Victoria Construction - #7

[zoomer]

/\thanks for sharing SpongeG - I missed that story as I stopped watching the local CTV news once they started broadcasting it from Vancouver due to Bell cutbacks, so I usually only catch the news stories on CHEK.

The conversion of low to mid-price hotels to shelters during COVID and the Air BNB certainly has created a massive demand, I'm surprised there isn't an avalanche of proposals considering the booming tourism market. I guess that'll materialize in the next a few years. There are other proposals in the works, including the one at the old BC Power Commission Building downtown. Originally planned to include a tower, now it looks like Reliance Properties just wants to move more quickly as they have the Capital Culture District on their plate and were behind the rejected tallest building in Victoria.

[aastra]

Friday evening was my first opportunity to get out and about in quite a while. I felt like there was pretty good energy wherever I went. Maybe people are just eager to get the summer vibe started. I don't know. But it seemed encouraging.

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by zoomer

ah ok, that's the one angle I haven't tried. Plus at your height and reaching over would be a totally different perspective than my height and peering through the fence holes, lol.

Exactly, the fact he's 6'4" helps

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

Exactly, the fact he's 6'4" helps

Originally Posted by Airboy

Homeless population is similar to most other cities.

That's surprising given Victoria's climate, you'd think there'd be a much higher % of homeless for that reason

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

• Video Link

The woman that represents Seacliff Properties isn't hard to look at

The only hotel i'm interested in is the 20 story proposal for the old Monk Office Supply at Fort and Blanshard, what happened to that?

Dylan, I can't edit my posts so it looks like my post count will go through the roof

[zoomer]

Originally Posted by aastra

Friday evening was my first opportunity to get out and about in quite a while. I felt like there was pretty good energy wherever I went. Maybe people are just eager to get the summer vibe started. I don't know. But it seemed encouraging.

Victoria thrives despite itself, lol. Yes, it feels quite busy downtown, can you imagine what it would be like if the province mandated return to office?! Probably a lot more people complaining about traffic I suppose. Seriously though, is BC the only province that still allows employees to work full time from home?

There seems to be a lot of new businesses/food establishments opening up and quite a few higher end places. Plus a fair number of storefronts under renovation with new businesses opening up, I see Brenric Construction's signs up all over and they do really good work.

Mr. McAvity - I'm thinking of getting a pair of stilts so I can get photos over fences as I'm probably past my growing years now I'm in my mid-20's and not likely to reach Dylan's 6 foot four.

As for the Fort and Blanshard hotel, it's dead as the developer ran into financial trouble. More info here on MappingVictoria.com

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by zoomer

Victoria thrives despite itself, lol. Yes, it feels quite busy downtown, can you imagine what it would be like if the province mandated return to office?! Probably a lot more people complaining about traffic I suppose. Seriously though, is BC the only province that still allows employees to work full time from home?

Yes, if workers all returned to work mornings and late afternoons would be absolute gridlock. The fact that government st. is still closed to traffic is insane. I wouldn't be surprised if BC is the only province that allows workers to work from home

Originally Posted by zoomer

Mr. McAvity - I'm thinking of getting a pair of stilts so I can get photos over fences as I'm probably past my growing years now I'm in my mid-20's and not likely to reach Dylan's 6 foot four.

Oh I thought you were younger than that

Originally Posted by zoomer

As for the Fort and Blanshard hotel, it's dead as the developer ran into financial trouble. More info here on MappingVictoria.com

Thanks for the update. I'm sorry to hear that. The building didn't look great but the lobby looked amazing

[zoomer]

Yah, the lobby was nice, and the rest grew on me. Oh well.

The old Canadian Tire location on Douglas has a new 4 building Mercedes-Benz proposal. More here on MappingVictoria Breaking News and on the project page.



Mercedes Benz Dealership Proposal at 2959 Douglas Street by JohnnyJayEh, on Flickr

[zoomer]

Cascadia Architects is working on a few bold new designs for additional storeys above the historic 1882 built former Chandler's building at 1244 Wharf street.

Check out the project page to see more as well as the Breaking News for more context.

[aastra]

That's the kind of modern addition that we've observed happening in other cities and been thankful that it wasn't happening in Victoria, you think? A building sitting directly on top of an entirely different building?

