203 replies to this topic

[amor de cosmos]

I don't understand what those numbers refer to in relation to what? Explain?

8th in non-residential building permits in terms of ...? 8th out of 8, or 8th out of 24? If the latter, that indicates ...what? that we're in the bottom of the top third or top of the middle third of starts? In which case, that's not oversupplying anything, is it? And 22/24 in growth of housing starts -- that indicates what? An undersupply of housing? But where? Downtown (condos?), or Langford/outlying munis, or both (regional)?

I'm not convinced that any of this indicates that Ilich's remark was well-founded.

I meant the CIBC world markets report that came out a while ago. 8th means the 8th-highest growth rate (out of the 24 cities in the study) over a year ago. Victoria is one of the only cities in the country where housing starts have decreased since this time last year.
check this thread out:
http://www.vibrantvi...read.php?t=2430

[Ms. B. Havin]

I'm still not clear on how those stats relate to Ilich's comment, particularly why being 8th (of 24) in non-residential starts and 22nd (of 24) in housing starts relates?

[Ms. B. Havin]

Dean Fortin clarifies his views in a letter to the editor, published today. He says that the T-C quoted him out of context, and restates that he's really against granting the proposed height:

Condo too tall, says councillor


Times Colonist

Published: Thursday, December 13, 2007
Re: "Developer pitches two condo towers," Dec. 9.

The TC article missed the key aspect of my statement regarding this condo proposal, which was "I have no interest in trading a 10-storey office building with a 19-storey residential tower."

[...]

Dean Fortin,
Victoria city councillor,
© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2007


http://www.canada.co...13-3e05ccc90bd0

[amor de cosmos]

I'm still not clear on how those stats relate to Ilich's comment, particularly why being 8th (of 24) in non-residential starts and 22nd (of 24) in housing starts relates?

he said "The projections of a pending shortage of commercial space [are] laughable" and that increasing residential development in the north end of Victoria will help clean up the area. That's pretty much exactly what the CIBC thing says. Our residential starts have lagged way behind other cites in the country in the last year.

[amor de cosmos]

Dean Fortin clarifies his views in a letter to the editor, published today. He says that the T-C quoted him out of context, and restates that he's really against granting the proposed height:

My concern is that the developer is allowed 14 storeys under the current zoning, but is requesting 19. I cannot see a compelling reason to increase the allowable building height by 35 per cent at this location.

It's downtown, that's the reason. Why do Langford & Colwood approve 20 & 30 story buildings & not Victoria?

[Mike K.]

he said "The projections of a pending shortage of commercial space [are] laughable" and that increasing residential development in the north end of Victoria will help clean up the area. That's pretty much exactly what the CIBC thing says. Our residential starts have lagged way behind other cites in the country in the last year.

That may be the case across the entire region, but certainly not downtown where residential development is going strong (stronger than most other downtowns in Canada).

Greater Victoria may not have as large a demand for commercial space as would Halifax, which is a similarly-sized city but also carries the title of "the" city in the Maritimes, but that certainly shouldn't translate into not building any office space and only concentrating on residential development in Victoria. We're in desperate need of office space across the entire region and I do not think the majority of the population may realize it. But try going out there and securing a suitable space for your company and you'll quickly run into severe restrictions on what you can lease, where you can lease it and how much you'll be required to pay. Such conditions are terrible for local and even national businesses looking to expand their presence or trying to lease space for the first time.

Furthermore, as businesses that need the exposure and can afford office space in brand new class A digs move out of their present locations, that space then becomes available for a company that can't afford class A in a new tower but needs better space. Then that company frees up space for another company that can't afford or may not need the exposure of either new class A or class B. It's a chain and any movement within it creates opportunities for local commercial tenants.

[Pyroteknik]

Yes, I agree with your revised version of the story. The proposed design is very dull and uninspiring. It seems to have a suburban feel instead of urban downtown IMO. I hope this changes during due process!

[Ms. B. Havin]

LOL, boy that revised version threw me! I had to scroll up & down several times before realizing that Pyroteknik's response was to G-man's revision! Good one -- and yes, how much better it would have been had this been what Fortin wrote. And councilor, if you're looking for an answer, read amor de cosmos' reply ("It's downtown, that's the reason. Why do Langford & Colwood approve 20 & 30 story buildings & not Victoria?"). That sums it up.

[Ms. B. Havin]

Yes, I agree with your revised version of the story. The proposed design is very dull and uninspiring. It seems to have a suburban feel instead of urban downtown IMO. I hope this changes during due process!

<... Richmond...>

Hey, did someone say "Richmond"?

[aastra]

I think Mr. Fortin is asking a reasonable question. There isn't much of a difference between 19 stories and 14 stories. If the latter is allowed under the existing rules then what's the case for going taller? Just because?

I'd like to see the developer make a decent cause for going taller: because the finishing of the building is going to be fantastic (and expensive), or because the peaked design demands the extra height, or whatever.

