The Roundhouse site in Vic West is not Downtown
By Arthur McInnis
Sept 29, 2025
Lately, a person suggested to me that the Roundhouse development at Bayview needed to have been approved as a means of saving downtown. While that is a noble end it is also misguided. Here’s why.
First, the Roundhouse and Bayview is not downtown. In planning terms and according to the current Official Community Plan (OCP) Bayview is not even Urban Core, Town Centre, or Urban Village. It is treated as a Special Planning Area (Roundhouse Precinct) within the broader Urban Residential designation. Therefore, it should not be equated with downtown. Section 8.24 of the OCP specifically states that the city is to continue enhancing the pedestrian corridor along Government Street northward to Pembroke, including public realm improvements and connections to nearby public spaces. Here is the relevance to the project.
Although section 8.24 is geographically centred on Government Street, it provides an interpretive context: the OCP places priority on public realm improvements in central areas which is just what you want. However, then, in approving the Roundhouse rezoning, the city directed significant growth outside downtown while neglecting these core areas (Government Street, Douglas, Fort, etc.) where the OCP explicitly calls for public investment.
Therefore, in this sense, the Roundhouse approval is not only inconsistent with site-specific provisions (e.g. Rail Corridor) but also diverts attention and resources away from stated OCP priorities for the true downtown. Adding thousands of residents in a high-rise enclave outside downtown will not fill empty storefronts on Douglas, Fort, or Government Streets. At best, it creates a self-contained luxury district where residents eat, shop, and live apart from the civic core. That does little to revive the very downtown some say is under threat.
Second, any call for “residential intensification” ignores the real problem: downtown does not lack bodies, it lacks uses. Converting upper floors of heritage buildings into affordable rentals, programming civic spaces, incubating small businesses, and anchoring the core with public and cultural institutions would do far more to generate daily foot traffic than funnelling investment into one mega-project on the fringe.
Third, the track record of development at the Roundhouse matters. Promises of heritage integration, public amenities, and rail-corridor compatibility have been repeatedly diluted in amendments to the Master Development Agreement signed between the devloper and the city, revised Roundhouse Design Guidelines of the developer and the city’s bylaw revisions. To suggest the Roundhouse is somehow the solution to downtown’s malaise is to reward a broken model of enclave urbanism speculation first, community second that has originally helped hollow out the heart of the city.
Finally, the OCP’s public realm beautification is too modest. The alternative vision is not cosmetic landscaping; it is a re-imagined civic commons: pedestrian-priority streets, local markets, affordable family housing, and genuinely public gathering places. That is how you build a downtown that is lived in, not just visited.
Victoria needs to change. But the Roundhouse redevelopment is not the solution. It is part of the problem. The better path is to reinvest in the actual downtown and make it magnetic again for people who live here. I have lived in Bayview, now live in James Bay, and I know the difference well.
In conclusion, the path to urban revival lies not in isolated developments but in restoring connections. We must remember that cities thrive when their fabric is cohesive, when development serves community rather than merely attracting investment. True urban regeneration comes from strengthening the existing heart of our cities, not creating satellite luxury districts that further fragment the urban experience, again that further fragment the urban experience. The Roundhouse and Bayview is another big box store on the edge of town!
What Victoria, and indeed many cities facing similar challenges need, is a return to principles of inclusive urbanism: mixed-use developments that integrate affordable housing, preservation of cultural heritage, investment in public spaces that welcome all residents, and economic policies that support local businesses rather than corporate chains. This approach requires political will, community engagement, and a planning vision that prioritises people over profit.
The debate about Bayview, and by extension the proposed OCP, is ultimately about something larger: what kind of city we want Victoria to be. Will we continue down the path of enclave development that serves few while neglecting many? Or will we recommit to building a downtown core that reflects our values of inclusivity, sustainability, and genuine community connection? The choice is ours, but it requires looking beyond quick fixes and embracing the complex, rewarding work of true urban regeneration. Vote out anyone who dares approve the proposed OCP and who voted in favour of the Roundhouse and Bayview rezoning.
CRD Watch Homepage 
Leave a comment