Project Status
Thank you to everyone who shared feedback on potential changes to the neighbourhood boundaries.
Here is a summary of the Council motions from the COTW report on June 9, 2022.
1. “That the City recognize the 2700-block to 3000-block of the east side of Shelbourne Street as part of the Oaklands neighbourhood, with the Oaklands Community Association acting as the Community Association Land Use Committee (CALUC) for land use matters in the area.”
2. “That the City recognize the 800-block between Fort Street and Academy Close, and Blanshard Street and Quadra Street, as part of the Downtown neighbourhoodContinue reading
Project Status
Thank you to everyone who shared feedback on potential changes to the neighbourhood boundaries.
Here is a summary of the Council motions from the COTW report on June 9, 2022.
1. “That the City recognize the 2700-block to 3000-block of the east side of Shelbourne Street as part of the Oaklands neighbourhood, with the Oaklands Community Association acting as the Community Association Land Use Committee (CALUC) for land use matters in the area.”
2. “That the City recognize the 800-block between Fort Street and Academy Close, and Blanshard Street and Quadra Street, as part of the Downtown neighbourhood, with the Downtown Residents Association (DRA) acting as the Community Association Land Use Committee (CALUC) for land use matters in the area.”
3. That the City recognizes the area currently described as “Harris Green” as part of the Downtown neighbourhood, with the Downtown Residents Association continuing to act as the Community Association Land Use Committee (CALUC) for land use matters in the area. And that the City recognizes Harris Green as a district within the Downtown neighbourhood, similar to Chinatown and Old Town.
These neighbourhood boundary changes are reflected in the above map and came into effect on June 9, 2022. City staff will work on the administrative changes, including updating all City maps in 2023.
What We Engaged On
In 2019, City Council began a process to help reconcile some geographic anomalies and to align neighbourhood boundaries with residents’ sense of place.
How We Got Here
In 2019, Council introduced an action to ‘resolve anomalies in neighbourhood boundaries’ in the Strong, Liveable Neighbourhoods section of the City's Strategic Plan.
On February 4, 2021 Council held a discussion about current neighbourhood boundaries. For more details, view the Council Led Workshop – Neighbourhood Boundaries agenda item and Council’s discussion at the February 4 meeting here.
Council made several observations including that:
- Reconciling geographic anomalies that may fit better in an adjacent neighbourhood
- There may be opportunities to better match boundaries with the neighbourhoods in which residents perceive themselves to be living
- Neighbourhood populations vary substantially and may present challenges for neighbourhood associations, e.g. too big for effective representation or too small to recruit volunteer support
- Some village centres are divided between neighbourhoods
With the above considerations, several boundaries were discussed as possible areas for change. Council directed staff to engage residents through their neighbourhood associations about the proposed boundary area changes.
A subsequent Council discussion (including specific resolutions) was held on February 25, which you can view here.
As you can see in the timeline to the right, community engagement took place in the summer of 2021. The Council Report (in Reports section to the right) was accepted by Council and they brought forward a series of proposed neighbourhood boundary related changes.
In early January 2022, one of the three proposed changes (relating to merging the North and South Jubilee CALUCs) was removed by Council.
Two proposed boundary changes then moved forward for a final opportunity for public comment. You can learn about these changes that were brought forward at the January 27, 2022 Non- Statutory Public Hearing here.
Following the January 27 meeting Council considered all the feedback and provide staff with direction on moving forward.
Final motions were brought forward on June 9, 2022.
re the North Park/Fernwood boundary:
I live on Chambers and think the new boundary makes way more sense. Fernwood is huge and we have our little "village centre", it makes sense for North Park's village centre along Cook Street to all be actually in North Park.
I don’t trust this city council and its abilities to make sound decisions for the citizens. Please explain the REAL reason as to why you are doing this at this.
I concur, for the Jubilee's, this was a vote. Comments shoild have allowed after the questions/votes. An explanation as to why this is being considered would help, especially for citizens that are not fully engaged.
It was also disappointing to see the map had linked N & S jubilee. A big assumption that
then begs the question if the city has already decided.
I was a resident of S Jubilee wham it was created as a separate neighborhood. The action was precipitated by the lack of support from Fernwood over a contentious development on Richmond and Bank that would have been a large L shaped building. The neighbors rallied against the L shape and the developer had to revert to the initial plan that fronted Richmond only. Subsequently the aroused neighborhoods organized to form a separate neighborhood association.
