Victoria City Style Council - Recently Updated Pages

Langham Court Theatre article

Home

Overheard in Victoria

Calendar

Letters to the Editor(s)

Victoria exploits resources

New development

Gene Miller / Sam Williams in Focus Mag. letter

Smokers banned, but blue-smoke tailpipe emissions ok?

"Honolulu visionary offers tips for Victoria" letter

"Bay Building" development letter

James Kunstler comes to Victoria (c/o fossil fuels) and ticks me off

"Generations at odds over condo project"? Nonsense!

This port city DOES save its shoreline for the public...

"Councillors fall" and "streetcars not desired"? Really?

Fact checking: who is the densest?

Where will the families live? (Focus Magazine)

Blethering Place Tea Room letter

Letter(s) to the editor

1 - 2 - 3: steps

September 2006

October 2006

November 2006

December 2006

Yule — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:02:14 CST

(The following is an article I wrote on behalf of my neighbourhood association's newsletter; it was actually supposed to be a shortish piece about the Theatre's renovation project. But I ended up adding a historical background, which turned it into a feature for The Moss Rock Review [May 2006], a local magazine that the Rockland Neighbourhood Association briefly affiliated with via the Fairfield Community Association. For the article, I interviewed two people from the Theatre who were both very generous with their time. I'd like to keep the article accessible, hence am posting it here.)

Langham Court Theatre Completes Extensive Renovations

By Yule Heibel

It was a dark and stormy night...

Well, it was dark but hardly stormy when I visited Langham Court Theatre last October. I met Mike Chadwick, chair of the Renovation Committee, for a sneak preview of the summer-long renovation work going on behind the scenes. As we entered the theatre, it was clear there was high drama afoot, as rehearsing actors and renovation crews worked side by side with focussed determination, readying for another triumph. The former rehearsed "You'll Get Used To It"; the latter were literally nailing down the final skirmish of a months-long campaign designed to give Langham Court Theatre a structure to be proud of.

While audiences won't notice much of a change in the stage and seating area of the theatre, chances are they'll be pleasantly surprised during intermission when they go for refreshment in the newly renovated lounge. Mid-October, the drywall was up and all the plumbing roughed in. It was after 8 pm, but workers were pulling out all the stops to get the project completed in time for the October 26 Renovation Celebration. When finished, the space will sport a new bar, plus new kitchen and storage area. There's still plenty of wall space for art exhibits, and during warmer months audiences will enjoy the outdoor patio. What's not visible is noteworthy, too: a back wall made of cinder block and wall supports of undersized beams were completely rebuilt, bringing the building in line with modern safety codes.

Upstairs, Downstairs

Let's explore behind the scenes... First, up the stairs behind the lounge, there is now a huge loft where costumes hang in double rows running the full length of the new space. Everything is finally in one place, and visible. This new second storey also provided one of those renovation "uh-oh" moments when crews uncovered the inadequate structural supports in the ground floor structure, which were then rebuilt. But the biggest action occured below stairs, where crawlspaces morphed into full height basements. Dump trucks carried away nearly 60 loads of excavated material. The trickiest part of excavating under an existing structure is in making sure it doesn't collapse into the hole you're digging. Crews used small, bobcat-style excavators that could work around the supports that constantly had to be rigged in place as digging proceeded further along. The end result is perfect: a high-ceiling basement that has a place for everything, a working theatre's dream:

A new rehearsal space. Since current productions use the stage, new productions must be rehearsed elsewhere. Directors, who spend between 6 to 10 weeks rehearsing the cast, typically had only 3 weeks to rehearse on-site, given the limited time between plays. Before renovating, the cast went off-site to rehearse, but now everyone can be in one place, in the theatre building.

Well-designed dressing rooms, with nearby bathrooms.

A "green room" where actors can gather while they wait to go on stage.

Great access to the stage and other working areas.

Proper archive storage. John Gilliland is the Theatre’s archivist, and by default his house became the designated storage depot. He can now reclaim significant square footage.

A space for props.

A space for carpentry and sewing workshops ...to create more props and costumes.

Removal of an oil-fired furnace, thanks to a very up-to-date electrical system. The theatre had a heat pump system for years, but because of the old wiring system's baroque (if not broke) idiosyncracies, it only worked for part of the building. It couldn't be used throughout, and the oil furnace was kept as backup. Now, with new 600 amp service, the heat pump can do what it was meant to do, while the oil tank and furnace exit, stage right, taking their space-gobbling ductwork with them.

Who ever said that theatre people aren't practical?

What did all this cost, and who was in charge? The renovation budget came to over $510,000. Joint Federal and Provincial grants contributed $310,000, and another $44,420 came from provincial gaming revenue grants. The rest came from Langham Court Theatre's own kitty, which for over a decade those clever actors had nurtured along in preparation of this renovation.

Hoping for some juicy story, I prodded Mike Chadwick: Any renovation horror stories, anything really gothic? Nope, in fact, things went extraordinarily well -- and how unusual is that for a renovation? Much of the credit is due to their general contractor, Paul Terry, a fellow dedicated thespian, who knew from experience how the design of the new spaces had to flow to ensure that they would function properly for the actors and crew working backstage. Having a fellow actor in charge made the whole project come together in just the right way -- and, Mike added, Paul Terry is a top-notch contractor, to boot. The theatre now has 1500 additional square feet of first-rate space that will serve community theatre for decades.

Behind the history scenes

For a vivid account of the Theatre’s history, the person to consult is John Gilliland, whose knowledge is truly daunting. His written accounts include a guide, “Suggested Answers to Frequently-Asked Questions for The Langham Court Open House”; a Tour Guide that includes a detailed history of the structure; and “The History of Langham Court Theatre and the Victoria Theatre Guild,” published for the Theatre’s 75th birthday gala on September 18, 2004. As the gala’s date suggests, the Theatre’s beginnings go back to 1929. The Mimes’ and Masquers’ Guild, founded by five theatre enthusiasts in September 1929, staged its first performance at the Crystal Garden Theatre in early 1930. Since many of the members were teachers, a nickname quickly attached to them, “The Marms and Masters Guild,” which prompted the evasive maneuvre of a name-change in 1931 to The Victoria Little Theatre Association.

Listening to John Gilliland, one realises that many of the people who figure in the Theatre’s history are worthy of historical inquiry in their own right. How many people know, for example, of the colourful life of Countess Laura de Gozdawa Turczynowicz? Born Laura Blackwell in St. Catharines, Ontario ca. 1877, she went to Europe (mainly Munich and Bayreuth) to sing opera. There she married a Polish nobleman and lived with him on his estate in Suwalki, Poland – in time to witness the invasion of the German army during World War I. By 1916 she published a book, When the Prussians Came to Poland; The Experiences of an American Woman during the German Invasion (New York, 1916), intended simultaneously as testimonial (for Poland), indictment (against Germany), and plea (for American help for Poland). Here Turczynowicz writes that she is “a New York girl,” and her husband a “gallant Pole now serving humanity with the Russian Army as inspector-in-chief of the Sanitary Engineers.” By the late 1920s, however, she is back in her native Ontario, where, prompted by the need to make a living, she seemingly single-handedly founded a Conservatory Opera Society described by the Canadian Encyclopedia as eventually affiliated with the Toronto Conservatory of Music (now the Royal Conservatory of Music). Then, like a female incarnation of another exotically named Vancouver Island serial social entrepreneur, Amor de Cosmos, she came to Victoria in 1930 to found The Victoria Operatic Society (not related to the present society of that name).

