-pilot-project

For some reason, compared to Mr. Hovan's 4-storey condo building the proposed 5-storey rental building is "massive". 

Here's the Google Earth view to see the current make-up of the neighbourhood.

larch.PNG

 



#805 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,776 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 13 December 2019 - 04:15 PM

^ You missed the part where they complain about a huge increase in vehicles using the lane after they demanded that the project include more parking....


  • Nparker and Danma like this

#806 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 08 February 2020 - 01:58 PM

When I see these sorts of angles on the northern part of downtown I always have the same reaction: just keep doing more of this good stuff. There's a wide range of heights, styles, colours, and vintages. Individual buildings aren't trying to not be seen. Many of them are showing off distinctive personality, and yet no building dominates. No era dominates. It's eclectic. It's about the district and not about one standout thing or one standout period.

 

Be diligent about sticking with suitably urban styles and suitably urban materials, of course. Encourage smaller footprints so as to emphasize that texture and granularity. Avoid twinning or repetition. Fill in the parking lots and empty holes, and extend the patchwork further up Douglas all the way to Bay/Hillside.

 

sunroom-one-of-3-decks.jpg

pic from https://www.tripadvisor.ca


  • Danma and Brantastic like this

#807 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 29 June 2020 - 10:35 AM

This issue tends to be word-for-word the same in Victoria and thousands of other places. So much hypocrisy, so many contradictions. It's just politics dressed up as principles.

 

 

San Francisco: Bastion Of Fauxvironmentalism

San Francisco policymakers recently received a building proposal that one might think fits the city’s environmental goals. A developer wants to build a 5-story, 20-unit building in the Outer Sunset, a neighborhood that’s added only 21 units since 2011. The project would include 5 affordable units, abut a rail line, and replace a vacant gas station.

...an appeal is being filed against it to reduce the unit number, increase the number of parking spaces, and potentially kill it altogether. It was filed by Mike Murphy, a former Board of Supervisors candidate… and councilor for the San Francisco Green Party.

Welcome to the wacky world of San Francisco climate activism.

Various groups there call for, in the abstract at least, environmental sustainability, but frequently organize to block mixed-use, multi-story, transit-oriented housing developments. This sends a growing Bay Area population further to the suburbs, where they make long car commutes into the city.

The most notorious offender has been the Sierra Club’s San Francisco Bay chapter. In 2017, I wrote a Forbes piece listing the projects they’d opposed in the city and nearby dense suburbs like Berkeley. It ranged from various high-rise projects downtown, to housing around the Giants’ stadium, to a shipyard redevelopment that would clean up a toxic site and produce 12,000 units.

"Time and again, chapter leaders hedge their opposition with statements like, "We support infill development, just not this plan." But if you oppose every plan, that hedge rings awfully hollow."

from https://marketurbani...xvironmentalism


Edited by aastra, 29 June 2020 - 10:36 AM.


#808 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 29 June 2020 - 10:39 AM

 

"We support infill development, just not this plan." But if you oppose every plan, that hedge rings awfully hollow."

 

We've been opposed to absolutely every proposal so far, but don't jump to conclusions and assume we're anti-development. We're pro the right kinds of development in the right places.


  • Nparker and Danma like this

#809 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,776 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 13 August 2020 - 08:15 AM

There's much more being built in Victoria than there is in Kelowna. Kelowna just allows taller buildings. You could take half of the buildings built in Victoria in the past ten years and put them in Kelowna and Kelowna would instantly have a legitimate & dense downtown.

 

I was in Kelowna last weekend and it seems they have taken that challenge to heart. Lots and lots of construction in and around the core. Most notably, ONE Water Street is rising above Prospera Place. They've still got a long way to go before the city feels dense, but at least the skyline is coming together!

 

IMG_20200809_195915 (1).jpg


  • Nparker, Danma and GetLisaSomeHelps like this

#810 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 13 August 2020 - 10:24 AM

Hey, I say Kelowna is proving how new construction can help to develop and sharpen the identity of a place. But in larger, older, & more established cities the critics will claim new construction can only diminish identity and uniqueness.

 

Heck, critics in cities everywhere worry about "out of scale" developments. But in Kelowna the new developments are wildly out of scale. And yet it seems to be working (although obviously the "lakefront town" character will eventually vanish because of it).



#811 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 13 August 2020 - 10:24 AM

Summary: it's okay to go forward.


  • Nparker likes this

#812 Danma

Danma
  • Member
  • 888 posts

Posted 13 August 2020 - 12:09 PM

For a classic NIMBY argument against any new construction in an existing neighbourhood check out this comment piece in the TC. This is a new twist, though.

Something's releasing toxic gas, that's for sure, but I think it's this comment piece!



#813 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher

    Old White Man On A Canadian Island

  • Member
  • 52,280 posts

Posted 13 August 2020 - 12:28 PM

yes this seems a bit much.  i think we do a pretty good job of protecting and replacing trees.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development proposals also require total removal of vegetation, often large mature trees, to make room for larger buildings. Removing trees weakens protection for trees that are left.

