[Downtown Victoria] 937 View/930 Fort condos | 14-floors | Canceled in 2012
#21
Posted 06 November 2007 - 07:24 PM
Fort St. looking west:
Fort St. looking east:
View St.:
Mid-block walkway, looking toward Fort:
Lund's Auction has an easement on a lane-width strip alongside View Towers that is used to unload furniture at the back entrance. This means any future development (including this one) has to accommodate truck parking in the walkway.
#22
Posted 06 November 2007 - 07:27 PM
#23
Posted 06 November 2007 - 07:28 PM
So what are the chances of something this size actually getting built here?
#24
Posted 06 November 2007 - 08:07 PM
I agree with the comments suggestign there is something about the Fort Street facade that makes it seem as though it is turning its head. Also I think that all that trim needs to go from the walkway. I like the walking width but adding a fountain and stuff is crazy. Stretch the commecial along fort street a metre or so to the west and skip the fountain until you get further north on the alley.
Still overall 8.5
#25
Posted 06 November 2007 - 09:10 PM
The Fort St. side looks crappy from this angle. What's with the blank wall? They need to wrap the window around the side here...
#26
Posted 06 November 2007 - 09:30 PM
There isn't enough room to set the building back far enough to allow windows.
Cielo properties owns the adjacent Japanese restaurant building.
#27
Posted 06 November 2007 - 09:35 PM
Thou shalt no create a building with blank walls!
Seriously, the Fort street side is crap. It's as if they are targeting suburban buyers for those townhouses, by facing them to a "quiet" alley! Hello, you're right downtown on Fort street! Why not have the units face Fort, as they'll have a great view of the street life (sure some traffic), the businesses and buildings across the street.
As for the tower itself, as stated earlier it can't be the same height as View Towers. It's a nice enough building, would look good, but standard fair nowadays. It's like a typical Vancouver condo...well, at least that means it's not Edmonton quality!
EDIT: OK, I see Mr. Randall's reasoning. Well, why not design a building that can have windows on all sides within those limitations?! Obviously they are maximizing the space by using this design, but then perhaps this design was the wrong one for the lot. Don't build right to the lot line and have windows and transfer that lost density to the tower. I just don't want to see a bunch of blank wall buildings around town. Still, if there are some design details on that blank wall as there appear to be in the rendering, all is not lost. Heck, make it a green wall!
#28
Posted 06 November 2007 - 09:53 PM
#29
Posted 06 November 2007 - 10:14 PM
A building with windows on all sides is good because it creates an airy viewscape.
Where things go wrong is when you mix the two side by side. You have to make a choice and stick with it or else (St. V. de P., anyone?)
#30
Posted 07 November 2007 - 07:35 AM
The real problem is with the law I mean old brick buildings had windows that got covered up all the time. Of course can you imagine what the NIMBY reaction would be to a window being covered completely.
#31
Posted 07 November 2007 - 08:16 AM
#32
Posted 07 November 2007 - 09:26 AM
#33
Posted 07 November 2007 - 10:32 AM
The Fort Street face needs work.
#34
Posted 07 November 2007 - 06:29 PM
#35
Posted 08 November 2007 - 09:07 PM
I was thinking this proposal would work really well on the parking lot across from the Wave on Yates. Just flip it around so the tower is on Yates and the lowrise is on Johnson.
Is there a reason why the Yates-Johnson lot couldn't be developed with towers on both sides? Is there a rule that towers (properly designed) can't exist back-to-back? I wonder when SOME sort of proposal will come up for this property? It seems to me it is a prime location for highrise development.
#36
Posted 09 November 2007 - 11:44 AM
From the Fort street side it look like a shiny new extension of the View towers building. I think that the tower should be flipped to the Forst street side so it can stand on its own ancreat space btween the two buildings. Although there is probably height restrictions for Antique Row-Fort Street side it probably wouldn't fly. Because as you know in Victoria thou shalt have the same height buildings on each block so they can replicate slabs of cake from the air.
#37
Posted 09 November 2007 - 12:35 PM
#38
Posted 09 November 2007 - 12:56 PM
#39
Posted 09 November 2007 - 01:07 PM
Fort St. elevation:
Fort St. looking west:
Fort St. looking east:
View St.:
Mid-block walkway, looking toward Fort:
Lund's Auction has an easement on a lane-width strip alongside View Towers that is used to unload furniture at the back entrance. This means any future development (including this one) has to accommodate truck parking in the walkway.
@ Baro: Do these images show up? (They work fine for me.)
#40
Posted 09 November 2007 - 01:10 PM
and
In other words, the first one really does look like a big shiny extension of VT, while the 2nd looks more like its own building.
Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
-
Bing (1)