According to John Gilliland’s History, Turczynowicz “quickly became aware of the Langham Court auditorium and used it as a rehearsal hall to produce five successful operas at the Royal Theatre with amateur talent during 1931 and early 1932.” By June 1932, she had leased the property and headquartered her society here. There happened to be a considerable overlap in membership between The Victoria Little Theatre Association and The Victoria Operatic Society, with performers active in both groups. Instrumental in their eventual union in 1935 was Victoria lawyer and Operatic Society president Harry Davis, who had joined the Little Theatre in 1933 or ’34. The Society performed its last show in November 1934, but was in short order given a new lease on life as The Victoria Philharmonic Society. A union between the Little Theatre and the Philharmonic Society (reborn in 1935 as The Civic Opera) was then actively encouraged by Davis, who suggested that they jointly take over the lease of the carriage house (present-day Langham Court Theatre). With no little amount of wheeling and dealing, which involved leases, loans, and mortgage defaults, as well as three additional years, The Little Theatre was in 1938 in possession of what we now know as Langham Court Theatre – a building that as late as 1937 still didn’t have toilets or running water.

As the most recent renovation attests, the amenities have certainly changed since then, but what hasn’t changed is the Theatre’s ability to attract and focus the activities of colourful, talented and determined personalities. Not surprisingly, repertoire choices have led to occasional fireworks, sometimes with audience participation. Many of its long-standing patrons don’t mind letting the Theatre know that plays can’t be too racy or contain foul language: anything stronger than a muttered “damn!” is likely to provoke letters. At the same time, the Theatre has had to reinvent itself with fresh material, fed to it by the determined participants who make sure that the show goes on. In the late 1970s, for example, writer, actor, and musician Hetty Clews ensured that the Theatre’s bylaws were rewritten to give full board member rights to youth. Without those changes, Sara Topham (now at the Stratford Festival in Ontario) might not have been a 14-year old teen board member in the mid-90s. Judy Treloar might not have directed “The Killing of Sister George” in 1978. Local writer Joan Austen-Leigh (cofounder of the Jane Austen Society of North America) might not have seen her prize-winning play, “Women’s Work” (written under her married name, Joan Mason-Hurley), produced at Langham Court Theatre. The tradition continues with the inclusion of current vice-president Wendy Magahay’s work in a Canadian textbook anthology, The Act of Writing (also featuring Margaret Atwood, Carol Shields, and David Suzuki, among others).

Does the reader detect bias in my focus on the talented women in the Theatre’s history, past and present? Perhaps the Countess’s ghost influenced my choices – but rest assured, the menfolk are equally talented. One hopes that Mr. Gilliland’s excellent histories will be posted on the Theatre’s website, or published in a longer account as a book.

If you haven't gone to Langham Court Theatre recently, catch their last play of this season, “Maggie’s Getting Married,” June 8-24 (directed by Judy Treloar). Or consider an upcoming season subscription. You'll participate in a lively community theatre enterprise: Langham Court Theatre has an annual seating capacity of 15,000. Around 200 people are involved in its shows. For every show, a set number of tickets is donated to local charities, who then resell the tickets to raise money for their own projects. It's a thriving theatre ready to welcome audiences for years to come. It's also aware that its kitty now needs refueling from the fount of milk known as human philanthropy -- donations are more than welcome.

Langham Court Theatre, 805 Langham Court Victoria, BC V8V 4J3. Tel.: 384-2142. Website: http://langhamcourttheatre.bc.ca/

At Left:
Cover of the 1964-65 season program booklet, illustrated with an original sketch of the Theatre by Winifred Lugrin Fahey, soprano and composer (the light opera Bride Ship, based on the historical arrival of ships bringing young women to the colony of Fort Victoria in the 1860s). Collection: Langham Court Theatre

Yule — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 10:07:01 CST

This is Victoria City Style Council's first ever wiki. I used to blog here, but when I read about WetPaint, I decided to start a wiki about Victoria, BC. I know next to nothing about wikis, but I know a lot about Victoria, and I invite anyone else who knows a thing or two to contribute to these pages. I have set things up so that contributors who join WetPaint can automatically fool around (join the conversation) on Victoria City Style Council. (The options were anyone, including anonymouses, or WetPaint-registered folks, or invitees only. I might change this to "anyone at all," but being a wiki-newbie, I thought I'd want some overview of changes...)

I'm very interested in the developing urban character of Victoria -- something not often touted by the tourism industry, which prefers to emphasise the city's alleged "European" character. (It used to be its "English" character, but lately -- perhaps under pressure from the forces of inclusion -- the definition has expanded to include other old places... It's not real inclusion, of course.) I'm also very serious about style -- please take a look at the page called Style v. Substance -- and I'm happy that I now have an additional, reason to disdain Rousseau. Those of us who care about Victoria -- on all sides of the various fence poles -- spend time going to City Council meetings. That's why this wiki's title refers to a city council. But note that it also refers to The Style Council in appreciation of their emphasis that style is substance.

There's no specific direction to this project yet -- whether it continues, thrives, or languishes is quite up in the air. But it's here, and open to contributions. I'd like to hope that with the thriving coffee-house culture we enjoy in the city, along with the thriving possibilities for conversation and the exchanges of ideas we see on the internet, this wiki could become a gathering place for yet another venue of exchange. New users/ visitors: please see1 - 2 - 3: steps for tips on how-to use this site.

Just remember, you can't let your bums fall off... ("Shee, you guys are so unhip it's a wonder your bums don't fall off." - Zaphod admonishing the Milliways waiter in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. ) Let style keep you from going to pieces.

Stuart_de_Stael — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:17:17 CDT

The other day I read about a whack site out of New York called "Overheard in New York," and I thought it would be so terribly cool to have an "Overheard in Victoria" page, too.

Ok, ok, unlike NYC, we're not a city of nearly 8 million people, but still... I bet there's a lot of funny and weird or just bizarre stuff out there. (Besides, think of the tourists! This is anthropology in action...)

So, if you have an anthropologist in your head hankering to express him- or herself, here's what you need to do: clean your ears, hang out in public spaces, and take note(s)! Any overheard weird, surreal, funny, bizarre, funky, strange, or whatever snippet of strangers' conversations that strikes you as weird, surreal, funny, ... well, you get the drift... send it to me via email (yheibelATpostDOTharvardDOTedu), or post it here directly (which any registered user can do),or leave it as a comment.

While I fully understand that there will not be an inundation of witticism of this page any time soon, please don't let it languish and dry up like Tofino... Whatever piddle you can cast this way will be so very much appreciated...

(It has been a week, and sadly, no entries. I offer the first one -- it's about death, so it's not as funny as I'd like, but it is weird...)

File this one under: "Life goes on... or else it goes out. In a box."

Middle-aged woman, at main entrance of long-term care facility, to male senior citizen taking cardboard boxes inside: "Boxes? What -- you needed boxes?"
Older man, matter of factly: "Well, when someone dies, you need boxes."
Woman: "We've got plenty of boxes inside!"

- overheard outside a Fairfield Hospital/ Care Facility

-------------------

A car heading south down Cook St. into the Village. Two young American women with Southern accents pull over and ask for directions:

"We're trying to find Nanna Moe. Is this the right way?"

"Excuse me?"

[Woman looks at map]

"Nanna Moe."

"Uh, you mean Nanaimo?"

"Yeah! We want to catch the ferry to Vancouver!"

"Uh, O.K., turn around and get over onto Douglas St. and head north."

"Thanks!"

------------------

Butchart Gardens gift shop:

American tourist, holding souvenir Canadian flag: "Does this come in green?"

