Jump to content

           



Latest VV Article


Victoria International Airport “Q&A” with President & CEO Geoff Dickson

VibrantVictoria’s question-and-answer special feature with the president and CEO of the Victoria Airport Authority answers a series of questions relating to the Victoria International Airport (YYJ) as posed by members of VibrantVictoria’s discussion forum. The questions focus on marketing the airport, flights and airlines, and airport infrastructure. [Read more]


Photo

[Downtown Victoria] Denby Place | 9-storeys | Built - remediated


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#1 martini

martini
  • Member
  • 2,286 posts

Posted 09 July 2009 - 09:45 AM

http://www.timescolo...3894/story.html

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.

[...]

bcleverley@tc.canwest.com
© Copyright © The Victoria Times Colonist

#2 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 4,111 posts

Posted 09 July 2009 - 10:02 AM

The city's refusal to allow Denby Place to complete its remediation on the basis that the original brick cladding is somehow integral to the neighbourhood is absurd. There is NOTHING special about the brick on this building and if the city refuses to allow them to stucco over it (and therefore void a warranty on the new work) I would have no issue with the residents going back on the city for financial compensation should any issues arise in the future (though I doubt they wouod be successful). I say this as a Victoria taxpayer who would be on the hook for any costs, but 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?

#3 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 3,463 posts

Posted 09 July 2009 - 10:19 AM

This isn't some heritage building we're talking about, it's that ugly ugly brick from an era I'd like to forget. If the stucco is an improvement to the looks and structure of the building, go for it. Oh no wait it's a "tall" building so the city has to do every petty trick in the book against it.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#4 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 4,111 posts

Posted 09 July 2009 - 10:46 AM

Not to mention that there is plenty of stucco cladding in the same "development permit area" (like the pink stucco clad office building practically next door to Denby Place) so why can't this be considered? Just one more reason for me to have a hate-on for Ms. Madoff.

#5 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 9,431 posts

Posted 09 July 2009 - 11:19 AM

...nine-storey high-rise...


The number of highrise buildings in Victoria just increased dramatically.

#6 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 2,759 posts

Posted 09 July 2009 - 11:27 AM

To be vaguely charitable to the city, Madoff's comments aside, all they are asking for is that the condo apply for a development permit, presumably to forestall pink stucco. If you are going to drastically change the outside of a big building downtown, I don't think it is unreasonable that you demonstrate that it will look good.

#7 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 4,111 posts

Posted 09 July 2009 - 12:36 PM

The story mentions that in addition to applying for development permit, the city has said Denby Place must use "a more expensive material such as stone...". I see this as unreasonable, since
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.

#8 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 2,759 posts

Posted 09 July 2009 - 03:07 PM

^ You're right. That is silly.

#9 yodsaker

yodsaker
  • Member
  • 1,280 posts

Posted 09 July 2009 - 04:20 PM

I guess they think its going to destroy our magnificent architectural heritage. These anal orifices should be the ones who have to pay for it. Wonder how keen they would be about that?
C'mon council dickweeds, let common sense prevail and leave people alone. You're being paid to solve problems not create them.

#10 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 3,463 posts

Posted 09 July 2009 - 06:14 PM

This an ongoing problem in city-hall ,community organisations, and public opinions in general. They have absolutely no care as to costs or burdens of the actual people paying for this stuff. They like to just dismiss all building owners and builders as rich developers, an externalized "them". They like to make impossible demands on "them" because they are the enemy, antagonists against the "us" of the innocent victimized city. They don't make the link between increasing costs for construction having anything to do with increasing prices and rents for tenants. If a developer doesn't build with their perscribed expensive materials they are cheap and blighting our city, if a developer doesn't sell or rent at their definition of "affordable" or "attainable" they are greedy and socially irresponsible.

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.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#11 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 4,111 posts

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.

#12 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 3,463 posts

Posted 09 July 2009 - 06:32 PM

Well it's exactly what I said, pedantic design obsessions. They'll obsess over the paint of the window trim while totally ignoring the parking entrance. They'll laud a building for incorporating fake dormers or other such faux-heritage garbage weather or not the building actually suits it. They're wring their hands and spend years agnosing over allowing either 17 or 18 stories while completly ignoring the street interation, use, or massing of the building.

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.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#13 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 4,111 posts

Posted 09 July 2009 - 06:57 PM

Well put Baro.

#14 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan

    Super Moderator

  • Moderator
  • 19,684 posts

Posted 09 July 2009 - 06:59 PM

Well put Baro.


Agreed.

#15 athaire

athaire
  • Member
  • 2 posts

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.

#16 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 2,538 posts

Posted 09 July 2009 - 10:27 PM

The stucco fix was moved forward this morning and will be before Council next week. It should be noted that it was Planning that recommended rejection and they were merely enforcing the Development Permit guidelines imposed earlier by Council. It was the meeting of the new planning committee that has only three Councillors on it: Thornton-Joe, Madoff and Hunter. They all voted yes, with the provision that the developer work with Planning to investigate different applications of stucco. It is possible to have stucco panels that look like brick but I didn't hear that the Strata has money to do anything but plain coloured stucco in a brownish red.

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.

#17 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 4,111 posts

Posted 09 July 2009 - 10:54 PM

Thanks for the update Rob. I hope they get to go ahead with some sort of stucco treatment over the bricks, since drilling out the old mortar seems terribly invasive and far more disruptive to the "development permit area". I am not a HUGE fan of stucco, but in this application it just makes sense.

Any way to get a hold of that rendering???

#18 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 2,538 posts

Posted 10 July 2009 - 11:59 AM

Sorry, I don't have an image of the rendering. Because it didn't require a variance this proposal was not referred to the DRA.

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.

#19 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 4,111 posts

Posted 10 July 2009 - 12:43 PM

I will give credit where credit is due and assume that members of Council have been reading VV and understand that to have denied the Denby Place request would have been completely assinine.

#20 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 8,785 posts

Posted 10 July 2009 - 12:52 PM

Yes, but if we did not have Development Permit guidelines, developers could throw-up ugly, generic, Edmonton-style stucco towers anywhere.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

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