The question of borders was discussed and their was unanimous consent that S Jubilee would not cross Fort Street, There is little of interest on the North side of Fort. Less so today with the demolition of a medical building. The feeling amongst the S Jubilee neighborhood
was: we never go there, We know nothing about the issues North of Fort.
The South Jubilee Neighborhood was dully created as a legal entity.
3 Years later, North Jubilee formed an association as they felt that Fernwood was not addressing issues or support. Feel free to check the Societies Act to confirm these dates.
The lesson to be drawn is that big neighborhoods do not deal well with outlying neighborhoods, They consider them throw away zones.
This narrative runs counter to that espoused by city staff that assume N & S Jubilee were one neighborhood, and then one day someone drew a line down Fort and created 2 neighborhoods.
Fort street may as well be the Grand Canyon or a major river, without bridges or connections. As a major thoroughfare, Fort it is a natural geographical boundary.
I agree with the last commenter. Not really a survey, it's a vote. And the idea of having comments on each proposed change rather than en masse for the reader to wade through makes more sense. Thanks!
Not much of a survey. What possible difference does a differentiation in the degree of agreement/ disagreement make? Wouldn’t it make more sense to allow comments on each separate portion of the boundary proposals? Then at least it wouldn’t be another make-work project to collate the results.
Commenting on the proposed change to Downtown-Fairfield boundary: while I agree that the section from Fort to Burdett and Blanshard to Quadra should belong to Downtown, the remaining area from Burdett to Academy Close and Blanshard to Quadra should remain in Fairfield, or move to James Bay ( after all much of this area actually stands on the shores of the original James Bay).
With so many really important issues facing the city I really wonder why we are changing the boundaries. That being said I am sure this council will ram through whatever they wish.
Cook Street is a logical break for Fernwood - changing it makes no sense. Bay Street is a logical break for Oaklands (and they are one of the few groups who actually wanted the change).
RE the Downtown / Burnside Gorge boundary. I agree with the boundary change, but would like to see the block bounded by Blanshard, Pembroke, Dowler, Bay be included into the North Park neighbourhood, not Downtown.
I expect that by redrawing the boundary from the hedge at st Ann’s to Quadra st. Would make it much easier to put in high rises beyond what is already here. The last thing I want is to have the open view up the hill to the church replaced with a view into someone’s livingroom on the sixth floor. I am perfectly fine with this area remaining residential and part of Fairfield.
I feel like there should be some reasoning provided for the change in each area. For the expanded Fairfield area I do not support it. The area added does not seem to be homes but more of a downtown businesses and thus should stay with the downtown area. Please provide reasoning/motive for adding that area to Fairfield. Once that is known then one can make an informed decision.
RE Fairfield / Downtown Boundary change. I'm not sure that including the St Anne's Academy block in the Downtown Neighbourhood is a good fit. But if it is to be included, I would make a further revision to the Downtown / James Bay boundary. Move the south boundary for Downtown one block further south to Superior. That is, have the area bounded by Government, Superior, Douglas, Blanshard included in Downtown.
I find the most contentious proposal is expanding the boundaries defining Downtown. Apart from the stated objectives of this project, the reality is that zoning, development, and concessions will be linked to future projects according to the neighbourhood. Is Harris Green a part of Downtown? I think most Victoria residents would think so. Fairfield? Nope. And redrawing the Downtown boundary could affect older, lower cost housing opportunities in that part of Fairfield, or could lead to the City planners agreeing with zoning proposals for densities much higher than the existing residents had imagined.
I don't think that anyone would consider the area north of Chatham St. as a part of Downtown due to the low-density commercial land use in the area. If the City wants that to change for the basis of decades of upcoming urban development, please be more honest with the City's residents about the goals.
Hello! Thanks for providing the opportunity for feedback. Our family lives in the 2500 block between Bay and Haultain. We are so happy to have the boundary changed so we are officially in Oaklands. We feel very much a part of the Oaklands community and are excited to be included. Thank you for making this happen!