Gift shop employee: "...Ahh, that's our Canadian flag--it's red and white."

Tourist: "I can see that this one's red; I'm wondering if I can get it in green?"

Employee: "What?... Can I get an American flag in green stripes?"

Tourist: "Absolutely not!"

Employee: "Well, why do you think you can get a Canadian flag in Green?"

Tourist, waving flag in employee's face: "'CAUSE IT WOULD LOOK A HELL OF A LOT BETTER THAN THIS!"

[contribution by "Scaper"]

-------------------

Chinatown:

Man with Eastern European accent: "You know--Nanaimo?"

Me: "Nanaimo Street or Nanaimo the city?"

Man: "City. From here?"

Me: "Yes, go up one block to Douglas Street, turn left."

Yule — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 00:14:03 CDT

Sun	Mon	Tues	Wed	Thurs	Fri	Sat
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25 Christmas Day	26	27	28	29	30
31

Yule — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 13:39:15 CDT

This is the umbrella page for "letter(s) to the editor." If you "own" a letter to the editor that you want to republish here (i.e., you're the author), click on the "add a sub-page..." link [in the left sidebar, right under "Letters to the Editor(s)] and add your letter. If possible, add a hyperlink here (on this page) to the new page you have thus created...

Readers/ visitors: To see the letters, look at the sidebar on the left: the sub-pages should appear under this "Letters to the Editor(s)" main page.

Jan.27/06: Blethering Place Tea Room letter
March 19/06: Victoria exploits resources
April 7/06: Where will the families live? letter
April 12/06: Fact checking letter
May 4/06: "Councillors fall" and "streetcars..." letter
May 13/06: This port city DOES... letter
May 30/06: "Generations at odds..." letter
June 7/06: James Kunstler comes to Victoria ...letter
July 15/06: "Towering dreams for uptown" letter (this letter is linked on sidebar as "Letter(s) to the editor"
July 19/06: Bay Building redevelopment ...letter
July 26/06: Honolulu visionary... letter
Aug.28/06: Smokers banned, but... letter
Sept.11/06: Gene Miller/ Sam Williams... letter

Yule — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 13:38:11 CDT

This is a letter I wrote on March 19 (it was published on March 26) to the Times-Colonist in response to an article by Jim Hume, "A hundred years later, Saanich gets no respect" (March 19). Note: the City of Victoria is a relatively small piece of the Capital Regional District, which is comprised of 13 municipalities. Saanich is one of these; it used to be largely agricultural, but has lately attracted newer industries, and is home to the Vancouver Island Advanced Technology Centre (VIATeC).

Dear Editor,

Thank you for the fascinating article by Jim Hume on Saanich's 100-year history of consolidating its identity ("A hundred years later, Saanich gets no respect," March 19).

I think it's interesting that Saanich has been a producer of goods and resources all these years (agriculture, and now high-tech), while Victoria has focused on resource exploitation. Think about it: Victoria's economy was based on seal hunting (we were the biggest sealers around). When the seals died out, Victoria focused on whales (this ceased only when Alaska's 1964 earthquake pushed tidal currents further out to sea, making the whales inaccessible to Victoria's smaller boats).

Victoria exploited lumber and fishing, grabbing the resource and sending it out relatively unprocessed as fast as possible. Currently, Victoria exploits tourism. Let them come; let them spend their money.

Let's also grab as many retirees as we can, and make them spend their money. Just let's not focus on having a productive economy, because remember: There must be another resource worth exploiting right around the corner that fits Victoria's hit-and-run economy.

With that kind of history and still-current mindset, who can blame Saanich and its productive citizens (farmers, biotechnologists, researchers, traders) for not wanting to join Victoria? After all, with our history, Saanich would become just another resource to be exploited.

Perhaps Jim Hume's cheeky prediction is correct and Saanich, once it's ready, will allow us to join them. For Victoria, that would be a paradigm shift from exploitation to production. Bring it on.

Yule Heibel

Stuart_de_Stael — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 01:35:52 CDT

The Falls

This building was approved (I think) on Thursday, July 20th. It will be built on Douglas, between Burdett and Courtenay. Currently, the site is an empty parking lot, location of the former Car Museum.

The Juliet
This building was approved for the northwest corner of Johnson and Blanshard. The old Romeo's building on this site will demolished to make way for the Juliet.

Other major proposals in the works:

947 Fort St. (redevelopment of the site of the present Clock Tower building) by Cielo properties. Jan Zak and Karen Hillel, architects. Condos with ground floor retail on Fort St. and townhouses along Meares St. Passed public hearing September 14 at City with Councillor Young and Mayor Lowe voting against (citing unnecessary density).

The Former Bay building. 537 condo units spread over four phases: conversion of the Bay building and demolition of the parkade, to be replaced by three towers on a podium. Merrick Architects. Will appear before Commitee of the Whole at City Hall October 5.

The Well. One block north of the Bay site sharing the block with the Jack Davis and IBM buildings. Office, 82 condo units restaurant and "wellness centre". Merrick Architects. Recently passed Advisory Planning Commission. Public hearing TBA.

819 Yates (presently the parking lot of the Capitol 6 theatre). De Hoog and Kierulf, architects. 16 storey condo (203 units) on retail podium. Passed Applied Planning Commission. Public hearing TBA.

1007 Johnson (renovation and addition to the historic Bossi home by Three Point Developments) 9 units. NumberTEN architects.

840 Fort St. (renovation and addition to the historic Sawyer's Sewing building by Three Point Developments) 5 units plus 2 retail suites. NumberTEN architects. Note: The basement of this building extends under the sidewalk, a legacy of the building's earlier incarnation where the facade extended past the present location of Fort St. Public hearing TBA.

View and Vancouver Sts. ~200 unit residential and restaurant. Proposal on hold pending sale of land.

Yule — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 00:55:55 CDT

This is a letter I sent just the other day (September 11, 2006) toFocus Magazine, which I actually hope won't get published, because if it does, I'll surely be run out of town for being a witch or something.... Focus is likely to be read by quite a few people who actually exist around here, whereas this wiki is read by practically no one, so I feel ok publishing the letter here.

In the letter I attack the Victorian architectural twin sacred cows of the Victoria Conference Centre (which I think is one of the absolutely ugliest buildings in town) and the Terasen Gas Building, which might not be repulsive like the Conference Centre, but which also isn't a great building. That alone is enough to get pelted with rotten tomatoes around here... And I wrote it in the evening with a touch of flu coming on, and managed to hit a particularly school-marmish tone that sets even my hardened ears on edge. Oh. well.

My letter was in response specifically to a column by Gene Miller, who wrote an article for this September issue called "Aggressive Planhandling," urban planning wordplay on "panhandling," which deserves its own wiki entry (look for it later in Sept.), for panhandling has become a very very sore point around here recently; and in response to an article by Sam Williams, called "Should the market decide?" wherein he argues that the height restrictions that apply to downtown Victoria need to be turfed out. It was a deliberately hyperbolic and challenging article, and while I agreed with its spirit, I disagreed with Williams's critique of a recent building,The Corazon (built by the same developer who built the Terasen Gas Building), which he compared (unfavourably) with the more recent Astoria building on Humboldt St. (Actually, the Williams article was posted on Skyscraperpage with plenty of ensuing commentary and discussion; in case of general link rot, see this page for the specific posting of Williams's article.)

