I'm wondering how long it will take for this developer to give up in frustration and leave town. You can be sure that mayor, council, and especially staff are already plotting a road of pitfalls , bureaucracy, expense, red tape, lawful extortion (amenities etc), and politically motivated roadblocks to ensure that this project is a wounded duck before a shovel even hits the ground. After all, this would provide housing. Can't have that now, can we.
With this much density, how much "green social heart" can there be? Reducing the parking ratio to "preserve green space" is also a non starter, residents would have to park on the street. Rather than try to baffle council, this inexperienced developer needs to come clean and address the fact that he is trying to way over develop the site.
The parking spaces are too important. Density reduction and underground and ground floor parking is the answer. Wonder why the proponent didn't mention this. Oh ya! that cuts into profits. Too bad. Cut through the bs now.
The developer states that building two “McMansions” would be a financially viable option. Bullshit. Having said that this would be a good project if it was downsized and provided adequate parking.
Two "McMansions" eh. I guess that language is the way to endear yourself with council. Assuming we all hate McDonalds....don't we....I'll vote for that, cause we are obviously all on the same team. As someone else said above, PC spin talk. Disappointing!
Agreed Ralph! Not providing adequate parking, combined with the Gibson's Heights development (all STRs) across the street will just create a parking congestion nightmare in this area. Already bad enough on Gibson st. in the summer!
This is hilarious. The new road design and street scape are barely finished and someone says lets tear it up, its irrelevant to his plans for a more active street environment, and he needs the street for parking. What about the children who need safety on the way to school. we heard endless droning speaches about that. Can,t loose the bike lane for parking was the word just months ago. Now lets tear it all up. Triple the density of the Gateway where residents were given the royal "F" "U" about parking on the street.... Proposal is a disaster.
Gibson Heights are all Short Term Rentals? Really? Where does this "fact" come from? I'm also wondering exactly who suggested that the new road design on Gibson St needs to be "torn up for parking"? Again, where does this "fact" come from? My final question...... What's the "Gateway"?----------It 's difficult to have a sensible opinion about anything when the discussion is dominated by "true or maybe not true" rantings from a mob. Seems to me that the proposed developer put forward a rough idea of his proposal, asking for feedback, before he goes to the expense of submitting more detailed plans. Am I correct? Instead of a sane reasonable response, I'm seeing demands for drawings, setbacks, parking details etc. Aren't these details something we would see further into the future, IF the developer even decides to go forward with this, which I see as unlikely when he's faced with confronting this angry mob.
Other developers have previously approached council to engage them in similar dialogue and been told that Council only responds to "applications," end of discussion. Maybe these folks will operate differently. I don.t know. Gateway is the condo development on the corner of Gibson and the Hwy. Do you know where you live?. Angry mob? Maybe you don't want any discussion at all. Several interesting and informed points have been raised. A serious developer would probably want to digest what the public has to say.....The developer gets to propose. The public gets to question and comment. Get used to it. You have a long way to go.
Gibson Heights allows short term rentals in secondary suites and principal residences according to the bylaw. That is a fact. Someone is concerned, probably someone who lives here, and probably rightfully so, that parking in the area is already going to be extremely stretched. Parking is a serious problem in Tuff. Another fact.
The basic problem with Tofino is the lack of land. The answer is underground parking and gasp, a nice tall apartment tower. It is the only way to house everyone who wants to live here without paving the whole area.
The District has deemed the area between Fouth Street and Olson road to be the Gateway to downtown Tofino, and are Keen to densify this area. They did studies, hired consultants, etc. It's all on the dot website. https://tofino.civicweb.net/document/58244
District has fought for 10 years to prevent developments in the Gateway Area that could have provided lots of housing. Now they want to densify. Ten years late. I guess it's better late than never. They will probably go from one extreme to the other.
No, that's not exactly correct. The district has visions and aspirations of densifying the area, but at the same time they want to not build any buildings, increase parking without using any land, preserve the scenic views, save all the trees, promote alternate transportation modes, respect cultural aspects, avoid architectural mis-matches, protect first nations'issues, see to an eventual pedestrian walkway along the waterfront, make it all pet friendly, and cover all the sidewalks in expensive paving stones and bollards to tie up your bicycle.............. If you didn't laugh about this farce, you'd cry. My favorite part was the bullshit about how a "diverse group of 7 people" met to make the decisions concerning over 40 properties, owned by probably about 100 different citizens and companies. Good thing there was a consultant on hand to show them what they should think.
In the last ten years Tofino has rejected a total of over a hundred units of housing in this area, on different properties, in different proposals. Including "affordable housing units", rental apartments, and housing units with moorage options. Lots of local retirees were interested in that one. One applicant was informed by the then Planner that all that was allowed on their empty waterfront property was "fish processing". If there was only some fish to be processed, The neighbours would have loved it, as opposed to private residences with no STR's as was proposed. Laugh or cry is correct. Past councils have presented an attitude of entitlement and resentment towards development and found it more comfortable to dictate.
........and it ain't gonna get any better. "Four more years! Four more years!". Maybe some development will get approved in 2023? Probably not before then. Meanwhile, I see that one of our hospital nurses, who has been here for 7 years, is leaving town because she can't find a place to live. Great job you're doing there Josie!