One of the reasons I settled permanently in North Park was because 30 years ago, I lived for a university term on North Park Street on the Fernwoodian side. I had no idea that was Fernwood. The rental ad said North Park; the vibe was a little edgier than Fernwood (with a supported housing for mental health next door and that super cool recording studio across from the Parsonage where I met some wild musicians and dancers, of course the legendary Logans. Even now, when I've listed the neighbourhoods I've lived in the city, I have a hard time thinking of that time as Fernwood (as much as I admire and love Fernwood). I think the boundary change does make sense, but this is not a hill to die on. North Park is on a roll improving our community. I think some of the Fernwood pride is an awareness of the actual class differences that exist. Maybe soon, the people who are invested in Fernwood pride will feel like it is no big deal to their identity or house prices to be considered North Park. Meanwhile, I think North Parkians and Fernwoodians have to continue to join forces. North Park is small and typically does not have the community engagement needed to fight the powers to make us more like Fernwood (or to be honest, to take some of the load of services for an equitable share that would make the region more mixed, less ghetto). Any support is appreciated wherever the boundary is.
'Oh talk to me not of conversion to North Park's story!
Dear Fernwood has roots much deeper in glory!
Grant Street is salted heavily with "Fernwood Proud" signs.
And we are sincerely committed to keeping Fernwoodian lines!
No matter WHAT decision is made, When asked "you're in what part of Victoria's glade?"
We will respond "Fernwood, dear" - And we are making it *abundantly* clear! '
I don't think there is a problem having FGCA be responsible for land use meetings for Gonzales is a problem, you should maintain the status quo. FGCA is credible and welcoming of different viewpoints in hosting the CALUC function for the community. The only reason there has been any questioning of this is because there is a small, but vocal NIMBY group that wants to take over this function to force their NIMBY agenda. This will come at the expense of anyone who doesn't share their opinion. The organization that wants to perform this function in Gonzales openly is hostile to developers and residents to disagree with them - to the point of name calling. This organization has a Facebook group that is only welcome to those who agree with them, and do not share information about their meetings. Making this change will only cause problems for the city, and Gonzales residents. They are not credible or welcoming of non-NIMBY viewpoints. Please keep the status quo, don't try solving a problem that doesn't exist.
I attempted to take the survey three times and instead of a survey loading, a page came up: “submitted.” I know the city has a reputation for ignoring citizen input in favour of special interest groups but this is ridiculous.
The proposed new boundaries for Fernwood make sense. The vehicle traffic volumes on Bay and Chambers isolate those portions and residents naturally orient toward the other adjacent neighborhoods.
Why does your map not include North Jubilee and South Jubilee as these are two separate neighbourhood associations? Moving the area of North Jubilee into Oaklands will only serve to make North Jubilee smaller and they need people to contribute to the vibrancy of their association. Therefore, I am against this proposed change.
The council member who initiated the work and discussion on boundary changes is Ben Isitt – as is public information. That said, he was not the one to recommend some of the more contentious changes; for example, Council Member Sarah Potts was the one who proposed the Fernwood/North Park change, again, this is public record.
Initial February 4th workshop meeting, can be found here:
https://pub-victoria.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=750a1f19-ede2-4647-802c-9ec227c4aec1&Agenda=Merged&lang=English&Item=14&Tab=attachments
Follow-up meeting February 25th can be found here:
https://pub-victoria.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=0e1eacef-4dcc-4918-85c4-9dd38b7e234c&Agenda=Merged&lang=English&Item=13&Tab=attachments
These changes will cost all City of Victoria residents taxpayer dollars and they have already cost us $ on the labour and administrative work involved in meetings, maps, planning, and engagement.
Residents did not bring these changes forward to council in any formal matter, it was council who proposed these changes.
It started as a “housecleaning” matter to turn squiggly lines straight with maybe 2-3 proposed changes under the notion that some residents perceived that they lived in a different community than they actually do. This quickly snowballed in to more than 10 proposed changes.
If the true intent is to turn squiggly lines straight (reconcile some geographic anomalies) and improve residents’ sense of place, wouldn’t it be more effective to have the engage team go door to door in these areas and simply ask “what neighbourhood do you live in”? I can tell you without a hesitation of doubt, that residents between Cook and Chambers know they live in Fernwood.
I can also tell you that the village on Cook St (and Haultain for that matter) are not the only ones straddling neighbourhood boundaries. No matter where you put a boundary, things change and shift and villages will pop-up where they pop up, not as any result of being within one community or another, and sometimes actually despite it. Who is to say that 20 years from now another commercial village emerges on Chambers, or, the more likely scenario of Bay Street – would another boundary change be proposed again at that time?
In addition to this survey, if you want to express your opposition to changing the Cook St boundary, there is a petition started by community members found here:
https://www.change.org/p/city-of-victoria-keep-the-fernwood-boundary-at-cook-street