Anyway, my letter:

September 11, 2006 to Focus Magazine (unpublished, to date):
Dear Leslie Campbell,

Thank you for another issue of Focus, whose articles run the gamut from thoughtful to humourous to provocative and back again. I always enjoy Susan Musgrave's column, but this time, Gene Miller's piece nearly convulsed me with Schadenfreude, except that I reined myself in because we now all understand that this particular emotion is, if not politically incorrect, at any rate regressive. Besides, even though Miller is right that Victoria has a special genius for self-mutilation, I, along with everyone else here, am Victoria, and at some point self-mutilation just gets too ...painful. Clinically, we're ripe for a diagnosis of pathologically low self-esteem, as we self-medicate with dangerous cocktails made of bombast and indecision. At some point, though, you just want to shout, "oh, grow up!"

Which is exactly what Sam Williams suggests in his piece, "Should the market decide?" He's right, of course, even if he does use a bit of shock therapy (if I may continue with the psycho metaphor). I can only imagine that some of my acquaintances are mortified at the prospect of 25-storey-and-higher towers in downtown, but dear friends: if not downtown, where? In Langford or on Bear Mountain? Oh, wait... some of them are going there, begging the question, how come we keep underbuilding with low-rises here? And to those who argue that highrises are environmentally unfriendly, I'd ask you to become familiar with the work ofKenneth Yeang.

I do disagree with Williams on this point, though: aesthetically, the Corazon is a superior building, and not the stumpy, cheap-finish failure he accuses it of being. The Astoria, not without its flaws in terms of exterior finishing, has the advantage of existing on a street section that was nearly a blank slate in terms of older urban architecture. Together with the Belvedere, it has done a very good job of acting as a foil (much like a good ring setting shows off its gemstone) for theChurch of Our Lord, which incidentally does not now look dwarfed or insulted, but instead looks resplendent as it welcomes its new neighbours. Unlike that architectural disaster known as the Victoria Conference Centre (which hogs entire city blocks, squatting like an undefined mass covered in a thick layer of green mold, even as it dares to trick itself out in faux Edwardianisms), these new highrises don't steal the Church of Our Lord's thunder by drawing undue attention to a hopped up sense of "history." If anything, they could (should?) have been taller.

As could Corazon, granted. But give it credit where due: the building is a miniature masterpiece in terms of how it fits into its surroundings. Here's what I mean: Corazon expertly picks up its neighbours' architectural elements, playing with them to create a rhythm across its own facade, a harmony and counterpoint to the surrounding facades. This creates pleasing visual dynamics and interest. For example, Corazon uses yellow brick (which picks up on the Fairfield Hotel, located two buildings to the west); grey panelling and glass bloc (which picks up on and literally beautifies and ennobles the otherwise unattractive dark-grey lowrise next door); a rigorous geometry in its window patterning and use of railings and panels (which picks up on the grey building's utilitarianism as well as the more boring generically modernist building set back closer to Balmoral); and green painted sheathing (which picks up on the green window glass of the set back building). Note that this contrast of Corazon's painted green panels to the other building's green glazing enhances the "conversation" Corazon has with its neighbour. In addition, Corazon's windows and balconies, as seen from the street, suggest a place of both refuge and prospect. It is easy, viewing this building from the street, to imagine the protected but still expansive vantage points it affords: not an endless, static view of ocean or sky, but of observation of the city and its streets. That's urbanism, by the way, as opposed to the passive panorama of the unchanging "million dollar view." This, too, helps to knit the building into the city's fabric. Could or should it have been taller? Sure, but what's there is still very good. It's more eloquent than the nearby Terasen Building, which is "expensively" garbed, but fails to speak as wisely.

I would hope that Corazon's future neighbours on nearby blocks are at least half as canny ...and maybe twice as tall.

Sincerely,

Yule Heibel

Yule — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 00:13:19 CDT

This is a letter I wrote on Aug.28, 2006 to the Victoria News in response to a previous letter (from a friend of mine -- who occasionally lights up a cigarette, and who absolutely disagrees with my pro-development stance, but hey, that's the beauty of sociability, eh?): the other writer noted that we're about to ban all smoking on public patios, cafes, etc., but we do nothing about car and truck exhaust emissions. She was thinking about cars generally, but I jumped on this to harp on one of my pet peeves, namely that Victoria has no standards or tests for automobile exhausts since the provincial government got rid of same some time ago. This drives me crazy. When we first moved back here, some stupid woman actually had the nerve to say that it doesn't matter here because "it all blows away." Yeah, what bubble do you live in, bubble-brain? Anyway, this letter was published:

August 28, 2006 to Victoria News (published):
Dear Editor,

Brava to the letter writer who pointed out that while we talk about banning smoking on outdoor patios, we have neglected doing anything about some of the automotive traffic that spews dangerous pollutants straight into our lungs. I find it very surprising that vehicles registered in the CRD aren't required to have an annual test for exhaust emissions levels, and that there are no minimum standards that must be maintained. Someone told me that requiring such testing would be onerous for the poor, the implication being that they're the ones driving the old beaters with the blue smoke pouring from tailpipes. But that's specious, for excessive emissions due to inadequately tuned vehicles is not just a poor person's problem.

For example, ever try riding your bike behind one of the doubledecker tour buses that cruise along the scenic drive? Those buses are among the worst offenders, and it doesn't seem right that tourism businesses should be allowed to mutilate the health of residents. Ditto trucks, front loaders, and other vehicles used in the construction industry. Sorry, these aren't the vehicles of "the poor," they are business vehicles and their dreck should be reduced. By law. The same rule should hold for new cars that are improperly maintained, or any automobile using the roads anywhere in the region. Require an annual sticker that proves you had your car checked and have met clean air standards. If you're stopped without a current sticker attached to your windshield, be prepared to cough up a fine. At least it will keep us from coughing and choking on your fumes.

Sincerely,
Yule Heibel

Yule — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 00:07:14 CDT

This is a letter I wrote on July 26, 2006 to theVictoria News in response to their reportage of Jeremy Harris's talk at City Hall on July 13, 2006. The letter was published. (Subsequently, and unrelated to my letter, there was a stink in that newspaper in the "letters" section about Harris, with a number of people implying -- cynically? -- the "the city" had forked money over to Harris to come speak [not true, he came for free, but did get a lunch] and that Harris had badly mismanaged Honolulu, so why should we listen to him, and so on and so forth. As a dual Canadian-American citizen who has lived in both countries, I couldn't help but register a certain anti-Americanism in all of this, and most especially an overweaning ignorance of how America works.)

July 26, 2006 to Victoria News (published):
Re. "Honolulu visionary offers tips for Victoria," July 26, 2006

Dear Editor,

Many thanks for Brennan Clarke's detailed reportage of Jeremy Harris's and Ben Lee's presentation at City Hall on July 13. I also attended that meeting and can attest that Harris and Lee were inspiring. There are some key economic differences between American and Canadian methods of financing urban renewal, however, that we need to understand as we pursue sustainable development here. Trevor Boddy, in"Vancouverism vs. Lower Manhattanism: Shaping the High Density City" ( ArchNewsNow.com, 9/20/05) notes that: "It is a surprising fact that redevelopment of the core areas of American cities is dependent to a much larger degree on federal government funding than in otherwise more social democratic Canada. The American model is one of redevelopment agencies, special tax relief zones, and direct public investment in urban regeneration. Money is flung at American urban problems in the form of bond financing and direct subsidies to private sector builders."

Note that bond financing is the prime method Mr. Harris referred to when pressed by several listeners to explain how Honolulu "did it." It was literally through creative borrowing and leveraging of funds.

