Neighbourhood Boundaries

Cook Street is a very logical boundary for Fernwood. I bought my Grant Street home because I loved the area and because it is in Fernwood, I'm really not interested in a change. Our neighbourhood is facing an enormous amount of upheaval (some already done and lots yet to be finished) and I really don't think more change is needed. I, and many of my neighbours, have become quite disenchanted with many of the proposals for our area. I work full time and my life is too busy to be at every meeting, and to be part of the many committees. The city has not listened to any of our concerns and we are being directly impacted by this (and other) proposed changes. I would really like to see my tax dollars put to much better use.

Having the North Park village split in two makes no planning sense. That said, if Fernwood residents don't want to be part of NP then they should not be forced to be. The real takeaway from this is the passion with which people object to moving different boundaries. These indicate serious disparities. We should be working towards having a city where these boundaries do not matter. Clearly given the passion with which some in Fernwood do not want to join North Park, we have a long way to go here. This is the significant takeaway the City should be hearing.

I thank the City of Victoria for this opportunity to provide perspective on the proposed revisions of neighbourhood boundaries. My Oaklands neighbours and I are proud to be a part of the process.

In the spring of 2019, data collection at the Oaklands Spring Celebration confirmed that attending residents living on the south side of Haultain Street supported establishing the Oaklands Neighbourhood boundary at Bay Street.

In the summer of 2019, weekly information tent sessions were held across twelve Oaklands Community Sunset Markets and signatures were collected from Oaklands residents' supporting their desire to shift the present boundary from Haultain Street to Bay Street.

Many neighbours living on the south side of Haultain Street thought they were already a part of Oaklands Neighbourhood vs Fernwood Neighbourhood citing affinity with and proximity to Oaklands given the perceived natural boundary of a busy Bay Street.

Development of the Haultain Village as part of updating the Oaklands Neighbourhood Plan is supported by residents who affirmed that the process would be streamlined and more effective if the Haultain Village was understood to be within Oaklands rather then straddling two neighbourhoods with differing characteristics and affinities.

Inclusion of the Haultain Village within the Oaklands Neighbourhood contributes to the neighbourhood's identity, a sense of community and provides a focal point for cultural exchanges, fostering community pride.

Some residents living on the east side of Shelbourne Street feel a greater affinity to Oaklands Neighbourhood - a greater sense of belonging due to their relationship with Oaklands Community Centre and the Hillside business centre.

As a resident of Oaklands I write in support of the suggested revisions to the Oaklands Neighbourhood boundaries.

Thanks for hearing me.

Thanks for facilitating input. I urge the City to place the links to the February workshop and Committee of the Whole Council discussions of the topic as this would alleviate many of the concerns expressed.

I note that some respondents object to a generalized action by the City, yet speak generally for all, relative to the topic.

As a resident of Oaklands, I can say categorically that the strip along Shelbourne, just one lot deep to the boundary of Saanich, is a strange anomaly that denies residents any say in the neighbourhood that is most geographically logical and which offers a broader range of services than the current North Jubilee assignment.

The proposed Haultain to Bay shift similarly reflects a geographic logic because the Bay Street arterial can influence pedestrian choices—why cross Bay when there is a whole world of less-traffic walkable streets in the other direction? The Haultain to Bay strip does, however, present a cross-Bay draw in at least two senses. The dog walking park across Bay is an understandable draw, regardless of the need to cross traffic made very heavy coincidental with three hospital shift changes daily. And, for those in the strip close to Fernwood Road, proximity to the Gladstone village area is an understandable draw.

Development of the Haultain Corners village would be simplified and enhanced by the shift in boundary, offering two choices to those residents. And, Oaklands Park now has a zone designated as a dog walking area at certain times.

Critical to my view is that community associations depend upon volunteers willing and able to step up. Over the last many years in Oaklands, key positions (and people) have resided in the Shelbourne strip and in the Haultain to Bay strip, outside the neighbourhood boundaries. More have expressed interest in serving than could be accepted because the Board policy accepts only two people living outside of Oaklands, as is right and proper. It is a serious problem, however, when a Board is incomplete and needs volunteers, but cannot accept that needed service.

