[James Bay] Municipal House | Built - completed in 2009
#1
Posted 16 October 2006 - 11:39 AM
New offices for the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM)
#2
Posted 16 October 2006 - 11:52 AM
Here's the minutes from the JBNEA meeting on it:
"5. Rezoning 525 Government - Municipal House
Tim V. reported from the preliminary review meeting.
The existing use is a parking lot. Current zone is R2. Surrounding use - Abbeyfield housing to south, dentist/apartments to north, Queens Printer across street. Proposal is for a 5,000 sq ft office bldg, 25' high, 16 offices & meeting rooms, FSR 1:1. Contemporary design, LEEDS silver, 20 ft front setback, 5 ft side setbacks. Parking - 6 stalls, on one site, 5 off site. Bike storage on site, green roof with native planting.
Architect Tony James reported - this site is owned by the province. Office building will be for the Union of BC Municipalities. They currently have offices in an inadequate heritage bldg on Superior St. It will be used by municipal councilors and staff when they come to Victoria to meet with Prov. government. After this meeting he will meet with immediate neighbours. He was mandated to showcase BC materials - wood exterior, native plant landscaping, possibility of public art in front of the bldg. As suggested at the preliminary review meeting shadow studies are underway. Until the green wall is mature, roof plantings may trail down the sides, will consider including a low wall that people can sit on. The bldg will incorporate heritage elements in a contemporary way.
Comments?
o Context - in the JB Plan this lot was intended as a location for a heritage bldg to be moved from the legislative precinct. Currently this block has a lot of nicely restored heritage homes. There are few sites for moving heritage houses to. The proposal is attractive, but in the wrong place. Response - the current Municipal House at 545 Superior is not movable - it is not structurally sound. Because this block is notable, they are trying to build something that will add to the ambience.
o Pleased that it will be LEEDS silver. You might want to consider adding mature trees. JB has a great colour palette - you may want to consider using it.
o Will it be site specific zoning? Yes. Member is against spot zoning.
o Isn't there enough existing office space in the city? A - they want to be close to the Parl. Bldgs.
o Member has a problem with the whole thing. There is avail office space all over the city. Where is the off site parking? A - the off site parking will be registered to the property, but don't know yet where it will be. Users will be notified where the parking is.
o Current bldgs on the block all blend in to each other. Can't you design something that blends in? A - We didn't want to do "fake heritage". It includes elements like 2 storey bay window, and front porch, reflecting aspects of houses across the street."
-City of Victoria website, 2009
#3
Posted 16 October 2006 - 12:14 PM
#5
Posted 01 December 2006 - 10:14 AM
o Current bldgs on the block all blend in to each other. Can't you design something that blends in? A - We didn't want to do "fake heritage". It includes elements like 2 storey bay window, and front porch, reflecting aspects of houses across the street
#6
Posted 01 December 2006 - 10:48 AM
#7
Posted 01 December 2006 - 03:37 PM
#8
Posted 01 December 2006 - 04:12 PM
:|
Seriously, that building's overall scale and character will fit perfectly into James Bay's eclectic architectural milieu.
After all, think of the architecture of the Legislative precinct-- there's Neo-Gothic, Neo-Colonial, High Victorian, Second Empire, Free Classical, Classical Revival, Arts and Crafts, Edwardian, Italianate, Art Deco, Brutalist, WW II quonset huts and barracks, Modernist, Post-Modern, Neo-Classical Modernist, West Coast Modernist...oh, did I miss a few or a dozen?
-City of Victoria website, 2009
#9
Posted 01 December 2006 - 04:18 PM
#10
Posted 01 December 2006 - 04:22 PM
(By Legislative Precinct, I cast a pretty wide net--I'm including everything in James Bay within a five minute walk of the Leg.)
-City of Victoria website, 2009
#11
Posted 01 December 2006 - 08:09 PM
#12
Posted 02 December 2006 - 02:39 PM
So now we want buildings to blend into each other? No distinction whatsoever?
Can go well, or can go poorly (Pier vs "Westcoast" shops across Beacon Ave). I love it when new contruction picks up architectural features from nearby heritage, A la Centra Gas and Bay Building(s)
No that isn't our Bay building... it's another one.
#13
Posted 02 December 2006 - 03:09 PM
#14
Posted 16 December 2006 - 11:12 AM
Article Tools
Printer friendly
Font: * * * * Times Colonist
Published: Saturday, December 16, 2006
Re: "New UBCM headquarters an environmental showcase," Dec. 14.
It may be an environmental showcase but, contrary to the architect's statement, it is a sore thumb that sticks out
in a neighbourhood of residential dwellings built in the 19th and early 20th century.
So sad that a heritage building was not moved to the site as it would have completed the block of period buildings on a street much admired by passing tourists.
"Gives a contemporary splash to a heritage neighbourhood," the story said. More like the unexpected slap of cold water.
Right building, wrong place.
Tom Palfrey,
Victoria.
© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2006
#15
Posted 16 December 2006 - 11:15 AM
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#16
Posted 16 December 2006 - 11:16 AM
Odd that he advocates moving an existing heritage house from elsewhere (as if the area it's being moved from doesn't require it). Ironic that this attempt at archtectural authenticity is itself an inauthentic act. Let's all pretend this old house was here all the time. And let's also pretend this neighbourhood is anything but what it's been for many decades--government offices.
-City of Victoria website, 2009
#17
Posted 16 December 2006 - 08:35 PM
#18
Posted 17 December 2006 - 10:28 AM
#19
Posted 17 December 2006 - 10:49 AM
#20
Posted 29 December 2006 - 09:24 AM
There's a definate resurgence of interest in modernism as of late. Think about Dwell magazine and the efforts of preservationists to protect mid century masterpieces like DiCastri's work. This is undoubtedly a good thing, as it heralds the demise of the intelectually flaccid postmodern movement.
Concern with environmental sustainability combined with the embracing of new technology demands a suitable aesthetic. Much like the earlier iterations of the modern impulse, contemporary modernism looks foreward, and renews our faith in progress over time.
This building could show Victorians what a small scale intervention into an existing historical neighbourhood can do to breath new life into a place.
Oh no! Wait a second... They're putting this on a surface parking lot? Well then I guess I can't in good faith support this , as the surface parking lot may be the most endangered piece of our urban fabric. In the holy name of neighbourhood livability I'll chain myself to any excavator that tries to deface another such cathedral of true minimalism.
Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users