Trevor Boddy continues: "Canadian urban redevelopment is much more intermediated, slower, and distributed through narrowly-defined public domain funds, such as the Vancouver Agreement ... Especially over the past five years, Canada's federal government has been investing far less per capita in cities than that of the United States. Moreover, Canadian constitutional arrangements mean that municipalities are unable to institute sales taxes and similar revenue generators, and cannot issue bonds, a key means used by American cities to raise capital for infrastructure."

With nearly surgical precision, Boddy concludes that "the key shaper of city building in Canada is city planning – understood as a Utopian technocratic art performed by public agencies. The key shaper of the American city is pragmatic funding programs – some of them direct investments, others less visible allocations of public money to private recipients, such as mortgage payment tax deductibility, a huge investment of public funds unknown in Canada and most other countries."

Victoria cannot "float" bonds or collect GST or PST directly, regardless of how many of us consume here, ...and just imagine the uproar if Victoria's city council allocated "public money to private recipients," i.e., developers! Instead, the city has to get funds from federal and provincial governments, with allocation based on population. It doesn't matter that Victoria services the needs of neighbouring communities from Saanich to Sooke: on paper, we're a tiddler at 75,000 even though we're about 350,000 once you strip away the municipal boundaries that balkanize the administration of this region. We have needs based on the latter number but get funding based on the former.

Perhaps funding of cities should be an election issue -- I wouldn't mind seeing more federal and provincial money so that we can finance affordable housing, cultural infrastructure, and environmental sustainability.

Let's figure this out and push for the right thing. Honolulu's example shows that greening and sustainability are possible, and we all know they're needed.

Sincerely,

Yule Heibel

Yule — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 00:00:21 CDT

This is a letter I wrote on July 19, 2006 to the Victoria News in response to an article that presented a really negative view of a development proposed for the north end of downtown in and around the former Hudson Bay Department store. It was published, and after it came out, I felt a little guilty/stupid, because it did make me seem too trusting and not suspicious enough. I guess the prevailing sentiment of "enlightened false consciousness" became a bit overwhelming -- I thought, "uh-oh, I should've signed this one 'Sincerely, Bo Peep.'" But it was too late, the letter was printed, and in hindsight, I'm not sorry. Sure, there are greedy-ass developers out there who will skin your grandmother, but there's no point in being suspicious of everything. At some point, you have to say "yes" instead of "no no no" all the time...

July 19, 2006 to Victoria News (published) (this is the one that afterwards had me thinking i should have signed it BoPeep):
Dear Editor,

Brennan Clarke's "Bay building redevelopment..." article could have appeared as an editorial. The opening sentence belies his slant: the high-rises are given an active animus ("towering high-rises" instead of "high-rise towers") which "threaten." Their very appearance on the drawing board "exposes" (as though secret doings are underway) some "haphazard" (therefore dangerous to us) process. The towering towers consequently appear to menace the passive, genteel Bay Building, which is ennobled by being called "historic" (as if we didn't all already know this). Inert matter (the historic Bay, the property, etc.) is menaced by the arrival of towering forces that drag evil and destruction in their wake. All this in the first sentence -- well done, Brennan!

I don't know anyone who wants bad ugly buildings downtown or anywhere. But why are paranoid dismissals of innovative architectural developments in Victoria routinely more pronounced than genuine critical analyses of how this city is shaping up? And why does the press always puff these concerns up by suggesting that we are once again on the verge of disaster at the hands of evil forces? It's like a Grimm's fairy-tale where the honest, but little, guy is made more important because s/he faces a disproportionately menacing Dark Force, as though Victoria needs to believe it's Little Red Riding Hood, menaced by the Wolf. That makes her important. After all, if L'il Red hadn't had that Wolf experience, who would care about her, except her Grandma?

Most of the people I know are rational. They think a triple bottom line makes sense economically, too: namely, the developer, the community, and government should all benefit. It seems irrational to imply that developers who behave rationally in Vancouver can't behave that way in Victoria, even if we don't have the kind of watertight downtown plan in place right now that we might want to have soon. So, as a first step in testing the rationality of the developer, why not ask him to bring the same level of transparency and procedural steps to the Victoria table as he would to Vancouver's? If at this point he says "no," then by all means let the press raise a stink and take him to task. But it seems irrational to believe (and amplify) the worst before the fact. Unfortunately, it's also a popular Victoria sport (often played most boisterously by the media) to be cynical, which really means having "enlightened false consciousness" - as per Peter Sloterdijk. Cynicism in turn is paralysing people, alienating them from active participating in their communities and in politics. That's not helpful.

As for slippery slope arguments ("50 storeys next," eg.), often cynically amplified by the press: these really only exacerbate other people's irrational fears, and even if we disagree about building height or style, can't we agree that we don't need more irrationality in this world?

Sincerely,
Yule Heibel

Yule — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 23:52:26 CDT

This is a letter I wrote on June 7, 2006 toMonday Magazine in response to a particularly annoying set of articles the magazine published about James Kunstler's impending visit to Victoria, where he was the invited keynote speaker at a "sustainability" conference. One needs to understand that Monday Magazine has a special talent for adopting the puerile tone of petulance, wherein the "a pox on all your houses" one-off becomes the mantra du jour. It does make one think that they're a bunch of otherworldly spoiled brats over there who have never gone anywhere else or had the shit kicked out of them in any way shape or form. In regard to Kunstler, one of the journalists got particularly vile, suggesting that, in keeping with Mr. God-Allah-Messiah Kunstler's directives, it would probably be a good idea if we didn't "breed," for example, and that maybe a world-wide pandemic would be a good thing in terms of bringing the population numbers down. This is typical, of course, of the type of cynicism that passes for "thinking" at Monday, for while certain parts of the world are overpopulated, Canada isn't one of them, and we in fact can't afford to go into the negative birthrate numbers; and while pandemics certainly would cut population numbers everywhere, the sheer human misery and destabilisation brought about by anything like a pandemic would make a limited nuclear war look like a picnic. But that sort of higher thinking entirely escapes these ..."journalists." My letter, needless to say, was not published:

June 7, 2006 to Monday Magazine (not published):
Re. "Future Imperfect" on James Kunstler, and your June 8-14 issue's "sustainability" theme:

Dear Editor,

James Kunstler tells us that he hates cities (the "scale" of New York "disturbed" him), and on the basis of this antipathy he has designated the "small town" as the ideal. Also on the basis of his hatred of cities, he foretells the doom of those who live in them and in their suburban spawn. Verily, urban highrise dwellers and suburban roadhogs will be cast down.

I think what Kunstler really hates is complexity: see his interview with Jane Jacobs (2000, online http://www.kunstler.com/mags_jacobs1.htm), wherein he repeatedly tries to get her to agree with the conclusions he draws from the "end of oil" thesis, which Jacobs in turn repeatedly deflects as too simplistic. Reality is more complex, she tells him.

Another interesting difference between Jacobs and Kunstler is this: the former loved people in all their messy , unpredictable permutations. She distrusted the planners and futurists with their endless attempts to direct, order, and predict human behaviour and ingenuity.

Kunstler's vision is blinkered by his essential misanthropy, and it's amply played up by Monday 's "Some Sustainable Solutions" sidebar. Your magazine's puerile suggestions that "global pandemics" and "not reproducing" might offer "sustainable" solutions reveals just how hateful and essentially myopic -- indeed blindingly stupid -- the mindset undergirding catastrophe predictions can often be. The destabilization wrought by pandemics anywhere or by negative birthrates in established democracies (particularly if they're also subject, at the same time, to historically new immigration intakes) is as economically and socially disastrous as $8-per-gallon gasoline. Yet the latter is called "staggering."

