[Downtown Victoria] Northern Junk Complex | Condos | 5-storeys | Proposed

[LJ]

Originally Posted by Bernard

I think the main reason people are anti-development is because people in this city are fundamently conservative and hate all change

It would seem that they are fundamently NDP judging by election results.

But then, maybe they are conservative, but hate change so much they wont even vote out the NDP.

[gumgum]

I think Bernard meant conservative in a non-political way.

[ZGsta]

Well, people also seem to be quite supportive of a lot of views that are completely against most modern progressive ideals, whether they vote for Green or NDP candidates.
Core density is one of the most important environmental initiatives and yet it seems like everyone in Victoria (including the supposed 'liberal' council members) seems to have a death grip on the car-centric suburban ideal.

[aastra]

I think the notion that the sticklers hate all change is really not valid. They tend to hate small residential projects, yes. But they also tend to be strongly in favour of dramatic change in certain instances. Some examples:

- useless new public spaces and "opening things up"
- restriction/elimination of floatplanes/the Coho/cruise ships
- new bridge

That's the great irony about some Victorians. They'll fight inoffensive incremental changes tooth and nail, but if the right people propose to blast a huge hole in Victoria's identity they'll root for it like it's no big deal.

[gumgum]

Actually I think there a lot more progressive people that embrace projects like this in Victoria. It's just that they don't have their ear to the ground about them like fellow VVians.
The only reason there were so many vocal proponants for the new bridge (however misguided) was because it was a highly publicized project, that brought more progessives to the forefront.
Controversial project like NJ, Mega Marina, Falls etc., although public knowledge, are/ were not scrutinized as much by your average Victorian because they are not as highly publicized as the bridge. Therefore less proponents speak up for them. The bridge was a unique issue, that I think brought out a more acurate view of tour average Victorians appetite for "change".

On the flip, opponents are a lot more vocal because they are motivated by fear. And they will always be active, no matter the project.

[Ms. B. Havin]

Originally Posted by aastra

I think the notion that the sticklers hate all change is really not valid. They tend to hate small residential projects, yes. But they also tend to be strongly in favour of dramatic change in certain instances. Some examples:

- useless new public spaces and "opening things up"
- restriction/elimination of floatplanes/the Coho/cruise ships
- new bridge

That's the great irony about some Victorians. They'll fight inoffensive incremental changes tooth and nail, but if the right people propose to blast a huge hole in Victoria's identity they'll root for it like it's no big deal.

^ This is a good observation. I would add the following "thesis" (or is it feces?): Maybe it's the case that too many people in Victoria obsess too much about the small stuff, which in turn lets them be "overwhelmed" by the big stuff. That is, when a "big" proposal (for eg., the new bridge) comes along, it's psychologically almost a relief to say "go for it!" after being in a state of near-permanent anal sphincter constriction over idiotic small stuff for months, if not years.

I mean, folks must feel like it's a relief. They can shi*t all over actual heritage (like the old Johnson Street Bridge) and feel relieved, all bouncy and "fresh" feeling - and in turn, gear themselves up to digest (and crap all over) interesting and good smaller developments.

Sorry about all the scatological references, but as far as I'm concerned, Victoria's heritage "protectors" and their ilk deserve 'em.

[Jon S]

Advisory Design Panel Weds. 28th. - noon.

[Sparky]

^ Good luck Jon.

[Bernard]

I hope sanity prevails today

[Baro]

I love comparing the historical-angle public outcry and hallmark society reaction between this and the bridge.

I also love the ridiculous standards we hold developers to yet don't bat an eye when the project we were sold is radically changed.

Imagine if a developer wanted to tear down these buildings and build a very high quality modern building. Council agrees, and then the developer eliminates all the amenities saying their inclusion in renders and permit packages were outdated and they never promised them, and then replaces the finish materials with hardy-board. The project would be shut down, the developer would be tarred and feathered by the city and the media and a new development permit would be needed.

But apparently the city, the same councilors who hold developers to these standards, can do all this and worse and it's just business as usual. The hypocrisy is just insane.

[Ms. B. Havin]

+1 Baro. You nailed it.

[Jon S]

ADP extended the meeting to a second day next week for further deliberations.

[G-Man]

So tomorrow at lunch? or another day. I was in an all day meeting otherwise I would have come down. Anyone get the gist of the conversation?

[Jon S]

Likely April 3rd. at Noon.

[Sparky]

Did you come away with a feeling Jon?

[Jon S]

Hard to say. They were very complimentary of the submission. We will see.

[Sparky]

Thank you. I have no idea how you can muster the wherewithal to run these kinds of gauntlets. Perhaps when your quest is over you could share your experiences with dealing with various jurisdictions.

Until then best of luck.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Baro

I love comparing the historical-angle public outcry and hallmark society reaction between this and the bridge.

I also love the ridiculous standards we hold developers to yet don't bat an eye when the project we were sold is radically changed.

Thank you Baro! Please send your comments in a "Letter to the editor" to the TC

[Rob Randall]

I attended the beginning of the meeting and unfortunately had to leave before the panel's comments.

I did catch the proponent's presentation. Even though this was the second time around, they took special care to give the history of the proposal, even including in their PowerPoint the letter from the City from January 2010 expressing support for the idea of developing the site. Reliance quickly presented a few of their Vancouver projects with Merrick architecture, including the Burns Block project. They then presented an extensive history of the NJ site and the contextual surroundings, including the surprising fact that the NJ buildings were above another row of shacks and buildings right on the wharf as seen in this 1889 bird's eye map:



They then spent time meticulously going through the Old Town and Waterfront design guidelines line by line and point by point. For every City recommendation they had an illustrated response that explained how their proposal met the guidelines.

A revised plan was presented that took into account the recommendations from the last meeting to break up the building into smaller chunks. The new design has more distinct sections instead of the long, low slab of the first version. Wider separation and larger public areas within the buildings were shown off.

I'm sorry I can't report on the reaction; that's always the most interesting part of the meeting and most of the questions and comments don't make it into the final report.

[Mike K.]

Thanks for your comments, Rob, much appreciated.

[Jon S]

A revised plan was presented that took into account the recommendations from the last meeting to break up the building into smaller chunks. The new design has more distinct sections instead of the long, low slab of the first version. Wider separation and larger public areas within the buildings were shown off.

[Mike K.]

Thank you for the update, Jon.

[aastra]

What does "glazing stepped back" mean?

[G-Man]

My question exactly. I truly hope that this does not mean commercial behind pillars.

[Dylan Leblanc]

Recessed retail has a bad rap on the forum.

I like the separation into two buildings though.