345 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

How long is it going to take for the strata council to start work on repairing the mosaic? The giant green shroud look is terrible.

[G-Man]

^ As it was a public art requirement. I wonder if the city has something on the title that requires them to maintain it. Might be worth a complaint or two to city hall.

[Rob Randall]

I don't recall it being a public art requirement. At most it was an attempt to pre-empt complaints about a blank wall by adding a decorative element. In other words, I don't think the developers were compensated with bonuses by providing it.

Besides, if a City Hall committee didn't think artist Xane St. Philip's amazing green wall on the Gateway Green proposal isn't technically a piece of fine art then no way is this mosaic any better.

[VicHockeyFan]

I don't recall it being a public art requirement. At most it was an attempt to pre-empt complaints about a blank wall by adding a decorative element. In other words, I don't think the developers were compensated with bonuses by providing it.

Besides, if a City Hall committee didn't think artist Xane St. Philip's amazing green wall on the Gateway Green proposal isn't technically a piece of fine art then no way is this mosaic any better.

Well, this one is green now.

[martini]

A request to replace a failing tile mural on a downtown condo with a painted version has been rejected by Victoria councillors, who say the mural’s prominent location demands better.

After more than a year of negotiations, everyone thought they had found a cost-effective solution to remove the tile mural and replace it with a painted version of the wave.

But on Thursday, Victoria councillors turned down the request, deciding that the tile version originally agreed to should remain.

http://www.timescolo...s-say-1.1117849

[Mike K.]

As it should. Good stuff.

[Nparker]

And so by the grace and wisdom of Victoria city council, the tile can keep falling off and the rest of us can look forward to even more years of that lovely green tarp hanging there. I say get rid of the damn mural altogether (it's a very poor imitation of the Kanagawa image anyway) and just clad that side of the building with a durable and aesthetically pleasing material.

[Mike K.]

I'm not so sure we should let the developer get out of this so easily. If done right tilework should last for millennia, not a couple of years. Whoever pulled off this job didn't do it correctly and if that particular piece of art was what the developer promised to deliver then we should hold him to it. Otherwise we'll start slipping down a very slippery slope.

 

If anything, the City should give the strata a time limit within which the work must be completed. If strata fails to complete the work they'll be fined.

[sebberry]

I'm with Nparker - it's a bad implementation of it and would look better if it was just gone. 

 

Would you build a building called "The Mona" and put a squished, cropped picture of the Mona Lisa on the side of it?  I think not.

 

The strata council and owners had no involvement in the developer's decision to put this picture there, and I don't think it's reasonable to force them to maintain it at great expense.  I'm sure they'd rather stash money away for things like roof and elevator maintenance. 

[aastra]

 

...a complicated set of negotiations involving the strata council, the builder, sub-trades, building envelope specialists, architects, insurance providers and lawyers to determine how best to fix it and who would pay for what.

After more than a year of negotiations, everyone thought they had found a cost-effective solution to remove the tile mural and replace it with a painted version of the wave.

But on Thursday, Victoria councillors turned down the request...

 

Read more at the Times-Colonist...

 

I have a real problem with Victoria council's involvement in this situation. For crying out loud, another building could go up right beside The Wave and block all views of this mosaic. It's a feature of the building, it's not a public amenity.

Edited by aastra, 06 June 2014 - 11:17 AM.

[Nparker]

The strata council and owners had no involvement in the developer's decision to put this picture there, and I don't think it's reasonable to force them to maintain it at great expense...

This.

[Mike K.]

Would the City be expending this much time and effort on this issue if it was not an amenity?

I agree, it's not high art, but it is what was part of the rezoning process and application and should be upheld. Otherwise every developer could put up a hastily built and cheapo amenity that is supposed to cost $100k but was done for $5k and disappears a few years later.

[sebberry]

Then the developer should cover the repair of this under warranty and not stick the strata council and owners with the cost of this. 

 

This is the problem with making outrageous demands of developers of residential buildings.  Once built, the developer isn't involved with operating the building.  He's gone and moved onto the next one. 

[G-Man]

This was an amenity agreed to at the time. I agree with Mike. You cannot start letting things like that slide or it allows for a whole of things to go wrong in other projects. The personal opinion on this piece of art does not matter one iota. It is the principle of it. I have been seeing the waterfall on the Falls a fair bit recently so that still works.

If this is let go, developers may purposely cheap out on materials because they know the city will just let them get rid of it 8 years down the road. Conversely, if the city sticks to its guns we will have developers using quality materials so that they are not sued by the strata council 8 years on.

[Mike K.]

So strata should sue him. But this is not the tax payers problem.

[G-Man]

Then the developer should cover the repair of this under warranty and not stick the strata council and owners with the cost of this.

Not the City's problem. The strata can sue the developer if they want to. Good to check all aspects of a place before buying IMO.

[G-Man]

Mike and I are in sync today whoa!

[Mike K.]

...especially the developer's track record.

[Mike K.]

Yeah I know. Must be Friday.

[aastra]

 

Otherwise every developer could put up a hastily built and cheapo amenity that is supposed to cost $100k but was done for $5k and disappears a few years later.

 

Seriously, I want this ferris-wheels-and-waterslides stuff to end altogether. I want attractive buildings that flaunt high-quality design & materials and I want them to respect and/or improve the existing streetscape. Everything else is fluff. Enough with the cornball "amenities"!! Time to grow up.

 

This mosaic is on the side of the building and it could easily be blocked from view if & when something new goes up on the corner. I suppose our heroic and noble council would demand a short building on the corner in order to protect views of the mosaic? The whole thing is just very silly.