Do I think we need to address the energy and environmental crises we're facing? You bet. Do I think Kunstler's small-town rural vision offers anything of value to Victoria? Not particularly.

Monday gives two pages to Kunstler's "futurism," which seems often to boil down to a nostalgia for the 19th century. Meanwhile, you give barely two columns to the far more immediately pertinent -- and above all: locally applicable -- ideas in "Terms of Discussion," which are focussed on the irreversible fact that we are a city, and not a small town.

And by the way, inquiring minds want to know: what is it exactly that makes the "Gaining Ground" conference's admission price at nearly $700 so ...well, staggering? I hope it isn't Mr. Kunstler's speaker's fee...

Regards,
Yule Heibel

Yule — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 23:39:24 CDT

This is a letter I wrote on May 30, 2006 to the Times-Colonist in response to a really stupid article that purported to report on a public hearing for the "WaterFall" (now simply called "The Falls") project. I never sent the letter, so it never was published. Till now...

May 30, 2006 to Times-Colonist? (not sent, therefore unpublished):
Dear Editor:

Your title, "Generations at odds over condo project" (May 27), would perpetuate a cliched view of public opinion, given that the Thursday evening Council meeting included older people who spoke in support of the project, along with two younger ones who spoke against. What I found most intriguing about some of the expressions of opposition had little to do with so-called generational differences. One of your older persons, the lawyer representing a neighbouring property owner with a vested interest in the status quo, suggested darkly that unnamed forces at City Hall somehow prevented him from obtaining the necessary documents that could crush the project and render it "unbuildable." He effectively implied, without producing evidence, that justice can't prevail because procedures, allegedly corrupted by special interests, weren't transparent. Interestingly enough, the only other suggestion (this time from one of the "younger" set) that special interests were manipulating things from the wings came from the companion of Victoria's youngest-ever candidate for mayor. He felt compelled to warn Council that a group in the audience was conspiring in support of the project.

I found it striking that these speakers from different generations, and representative of superficially different interests (the established status quo of capital and property ownership on the one hand and a traditional, party-hierarchical NDP leftism, on the other), clung so strongly to the idea that clandestine forces are at work in the city.

I ask myself why anyone would bother with elaborate conspiracy theories when the simple truth can be so much more interesting. As your reporter noted, one supporter said he learned about the project on the internet. The internet provides a public space for people to have "conversations," irrespective of political party hierarchies or investor / property owner interests. It's not surprising that more traditional interest groups might feel threatened by open, unhierarchical discourse on the net: who is in control?, who is in charge?, and who will tell people what to do?, they wonder. They might simultaneously wonder: how do I get noticed?, how do I get control? Because it gives everyone and anyone an opportunity to rant, exult, reveal, or dissemble at will, the net makes some people very nervous: since no one appears to be in charge, there must be someone manipulating things from behind the curtain, they reason. But its virtue as an agora -- an open, truly democratic place of discourse -- that lets both the uninformed along with the very well informed speak unmuzzled is what makes the web authentic and vibrant. That's what can make it the best thing to reinvigorate public discourse since some guy in Germany built a printing press. And in Victoria's case, web-based discourse might actually be contributing to real-space discussion around reinvigorating downtown.

As with all democratic discourse, there's a lot of what netizens call "noise" on the web: folks straying off-topic, putting out wrong information, moving into a tangent, etc. But the marvel is that open conversations are often self-correcting -- tell a lie and it will come back to bite you -- and that the sheer volume of noise ensures that directorship from above is too difficult to be rewarding. The other marvel is that netizens soon learn that there is no single-voice master discourse.

In The Nature of Economies, Jane Jacobs wrote that "Development depends on co-developments." (p.19) She added, "I mean that development can't usefully be thought of as a 'line,' or even a collection of open-ended lines. It operates as a web of interdependent co-developments. No co-development web, no development." There isn't an immutable directive extraneous to the process itself, in other words. At the end of the book, Jacobs's platonic characters muse about what economies are good for. The sceptical antagonist gets the final word: "Like language, economic life permits us to develop cultures and multitudes of purposes, and in my opinion, that's its function which is most meaningful for us." (p.147)

"Pay no attention to the man behind the Green Curtain," the Wizard of Oz tells Dorothy and friends, and that's how Dorothy manages to get back home: she learns that there is no wizardous Master Plan. Click your heels -- or your mouse -- now: there's no place like a revitalized downtown, and the Yellow Brick Road never was a straight line.

And by the way, on the web no one needs to know what generation you're from...

Yule Heibel

Yule — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 23:32:04 CDT

I wrote this letter on May 13, 2006 in response to an article in theTimes-Colonist byAvi Friedman (who is probably a very nice man, but doesn't have a clue when it comes to Victoria). Prof. Friedman "warned" us Victorians of the dire consequences of having our shoreline built up with private development, seemingly not noticing that nearly all of Victoria's shoreline is perfectly accessible. Really, Friedman's warnings are generically apt for East Coast cities (from my personal experience, especially US East Coast cities along the Boston-Washington corridor, where so incredibly much of the shoreline is privatised), but it holds no sway here. My letter was not published:

Dear Editor:

Although Avi Friedman's reminder ("port cities must save their shorelines for the public," May 13) is well-intentioned, it's also utterly generic, and consequently without merit for thinking about Victoria's development. To call proximity to the ocean Victoria's dominant geographical feature is like calling Pinocchio's nose his dominant personality trait. Yes, it sure is there, but, like the famous nose, our city is determined by so much more, just as the proboscis changed its shape depending on whether truth was told.

I can think of many East Coast cities that fit the scenarios described by Mr. Friedman, but Victoria is very different from them. Let's take a walk: heading west fromRoss Bay Cemetery toOgden Point along Dallas Road, it is literally impossible to walk on land that isn't in public hands -- and no one in their right mind would propose changing that. Furthermore, this waterfront access is on the south, which means that even if the north side of Dallas Road were built up, neither the view nor the sun would be obstructed for the democratic mingling of populations along that wide strip. In James Bay, access to the water is blocked by our own government (via the Coast Guard), not by private developers.Laurel Point is accessible. The ferry terminal (again, government component via immigration): some blocked access. The Inner Harbour: accessible. Seaplane and Dock Basin docks: accessible.Westsong Way Park and Songhees in Vic West: accessible. The planned Dockside development: accessible. Onward through the Railyards development, with exceptionally serene walkways and patios, all the way toBanfield Park and the Trestle Bridge that takes you to theSelkirk Waterfront development: accessible. The only area where things get real tricky is south of Rock Bay, and that's because it's a relic of the kind of industrial gerrymandering of blocked access that Friedman described. But it's not because private developers have since then built "rows of high-rise buildings" that present what "just might be a new urban reality" of blocked access. Such a shibboleth, and without any relevance to what has happened or what is on the drawing board for Victoria! If anything, in Victoria citizens are better advised to keep their eyes on our many levels of government who control access to some areas.

So far, it's the "new urban reality" in Victoria that has restored access to waterfront that used to be blocked, or so polluted as to be dangerous. In the 70s, my friends and I would sometimes walk from S.J.Willis Jr.High to Mayfair Mall. To the west, rows of chimneys belched effluent from various pulp and paper factories and other manufactures. There was no Selkirk Trestle for walking, nor access to waterfront. Downtown waterfront areas were often as scuzzy, if not as polluted.

Did Mr. Friedman not walk around our city or look at a map to clarify to himself how our waterfront has actually improved, or to understand how what was here already (Dallas Road type access) has been extended to other areas?

