This project is strongly opposed by the DRA: https://victoriadra.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/937-View-Street-CALUC-Letter-Feb-2-20.pdf

...Council needs to decline any height variance that facilitates any configuration that doesn’t comply 100% with DCAP policy for height, setbacks and floor plate sizes and OCP density maximums…period. This application facilitates the undermining of our core planning documents and is a perfect demonstration of the wrong kind of development for our community. It is high time for Council to support liveability for Victoria’s downtown...

https://victoriadra.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/937-View-Street-CALUC-Letter-Feb-2-20.pdf

Who would have imagined that some of the worst NIMBYs would be the DRA?

Oh my, this is going to be quite the spectacle at the council table.

The DRA is essentially saying that
- 76 storage lockers are insufficient for 253 residences
- 15 parking stalls is well below the 126 stalls estimated by the City to be required for 253 residences
- units as small as 32 square meters (344 sq ft) are not livable
- people who reside there will not be proud of where they live
- the building is too tall
- it doesn’t have sufficient setbacks to neighbouring properties
- the land was blanked zoned by the City some time ago, and the developer does not need to provide public amenities for the variances requested, and therefore is not contributing to the public good

The first home my mom and I lived in up until I was six was around that square footage. We didn’t have a car; didn’t need it. I’m just not sure why, because someone doesn’t like a small residence, others (everyone else) must not like them, and would not feel proud to live in such a home. Here’s the line where this is mentioned:

“All residents, regardless of income level, want to enjoy and be proud of where they live.”

The DRA is stepping over a line here. It is not their role to determine what people should like, and to criticize home sizes. The reality is some people like smaller units for the basic reason that they are small. And the smaller the home, the less stuff there needs to be accumulated to furnish and fill it. These are also not necessarily long-term homes, as the DRA contends they ought to be. Young people need first-time homes, and often they spend far more time outside of the home than inside. The residence is nothing but a place to lay one’s head for the night.

That's the thing about community associations. They start out reasonable enough, giving feedback on proposed developments and a community's needs etc. Then they get a taste of power and suddenly they feel they have carte blanche to dictate the morality/lifestyle for all those who reside within their geographic boundaries. We see this with almost every new proposal; residential, commercial and civic. I am not sure what the answer is, but I think they do nearly as much harm as good these days.