I've had good luck with that program! I was able to get local businesses to also put in a request as well. I don't know the city's processes, but having both commercial and residential requests can't hurt!
"crosswalk" means (a)a portion of the roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs or by lines or other markings on the surface, or (b)the portion of a highway at an intersection that is included within the connection of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on the opposite sides of the highway, or within the extension of the lateral lines of the sidewalk on one side of the highway, measured from the curbs, or in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway;
From the Motor Vehicle Act. To first order, pretty much every intersection forms an "unmarked crosswalk".
www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/docume...
It's a tough problem. According to this article, the ships require 1–2 hours to "connect and disconnect" from shore power, and 38% are in port for less than four hours. The amount of power these things consume is absurd.
www.timescolonist.com/business/gre...
Happy 9th Birthday to the Pandora Bike & Roll Lane with celebration May 3 2026 1 to 3pm
Clover Point Picnic Club is celebrating the 9th birthday of the amazing #VictoriaBC Pandora #bikelane that started the snowball effect of an incredible #activetransportation network in #YYJ 🚲
May 9th 2026 1-3pm
📍 Centennial Square
Special thx to Bishop Family […]
[Original post on socialbc.ca]
Victoria BC has been making significant strides on making streets safe for people, AND we have a long way yet to go. I suspect the issues this @strongtowns.org article raises are relevant here, too.
#yyj
www.strongtowns.org/journal/2026...
More details from the CBC:
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...
Shelter In Place Crystal Pool area, Victoria, BC April 10, 2026, 1:38 PM Status: Active Critical Shelter in Place Critical Source: City of Victoria Description Due to a an ongoing hazardous material incident, those near the Crystal Pool are required to shelter in place for your safety. This alert will remain in effect until the incident has been resolved. Another update will be provided within 2 hours. Affected Areas (1) Crystal Pool area, Victoria Instructions Go inside your home or avoid the area. Close all windows and doors and turn off ventilation systems. If you have symptoms of exposure (burning eyes and lungs), seek medical attention. Follow the directions of local authorities. Do not call 911 for information or updates.
More details in the screenshot.
Forwarded from the Alterable app:
City of Victoria: Shelter in place near Crystal Pool
Due to an ongoing hazardous material incident, those near the Crystal Pool are required to shelter in place for your safety.
alertable.ca#/incidents/1...
#yyj
Also, the province really did their due diligence on this, and it's supported by the building code. I suspect it will be supported federally in a few years, too, though that's yet to be seen.
An illustration showing the height of single egress buildings allowed around the world.
The technical arguments on single egress are complex and I'm no expert. To me, the most approachable argument is the fact that, worldwide, there's no safety issue coupled with this illustration. One can spin details, but it's hard to argue with results.
I understand. It's just that for people, like me, that have been following this issue it's clear that many opponents bring up the Grenfell Tower disaster in bad faith. It's like people pointing at badly designed 1960s urban renewal housing "projects" as a reason to oppose affordable housing now.
5/ Single egress is a big change, and opposition is understandable, AND it's important to focus on the real issues. The Grenfell Tower isn't one of them.
4/ …to the stairwell, and limit the number of people who may need to use that stairwell. In fact, a double-loaded corridor design with two stairwells can require far longer escape distances, and can have more people using each stairwell.
3/ …world with an excellent safety record. Cities like Seattle, New York, and Honolulu have allowed six storey single egress buildings for years without problem. The BC regulations require sprinklers, pressurized stairwells, fire safety doors, wider stairwells, limit travel distance…
2/ Grenfell was a high rise. The BC regulations allow up to six storeys. I know that many people try to use the Grenfell Tower disaster as a point against single-egress designs, but that's an apples to oranges comparison. The facts on single egress are well known, and it's allowed around the…
1/ Hi Susan. Grenfell towers was 24 storeys, not 5, and the problem was that it had been renovated with flammable exterior cladding. That's how the fire spread. Residents were instructed, as is the norm there, to "stay put". Other problems included faulty fire doors and a failed ventilation system.
8/ …it's essential that the City takes the steps, whether they be streamlining processes, lowering development charges, or changing guidelines, so that we can build the housing that our growing city needs.
7/ I am deeply concerned that the City's "design guidelines" contain so many "nice to haves" that they disallow the buildings that we "need to have". It's understandable to reject this proposal, which is well outside of what the recent OCP, zoning, and guidelines ask for. But…
6/ The consequences of not building homes are severe. It pushes young people out of the city. It drives the loss of forest and agricultural land. It means longer commutes, more congestion, and more carbon and brake pad particles in the air. Follow-on effects are a key driver of homelessness.
5/ … that makes it impossible to build new homes at a reasonable price. I don't say "affordable", because that is not possible in new construction without subsidies. In a time of provincial and federal belt tightening, that's not a good place to be in.
4/ …the way the city permits us to build up is to pay 50% more for the land. So we can't win. I agree with the concern that the OCP is new, there are ways to modify it, and that it's early to be looking at big exceptions. At the same time, I'm concerned we've created a regulatory framework…
3/ A 6 storey building here, by right, on a double lot. But here's the Catch-22. That would require lot assembly, and my quick internet search suggests that lot assembly increases land costs by 20 to 50 percent. So, we need to build up because land is expensive, but…
2/ Our zoning would allow a 4-storey building here by right. The problem is that land in expensive, and it's hard to build a 4-storey building that "pencils". Land and construction costs are just too high. When land costs are high, the only way to deliver "achievable" home prices is to build higher.
1/ So, this isn't going to pass, and I understand why even the pro-housing councillors have concerns about this application. I'm listening to @kristaloughton.bsky.social's remarks, and they're spot on. My bigger concern is that our design guidelines contain a nasty Catch-22.
#yyj #housing
To note, there also space on the other lot line. So there's at least 3-4 meters on either side, which is between 10 and 13 feet. And, again, the 9 foot side setbacks are related to the primary facade requirement. If the sides were not a primary facade, the requirement would be 1.5 meters.
This is a false choice. Declining this application does not mean nothing happens there, it means a different building.
Another note. If I read the zoning correctly, a 4 storey building with living rooms facing the street, not the sides, would be allowed 1.5 meter setbacks by right, which are less than what's in the design.
Worth noting that the absolute height of the new proposal is lower, not higher. That's obvious in a slide staff showed comparing the old and new designs.