Regards,
Yule Heibel

This is from a flickr James Bay Coast Guard "set":

Yule — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 23:01:26 CDT

This is a letter I wrote May 4, 2006 to theVictoria News, which was published, and which I wrote because I was soooo angry at the silly way the press was reporting on City Council meetings:

Dear Editor,

While Rudy Haugeneder's headlines ("Councillors fall for developer's gift" and "Streetcars not desired," May 3, 2006) indicate a sharpish sense of wordplay, they really fail to do justice to the conversation residents need to have around Victoria's development. I was at the Committee of the Whole meeting covered by Haugeneder's reports: reading his articles, I find myself caught not in a "Streetcar Named Desire" scenario, but in "Rashomon."

Haugeneder wastes few words on The WaterFall's design, which maximizes views for neighbouring buildings (Chateau Victoria) and uses established architectural iterations at street-level to knit the building into the urban fabric. No words wasted on the nearly 30 minutes of council deliberations as to whether the architect should have to submit new renderings that answer Chateau Victoria's request to increase height in one of the towers while lowering it in the other, and no mention at all that Chateau Victoria is the taller neighbour to begin with. No mention, of course, that The WaterFall will help mask our view of Chateau Victoria, which is at best an unattractive building, or that it will finally rid us of an eyesore surface parking lot. Instead, the article leads with a polarizing sentence around "cash gifts" that "bend" regulations, which most people will read as code for graft and corruption ("councillors fall for...").

In the "streetcars" article, your reporter fails to mention that Irwin Henderson's presentation focussed on initially creating a downtown loop, one that costs far less than the "up to $120 million" cited by Haugeneder. Yet, speaking of dollars, he also fails to note that Geoff Young's point about federal and provincial funding was that a recent CRD meeting attended by Young made clear that there are approximately $600million on the agenda for transportation, and that the vast majority of that money is suppposed to go for highway construction and improvement. Young's point was that with budgets this big focussed on cars, it doesn't seem unreasonable at all to spend some money on LRT.

The press makes hay of the idea that we live in Eden here, and that we're in danger of "falling" from grace if we fool around with forbidden fruit, whether urban development or forward-thinking ideas like downtown LRT. In this passion play, the developers are devils, or at least snakes in the grass. But isn't it time we grew up and talked like adults? Victoria is a city, not a fairytale. Instead of lost sanctuaries and evil snakes as leitmotif, how about this observation, from Aristotle's The Politics: "A city is composed of different kinds of men [and women]. Similar people cannot bring a city into existence." Not all pro-development people are evil snakes, nor do status quo angels deserve to monopolize the conversation. A thriving city recognizes diversity not just in its ethnic make-up, but in terms of how it lets different kinds of people bring the city (its economy, its built environment, etc.) into existence.

Sincerely,
Yule Heibel

Yule — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:56:53 CDT

This is a letter I sent to the Times-Colonist after being annoyed by all the hyperbole bandied about in the local press about which is the densest, most built-up neighbourhood in Victoria (or, if you want to get really hyperbolic: in BC...). This letter was not published.

April 12, 2006 to Times-Colonist (unpublished):
Dear Editor:

It seems to me that journalists might want to engage in a bit of fact-checking before publishing statements that can quickly degenerate into urban myths believed by thousands. In his April 11 article on the Roundhouse development, Malcolm Curtis states that "some Victoria West residents are worried about more large buildings in what is becoming the densest residential area of the city." Meanwhile, in the April issue of Focus Magazine, Sara Cassidy writes that James Bay is "the most densely populated neighbourhood in BC," second only to Vancouver's West End. I'd like to know what statistics these assumptions are based on, and also how the statistics are being interpreted. At face value, the statement that James Bay is second in density only to the West End strikes me as absurd, since there are a number of other Vancouver neighbourhoods that seem much denser. And if James Bay is so densely populated, how come Vic West is "becoming the densest residential area" in Victoria? Is Mr. Curtis simply echoing what fearful Vic West residents have said to him? If so, he should check the facts before repeating the sentiment as truth.

Sincerely,
Yule Heibel

Yule — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:51:20 CDT

This is a letter I wrote on April 7, 2006, to Focus Magazine in response to an article that asked, "where will the families live?" -- a question sparked by downtown Victoria's upturn in residential condo construction. The letter was cut quite a bit; the following is the uncut version:

Dear Editor:

In April's "Victoria by Design," you ask "where will the families live? Don't we want a city that includes children?" Nearly fifteen years ago, with 2-months-old son in arms, my husband and I began looking for a home to buy. At the time, we lived in Boston, Massachusetts, and we wanted to stay close to Boston's downtown core. We searched primarily in Cambridge, Mass., for its walking proximity to my workplace, to downtown, and its easy commute to the Rt.128 technology corridor. In this precinct, a house was completely out of the question, but we we were happy to look for a suitable condo. What we wanted was access to libraries, museums, cafes, parks, vibrant street life, friends, and music. What happened was the following: we saw a parade of two-bedroom condos, put on the market by people just like us (early- to mid-30s) who had moved in with one babe in arms and were now busting at the seams after the arrival of child #2. Three-bedroom condos never seemed to come on the market -- the families who owned one of these stayed put to raise their kids. So we ended up moving to Boston's North Shore, where we bought a 5-bedroom 1904 house in need of TLC for about the same amount as a 2-bedroom condo in Cambridge. For 11 years we added to the commuter crunch and the sprawling of Boston -- well, actually, our little city of Beverly quickly got too expensive for beginners, and people moved even further afield: to New Hampshire.

I welcome current residential highrise developments in Victoria, but your question "where will the families live?" goes unanswered by prevalent apartment configurations. It would be great to see developers and architects address the question of flexibility in designing for families and their changing needs. We need more 3-bedroom options, or the option of combining 2-beds with studios apartments. Additional bedrooms would meet another need: on the one hand they help enable the work-live option, allowing people to use their condos to meet clients or set up their business equipment; on the other, they offer elderly residents the option to have a caregiver or companion move in -- perhaps even in exchange for room and board (yes, it's almost a "secondary suite" in a condo scenario, but with increasing densification, why not?). Right now, a single person or a couple can "live-work" in a 2-bed, but it's too small for couples with children even to carve out an "adult zone" ( i.e., a study for their own quiet work).

Meanwhile, former 5-bed houses in Victoria neighbourhoods like Fairfield are converted to 2-bed, 1-bed, and studio multi-plexes, again restricting the family living option. Of course young families are going to move to the boonies -- even if they could afford the $500K-plus price tag of these 2-bed "heritage" conversions. Perhaps highrise high-density condo developments could be better positioned to offer layouts that suit families, without pricing these units beyond their reach. It would be great if they did -- imagine seeing more children in Victoria's downtown...

- Yule Heibel

Yule — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:46:10 CDT

This is the full-length version of a letter I wrote to the Victoria News on January 27, 2006, in response to a piece about The Blethering Place Tea Room, wherein the reporter enthused about its venerable history (all of 30 years) and royal regalia. I was not amused....

Dear Editor:

Re.: "Tea Room Turns 30," by Erin Kelley-Gedischk, January 27, p.B1:
It's wonderful that Ken Agate has succeeded in creating a thriving business in the heart of Oak Bay, but couldn't your reporter have found a less trite frame for her piece than the tired old myth of "jolly olde England is alive and well in Victoria"? Thirty years does not a history make, yet a naive or lazy journalist panders to addled sensibilities by writing nonsense like, "History has served it well. The vestige of old Oak Bay commemorates its 30th anniversary this year." Come again? Thirty years, and a vestige? So, I graduated from Oak Bay Senior Secondary over 30 years ago (in '74): what does that make me? A living fossil?

