Could Victoria City Council be the next Ministry of Silly Walks?
- Mar 15
- 2 min read
Updated: Mar 17
Some folks may recall witty British actor John Cleese in the famous Monty Python skit "Ministry of Silly Walks" which pointed out government's bureaucratic inefficiency, absurd regulations and spending without real results.
The City of Victoria needs housing like a parched forest needs rain, yet council just opened an umbrella and did the equivalent of a "silly walk" away.
In the middle of a full‑blown housing crisis, a proposal for hundreds of new homes and substantial community amenities from a longstanding homebuilder Reliance Properties has been rejected because, essentially, it’s “too tall” and doesn’t fit perfectly into a set of city-imposed regulatory design rules.
This 35‑storey tower would have delivered 321 condominium units at 1520 Blanshard St. These are badly needed homes in the downtown core, on an underused site, home to a low-rise office building. At least 30% of the housing units would have been "family-sized", ensuring hundreds of people could live near jobs, services, and transit instead of competing for the same dwindling pool of rentals and condos scattered across the region that has an abundance of mostly unaffordable single-family homes. The project also came with community amenities featuring: a rooftop terrace, commercial space on the ground floor, an engaging outdoor plaza and a financial promise to secure a new permanent location for a Victoria arts organization, says the Victoria Times Colonist.
"Policy 1, progress 0,” said Jon Stovell, chief executive of Vancouver-based Reliance Properties, following council’s narrow 5-4 vote Thursday to reject his company’s proposal."
Driven by a staff report that recommended rejection, citing only negatives for the project, City council panned it for: being too high, too dense and not having enough employment space opportunities (regulatory rules).
The city’s own policies talk about focusing growth in the core, and adding amenities that support walking, cycling, and transit.
The chilling message to every builder is simple: don’t bother bringing ambitious housing projects to Victoria unless you have the patience of a saint and money to burn on endless redesigns to satisfy bureaucratic priorities. If a housing tower with substantial amenities, and commercial space on the ground floor can’t clear the bar because the guidelines treat “too much housing” as the problem, why would anyone invest here when other cities are rolling out red carpets?
Cities reveal their values not in glossy strategies but in the projects they say yes or no to. Saying no here is more than a technical decision; it’s an admission that, even in crisis, we still prioritize silhouette over shelter. That’s not just short‑sighted. It’s fundamentally silly—and the people paying the price are the ones who will never get to call that building project home. Monty Python would be proud.
We welcome your thoughts. Please take our poll!
Follow us @HomesNotBankMachines Share if you care.
Comments