20 comments:
I'm wondering how long it will take for this developer to give up in frustration and leave town. You can be sure that mayor, council, and especially staff are already plotting a road of pitfalls , bureaucracy, expense, red tape, lawful extortion (amenities etc), and politically motivated roadblocks to ensure that this project is a wounded duck before a shovel even hits the ground. After all, this would provide housing. Can't have that now, can we.
If the developer continues to use the correct buzz words, Mayor and Council will swoon. They are over their heads already.
With this much density, how much "green social heart" can there be? Reducing the parking ratio to "preserve green space" is also a non starter, residents would have to park on the street. Rather than try to baffle council, this inexperienced developer needs to come clean and address the fact that he is trying to way over develop the site.
There's always lots of room for parking underground but developers never want to dig for it.
The parking spaces are too important. Density reduction and underground and ground floor parking is the answer. Wonder why the proponent didn't mention this. Oh ya! that cuts into profits. Too bad. Cut through the bs now.
The developer states that building two “McMansions” would be a financially viable option. Bullshit.
Having said that this would be a good project if it was downsized and provided adequate parking.
Two "McMansions" eh. I guess that language is the way to endear yourself with council. Assuming we all hate McDonalds....don't we....I'll vote for that, cause we are obviously all on the same team. As someone else said above, PC spin talk. Disappointing!
Agreed Ralph! Not providing adequate parking, combined with the Gibson's Heights development (all STRs) across the street will just create a parking congestion nightmare in this area. Already bad enough on Gibson st. in the summer!
This is hilarious. The new road design and street scape are barely finished and someone says lets tear it up, its irrelevant to his plans for a more active street environment, and he needs the street for parking. What about the children who need safety on the way to school. we heard endless droning speaches about that. Can,t loose the bike lane for parking was the word just months ago. Now lets tear it all up. Triple the density of the Gateway where residents were given the royal "F" "U" about parking on the street.... Proposal is a disaster.
What are the riparian zones and setbacks on this property ?
Gibson Heights are all Short Term Rentals? Really? Where does this "fact" come from? I'm also wondering exactly who suggested that the new road design on Gibson St needs to be "torn up for parking"? Again, where does this "fact" come from? My final question...... What's the "Gateway"?----------It 's difficult to have a sensible opinion about anything when the discussion is dominated by "true or maybe not true" rantings from a mob. Seems to me that the proposed developer put forward a rough idea of his proposal, asking for feedback, before he goes to the expense of submitting more detailed plans. Am I correct? Instead of a sane reasonable response, I'm seeing demands for drawings, setbacks, parking details etc. Aren't these details something we would see further into the future, IF the developer even decides to go forward with this, which I see as unlikely when he's faced with confronting this angry mob.
Other developers have previously approached council to engage them in similar dialogue and been told that Council only responds to "applications," end of discussion. Maybe these folks will operate differently. I don.t know. Gateway is the condo development on the corner of Gibson and the Hwy. Do you know where you live?. Angry mob? Maybe you don't want any discussion at all. Several interesting and informed points have been raised. A serious developer would probably want to digest what the public has to say.....The developer gets to propose. The public gets to question and comment. Get used to it. You have a long way to go.
Gibson Heights allows short term rentals in secondary suites and principal residences according to the bylaw. That is a fact. Someone is concerned, probably someone who lives here, and probably rightfully so, that parking in the area is already going to be extremely stretched. Parking is a serious problem in Tuff. Another fact.
The basic problem with Tofino is the lack of land.
The answer is underground parking and gasp, a nice tall apartment tower.
It is the only way to house everyone who wants to live here without paving the whole area.
I'm curious about that, too. The parking for the units on Gibson look awfully close to the creek running through the neighboring property
The District has deemed the area between Fouth Street and Olson road to be the Gateway to downtown Tofino, and are Keen to densify this area. They did studies, hired consultants, etc. It's all on the dot website. https://tofino.civicweb.net/document/58244
District has fought for 10 years to prevent developments in the Gateway Area that could have provided lots of housing. Now they want to densify. Ten years late. I guess it's better late than never. They will probably go from one extreme to the other.
No, that's not exactly correct. The district has visions and aspirations of densifying the area, but at the same time they want to not build any buildings, increase parking without using any land, preserve the scenic views, save all the trees, promote alternate transportation modes, respect cultural aspects, avoid architectural mis-matches, protect first nations'issues, see to an eventual pedestrian walkway along the waterfront, make it all pet friendly, and cover all the sidewalks in expensive paving stones and bollards to tie up your bicycle.............. If you didn't laugh about this farce, you'd cry. My favorite part was the bullshit about how a "diverse group of 7 people" met to make the decisions concerning over 40 properties, owned by probably about 100 different citizens and companies. Good thing there was a consultant on hand to show them what they should think.
In the last ten years Tofino has rejected a total of over a hundred units of housing in this area, on different properties, in different proposals. Including "affordable housing units", rental apartments, and housing units with moorage options. Lots of local retirees were interested in that one. One applicant was informed by the then Planner that all that was allowed on their empty waterfront property was "fish processing". If there was only some fish to be processed, The neighbours would have loved it, as opposed to private residences with no STR's as was proposed. Laugh or cry is correct. Past councils have presented an attitude of entitlement and resentment towards development and found it more comfortable to dictate.
........and it ain't gonna get any better. "Four more years! Four more years!". Maybe some development will get approved in 2023? Probably not before then. Meanwhile, I see that one of our hospital nurses, who has been here for 7 years, is leaving town because she can't find a place to live. Great job you're doing there Josie!
Post a Comment