During Council discussions, it is clear that the City "sees" neighbourhoods in terms of the given Community Association Land Use Committee (CALUC). Much assertion of the role of the CALUC as "representative" ignored staff clarification that the CALUC cannot effectively represent, being by mandate a "conduit" that does not filter. In Oaklands, this limitation is understood by the Board (as confirmed in correspondence and evident unwillingness to take positions) as limiting the role of the community association. It must be acknowledged that community associations, by and large, do not have easy ways to identify or engage with the populations they ostensibly represent, so they are reluctant to make a claim of "representation". In short, it ain't easy.

On that score, it is critical for the City to recognize that funding for the infrastructure to run a community centre (e.g. Oaklands, Burnside-Gorge, Fernwood) provides the illusion of support for community associations. Funding for neighbourhoods without a community centre operation was raised in the Feb 4 and 25 Council discussions (if I recall correctly) and this is laudable. However, it is critical to note that running a full slate of community centre and daycare programs requires a consuming, and very differently focused, management effort. It should be separately recognized that a community association that purports any kind of "representation" needs to be resourced/supported to be effective in that regard. Until very recently, the City was not even willing to entertain support for outreach through mail-outs coincidental with other City mail-outs. And, we continue to hear of the challenge for the City in targeting mail-outs. Please trust the ability of citizens to distinguish—on a single insert— Neighbourhood A content from Neighbourhood B content. It's a matter of good, organized writing and not hard or costly to do. Invite an "opt-in" approach to empowering community associations to identify, recognize and engage with residents who wish to be a part of their neighbourhood's activity and planning, and do this annually.

Over many years of engagement on certain matters, I have come to understand that their is great good intent and ability among those with differing views. City practices are often driven by systems that build-in excessive cost and time frames, sometimes inhibiting the kind of direct engagement needed and often inhibiting desired—even agreed—outcomes. Citizens react to this with dismay and suspicion as to underlying motives. It is too easy to dismiss the reaction as resistance to change, even when the language suggests that is the case.

Please support community associations in their engagement of community. That can do a lot. And, as someone who has held multiple Board positions at various levels in the civic, social and international professional spheres, I suggest it may be valuable to examine how broad, multi-generational, effectively representative service on Boards can be supported. Again, this form of public service ain't easy and is very costly on a personal level. Three of my past positions required in excess of a 50% commitment, two became full-time volunteer roles in periods of organizational crisis. I know of a local colleague whose loss in personal earned derived from a 50% (plus) commitment. If we are serious about bringing people with experience and capacity into such matters, the current model may not be sustainable, and at best, it is unfair to individuals who step up to serve. (I appreciate that this observation may have a certain resonance with Council.)

Thanks for this opportunity—and to all for their engagement. The work of the Engagement team is greatly appreciated.

I am in general against all the proposed boundary changes. Shifting them does little to change what is occurring on the ground. If the city wants to have discussions about the growth of the downtown core and in neighbourhoods surrounding it, those conversations do and should continue to occur at the neighbourhood level.

A well-organized neighbourhood association does an incredible amount of heavy lifting when it comes to providing land use and development feedback to the City while advocating for neighbourhood amenities like green space or community gardens or fair, affordable housing. Funding for the associations is on a per capita basis, meaning the proposed boundary changes will have an economic impact.

Fernwood, where I live, has a well-organized neighbourhood/community association with a long history of advocating for the neighourhood. As the proposed boundary changes decrease funding to FCA, they also and more importantly disrupt the relationships people have built as a means of engaging on issues related to land-use, development, housing, food security, green spaces. Put broadly, they disrupt the existing relationships between people, place and community.

I live in the block between Chambers and Cook and I do not support moving that boundary. I do support neighbourhood associations and feel this is a call for all neighbourhood associations to continue to strengthen ties. We can achieve more by standing together than being divided.

I do not understand the motivation and reason for such a drastic move, that will surely make hundreds of citizens unhappy and displeased. From my understanding the North Park Community Association did not request this move. So is the origin of this "wouldn't it be nice to", which is pretty weak in terms of a benefit for the greater good of the citizens. This Council seems to favour a winner and loser governance system from our residents, instead of reaching for common ground amongst all parties. After living here in Fernwood for close to twenty years one develops a sense of loyalty and appreciation for the neighbourhood. I would truly feel the loss of that collective feeling if I was asked to relocate against my will. I hope members of Council abandon this effort and refocus on some of the more pressing matters at hand.