 

 

The plan recommends “development to support tree diversity, planting spaces and permeable surfaces on private property.” Some guidelines call for keeping greenery in front and back yards. Whether Victoria council will see these as “only guidelines,” not regulation, is the question.

 

The new Fairfield plan’s premise of promoting density gives the keys of Fairfield to developers.


Edited by Victoria Watcher, 13 August 2020 - 12:29 PM.


#814 GetLisaSomeHelps

GetLisaSomeHelps
  • Member
  • 407 posts
  • LocationSaanich

Posted 13 August 2020 - 01:15 PM

Would someone PLEASE think of the children TREES!



#815 SolitaryMan

SolitaryMan
  • Member
  • 2 posts

Posted 22 October 2020 - 03:07 PM

Would someone PLEASE think of the children TREES!

 

Greening territory = caring of children tho



#816 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,776 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 13 January 2021 - 11:27 AM

Another three notches in the "Kelowna just allows taller buildings" belt: a trio of 24-, 30-, and 42-storey towers has been approved in the downtown core. Photos and story via https://dailyhive.co...-kelowna-towers

234-278-Leon-Avenue-1620-1630-Water-Stre


  • Nparker likes this

#817 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 14 January 2021 - 12:47 PM

Apparently a 46-story tower is now proposed as well? This highrise boom in Kelowna is seeming more and more inauthentic with each new project. When a small & low density city is building some of the tallest residential towers in the country while still lacking the sort of lowrise/midrise cityscape that even much smaller cities and towns would normally have, it should be obvious that we're not talking about organic growth and development.

 

Before the skyscraper fanboys jump on me, I'm not necessarily saying there's anything wrong with it. The good people of Kelowna can build whatever they want to build. It will end up being unique in Canada, that's for sure (edit: or maybe not, see Barrie, ON). It will be extreme not unlike how Niagara Falls is extreme, but still very different from Niagara Falls because it won't have that gimmicky garishness. But I'd still say there's not much evidence yet of a uniquely "Kelowna" architectural flavour, which is too bad.


Edited by aastra, 14 January 2021 - 05:34 PM.

  • Brantastic likes this

#818 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher

    Old White Man On A Canadian Island

  • Member
  • 52,280 posts

Posted 14 January 2021 - 12:56 PM

Apparently a 46-story tower is now proposed as well? This highrise boom in Kelowna is seeming more and more inauthentic with each new project. When a small & low density city is building some of the tallest residential towers in the country while still lacking the sort of lowrise/midrise cityscape that even much smaller cities and towns would normally have, it should be obvious that we're not talking about organic growth and development.

 

Before the skyscraper fanboys jump on me, I'm not necessarily saying there's anything wrong with it. The good people of Kelowna can build whatever they want to build. It will end up being unique in Canada, that's for sure. It will be extreme not unlike how Niagara Falls is extreme, but still very different from Niagara Falls because it won't have that gimmicky garishness. But I'd still say there's not much evidence yet of a uniquely "Kelowna" architectural flavour, which is too bad.

 

i agree 1000%.  i enjoy kelowna as much as the next guy.  i find niagara falls absolutely delightfully gimmicky too.  it's quite something.

 

but i too am unclear why so many people want to live in that not-exactly-pretty-or-charming downtown.  in a 40-floor building.  but if they want to then go ahead.  i don't think it hurts the town in any way.

 

but it makes me wonder.  if kelowna can have a bunch of 15+ floor buildings why don't other little towns have one 30-floor building each?  say fernie or prince rupert or campbell river or osoyoos or shawnigan lake?


Edited by Victoria Watcher, 14 January 2021 - 12:57 PM.


#819 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,776 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 14 January 2021 - 01:58 PM

Apparently a 46-story tower is now proposed as well? This highrise boom in Kelowna is seeming more and more inauthentic with each new project. When a small & low density city is building some of the tallest residential towers in the country while still lacking the sort of lowrise/midrise cityscape that even much smaller cities and towns would normally have, it should be obvious that we're not talking about organic growth and development.

 

And that there is exactly the different between Kelowna's approach to managing growth and Victoria's.

 

Kelowna does have a considerable number of mid-rise developments on the go, but they're largely brownfield development, not infill or redevelopment of existing residential properties. Clement Ave was complete unrecognizable when I was there this summer, as the railway has been replaced with mid-rise commercial and residential buildings.

 

The bulk of Kelowna's growth, though, is in towers downtown on run down commercial properties. Existing residential seems to be even more protected in Kelowna than in Victoria, so you get the 36-storey ONE Water Street a block away from old single-family neighbourhoods.

 

It's really summed up by saying Kelowna wants to look and feel like a city, whereas Victoria wants to look and feel like it's not Vancouver.



#820 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,390 posts

Posted 14 January 2021 - 02:01 PM

...It's really summed up by saying Kelowna wants to look and feel like a city, whereas Victoria wants to look and feel like it's not Vancouver.

:thumbsup:



You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users