The Northern Junk buildings at the foot of Johnson Street, among Victoria's oldest commercial buildings, have sat vacant for decades. Ben suggests that the City exercise caution in considering the development of adjacent public land.
Here is my position with regards to the Northern Junk proposal for city lands and private lands at the foot of Johnson Street:
- The previous council erred in providing the opportunity to a single developer to envision possibilities for this prime downtown real estate;
- In light of the Johnson Street Bridge project, the first step should be for council and staff to determine the final design for the easterly (downtown side) bridgehead;
- Council should then inventory city land in the vicinity of the bridgehead (including the proposed land adjacent to Northern Junk) to determine whether any of this land is surplus (exploring all options, including greenspace and future uses such as a railway station);
- If land is determined to be surplus, consider whether such land can meet the city’s social priorities (vis a vis affordable housing), through discussions with BC Housing, VIHA and not-for-profit providers;
- If a stand-alone publicly financed housing initiative is deemed impractical, the City should consider issuing a Request for Proposals to the private sector, with priority given to applications that (1) partner with social housing providers; (2) provide public access to the harbour front; and (3) enhance the heritage character of Old Town;
- Throughout the foregoing process, the City should work with the owner of the Northern Junk properties to affirm the city’s ongoing interest in the restoration of these heritage buildings and the expansion of public access to Victoria’s harbour front.
For more info, read this media report.
Please share you views on this important issue, below and/or by email to councillors@victoria.ca and mayor@victoria.ca.
Just to get this straight: rather than sell this land at a premium (as it would, given its waterfront location), take the proceeds and build more/bigger/better public housing in a lower cost location, you’re suggesting that we try to get public housing built on the waterfront? We already destroyed Store Street with that plan and now you want to do that on the other side of the bridge? Why – because in your Marxist utopia, poor people deserve to live in high rent neighbourhoods, too? How horribly inefficent.
The City of Victoria owns a lot land, though most of it in the form of streets. In this case the completely redundant 90 meters of Wharf Street in front of the buildings would be put to some better use.
Ultimately the land owned by the City only has a potential to be useful as part of the property with the Northern Junk building. As long as that property is separate, the existence of that short piece of Wharf is required.
I personally think the single best option to reduce the cost of housing would be to allow as many housing units to be built, but putting that aside, there may be a case for the City to partner with the owners of the Northern Junk buildings to offer some low cost housing. The City brings the land to the table,
If the City were to sell this land, there is a financial gain that could be used to put against the large capital infrastructure debt the City has. At this time I do not see how the City over comes the most immediate capital project problems it has.
Selling the land also means the City will collect taxes from land that currently only costs the City money.
Finally, the proposal as it stands would seem to make a lot more of the land in the area usable by the general public.
Your proposal is spot on. The proposed development does nothing to preserve the character of area. City council and successive mayors have over the years made no effort to preserve the unique character of Victoria. The council has consistently ignored the city planners in approving developments.