Sussex and Saunders are off Nelson St. There is already one new building going up on the north side of Saunders right up against Naden. There is a tower (12+ storeys) being built on Nelson at Miles. There's a 12 story tower approved for Nelson at Esquimalt Rd. And now this one. That's a lot of people expected to access Esquimalt Rd from one narrow road (Nelson). Plus, with this proposal, they're going to take down two 4 story apartment buildings that are already there, displacing even more people into a challenging rental market.
Esq is gonna need some serious infrastructure improvements to deal with all these new units. The services, sidewalks, lights, and crosswalks were all built for the single family days. Esq x Admirals is already a cluster at quitting time.
> Plus, with this proposal, they're going to take down two 4 story apartment buildings that are already there, displacing even more people into a challenging rental market.
This is 100% a unfortunate policy choice by municipal politicians and bureaucrats who don't want to piss off generally older wealthier homeowners by allowing multifamily into more SFH-only areas.
We need demoviction policy to protect current residents, provide new homes at the same price in the new development. Current residents shouldn't be getting punished.
Too bad these new towers don't come with promises to build trams etc to connect them across inevitable gong show that is the Johnson street bridge area.
Esquimalt needs to stop promoting high rises as they are not the best or efficient means of providing affordable housing.
High rises steal sunlight from the streets below, increase windiness, and promote social alienation.
You can get similar densities with 4-6 storied buildings which blend better into single family neighbourhoods.
A single 4-6 story won't, but you can get the same density by building lots of them, over a wide area. Which is easy to do, and more affordable than a big tower... If you take the cost of land out of the picture, assume that a bunch of land in a good location will all come on the market at the same time, and no one in the area will oppose large areas of land being converted to 4-6 story buildings.
In reality this is a way to oppose progress because there's some theoretical thing that could be better, if you don't look too closely at it. It's a bad faith argument, the kind of half informed, half considered argument that NIMBYs favour,
I believe it's called the Nirvana Fallacy. Although you have to cultivate a fallacy like that, the issues with it are so glaring, that it's hard to ignore them without intentional ignorance.
> A single 4-6 story won't, but you can get the same density by building lots of them, over a wide area.
I don't think you understand what the word 'density' means.
Esquimalt doesn't have infinite empty land to just start doing that though, they have to obtain and then demolish what is currently there. In theory you're right but in practice you'd have to annex the land and bulldoze houses just to begin your proposal.
So if Esquimalt tried to stop high rises you wouldn't get any extra building, it would just be the same amount but low rise while simultaneously increasing demand as supply does not increase fast enough causing increased prices.
Totally talking out of my ass here, no evidence so I could be wrong.
Also there is tons of low rise going in, not sure if you've driven down esquimalt rd lately but it's basically one construction zone from end to end.
Yeah, that's my point.
Preferring low-rise only works in a vacuum, if you fail to take into account all your points. We need more housing, and banning high-rise with the hope that low-rise will be sufficient, despite all the issues implementing it is really just opposition to providing enough housing.
I certainly am not proposing that Esquimalt, or anywhere being affected by the housing crisis (so, like, everywhere) should add rules restricting housing being built.
They're actually factually the best and most efficient way to provide density and affordable housing lol. The more units in a building the easier it is to subsidize
> You can get similar densities with 4-6 storied buildings which blend better into single family neighbourhoods.
Is this an option on the table that can be chosen over an unsubsidized, ready to build 21 story build? .... no. Than why even use the concern troll talking point?
I hope they incorporate rooftop defense turrets into the design. Or maybe a zip line so military residents have a quick way to get to work.
Zip line would be sick
I love that idea
Esquimalt is going hard with the towers
Get to wake up to ship alarms every morning loud and clear there
100%. I’d imagine ship exhaust, shipyard noise…man.
1337 Saunders Street that's a leet address if I ever saw one
Probably the best address in all of the 'Malt!
Sussex and Saunders are off Nelson St. There is already one new building going up on the north side of Saunders right up against Naden. There is a tower (12+ storeys) being built on Nelson at Miles. There's a 12 story tower approved for Nelson at Esquimalt Rd. And now this one. That's a lot of people expected to access Esquimalt Rd from one narrow road (Nelson). Plus, with this proposal, they're going to take down two 4 story apartment buildings that are already there, displacing even more people into a challenging rental market.
Esq is gonna need some serious infrastructure improvements to deal with all these new units. The services, sidewalks, lights, and crosswalks were all built for the single family days. Esq x Admirals is already a cluster at quitting time.
> Plus, with this proposal, they're going to take down two 4 story apartment buildings that are already there, displacing even more people into a challenging rental market. This is 100% a unfortunate policy choice by municipal politicians and bureaucrats who don't want to piss off generally older wealthier homeowners by allowing multifamily into more SFH-only areas.
We need demoviction policy to protect current residents, provide new homes at the same price in the new development. Current residents shouldn't be getting punished.
Too bad these new towers don't come with promises to build trams etc to connect them across inevitable gong show that is the Johnson street bridge area.
Esquimalt needs to stop promoting high rises as they are not the best or efficient means of providing affordable housing. High rises steal sunlight from the streets below, increase windiness, and promote social alienation. You can get similar densities with 4-6 storied buildings which blend better into single family neighbourhoods.
>You can get similar densities with 4-6 storied buildings How can a 4-6 story building get similar density as a 21 story building?
A single 4-6 story won't, but you can get the same density by building lots of them, over a wide area. Which is easy to do, and more affordable than a big tower... If you take the cost of land out of the picture, assume that a bunch of land in a good location will all come on the market at the same time, and no one in the area will oppose large areas of land being converted to 4-6 story buildings. In reality this is a way to oppose progress because there's some theoretical thing that could be better, if you don't look too closely at it. It's a bad faith argument, the kind of half informed, half considered argument that NIMBYs favour, I believe it's called the Nirvana Fallacy. Although you have to cultivate a fallacy like that, the issues with it are so glaring, that it's hard to ignore them without intentional ignorance.
> A single 4-6 story won't, but you can get the same density by building lots of them, over a wide area. I don't think you understand what the word 'density' means.
Esquimalt doesn't have infinite empty land to just start doing that though, they have to obtain and then demolish what is currently there. In theory you're right but in practice you'd have to annex the land and bulldoze houses just to begin your proposal. So if Esquimalt tried to stop high rises you wouldn't get any extra building, it would just be the same amount but low rise while simultaneously increasing demand as supply does not increase fast enough causing increased prices. Totally talking out of my ass here, no evidence so I could be wrong. Also there is tons of low rise going in, not sure if you've driven down esquimalt rd lately but it's basically one construction zone from end to end.
Yeah, that's my point. Preferring low-rise only works in a vacuum, if you fail to take into account all your points. We need more housing, and banning high-rise with the hope that low-rise will be sufficient, despite all the issues implementing it is really just opposition to providing enough housing. I certainly am not proposing that Esquimalt, or anywhere being affected by the housing crisis (so, like, everywhere) should add rules restricting housing being built.
They're actually factually the best and most efficient way to provide density and affordable housing lol. The more units in a building the easier it is to subsidize
> You can get similar densities with 4-6 storied buildings which blend better into single family neighbourhoods. Is this an option on the table that can be chosen over an unsubsidized, ready to build 21 story build? .... no. Than why even use the concern troll talking point?