Methinks it would be yet another classic Victorian situation if they eagerly approve something like that after all of the grief they gave the Northern Junk project for so many years.

As for UVic... what was the point of resisting highrise buildings for so many decades if they were going to be approving generic stuff like that in the 2020s? They could have easily been building stuff like that in the 1960s, except they didn't want dreary conventional highrises, they wanted the major campus buildings to have distinctive modern architectural character, etc. They've lost the plot.

[aastra]

Some people will probably love that Wharf St concept. I'm just observing how the CoV has been trending toward a complete lack of self-awareness re: development controversies and debates about architectural design. It's been happening for years. It's as if powers of recollection about the big controversy from yesterday (or even about the big controversy from earlier in the same meeting) are becoming nonexistent.

[zoomer]

Originally Posted by aastra

That's the kind of modern addition that we've observed happening in other cities and been thankful that it wasn't happening in Victoria, you think? A building sitting directly on top of an entirely different building?

Methinks it would be yet another classic Victorian situation if they eagerly approve something like that after all of the grief they gave the Northern Junk project for so many years.

As for UVic... what was the point of resisting highrise buildings for so many decades if they were going to be approving generic stuff like that in the 2020s? They could have easily been building stuff like that in the 1960s, except they didn't want dreary conventional highrises, they wanted the major campus buildings to have distinctive modern architectural character, etc. They've lost the plot.

true, true and true.

Although I think the addition is fairly modest and balanced, unlike say those extreme cases (and far less extreme elsewhere of course) in Toronto such as this one from the SSP Canadian Proposal thread, image from UrbanToronto.ca



I think I like the potential Victoria proposal as the top half isn't trying to mimic the bottom half (as that rarely works in Victoria, but not saying it couldn't) and more importantly neither is it subservient as the heritage guidelines call for, which is that it should be only one storey (two maximum) and preferably recessed so it's not visible at all from street level and completely distinct from the original. It's a bit of yin and yang yet the two halfs literally meet in the middle in a nice transitional way.

As for the UVic tower it's a bit surprising since it was designed by Diamond Schmitt who also did Telus Ocean.. hmm, and have a good reputation across the country. They are hit or miss though.

They also designed this McMaster's graduate building for downtown Hamilton, while a bit jarring is certainly better than their UVic building. Interesting, when you look at it you can see it's the same basic idea:

.

UVIC - source



And yes, the current council and to a lesser degree city planners have a lack of awareness of the history of architecture and development in Victoria, which can be both a negative and positive. Perhaps we need a new evaluative criteria which focuses on quality/sustainable materials, does it add to an interesting and enjoyable pedestrian jumble experience and is a pleasure to come home to for its residents.

[zoomer]

Speaking of provincial funding delays I wonder if that's the reason why 225 Russell Street hasn't begun yet despite gaining approval a couple years ago. It's the supportive housing proposal aastra mentioned I missed in the my listing of sites, now finally added.

I have to say the design (check out the link to the architects project page) is quite clever and far better than the usual crappy boxed BC Housing builds for supportive housing.

[zoomer]

Ok, it's been a while, a Victoria update on City Council's rejecting planners advice to reject the Fort and Quadra proposal. Instead they've directed staff to work with the developer to revise the proposal. The site in question only allows for 12 residential storeys yet the tallest proposed building is 27-storeys, so technically staff are just following the rules..

Anyways, more on this story in MappingVictoria's Breaking News .



Pacific Arbour Six by JohnnyJayEh, on Flickr

[aastra]

Methinks any revision that significantly reduces the height of the tower but raises the other buildings more than 1 or 2 levels would be really unfortunate.

I'd really prefer to see the tower get the arbitrary Victoria chop (like we used to take for granted whenever a highrise was proposed) but otherwise leave everything else as is.

Dr. aastra recommends:
-Chop the tower down by six levels
-Raise the other buildings by one level each
-Proceed

--

Hypothetical height chop of the tower depicted below:

[aastra]

Full disclosure: I don't really want to see Fort St. gradually become a highrise street. The village-format blocks of Fort Street and the village-format bit of Blanshard where it intersects with Fort are another one of the contributing reasons why downtown Victoria feels richer and more varied than a typical small-city downtown. But on the other hand, methinks 12 stories at Fort and Quadra would be no different than 22 or 32 re: representing another step toward transforming Fort Street's identity. It's not as if the ultimate eventual fate of Fort Street's quirkier little buildings would be altered just because you build a junior highrise at the Quadra intersection instead of a legit highrise.