Harris Green is effectively downtown now. It's deletion might as well be recognized.
However, downtown should NOT expand into Fernwood, North Park or any other residential neighbourhood.
Affordable apartments and business spaces should be preserved no matter the area, and we're tired of seeing the rubble.

Every residential neighbourhood should be zoned to allow 'missing middle' housing, instead of concrete sky boxes that aren't sustainable socially, for the climate or our wallets.

I feel that these changes to neighborhood boundaries are completely whimsical in nature and proffered by a city council that makes changes which affect citizens' lives without regard for what the majority wants or needs. The fact that the only profile question in the registration page is 'what is your age' does show the tendency of the council's decision-making process as strongly ageist. Fernwood is identified with a special character and reputation and there is actually a strong identification of residents with these qualities. The fact that councilors wish to change this for NO GOOD REASON reveals the callous nature that is informing most of it's decisions which are strongly affecting the quality of life in Victoria.

I live on Grant in the 1100 block and like my neighbors we have put up Fernwood proud signs in or windows. this is because we identify with Fernwood, participate with Fernwood on neighborhood issues including rezoning. North park can get their own communty center and council has no need to redefine out boundaries. Chrystal pool if it remains in North park would be a more suitable place for them. My primary social gathering point is the Fernwood inn. for issues in our area.
Please just leave us alone. Council has screwed enough up in Victoria. Too many changes for change sake.
I have not seen nor heard of any call for a boundary change from we who live here.

I live in the Cathedral precinct, a small gem of an area with quiet, broad, tree-lined streets. If we join downtown, I fear that all of this will be replaced with concrete and high rises. We already have several supportive housing establishments in this small area. More are not needed. The rationale for making the boundary change is being decided upon by people who do not
live in the area and do not understand its qualities. I am concerned that the current sight lines for the Cathedral will not be honoured. What a shame.

I need to understand the motives for this change. Who on council initiated this boundary change? Who lobbied for this counsellor to bring forward this proposal (when we have so many more pressing issues)? Funky Fernwood resident.

Removed by moderator.

I live on Caledonia Ave, between Cook & Chambers, and would therefore be directly impacted by the proposal to shift the Fernwood/North Park Boundary from Cook to Chambers. I would no longer live in the neighbourhood that I chose to move to 20+ years ago, at the apparent whim of City officials.
And I do not use the term ‘whim’ lightly. I have attended two neighbourhood meetings on this proposed boundary change and have yet to be provided with a credible reason for it. That the North Park/Fernwood boundary runs through the commercial block that is now called North Park Village is not in any way a credible reason for the boundary shift. The North Park and Fernwood Neighbourhood Associations have, for years, worked collaboratively and effectively together on land-use, development and other issues that have arisen in that commercial area. Residents of both Fernwood & North Park frequent the area and support its businesses. Simply because it now is termed ‘North Park Village’ does not warrant a boundary change.
Also, that some feel it would be ‘cleaner’ if the Village did not span both neighbourhoods is not sufficient reason for a boundary change. I have asked if anyone, business or resident, has faced any serious problems arising from the fact that the Village straddles both neighbourhoods and have received no reply. I would think that the level of co-operation exhibited by the North Park & Fernwood Associations in matters pertaining to the Village would be welcomed by the City in this time when divisiveness seems so prevalent in much else in the public sphere.
I am aware that a similar argument of the need for North Park to encompass the block east of Cook arises from this emergent ‘vision’ (whose, I am not sure) to turn the half-block of North Park St. east of Cook into a meeting place so some sort. This ‘vision’ has been referred to as a gathering place for North Park residents. Given that, as I have noted previously, Fernwood residents frequent North Park Village as much as do North Park residents, I can’t help but wonder if the vision originates with those who know little about the neighbourhood that they are striving to shape. Also, as the ’vision’ does not have fulsome support in the neighbourhood and has yet to be approved by Council, altering the boundary on this basis seems rather premature.
I have real difficulty with the idea that this boundary change in any way aligns peoples’ sense of space with where they reside. I can assure you that I am absolutely fine with my current alignment as a Fernwoodian. And, given the total lack of support for the proposed boundary change among Fernwood residents in the neighbourhood meetings, I can assure you that my neighbours appear similarly happy with their current alignment. In fact, with the North Park Association assuring us that they did not ask for this change and Fernwood clearly not having championed it, I have to ask where it came from and, as importantly, what is driving it?
When there is no apparent credible reason for a proposed change, it is reasonable to ask: ‘What is really going on here?’ And, although at least one Councillor has assured the neighbourhood that the City has no ulterior motives, I am among those that remain unconvinced. Is the boundary change intended to ease approval for denser zoning or even commercial zoning in the block east of Cook?
In conclusion, I remain adamantly opposed to moving the North Park/Fernwood boundary from Cook to Chambers. And I am certain that, if appropriately and thoroughly canvassed, my neighbours will be similarly opposed. I would ask Council to
actively canvas impacted residents, to abide by their preference and not to impose a solution to a problem that does not actually exist.