That's just the beginning of the article. From here on in it gets worse as our intrepid journalist tries to convince us that this "vestige" is successful because of its ability to reinforce an imperialist nostalgia for a kinder, gentler colonial past that never was. When she writes that the Blethering Place restaurant boasts a photograph of the Queen "laughing hysterically," we know we've entered the Twilight Zone: I imagine the Queen might laugh "heartily," but "hysterically"?

Every silly cliché about Victoria's unique, ineffable ("It's hard to put in words"), and timelessly "olde England" atmosphere is trotted out, regardless of how ridiculous it looks next to the truth. Equally lazy ethnic stereotypes fill the cracks of a strained imagination: "To combat the perception of bland British fare, Agate hired two brothers of Italian heritage to add some flair to their food." Good grief, it doesn't get much worse than this, eh? I can see their mustachioed faces and hear them break out into jolly light opera now!

I don't really want to bash Ms. Kelley-Gedischk; what I'm actually asking is why the local media would want to reinforce this "olde England" stereotype, and why a young reporter (using the word "hysterically" was a dead give-away: no one seasoned by age would commit such a gaffe) would buy into this essentially destructive myth dished up for tourists and prematurely senile consumers who don't need to worry about economic productivity.

Why destructive? Demographic indexes suggest that within 10 or 15 years, less than 10% of Victoria's population will be under the age of 19. If young people cannot or do not want to stay in Victoria, who can blame them if all it offers is a wax-museum culture stuck in a nostalgic timewarp? Your younger readers (in case there are any) would more likely have appreciated an in-depth look at how Mr. Agate managed to build and consolidate his business, and how other potential entrepreneurs could learn from his example. Instead, we got another serving of stereotype.

Sincerely,

Yule Heibel

Yule — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:38:19 CDT

The following is yet another letter to the editor (this one to the Times-Colonist), which almost certainly won't be published. So I'm publishing it here... [update: it did get published -- nearly two weeks later on July 28, and cut by a bit, too; I plan to create some sub-pages here eventually, with additonal letters, etc.]

New edit: this page is now a sub-page to "Letters to the Editor(s)." I haven't renamed this letter as "Towering dreams for 'uptown'," since that would break existing links to it. Future letters should have titles relating to their content, however...

Re: "Towering dreams for 'uptown'" (July 15, 2006)

Your writers note that Coun. Dean Fortin is "concerned" about "pressure" from developers who propose taller buildings, and that "We have more and more experts in the sustainable development community telling us about building at a human scale." Perhaps these experts include Jeremy Harris and Ben Lee, whose wonderful presentation on building sustainable cities Mr. Fortin attended on July 13 at City Hall. But could I just add that Harris and Lee do not oppose highrise construction on principle, and simply meant that taller buildings should be clustered together, vs. being strung in a line (which creates the dreaded "picket fence" effect)? And most importantly, that Harris and Lee emphasized the need for any building, regardless of height, to allow pedestrians to interact and access it (visually and physically)? Their mantra was "people first, cars second." That is: building design must make street-level contact with pedestrians a priority. Some of our more unfortunate buildings, tall and short, disregarded street-level vibrancy in favour of a superficial modernism whose "design" was mere lip-service because all that mattered at the time was the automotive traffic moving through the street.

This is not a question of height. Take a look at the shorter structures that replaced originally taller buildings at the NE corner of Douglas and Johnson and the SE corner of Fort and Douglas. The Johnson and Douglas corner now sports a 6-storey example of second-rate brutalism which replaced the 10-storey Permanent Loan Building [n.b.: it's the tall, sticking-out thing...], while the Fort and Douglas corner has a shorter building (the RBC) that looks good in a drive-by, but utterly repels and excludes any pedestrian who finds him- or herself in the unfortunate position of trying to window shop (blank walls) or buy a magazine (hidden door) inbetween catching buses. So: we have two buildings that are shorter than the buildings they replaced, yet their smaller scale does absolutely nothing to enhance "human scale." In fact, these short buildings eradicated it. The originally taller buildings, however, did have human scale because they offered the humans on the street something to do and to look at.

Most of the recent highrise construction, on the other hand, does pay attention to what happens at street level. These buildings offer pedestrians interesting arbors and other structural elements that suggest embrace or refuge, and they include sidewalk cafes or eye-catching shop windows that invite pedestrians to linger and enter. If I walk down the street, I don't do it with my neck craned, counting the storeys above, because the height is irrelevant as long as the human scale is happening where humans are: on the street.

I would suggest that this is what city planner Deb Day and DRA president Sandra Meigs have in mind when they speak of the revitalization and vibrancy these projects can offer.

Here's a link to the Times-Colonist article.

See also the just-added (July 15) Sex in the City essay...

4

Labour Day

28
A.M.:
Committee of the Whole, 9a.m., City Hall -- on the agenda: Rezoning Applications for 777 Douglas (#00074); 808-826 Yates (#000057); 379, 381 Tyee (#000060). Also 1321 Yates (the Shell station?) (#000048)

P.M.:
Council, 7:30p.m., City Hall -- on the agenda:
public hearing
for "Castana" (Sutlej & Cook street part of project)

Yule — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 13:37:42 CDT

If you're new to wikis (as I am), the UI (user interface) might not seem immediately transparent. Not to worry -- it's a reasonably good design with enough forgiveness and constraint built in (albeit more of the latter and less of the former), so just try posting stuff.

However, here are some pointers (of the "as far as I know" variety):

note the left sidebar: See "Navigation"? That's a drop-down menu tab, which will display "Home," followed by the various subcategories created thus far. Explore these.
Pull down the "Navigation" tab and observe that each category allows you to "add a new page." If you "add a new page" under "Home," that's where it will appear -- as a subcategory of "Home." If you click on a subcategory (say, "Buildings") and then click on "add a new page," you will create a new page under that particular subcategory. Get it?
If you click on "add a new page," you will see a pop-up menu that asks you for a title for your new page, as well as some "tags" (keywords you want to associate with that particular entry). Add these, and then you will see a screen that looks pretty much blank, except for your title, and at this point chances are that you'll think, "wha? Wha's this? Where's my entry supposed to go?" Click on "EasyEdit" and you'll get a text edit window into which you can write your entry. Use the "EasyEdit Toolbar" displayed at the top to manage your font style or to add a link or image.

Ok, so let's say you've added a page (or not) or put in a comment (or not), or you just want to see if any other sodding soul except for the "creator" is putting anything on these pages. Well, scroll down on the left sidebar and you'll see "Site Reports and RSS." Pull that tab down and click on any of the links to see if updates have been made. Click on "Recent comments" or "Recently updated pages" to see what's new, and so forth.

The right-hand sidebar has a "toolbox" for contributors, and there's a "Page History" display at the top right. But the nuts and bolts <ahem> are on the left...

Isn't that a comfort?

Oh, and remember: everything is nested, or like a tree. If you go down one branch (subcategory), you have to go back "Home" or go up the branch you came to see the rest of the tree.

Update: Wetpaint offers RSS feeds on both the "Recently updated pages" link as well as the "Recent comments" link. Instead of checking the wiki itself, you can avail yourself of that option. If you're a Firefox user, for example, just download the Sage feed reader for Firefox to your toolbar, and drag and drop the "RSS" symbol under "Recent comments" and "Recently updated pages" into it (the symbols are found under "Site Reports & RSS," in the left sidebar). That way, you can see updates/ new comments in your feed reader, along with the subscriptions to all the other cool sites you have...