You could counter that there's no need to justify the increase precisely because there isn't much of a difference between 19 stories and 14 stories and -- therefore -- the stiff height restriction is stupid. But why let the developer off easy?

It's not just bafflegab to claim there's a design imperative*. Imagine if the city had told the builders of the Empress that they were three stories too tall and needed to cut it back. The building's proportions would be very different than they are now.

*assuming, of course, that there actually IS a design imperative.

[Rob Randall]

Mark your calendars: a public meeting for the Centro project will be held Tuesday, January 15, 2008 at 7 p.m. at the Silver Threads centre, 1728 Douglas at Fisgard.

The proponent and architect will present.

This is the official public meeting hosted by the DRA under the CALUC (Community Association Land Use Committees) process. The feedback from the meeting will be used in a report to City Hall.

[Nparker]

Mark your calendars: a public meeting for the Centro project will be held Tuesday, January 15, 2008 at 7 p.m. at the Silver Threads Centre, 1728 Douglas at Fisgard.

I am SO there. I hope we citizens can persuade Townline to improve the aesthetics of this proposal (which I don't especially like), without sacrificing the overall concept (which I DO like).

[Mike K.]

Thanks, Rob.

I've updated the new VibrantVictoria.ca calendar with this entry.

[stargazer]

I think Mr. Fortin is asking a reasonable question. There isn't much of a difference between 19 stories and 14 stories. If the latter is allowed under the existing rules then what's the case for going taller? Just because?.

Why is it that each time in Victoria developers have to make a case to build to a reasonable height, but the city never is asked to justify their backward height restrictions. Maybe it is time for them to revisit them. The difference between 19 and 14 stories is minimal. Once you are above 6 or so, they appear similar when walking by. I don't know if it has registered with couns. Madoff and Fortin, but this is the 21st century...

Also interesting to read that Madoff is appalled by seeing such a highrise so close to city hall (although I agree it is ugly; I would ask to come with a better design and grant the height), but seems less bothered by the people shooting up on the steps of city hall. Talking about an ugly sight...

[Nparker]

..interesting to read that Madoff is appalled by seeing such a highrise so close to city hall, but seems less bothered by the people shooting up on the steps of city hall. Talking about an ugly sight...

I can think of 2 reasons for this:

• Ms. Madoff has decided that she is powerless to solve the homeless and drug problem in Victoria, and has decided to take the Quixotic stand against anything resembling a highrise (good or bad design is irrelevant) rather than deal with the problem on her doorstep

or

• Based on Ms. Madoff's recent praise for the design of Centennial Square, it is quite likely she is unable to see the horror that surrounds City Hall in anything remotely like reality.

Take your pick.

[Mike K.]

Just for the record, C. Madoff actually voted for Gateway Green. That was a surprise and a half.

[aastra]

Office building. Everybody goes back to Langford or Saanich after dark. A residential building would have corrupting influence 24/7.

[Caramia]

Just for the record, C. Madoff actually voted for Gateway Green. That was a surprise and a half.

A more sympathetic look at Pam Madoff's entire career would, I think, reveal a surprising number of initiatives and developments she has supported that we love today. The revolutions of the past so often become the chains of the next generation. While I totally support bucking against those chains, forgetting our history so that we disrespecting those who fought for change from the previous generation seems callow and beneath us.

Regarding this development, I agree with those posters who have indicated that the aesthetic leaves them cold. I don't think we should permit mediocre design in our core. Period. Townline can do better. Who is the architect of this project? Their Hudson project is using Merrick - is this one local too? Or an import from Richmond?

Also, aastra and stargazer have a really good point. It IS fair to ask "Why do we need a higher building?" And it is a question that developers need to start answering, and explaining, in such a way, and with such frequency, that the rational - where it exists- becomes understood by the general public. I am actually sympathetic to the idea that developers "open their books" in so far as it means that they present a logical argument that shows how they can trade off height for structural or aesthetic quality, amenities, and a non-market component. Of course, that goes the other way too, where the City must also become more transparent, by identifying what they want, and then removing uncertainty and barriers to developers trying to provide it.

[G-Man]

I disagree. Unless there is some "ideal" building, what are we saying is higher or lower than this ideal? I believe this area falls into the interim downtown height plan which allows up to 18 storeys.

Anyways what I am saying is that it is beyond bizarre to force someone to defend as to why an 18 storey building should go somehwere only 14 storey buildings are allowed if the 14 storey limit is an artificial and undefensible number. We should have developers say I think an x height building in this location is good because blah blah blah.

We need to nix the words additional height and denisty from the city's vocabulary until some ideal is defined, which it won't be.

[jklymak]

^In my mind, the 14 story limit is defensible as the opinion of the citizens of Victoria. Any height limit is only a matter of opinion, so I'm not sure what other defence there should be.

If the majority of Victorian's agree that the height limits are antiquated and need modification, then council should change the zoning, as I assume they are trying to do with the new downtown plans.

You seem to be advocating no zoning. Is that really an appropriate way to decide on land use? I can see quite a few problems with it.