There is absolutely no reason to spend time, money, or energy on this. Unless of course there actually is some “dark” money from developers behind this move.

If the residents actually wanted to split off and join a different neighborhood, they would get together and engage with the city and the neighborhood associations and campaign to make the change. To have other people decide what is best for them seems pretty egotistical. It almost seems like it's gerrymandering for ulterior motives. It can't actually be because some outsiders actually thought that parts of the neighborhood "just don't fit".

Many people in these neighborhoods take pride in being residents of their neighborhood. We go to the neighborhood block parties and participate in neighborhood associations and now face being told that we are no longer part of that neighborhood. The info says that this change is to make people more proud of their neighborhood, when it seems to be doing the opposite. What's the point of feeling part of a neighborhood when it can be arbitrarily changed on you? Many people's neighborhoods are part of their identity in a way. It might be an extreme comparison, but what if it was decided to change your sexual orientation or last name because they thought it would suit you better? A suspicious person would suspect that these changes were a way of carving off parts of neighborhoods that were opposed to condo developments and adding them to higher-density neighborhoods like Downtown and North Park. This would eliminate the opposition from neighborhood associations like Fairfield for example and replace it with downtown which is more open to high density.

I find it difficult to identify justifications for these proposals. The proposed boundaries do not correspond with either the DCAP, or the area of Victoria 3.0 Arts and Innovation District. I can only assume that the unspecified "geographical anomalies" they are meant to resolve will be replaced by a new set of anomalies.
The existing boundaries may not make much sense, but unless very sound arguments are presented for changing them, such as creating a ward system for the election of councillors, it is better to avoid the administrative bother and costs of altering maps, websites, and any legal documents that refer to them, and let stay as they are.

I live in Burnside Gorge, and agree that the area in question feels more akin to downtown than to Burnside Gorge. BUT my biggest concern is that the moratorium on more supportive housing in this neighbourhood will therefore no longer apply and we'll end up with even more supportive / transitional housing in this area. There's already plans for more on Gorge / Albina just over our border to the west (just a couple blocks away from the big new building going up at 210 Gorge). Although it's officially a different municipality, the effects on the neighbourhood will be the same. I don't know if there's any way to change the border, but retain the moratorium?

re: North Park/Fernwood boundary

As someone who lives in North Park, works on Cook St, and spends a lot of time in Fernwood I think incorporating the businesses along the east side of Cook as "North Park" (which I feel is already the case) makes more sense than pushing the boundary to Chambers, and incorporating many homes that I definitely feel are part of the Fernwood community. If it's for administrative purposes, do as you've proposed with the Harris Green area and incorporate ONLY the businesses among the Cook St North Park Village as North Park

Demographics and neighbourhood economics change. The neighbourhood of today is not as it was 5, 10, or 40 years ago. Victoria should balance history with the evolution of communities. If we sat as stagnat city we would not enjoy many of the new facets of being one of the most enviable places to live in Canada.

While I too agree with many of the comments made here that council needs to first focus on fixing many prominent issues, such as crime and homelessness, it also needs to continue day to day business. I agree with some, but not all of the changes. Changes to the neighbourhoods of Fernwood, Oaklands, and North Park have particular impacts to housing prices and optics. Council needs to consider the impact they are making to the land value of residents who "bought" into desired neighbourhoods only to have them rezoned into a different one.