[Downtown Victoria] Denby Place | 9-storeys | Built - remediated
Posted 09 July 2009 - 09:45 AM
Owners of a downtown Victoria leaky condo warn the city is about to kick up a month-long storm of caustic concrete dust by forcing them to repair old brickwork rather than resurface it with stucco.
It also will mean that after having spent $5.5 million in repairs they'll be left with an inferior fix and a building with no warranty, says Denby Place strata council president John Mallett.
"We say they're putting bricks before people," Mallett said.
© Copyright © The Victoria Times Colonist
Posted 09 July 2009 - 10:02 AM
Posted 09 July 2009 - 10:19 AM
Posted 09 July 2009 - 10:46 AM
Posted 09 July 2009 - 11:19 AM
The number of highrise buildings in Victoria just increased dramatically.
Posted 09 July 2009 - 11:27 AM
Posted 09 July 2009 - 12:36 PM
a)the current brick is, by almost anyone's standards, pretty darn ugly, so stucco would be no worse and
b)many of the nearby buildings have stucco exteriors and it is unfair to burden this building with a higher level of finishing especially this late in the game.
Posted 09 July 2009 - 04:20 PM
C'mon council dickweeds, let common sense prevail and leave people alone. You're being paid to solve problems not create them.
Posted 09 July 2009 - 06:14 PM
Want a fancy stone exterior? Sure, but keep your mouth shut when the tenant's rents are increased, or that new rental building is postponed because the numbers don't work out, or the affordable housing portion of a development is nixed due to costs.
Of course all the above have happend, because this city is so obsessed with design pedantry to the point of nearly ignoring all other aspects.
I know this is getting further off-topic, but I'd love to see the likes of Pam and Lutton forced to feed them selves by running a development company for a few years. I'd be intensely curious to see the architectural masterpieces they built with state of the art environmental aspects and amenities yet at affordable housing prices and densities that don't require re-zonings or amendments.
Posted 09 July 2009 - 06:22 PM
...because this city is so obsessed with design pedantry to the point of nearly ignoring all other aspects.
And yet we still end up with abominations like Worldmark and most of the 1990s structures at the Songhees. Perhaps they should start to obsess on something else and leave the design business to the professionals.
Posted 09 July 2009 - 06:32 PM
Either demonstrate that your ridiculous rules and micro-managing of design produces significantly better buildings, or let the people design their own buildings like we did back in those dark and evil times that some how produced most of the city's herritage landmarks despite the lack of multi-year comitties.
...oh and let this boring building have its boring stucco to cover up its slightly more boring brick.
Posted 09 July 2009 - 07:43 PM
this "development permit area" spiel is total B.S. Haven't the owners of leaky condos been slammed enough? Do they need useless bureaucratic rules to devastate them further?
Agreed.....I don't see how covering the bricks in that area of town is going to seriously affect the neighborhood. The Corazon is fairly new and its mostly painted so I fail to see how a nicely done stucco job is going to be a problem.
Posted 09 July 2009 - 10:27 PM
If they kept the brick they would have to drill out most of the mortar, coating most of the surrounding area in corrosive dust.
I have seen a rendering of the finished project and it looks pretty good. We'll be glad to be rid of the steel cladding.
Posted 09 July 2009 - 10:54 PM
Any way to get a hold of that rendering???
Posted 10 July 2009 - 11:59 AM
The corrugated steel balconies will be replaced with what looked like frosted glass which I'm sure we all agree is a big improvement. The overall colour scheme looked like reddish brown stucco with light beige accent on the concrete.
Here is the Times Colonist story: Council relents on stucco fix
But note the headline writer made an error--the vote yesterday was not by Council--it was the Planning and Land Use Standing Committee which is composed of three members of Council. They refer matters to the regular meetings of Council so it has not yet been finalized. The full nine-member Council could vote "no" on this next week but I don't think it will happen.
Posted 10 July 2009 - 12:43 PM
Posted 10 July 2009 - 12:52 PM
-City of Victoria website, 2009
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