(Translation: if the CoV has no issues with allowing/enabling the old Fort Street vibe to disappear, then what difference does it make whether you wipe out the old vibe with 12-story buildings or 20-story buildings? You can pat yourself on the back and give yourself sensitivity awards because you chose to knock old buildings down with a 1,000 pound wrecking ball instead of using a 2,000 pound wrecking ball, but the wipeout is going to be the same in either case.)

[zoomer]

I agree with your view on Fort Street (not to say you are recommending duplicating View Street onto Fort) but it needs visual tower anchors at Quadra and also at Cook (where Subway is currently located).

The city planners stated in the Committee of the Whole meeting that for multiple towers on one site there should be a 20 metre separation. The 27-storey tower is 9.09 metres apart from the proposed 11-storey rental building on Fort and 13.83 metres from the 10-storey seniors strata building (facing Broughton and Quadra). They also note the rental building is 3.34 metres from the side property line while city planning says they should be 10 metres from side and rear property lines. They also mention that the buildings don't have a traditional podium (or 'base' using their term) and there is insufficient setbacks.

In order to convince enough councillors that sufficient work has been done to be more in line with city policies (even taking into account the 12-storey height limit) my guess is that they will have to address the separations and get that to at least 15 metres, perhaps consider a podium approach with the towers set back. Now can they still accomplish three buildings in that space? They could make the 27 and 11 storey buildings facing Fort into one, so basically a tower with a wing and bring the heights down to 21 storeys and 7 or so for the wing. That would address one of the separation concerns but not yet the with the building facing Broughton but that one is 13.83, so not too far off. Now of course that throws off the developers whole plan to have an central pedestrian pass through courtyard and avoid a wall effect along Fort which they were trying to get away from. And who knows if the economics at this reduced scale works. So yah, I think there is a chance with creative architecture that something still near the 20 storey range goes through with modifications one or two other buildings. Maybe they take a risk and address all the other setback, separation concerns and have only two main buildings on a a wrap around podium punctuated with wide public entrances (if at all) and keep the 27-storey height. That way it reduced it down to only one point of contention and my sense was that most councillors weren't that concerned about the heights, just that so many elements were outside of existing planning policy. And of course this goes back to the OCP which was just passed last year being ridiculous in only permitting a 12-storey building at this location.

By the way, great render aastra.. how about you design something for Fort and Cook now!

[aastra]

20 meter separation? Sure, if the buildings are across the street from one another.

It makes me wonder, whatever happened to that notion about being like Paris? Remember that? For a few years there the enlightened development critics were claiming they wanted midrise buildings packed shoulder-to-shoulder throughout downtown.

[aastra]

...for multiple towers on one site there should be a 20 metre separation...

Me confused, when did they start caring about that issue? Let's hope the CoV never notices any of the development that has recently happened or that's currently happening in the 1000-blocks of View/Yates/Johnson.

The Legato/989 Johnson situation would seem to confirm that close proximity can be no problem if you handle it well.

[zoomer]

/\ 100%

You know it wouldn't really take much for a developer to poke holes in all these planning models/community plans. As you mentioned with 20 metres - point out where that isn't the case already, do we want a unbroken street wall (although they will state that's fine at street level but towers should have separation, which I agree with) but what about the 10 metre property line setback? Why did they even both to mention that when that's not a good idea, barely exists downtown in old and new construction FFS. I really get the sense watching city planners that they just throw all the 'rules' in the book at any proposal without context or full transparency. Rob Bateman, Senior Planner with Development Services stated "The proposal for a 27-storey building in this location; therefore, undermines the overall urban structure concept by proposing a larger scale building in a location that should be providing a transition to the smaller scale buildings adjacent to the downtown core."

Ok, first of all instead of saying "undermines" why not say "contrary", it feels like an opinion or value judgement instead of planning advice. And in what world would anyone say looking at this image say a building in this location "undermines the overall urban structure concept by proposing a larger scale building in a location that should be providing a transition to the smaller scale buildings adjacent to the downtown core".

THE TRANSITION HAS ALREADY OCCURRED MY FRIENDS



899 Fort Street - Victoria by JohnnyJayEh, on Flickr