[Langford] Westhills | 5,000 homes | U/C

[Mike K.]

The original thread on the Westhills project was accidentally deleted. Yikes

This thread has been started as a substitute.

[Bernard]

Does this mean Westhills was deleted and will have to be restarted?

[Mike K.]

We've got a lot of pull around here, but not that much

[Bernard]

Originally Posted by Mike K.

We've got a lot of pull around here, but not that much

hmmm, how do we change that? Really, the VV board should be the final arbitrator of what goes and what does not go in the CRD

[maniac78]

I decided to try out my new camera and take some pictures of this area since the other ones are gone now. Looks like my photography skillz need some improvement.








Townhouse complex complete, condo is still being framed. Condo is supposed to be done next fall I believe.












Lots's of equipment! Looks like they are flattening this hill and using the rock for building various retaining walls elsewhere.

[Sparky]

^ Those are still interesting pictures maniac, perhaps you just need a little more sunshine. Thank you

[Nparker]

Yes, interesting pictures, but it's like looking back in time. This development is SO 1950s. It's completely Levittown* redux. I just can't support the creation of any more suburban sprawl, especially on this scale; it's just not sustainable for the future. Nevertheless, I hope the people who live there are happy, but I sure hope that they don't expect me as an urban dweller to spend my tax dollars to subsidize the infrastructure needed to support their historic, auto-centric lifestyle.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levittown,_New_York

[phx]

Originally Posted by Nparker

Yes, interesting pictures, but it's like looking back in time. This development is SO 1950s. It's completely Levittown* redux. I just can't support the creation of any more suburban sprawl, especially on this scale; it's just not sustainable for the future. Nevertheless, I hope the people who live there are happy, but I sure hope that they don't expect me as an urban dweller to spend my tax dollars to subsidize the infrastructure needed to support their historic, auto-centric lifestyle.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levittown,_New_York

The development has a mix of single-family homes on smaller lots, townhouses, and condos. Overall, it has reasonable density. It's also within walking distance of downtown Langford.

It is even built to LEED-ND standards.

Do you have any basis for calling it unsustainable?

[Nparker]

Do you have any basis for calling it reasonable density?

[phx]

It will have 18,750 homes per square mile, vs. 5,200 in Victoria.

[Sparky]

Postage stamp lots....with no yards for the kids to play in.

My daughter's friends call it... Langhole.

[Dylan Leblanc]

Looks like there's plenty of driveway for the kids to play on.



Thanks for the pix maniac!

[maniac78]

You can't really see it but there are yards there. Not huge yards but enough for kids to play in or whatever. Didn't want to start creeping around yards taking shots. As for langhole... I agree no reason anyone would want to live here ha ha.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Nparker

Nevertheless, I hope the people who live there are happy, but I sure hope that they don't expect me as an urban dweller to spend my tax dollars to subsidize the infrastructure needed to support their historic, auto-centric lifestyle.

Have you seen the restrictions stratas place on condos these days? If you're even thinking of starting a family, you need a house. If you want a pet you need a house. If you have children you need a house as many stratas restrict the number of people who can live in a condo or ban children altogether.

If you have friends and you entertain, you need a house. If you have hobbies that require more room than knitting, you need a house.

If you have all of those you need a car. And if you have a car, you need a house to take care of it at.

Density isn't always pretty, either.

[mysage]

Originally Posted by Sparky

Postage stamp lots....with no yards for the kids to play in.

My daughter's friends call it... Langhole.

Hope your daughters friends either have good jobs or marry rich so they can afford the "big yards" they think are indicative of a nice place to live.

[LJ]

Originally Posted by Sparky

Postage stamp lots....with no yards for the kids to play in.

Don't ya know kids aren't supposed to have yards, that's so 1950s.

There are supposed to play on the roads in front of their apartment complex.

Don't worry, there wont be any cars on the roads, the government bus comes by just once an hour to take you where it wants you to go.

And for gosh sakes don't ask for any public open areas, they just contribute to urban sprawl.

Shame on you Sparky, I thought you knew better.

[jklymak]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Have you seen the restrictions stratas place on condos these days? If you're even thinking of starting a family, you need a house. If you want a pet you need a house. If you have children you need a house as many stratas restrict the number of people who can live in a condo or ban children altogether.

If you have friends and you entertain, you need a house. If you have hobbies that require more room than knitting, you need a house.

If you have all of those you need a car. And if you have a car, you need a house to take care of it at.

We have a child, entertain friends, and have hobbies beyond knitting, yet we manage to do it all in a condo, and w/o living in Langford. I will grant that we have to get our car fixed at a garage, but otherwise, your list of reasons why people "need a house" simply displays an inability to envision a way of life different from the car-dependent one popular 50 years ago.

Sure there are benefits to living out in the burbs, but there are costs too, and for an increasing number of people, those costs are no longer acceptable.

[Sparky]

^^

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by jklymak

We have a child, entertain friends, and have hobbies beyond knitting, yet we manage to do it all in a condo, and w/o living in Langford.

I'm so tempted to start a thread on this but I'll spare the forum my rants for now.

The fact remains that there is a demand for single-family houses.

[gumgum]

Originally Posted by LJ

And for gosh sakes don't ask for any public open areas, they just contribute to sprawl.

You're confused about this.

It's been mentioned in the past that focusing on density will make our current public spaces healthier.
Adding even more public space will not make Victoria better. More importantly, we need more people actually living here.
Personally, I love public spaces that are neccesary.

I hope this clears this up for you.

[maniac78]

Originally Posted by jklymak

inability to envision a way of life different from the car-dependent one popular 50 years ago.

Oh has the car become unpopular in the last 50 years?

[Mike K.]

Let's stave off the sprawl debate and keep it to its appropriate thread, please

[Mike K.]

Originally Posted by phx

It will have 18,750 homes per square mile, vs. 5,200 in Victoria.

Will is decades away. Besides, what's up with comparing an entire municipality to a single development? I could today point to far denser square miles within the City of Victoria than Westhills will ever be.

[J Douglas]

It is amazing how fixed some can become in their thinking. In the scheme of things, the idea of suburbia and complete car dependence is relatively short-lived, perhaps 50 years at the most from its acceptance to the point of significant back peddling. Even Cow Town is now re-thinking urban life and embracing density, the cultural equivalent of bad mouthing God in those parts.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle2292771/

Living arrangements other than what is visible today are possible, and history will no doubt continue its course, plodding for the most part, with the odd surprise thrown in here and there. A surprise for us may take the form of the discovery that conventional oil reserves begin to look plaltry in the face of a new middle class in China and India in the next few years. No doubt then the scramble will be on to mine the Arctic sea bed, liquify coal, or make some other shift that will confirm that energy is not cheap anymore. Or, it may be a set of weather events that shift the idea of global warming from prediction to emergency management. If any of these things do come about, they will have an effect on the price of suburban houses. Of course, they may not, at least not in our lifetimes. But even the folks on Wall Street indulge in hedging their bets. It would be wise for us to do the same, and think about LRT, and plan beyond the standard Langford style sprawl.

[Bernard]

Originally Posted by phx

It will have 18,750 homes per square mile, vs. 5,200 in Victoria.

That number does not seem right, 18,750 home per square mile is 29.3 homes per acre. That is an average of 1490 square feet per house. Given that at least 35% of the land is taken up with roads, parks, schools, etc, this only leaves an average of 970 sq feet per house. This is a lot this is 30 feet by 32.33 feet.

This can only work if it has a lot of condos, it would have to be mainly condos in my opinion. Something seems wrong in that number